If you place after third, you win inspiration to try harder.
For a young guy your attitude is straight old school. We definitely should explore all options but I like this quote. 
More focus should be put towards funds for bigger and better venues. Paying out for 1st through 32nd place should be at the very bottom on the list of priorities.
my 2 cents is that i pretty much share the same thoughts as Bokkin and Simon on this, 4th place getting their money back sounds alright. but after 4th(unless its a major) it sounds like it would be difficult for these payout to get accepted. but again im in the same boat as Simon “never been to a tournament that did this” so i cant say 100% how id feel about it, but i can say id still attend regardless.
I use to go to Lanworks in Bellevue, WA just to get bodied when I got high in the bracket and the other mvc2 players I went with knew they had absolutely no chance of getting $ in anyway. We went because it was a hobby that we enjoyed. We travel so that we could crack out & improve our gameplay after being exposed to new material. Money is a + but I really don’t care if I’m out $10 because of a tournament. I respect that pay structure to an extent ( see how it works out for bigger events) but to me the best payout is:
1st 70 - entry for 4th
2nd 20
3rd 10
4th gets entry fee back
If you enter a tournament and lose to the same people then take that as motivation to improve, not the $6 you get for getting 7th.
I agree with 4th getting their entry fee back, and top 3 getting paid for local events, for something on the grander scale (NWM’s 3 comes to mind), the more payouts could potentially work.
A little off topic…
I remember back in the day, Mandel and I came up with a saying for making top 8 which was:
“Congrats, you made the internet.”
This of course was whenever results were posted for a local tournament, it’d just show how many people entered. And then top 8 results. For a MvC2 tournament, “making the internet” even w/o a cash prize was huge in Seattle. I’d like to see that format brought back.
And a little back on topic:
I’m seeing people postin with their 2 cents, but haven’t really thrown more than $5 into a tournament in a long time…My question to you is, when/if a new pay structure comes to light, will you be coming out to these said events and growing the community on a physical scale instead of an online community scale?
What SamB and Frank said. There is no real reason to discuss this further. Paying out further than fourth is crazy outside of 60-70+ entrant tournies.
People should try to win. Attempting to get more scrubs by making a payout better doesn’t do anything because people attracted by that tactic are rarely if ever going to make top 8 and are never going to make top 3. Why encourage the weak when what we want is those who want to win. The satisfaction and joy from winning a tournament doesn’t come from the prize you get, in fact that is not even on your mind at the time. Trust me.
Contrary to what your elementary teachers told you. Winning is everything.
I like just posting top 8. It seems representative of who the prominent players are in our community and it gives players a stepping stone to shoot for before hitting the money in top 3. Making top 8 should be good news and only mentioning those who do is a good idea.
Also, what Carlos said.
Zero payout looks better and better to me.
If it makes you feel better, this would mean that the winner gets 100% of the pot.
There really should be rankings per region…I like the idea of posting the current top 8
Super on point. A lot of people are throwing around their opinion when I haven’t even seen them enter a tournament in the past year. Like Mandel said “Enter a tournament first scrub!” I think the last tournament that I went to was a ways back in January at Cole’s. I’ll be heading out to MHC’s event this Saturday. If you have an opinion, that’s fine, but at least have some recent EXPERIENCE in the issue rather than just wanting to have an opinion please.
My poor joke aside earlier, I went to the second MHC tournament and not winning money wasn’t a deterrent for me, driving 120 miles was my only real deterrent and I still ended up going. I probably ended up spending $30-40 for the whole night for my first tournament. Even if Top 8 would’ve paid out I wouldn’t have expected win it, let alone to make my money back (I think Tanaka got like $20 for 4th?), but on the bright side I did better than I thought! This all culminates to what others have said, the payout structure doesn’t have a huge amount of sway with those who are interested in playing fighting games at a competitive level. At best it would make the scene seem less abrasive to those who are antisocial or whatever, from the outside. SRK can make the scene seem more abrasive than it really is at times.
I honestly don’t care if it’s switched or not, as nice as prize money is, winning a tournament would be much more satisfying, though I still think having prize money is a good idea. I do like the Top 10% though since it seems to scale pretty well. Looking at that chart posted, 4th doesn’t make anything until it’s a 64 man tournament, which seems to be really close to what many are saying “Top 3 until the tourney is big”. Posting Regional Top 8s would be awesome, I’d love to make the internet, and become internet famous!
I consider the entry fee as paying for access to people better than me and paying for their state of mind.
Ideally everyone would play balls out during casuals but that doesn’t happen. You only get the shakes when there is some money on the line. When watching a stream most people are hyped for grand finals, not top 64.
I wish more money went to the venue so there is no food/drink harassment, or went to the “community” so people don’t have to cart around xbox’s and games. Or borrow sticks. But I don’t really care about getting money from the community just experience. I’m not much of a gambler.
Counterpoint: Perhaps they don’t want to enter tournaments where they don’t feel they have even a chance to win. I thought that was what this whole idea was about.
I’m actually serious about the zero payouts, though. I would enter a tournament that didn’t pay money prizes, and I suspect that stronger players would, too.
Had to fill in the blank there. And perhaps that is the reason. But chances are someone suffering from “best on the block” syndrome isn’t winning money at a tournament where there are 20-40 people they’ve never played before. Not to get too cliche, but.
“You won’t know if you don’t try.”
Then what would be the point of entering major tournaments or EVO for that matter? Over 40 people entered the last tournament at MHC’s event, and 95% of the participants didn’t get paid, MANY of those people went 2 and out (didn’t win)…they still entered. Fact of the matter is that THOSE people have more “2 cents” to give compared to those who haven’t even BEEN active in the tournament scene.
Had to fill in one more blank.
That’s a great point Mickey, although it’s actually 92.5%, and its the difference in those numbers that I think is really important.
The argument for not changing the payout seems to sum up as:
“Playing needs to cost something so people care about losing, and winning needs to reward something of value so competitors care about competing. Stretching the pot to include players who place lower defeats that goal because losers can lose for free (or cheap) and winners compete for nothing (or less).”
I am fine with this idea and I agree with it.
My problem is with the “static” 70/20/10 system that we currently use. Like the 95% you pointed out, at a certain point the cost of playing becomes too high when weighed against the odds of success, even at the price of $10.
To go back to the example of 1,000 players (whether you think it is realistic or not) the static 70/20/10 payout creates a system where you have a 1/333 chance of winning. At every tournament 99.7% of the players are losing. When the numbers start to reach that high, you realize that for the majority of players, losing = playing. And if flip that around you get
Playing = Losing
and this is a very bad thing for encouraging people to participate and building a bigger community. You can say that no one should care about $10 a week, $10 a month, or $10 at all, but when the choice is between essentially giving it away for free or keeping it, the majority of people will choose to not pay to lose.
And that is why the 10% system is useful. It grows with the tournament numbers and keeps the odds of winning low at 10%, and the odds of losing steady at 90%. (1/10 are the odds at our current tournaments with an average 30 players). It also answers the question of how far to payout at large tournaments ahead of time, and lists the percentages. Everyone seems to agree that at a certain point you need to extend the payout, and always lets you know where that number is.
I guess I just don’t really think it’s about the money so much for most of us. Where you want to take it from there is up to you.
It seems strange for me to hear people talk about needing to reward the top however many. We all lose money on this stuff, that’s just how it is. It’s a hobby or a passion, not a business.
So to me it all seems pretty artificial. If you want your tournaments to punish players because you think that’s going to motivate them… I just don’t know about that. It’s one viewpoint.
I think games are a skill and you need to learn them the way you’d learn a sport or math or whatever. Can you imagine a classroom where the teacher only gave good grades to the top 3 or 4? A curve that went A, B, C, D, F F F F F F… I don’t think that those students would be motivated. I think that most people are motivated more by positive experiences. For most of us that’s friendships. But tournaments could also be more positive for more people, and that’s why i feel the way i do about this.
Anyway. My vote is for tournaments with no cash prizes. Do it for the love, or don’t kid yourself.
Part of being a good player is being able to play under pressure. A no cash tournament generates pressure through just hype and glory, cash tournaments have that, plus a cash prize that is on the line generating more pressure. Money creates hype. Something on the line creates a rush. Money is tangible. Cash prizes are also a good way to generate money for a venue if they require one. If you have to pay a venue fee, why not mix it with a tourney fee so it feels like you can win your money back? Having venues like us as a community is important to growing it. As much as I’m down for a cashless tournament, something primal in me says that I would be much more likely to drive 60+ miles both ways for a cash tournament than a cashless one.
I understand and agree that players respond to positive feedback better, but I don’t think having cash prizes generates negative feedback. To be fair, my only experience is MHC’s Salty Runback, but I got a great vibe from that group. Everyone I talked to was very friendly. The only time I heard anything about anyone being ‘free’ is because a guy chose that as his tourney name. 
I don’t remember hearing any trash talk or anything.
Uhhh… the idea of a free tournament is pretty silly to me. That may work in other countries/cultures, but let’s be honest, this is America, where we perform our best and care the most when something (besides just pride) is on the line.
IMHO, most of the discussion here, at least in regards to payouts for the current-size tournaments, is a moot point. Paying out anything beyond top 4 for a 40-man tournament is a bad idea, and as has already been discussed, adjusting the structure in hopes of attracting more players to a tournament is not only a dead end, but is pandering to weaker players. However, adjusting the payout structure as tournament sizes increase is something worth discussing, let’s say, for something like the next major in the NW. I think 70/20/10 is grossly skewed toward first place for larger size tournaments, and I’m not aware of any other tournaments outside of the fighting game community that use that payout structure. Let’s look at a few examples, shall we:
- Tennis: All participants in a 128-man major get paid. First place gets between 10% -20% of total prize pool
- Golf: At least the top 70 finishers get paid. First place gets less than 20% of total prize pool
Granted, these are professional events with millions of dollars at stake, global sponsors, TV deals, etc., so a direct comparison is impossible. Continuing:
- Pool (BCA Singles, 10-ball Championship): Top 25 were paid in a 128 person tournament. Winner received < 25% of total prize pool
- Bowling (PBA Singles, Tourney of Champs): 64-man tournament, all were paid. Winner received ~20% of total prize pool
- Darts (World Darts Championships): 64-man tournament, all were paid. Winner received 20% of total prize pool
Pool, bowling, and darts, obviously, are not as big as tennis and golf, but they still have TV deals and major sponsors. Moving on:
- MLG (Smash National Championship): At least 166-man tournament, top 8 were paid. Winner received ~33% of total prize pool
- MLG (Tekken National Championship): Unsure of # entrants, top 8 were paid. Winner received ~$33 of total prize pool
This is much closer to what I’m talking about. The only real difference between these tournaments and Evo, or even a major being run in Seattle, is they have sponsors adding to the prize pool. To be fair, I think it does make sense for a larger portion of the purse to go to the winner when the entire prize pool is entirely comprised of entry fees. On the other hand, at an event like the WSOP main event (where the prize pool is even less than the buy-in X # of entrants because they take a cut), the winner still only gets about 13% of the total. But for the payout structure to remain 70/20/10 regardless of the number of entrants? It seems to me like an antiquated way of thinking that needs to be redone, and I actually don’t agree with Evo’s decision to keep this payout structure again this year.
The top 10% payout structure makes sense to me, I hope it’s something we can think about incorporating into future tournaments if the numbers grow, or at the next major here in the NW.