This is a discussion that I believe needs to be brought up after recent events in our competitive scene. I’m creating this simply because I see the potential of good that can come from this discussion, if handled properly.
First, I’d just like to quickly state some ground rules. I don’t want to see any flaming, disrespect or drama coming out of this thread. I have no problem with people disagreeing with each other and arguing their case, but with a delicate topic such as this it needs to be handled in a mature manner. This thread specifically will be heavily moderated at my request, and all non-relevant posts will be deleted without reason.
I’ve been noticing the trend that both players and tournament organizers alike have been frustrated with the current prize structure that our tournaments have been ran under. This structure of a 70/20/10 payout seems to have a fair share of weaknesses to it. Every player seems to understand that getting first or second place leads to both players splitting the money between themselves leaving no true interest in having a good grand finals match between the two. It’s difficult to blame the players for this because it’s a very logical solution to the problem of getting 70% of a cash prize compared to 20%.
If I am ever in this position, I too would split but for different reasons. I split with anyone I respect, am friends with or has taught me something about the game. For me the money is simply an extra part of tournaments. I simply wouldn’t have made it this far in the tournament without these people. Even though I’d split, I’m going to give my opponent a dead serious match up in grand finals because I want first place. Finals should be the most exciting matches of any tournament. Splitting is simply logical between these people you connect with in the scene.
However, once this split becomes agreed upon, the players and viewers are often left with a disappointing grand finals. Related is also the idea of not educating other players on how to improve when they could be seen as potential threats in the future. Even worse, there have been occurrences of players simply being paid to lose and accepting. Our tournaments and players are suffering because of financial politics.
I’m proposing that our current system is out dated and should be reevaluated to discourage lackluster matches between solid players and players forfeiting matches for pay. This isn’t to say that our top players should not be rewarded for their skill. I think every one of us should agree that our best players should be awarded some form of compensation for their skill, time and effort placed into refining their game. However, once money becomes a determining factor for tournament matches and outcomes, a line must be drawn.
You might say that because of our long history of doing this 70/20/10 prize structure that it should not change. Our history with this structure doesn’t necessarily mean this is the only way things can be done. Structures are made with the idea that once they are established by the people in power, they are hard to change. I feel that systems should be open to change along with our times.
There are plenty of different ways that our prize structure could be handled. I’d like to throw out some ideas of my own to get us start. Feel free to comment on which ones you feel are best or worst and why.
-
- A spread payout for top eight. First and second place would still receive most of the prize. If they decide to split then they will end up with possibly 50% of the prize instead of 90%. This might simply discourage splitting because there wouldn’t be enough of a prize for it to be feasible. It could also encourage our middle and high level players to reach for the top, rewarding them for their time and effort put into the game. I can also see how this might promote laziness in simply making top eight, but I believe the positives outweigh the negatives in this scenario.
-
- Top four receive 25%, each. However, rank is rewarded. With this method, we acknowledge that the top players want to split and because of them give them an even split. Money doesn’t become an issue because top four is all paid equally. There would have to be a rewards system in place for whoever gets a higher rank that would encourage players to care about winners, losers and grand finals matches. I’d like to hear other peoples ideas on what this reward system might be.
-
- Minimizing entry fees. I heard one player this weekend say that at one point, if the entry fee was higher than $10 no one would enter. If we wanted to regulate entry fees, we could potentially make $5 be the max entry fee of a tournament, along with a separate fee for the venue. By offering less of a reward, money loses its spot as the focus of entering a tournament. Again, splitting much not be worth it with a smaller reward than $15 or $20 tournaments. This could lead to less players due to a smaller reward, but I see how it could lead to a more pure competition.
Before anyone gets upset over idea 3, I’d just like to add that I’m not in love with any of these ideas in particular, but these are example of what can be done. If you believe any of these are good or bad ideas, please post your thoughts.
In closing, I’d like to officially start the discussion. I’d like to hear your thoughts on exactly why, no matter which side you’re on this is so everyone can speak openly about the topic and have their thoughts heard. No matter who you are, how good you are, you have a say in this and could end up shaping the future of how tournaments are handled. No one idea is going to be perfect but all our ideas together may lead to something we can all agree on. I hope that this discussion can bring our scene together and benefit us all.