New Tournament Reward System

[kaempfer13]

more likely than not its actually more like 19/25. still not quite there but if you want your second places to count for anything at all rewards have to be cut somewhere

[shockcannon]

I think 2nd place (and all lower places) should award nothing. I'm probably in the minority but thought I'd share.

[dawn to dusk]

I can see why we wouldn't give away too many mark codes, but the proposed system isn't good imo. At the absolute minimum, I think a tourney win should be worth 75% of a mark code. "Nearly 50%" is bad

2nd place should get 4 base with the same scaling, 1st place is fine, 3rd could potentially give 1 lower base too. And have Mark cost 22 points or so

[Wyand]

I'm fine with lower percentages for 2nd/3rd places. Tourney win should stay substantial. Maybe points for the 2nd/3rd places
should be incorporated into the already existing PvP reward system.

[Manuel]

why u want to modify probably the only thing that work in this community?

the event reward thing is to encourage players to keep playing for a month and more (even knowing u can't win the event anymore)
i would update only the second place to (few) points for the event reward system; what is next, create a reward system for league? the reward system should be universal

[worldwideweb3]

whats the need of this? In pretty much every event only 1st place gets a significant award, and it makes sense. Leave it as it is really, dont need to keep handing out mark codes.

[Submachine]

whats the need of this?

We definitely aim to get rid of Double Elimination, so you can count that as our first priority.

Our second priority is to meet the expectations of the community. The idea of a point collecting system came up from both TO and player side, so we find it worth to check how popular the idea is.

Our further priorities are increasing the number of returning players, lessening the number of codes sent out and still allowing 4-player tournaments to happen.

The basic idea we presented is a good start, but the numbers and methods are mostly experimental. This is where we need working ideas that can replace the current system, even if it's not exactly what we suggested.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Have been a big fan of this for years, back when it fell on deaf ears.

Personally, I am of the opinion that prizes should be directly proportional to the number of matches played, 16 players = 4 matches = 1 Mark code for first place as a starting point. If you play less matches because of a bye, your win chance increases accordingly, so I think it is not unfair to reduce the amount of points gained due to a bye. You still always get a trophy for first, so it is always better to have a bye for a better chance at rewards.

For second place, about half the points seems right. Third is barely worse than second (same amount of matches won), fourth is just bad and should not get any reward, or barely any reward. Great contrast between third and fourth helps motivating for playing third place match, too.

If it could be merged with pvp participation stuff like suggested, that's even better in some regards. Keeping it equal in terms of points gained would decimate the tournament rewards, however, unless you keep the first place reward. Keeping it means your entire reason for doing this is gone and you should not really allow single-elim 7- player tournaments. Additionally, pvp events include lots of matches, tournaments just a few.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

Sorry but this is awful. I rarely have the time and motivation to play a tourney. If I turned up on time and happened to want to play a tourney, wanting to play would be massively diminished if i knew that even winning i wouldn't get a mark unless i played in another one.

If the tourney goes ahead, the winner should get a code, otherwise completely demotivates to play, not motivates.

[immortal feud]

there are often tourneys at a time that i cannot commit to a 4hr DE tourney so cant compete in so getting rid of DE would definitly be good
i do see a point that winning a tourney and recieveing anything less than a whole mark code could be upsetting, why dont we just follow the WC point distribution with first place giving 4/4 of a mark, 2nd giving 2/4 and 3rd giving 1/4
is there actually anything wrong with mark code inflation if it inventiveness more participation

[MasterWalks]

agree with JcJ here.

only about every 3 tournaments land in my time of availability. With arena the way it is, there is literally no point in winning electrum. So the only reason to join is mark/nymph code. To take that away from winning 1st place is a pretty big issue. I would have to wait almost 2 months and win 1st in both tourneys to get a mark/nymph. While i understand the new rules for combating mark inflation, i must ask, who joins tournaments now? Do you see an iancu, jcj, dd, or a PlayerOa participating? No. You see wyand, myself, shock, sometimes insig and immortal. Those are all >2 years noobs. people that have 2-3 mark cards max (rip insig). there is no inflation when the only people getting the prize are the "broke" ones. thats called equality. This shouldve been implemented 4 years ago, not now when we have to cancel tournaments due to low participation. This will NOT increase participation, it will kill tournaments.

edit: rework the reward handout system, not the actual reward system. I shouldnt have to wait a month and a half to get a damn mark code. I hand out codes for league, it takes 5 min max, get it together TO's.

[immortal feud]

thats kinda what i was getting at, can get rid of electrum rewards in favour of partial marks for 2nd and 3rd and still give first a whole mark code. i dont think tourneys then giving 1.5 marks/week (as an example) is a big deal