I actually like this. Increased chance at getting your tourney fee back while still making a significant gain (and bragging rights, of course) will definitely increase the number of entrants.
I’d be SHOCKED if changing the payout structure more than DOUBLED the entrants to fighting game tournaments. Fighting games are too hard to play and understand what’s going on which is the barrier, not because little timmy is willing to work hard but won’t see cash until he gets top 7… I think it’s unrealistic and will likely not benefit the winner whatsoever, but give mediocre players who get top 7 more encouragement*.
*=I got 7th in the last MvC3 tournament.
Regardless, it would increase the number of entrants. Isn’t that the main goal of a large tournament? Getting the most people, competition, and hype/fun possible? Tournaments are for the scene, not the winners (read: Top 3 people who play way too much SF)
First off, whoever SGFighter is he/she does not know how to run a pay out for a tournament of over 16 entrants. That many people get back entry fee?? I THINK NOT!!!
Slash, you got the goods on this one dude.
If this happens at least double tournament fees = /! More people entering thinking they have a chace but also 1st 2nd and 3rd get more money.
That said I still like old structure. But if this can get more people while sustaining a bigger entry (sadly it doesnt seem like alot of people would even enter for 10$ sometimes here = /, but maybe this structure could change that) then it still reaches a result that is universally good, despite the reasoning = /
I don’t think it’s fair to give the winner of your tournament a huge pay cut so 5 more people will enter.
Besides which, describe to me right now, who is not entering tournaments because they won’t get their entree fee back because they can’t make top 3, but WILL pay money if they can make their entree fee back in top 7? That isn’t the problem, you are screwing the top 3 over for no benefit. Maybe that works in Singapore where they have that many hesitant players, but in Seattle I can say for a fact our problem is not enough people know we have tournaments or about SRK, there is no on the fence guy who would say, “Well, I wouldn’t enter before because I’d just lose my $5, but now that I might get it back at top 7, I’m IN!!!” -a) Do they exist in significant numbers, and b) Do you really want someone that low budget in our scene anyways? Quality not quantity imo.
I don’t think it’s fair to give the winner of
your tournament a huge pay cut so 5 more
people will enter.
Well… Why not? The question is about - will a more inclusive payout scheme get more people to enter? Will good players not enter because the #1 prize is lower?
I don’t think a whole lot of new people would enter, but i also don’t thinkthat many players would drop out. Maybe none at all.
At the end of the day, we are all winners.
The best system that I have seen is the one that Keits has come up with. It pays out to the top 10% of tournament placers, and that is good for a number of reasons.
The Top 3, 70/20/10 System is only designed for small communities. When you start looking at larger communities with a greater number of players, you can see how it actually starts to stifle growth and keep tournament entries stagnant. If you look at a hypothetical community of 1,000 players (which is not unrealistic), you can see how the two systems compare and why the top 10% system makes a lot more sense for creating new players, increasing the level of competition, and actually increasing the payout to the winners.
One of the biggest problems with the 70/20/10 system is that it doesn’t encourage people to participate after a certain number of players have entered the tournament. You can talk all you want about competitive attitude and striving to be the best, but when you are trying to get 1,000 players to enter a tournament on a regular basis (bi-weekly, monthly), telling them to get first or shut up is unrealistic. In 30 man tournaments like we typically hold, the odds of placing in money are 1/10. That means everyone statistically has a chance to see money at least once within 2 1/2 months if they enter every weekly tournament.
In a 1,000 man tournament with a 70/20/10 structure, the odds are 1/333. Even if we held tournaments weekly and everyone played at top level, there aren’t enough weeks in 6 years for every person to see money or a “win” for their efforts. The people at the top would also be racking in $7,000, $2,000 and $1,000 a week respectively. That sounds nice to people who win often, but you have to consider that the money is coming from the other 997 people who are paying and losing every week, with only a 1/333 chance of ever winning no matter how hard they try.
So you have to ask; why would 1,000 people a week show up and pay money to play in a tournament that they have little to no chance of winning just to make a handle full of people they can’t beat thousands of dollars each week? The answer is: they wouldn’t. The result is that you never approach that number, tournament entries stay low, player numbers stay low, pot sizes stay low, and competition stays low. The 70/20/10 system gives no reason for people to participate once you reach a certain number of players and community size.
The Top 10% System gives a lot of advantages over the top 3 system. To start, it keeps the odds of placing steady regardless of how many people enter a tournament. You always have a 1/10 chance of placing in money, and the more people that enter the more chance you have to reach that to 10% because the spectrum of skill levels is wider. The strong competition doesn’t bottle neck as fast (although will still be present at the top of the bracket) so newer players have a greater chance of reaching the top 10% mark.
The 70/20/10 system is also, to put it bluntly, very greedy and shortsighted. It insists on eating 100% of the pot. It gives nothing back to the majority of players who participate to recontribute next time, and gives no hope to the other 997 people of ever getting their money back. Like clear cutting forests for lumber, it takes all the resources for maximum short term profits, instead of leaving a bit so their is something in the future.
In the top 10% system, 80-90% of the pot is still going to the top winners, and the remaining 10-20% goes back to the majority of players to help offset the cost of losing, making it realistic for them to continue competing in future tournaments. It creates realistic milestones for the newer players to compete for. Even if the top placer only took 40% total, in a monthly 1,000 man $10 tournament that is $4,000 for one day of playing games.
I very much agree with Brent’s logic, good stuff. For larger tournaments and things this makes sense.
…but I stand by my statement since this thread is about EK and BB gaming…and those are not big enough nor competitive enough to start paying out more people instead of…trying harder.
Top 3 or bust, preferably uno.
Dugg, the main reason I started this, is because I would love to see if this might be something that could catch on at all the NW Tournaments. I don’t really care about if its a specific tournament, be it EK, Slugfest, GC, Saltier and Saltier runbacks, the main concern is putting good numbers at monthlies.
Keits idea is what I wanted to go with, however, the whole “bonus pot” thing threw me off so I wasn’t sure how to exactly apply it to this idea, I think if anything, it would apply to the venue if they wanted to supply a “bonus” to the top 3 or whatever winners.
Super Joe, you can meet Kevin this Saturday.
Angel, let me know how this all goes, if it can pull big numbers, definitely something worth looking in to.
Hi guys,
I was writing a long reply but BrentoBox beat me to it.
@BrentoBox Thanks! I dont think I could have come close to your top tier explanation. Which pretty much explains everything. It doesnt matter if everyone chooses to use Keits or the one I have proposed. The main idea is to reward more players for showing up rather than just the usual top 3. These are to reward the players who keep showing up, driving 1-2 hours spending on gas, food and spend 4-6 hours in a tournament and go home empty handed every week.
@Everyone, I hope to make some things clear
I am an outsider to the scene, but I think we have the same goal to grow the Fighter game communities. I want everyone to understand that I gave my suggestion as an option to consider and not something to be put into effect immediately!
Each community is different and I cannot say that I know or understand the culture. As for this payout idea, it was initially suggested by the Singapore players and tweaked for each tournament. We use both top 3 payouts and also a distributed payout system depending on the tournament size.
The opinions of these payout structures are my own and I do not represent the Singapore community
there are many ways to improve tournament turnouts. one is to adjust the payout structure
- Flyers
- social media
- messaging on PSN/XBL
- word of mouth
- Picking the right day and time to hold the tournament
- create an atmosphere (fun/competitive)
and many more…
Thank you for everyone’s understanding
Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like I kiss my entry fee goodbye as soon as I give it, and I am playing to do as good as possible, if prize money determines whether you are going to take part or not in a HOBBY, you should probably find a part time job in a book store. Top 100% of shelf stockers see a paycheck, you get store discounts, and you will see more moolah and that gwop that way than you will likely ever see in competitive fighting games. 
I’m kidding, but I’m surprised there are people that consider tournaments a financial investment instead of a hobby…I’d personally go find a $10 poker buy in tournament like Preppy’s and spend the night making money that way, it doesn’t require talent or practice to win at poker and the return is potentially way, way more than a fighting game, and the people smell nicer.
I have gotten in the money in tourneys a handful of times, and it was always an afterthought to trying to WIN or at least do my best, I thought that’s how we all were…not judging, everyone gets enjoyment their own way but it’s just one of those, “Whoa, really?” surprises to me that people other than top players are motivated by prize money.
I was also going to propose another suggestion. I am not sure if you guys would like to discuss this as well
Since we are on the topic of new ideas, perhaps consider Round robin system for some tournaments? they use it at Dreamhack’s tournaments. It takes a little longer but its another thing worth a try.
Here is an example
Stage 1: Will be split into groups where the top 2 or more players will form 2 groups of 8 in Stage 2
Stage 2: Top 16 will play in 2 groups of 8, Top 4 will proceed to Stage 3
Stage 3:
Option 1:
Top 4 will play another round Robin stage to figure out the winner. best of 3 games 3 rounds each game
Option 2:
Top 4 players will play single Elim to determine the winner. best of 3 games 3 rounds each game
Pros
Everyone will play more games
Everyone will know when they play
Less waiting time between games
Cons
Takes a little longer
No. Step up to the challenge, don’t make it kneel down and meet you halfway.
Again, if the tournament size warrants paying out more, then of course! Do it. But up here in the NW, we RARELY break 40 people at a tournament and out of that 40 how many are even competitors? Can we NOT cater to the people who aren’t willing to put in the work needed in our soft little community?
I guess it comes down to the casual/competitive discussion again. I understand wanting to pull the numbers, and how this seems like a plan to help with that…and it’s not the decrease in individual payout that concerns me either…it’s that lowering the bar of standard is counter-productive to starting any real fires in the people that are on the fence, the ones who can easily be competitors up here if they had that fire. And that’s all I, or anyone else who competes, wants.
Cue Deezo.
The thing that’s wonderful about tournaments is when you actually do well enough to receive a prize. Money won is always better than money earned right? There’s something special about being rewarded for doing well. That’s what makes a top 3 payout special. So with that said I have some questions…
-So at what number of entrants should we even be thinking about a top 10 (or whatever) payout?
-What about the people who drive from over yonder? They should get money back also, even if they suck. Cue Ted DiBiase theme.
-How many people won’t enter tournaments because of the idea of throwing money away?
-How many people are you expecting to gain from having a bigger payout?
-When should we look at having a top 15 payout? A top 20 payout? A top 40 payout?
A major having a top 8/10/whatever payout is fine because the stakes are bigger and there are more people. The players who do well under those circumstances should be rewarded. But should we be having that sort of payout for like a 17 man tournament at Gameclucks? Because I’ll tell you what, I wouldn’t drive that far to enter with that sort of payout, and it’s not even guaranteed that I would win (or place top 3 for that matter). So I should drive further, spend more, but hey, at least I got my entry fee back. Silver lining woo woo woo. See how that looks? Why should I be entitled to anything if I didn’t play well enough to deserve a prize? What is the importance of entering if there isn’t a possibility of me not receiving something? Almost reminds me of those free Yahoo poker tournaments where people just go all in every hand.
You enter tournaments to see where you stand on a competitive level, not for consolation. If you don’t do well, you take that as a lesson for the next time if you decide to enter. The games get people to come out, the people (ie scene) get them to stay. If you’re talented you should be rewarded for it, that’s all I’m saying. :rock:
I think the proposed pay out makes sense, at least from the percentages argument. The more people that enter the chances of winning even if you are the best go down just based simply on the numbers. Therefore supplying some payout beyond top three makese sense.
I would say that 70/20/10 seems to work well for anything up to 32 man bracket ( I guess at 32 4th could get entry fee or something) Then after that looking at an extended pay scale makes sense.
That being said for me it doesn’t matter what the pay scale is, if it changes or stayed the same Id still come and play when I can. SO if pay scale changes get more people to come try stuff out that IMO it’d be for the best.
I agree this is a hobby not a job…People who are worried about spending $10 a month to enter a tournament needs to find another hobby that’s free…
Why do people enter tournaments? I think the most important is recognition by their peers & how they place…Then comes competition & then last is money…
No one wants to play a game & go 0-2, what would be the point in entering…My suggestion is this…Why not have different skill tournaments…Beginner, Intermediate, & Advance class…This way competition will be even; probably implement Cole’s league standing thing he was doing awhile back…
Advance players can push themselves to be best
Intermediate can build enough confidence to finally be in the elite
Beginners can experience what tourney play is all about among/close to their skill level
Eventually when you get enough people joining tournaments you would no longer have segregate skill class…
Ignoring the argument of whether it’s a good idea or not, this is not the solution to our turnout issues.