GOD YES

:D:D:D

yes

In socialist Europe, everyone wins!

You gonna put 12 people on a stage each with their own big check, too?

nope just the top3, the rest just recieve there moneysss

do you think he really asked a question instead of mocking you?

New USSR, innit.

yes.

yep, and thats why i already whined about the eswc structure

erm, why prize difference between 5-8? How will you know who's 5th, 6th etc. You'd have to make a seperate bracket for their matches.

But yeah the idea is great, Idk why it isn't used

not when you loose like Loserbracket match for example you can still matches for 7th-8th place and 5th-6th place.

do this:

1. $550000
2. $350000
3. $250000
4. $200000
5. $150000
6. $125000
7. $100000
8. $75000
9/12. $50000
9/12. $50000
9/12. $50000
9/12. $50000


then esports might matter

You live a sad life if some zeros on the end of an oversized cheque are what provide the meaning behind your passions.

uh.. yeah

i actually meant in regards to mainstream recognition

fuck mainstream recognition

this must be a joke? usually there are only like 16 or 32 participants in each lan tourney so it would be a joke to give cash to top 12 or so... even some newbs like you and few others could sometimes win something, it would be even easier to win money @lan then than in zotac or gdata...

Though i agree that like top 4 or top 8 could get some cash.. But for real, train harder to win the first place if you really want cash... too bad if you lack motivation / talent / intelligence, but its YOUR problem.

20 000€ price money should be divided like this if there are more than 32 players in a tourney:

1. 8000€
2. 5000€
3. 3000€
4. 2000€

5. 500€
6. 500€
7. 500€
8. 500€

i32 was like this and nobody complained most people will agree with the prizemoney i proposed. cause you actually have to fight or 5th 6th 7th 8th place.

any reasoning why?

well top places should have MUCH higher prices than 5.-8. since that way top10 players will train a LOT to WIN instead of just placing in top4 or so, which means there will be higher level of competition and better games to spectate, it will also create more tension between players when only few of them get big prices.

500€ for 5.-8. is to motivate a bit lower skilled players to train hard to get even some money.

A) I do not believe the players will train considerably more for the difference of $5000 to $8000 and therefore we get better games.

Because that would imply that LAN tournaments with higher prize money have a had better games in the past than tournaments with less prize money, say 30% less. I do not believe that.

B) Given the current strength of players we almost always get the same Top 4 (given they all participate).

Therefore, even if your "more money at top -> more practice from top players" - theory were true, there would be less of an incentive for the Top 5 - 10 players to practice or even attend, cause the odds of losing money (travel expenses) are way higher than the odds to win at least something.
Thus, even if your theory is correct, we would only get a few better final games but the quality of the group stage matches will drop dramatically.

You will also make it less probably for an unknown player to try his luck and maybe cause some upsets, make it to 5th place against all the known players.
And getting nothing as a reward.

A) you are right, 8000€ vs 5000€ doesnt matter that much propably, but 20 000 for one tournament is ridicilously big amount of cash. If tourney has price pool of 10 000€ it would be 4000€ for the winner, 2nd 2500€, 3rd 1500€, 4th 1000€ and 5.-8. 250€ which feels a lot better, at least in my opinion.

Anyway the ratio should be something like this:

1st 40%
2nd 25%
3rd 15%
4th 10%

5th-8th 2,5%

But if theres a lot money then its possible to divide it for larger amount of players, but with 10k or less I would prefer it to be like stated above.

B) yeah, usually there are the same players in the top, but this is mostly due same rules and same maps in every fucking tourney, this MUST change. Make some slight editions to map pool, map dropping rules etc to get some more intresting tournaments, its getting quite boring when players always play the same maps with same rules against each others time after time, atleast for me. In fact i feel like matches have already started repeating themselves quite a bit after i have followed quake live duel cups now for like one year or so.

nice attempt troll try again.

so you wanna make sure less people go to tournament goodjob, if you keep the structure i got more people will try, cause its easier to win some money, dont you want FPS to a little bit bigger again instead smaller everytime... dont get it why you gotta be such a douchebag.

well, I dont really get why newbs should play in same tourneys as pros? Just make more tournaments with smaller prices and it will be sure that some lesser players will win money too... If you look at sports do you see 2nd div football teams in uefa league? just make competitions for each level by adjusting prices to match skill level.

IMO there should be yearly some tourneys for every country with even small prices.

and look at UEFA there teams from kazachstan etc playing and oekraine, look they even won the cup now? have you ever heard of these teams 10 years ago? no you havent, all we saw was italian german teams winning uefa cup now russians ukraine teams win the uefa cup? more people will play, and wanna get better ofcourse there surely more then enough 12 GOOD players in the world. It just give the lower skilled players more motivation to get better cause its easier to win money then just the top3

and ps im sure there more then 32 or 48 good or decent players out there not everyone is newb, its just they all dont have sponsors to go to events that they cant get top3, with top12 prizemoney they can win some travelcosts back,

if you just feel that you will never get top12 you can always not just enter if you think your a newb, no need to troll on me.

youre retarded how could anyone possibly think spreading out prizemoney is bad oh my god finidiot

players who lost in the first round of wimbledon still got 11,250 pounds :)

prolly they are qualified for wimbledon then, no one would share money for beginners..

some are invited some went through qualifying tournaments afaik (hello eswc?)

Quake tournaments work exactly like Wimbledon, it's all invites or qualifiers. Every player who would win money is at the top of the scene. The 'soft' qualifiers, such as the byoc at dreamhack, let in oversights from invites (madix) and then some wildcards (I believe they have these at Wimbledon?).
In fact the tennis tournament system, with my passing knowledge anyway, appears to be very close to what would work with quake.

Yep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goran_Ivani%C5%A1evi%C4%87

THATS WHY WE ALWAYS HAVE 16 or 32 players!

i still believe one day it will become true

HAHA DUM FUK

Most organisers seem to not pay up anyway so what does the pruze structure matter?

Also, the day quake started to be about making pocket change instead of having fun was the day it died.

Thats right, Im asking about the pruze structure.

then we all would have quit there if you think thats we want, i just want more people on tournaments and this attracts new people. so farr i know its just ESWC&CPL not paying.

make 250k prizemoney pool and dont pay at all. anyway players will come every year.

With as little money as there is in Quake ATM I'd prefer top 3 only receiving money for every competition. Honestly couldn't give a fuck less if some guy thinks he deserves money for coming 6th. The people worth watching ATM all have expenses covered by sponsors.

Much rather the top guys were practicing as hard as possible going all out to win and get some serious money than practicing less and the guys who place 9th-12th being slightly happy, if it's a choice between those two scenarios.

Sucks to see cypher win IEM IV European finals, which was a really tough tournament once it got deep, and get $3,500 for his troubles.

I don't believe for one second that the top players will practice harder if the payout for first is 8000 instead of 5000.


On the other hand, if you actually award money to the lower places it becomes worthwhile for new players to practice and attend, at all.
It is basically certain that noone will get top for his first, say, three tournaments, due to lack of LAN/competitive experience.
That means a very talented player who is not sponsered yet, will just have to invest all the travel cost and get nothing in return
What a great incentive to get new players to play the game and enter tournaments.

And how many new players have we seen coming in in the last year?
So yeah, if you are happy, with always having the same guys competing and winning, then by all means keep the top heavy payouts. (would work great for SK, wouldn't it?)


But in reality what we really need is more than 16 players and also fresh players to show up for tournaments and that will not happen with your proposal.
Not until at least travel and accomendation is payed for lower placed players. But paying that would also reduce the the payouts for the top, so I suppose it is not an option either ...

(would work great for SK, wouldn't it?)

weak

hit a nerve there?

zzz

Yeah, someone trying to sell a concept that serves his own organisation, well.

That's like totally unheard of in the real world.

Keep grinding that axe champ, maybe one day you'll land a cutting blow.

no need for a cutting blow, you simply disqualified yourself.

You could have gone and say: "Yes, a top-heavy payout structure favors the team that has the current champion. But, it also is preferable, because ... [and list your points]"

Instead, you just come across as a butthurt lobbyist.

You blew your load already, time to drink your weak lemon drink and rest up for a while.

Well, since you failed to actually defend you view, but instead had to resort to personal attacks. I'll accept your surrender and the refreshment you offered me. Thank you.

but instead had to resort to personal attacks.

Nice blind spot.

hey, I already accepted your surrender regarding the topic. No need to try to get back in it through insults.

Becks didn't even use 4-1, pwned :(

unessesary assumption that his opinion is only based on that SK will benefit from it, imo I'd prefer only top3 get prizes as well, in (16-32) player competitions, no need for someone who places 6th to get a prize for making it out of the group-stage or whatever, you always think you're right becks, like a stubborn politician. Maybe he wants top3 because then you actually have to put a lot of more work in to winning something, I don't see why f.e stermy k1llsen noctis DaHanG fox have no chance and I quote "only seeing the same top3 win everytime" to placing higher, imo we'll see more quality matches when we get further in the tournament hence only getting 3 places paid

unessesary assumption that his opinion is only based on that SK will benefit from it

I never assumed that!
I only added it to my post because one should not simply ignore a potential motive.

He was the one who only picked that single line out of my entire past, a line that I even put in brackets. With that he drew much more attention to an isolated point than was necessary.

It is just a theory, that people train less when they see no realistic chance of landing in the money.
That is a conclusion from the facts, that we almost always see the same Top 4, that some players like fox have pretty much stopped to practice and that we hardly see new players enter the circuit (demon, madix, you and others only show up to a few competitions, if that).
My reasoning was, and still is, that the "established Top 4" simply have a better shot to land in the money, so they can afford going. All others have to expect to lose money on the trip. Furthermore, the "new" or out of shape players don't need just one upset to land in the money, but several.
If there is a sizeable reward for placing fifth, the odds for everyone to win at least something improves dramatically. But, and this is the important part, on the one hand, if you are one of 12 "less good" players aiming for the 5th place you still have to practice hard to get there. On the other hand, if you are an established Top 4 player you probably do want to keep those higher sums, even if they are less than before. So, they too have to practice.

As I don't know anything about Thorin I'll assume you do since you're accusing him of only thinking of this from SK-Gaming POV I think he was basing his opinion on what he really thought

"Much rather the top guys were practicing as hard as possible going all out to win and get some serious money than practicing less and the guys who place 9th-12th being slightly happy, if it's a choice between those two scenarios."
Is a good point, I think they'll have more quality games when it comes to top8 players if they're all well prepared

Regarding only few players (4-5) affording the travel expenses I think having top12 paid wouldn't really be AS deserving for the winner when like 50% of the tournament gets paid, which in my opinion is ridiculous, and I doubt that many players would practice harder if they were 12places paid

"that some players like fox have pretty much stopped to practice "

I doubt it's because of the prize distribution, might be bored of playing the same maps/gameplay over and over again, don't know..

"that we hardly see new players enter the circuit (demon, madix, you and others only show up to a few competitions, if that)."

Well, that's true but even with top12 paid I doubt you'd see more mid-skill players enter these tournaments even with 500$ paid it would not be worth it for me to enter the tournament hence it won't cover the travel expenses and also I think it's a but unfair for the top 3-4 players who've worked their way to the top and not without a fight :)

I'm not saying it should always be top3 only paid, they should have the prize distribution more like in poker tournaments which is really fair imo, even though players like stermy/k1llsen haven't cashed in a while now and they're pretty much very close to the usual top3 skill wise (stermy beating rapha @ eswc) imo it'll motivate them more and if (f.e stermy) would win it would be a much bigger accomplishment for him then to just settle for the 5th-6th because he's easily capable of doing so.

As I don't know anything about Thorin I'll assume you do since you're accusing him of [u]only

thinking of this from SK-Gaming POV I think he was basing his opinion on what he really thought [/q]
no, I don't. But you assume that I do!
I just found it noteworthy that a member of SK, proposes a solution that is arguably the best for hi organisation. I did not base my argumentation on that at all. (Imagine a banker saying, that people should giv more money to banks instead of keeping it at home)
I also asked him to actually defend argue in favor of his view, but he chose to go for insults instead.

I doubt it's because of the prize distribution, might be bored of playing the same maps/gameplay over and over again, don't know..[/q}

many people are a bit bored of their jobs, but they do it anyway since they get payed. Sure, fox probably had other reasons as well (uni, I heard) but I he had got a good chance at winning $2000 instead of the amounts he actually won, he might have put some time into it. Hard to say.

[q]I'm not saying it should always be top3 only paid, they should have the prize distribution more like in poker tournaments which is really fair imo,

I believe poker is not such a good example, because the outcome is much more random. Even a player who is not as good as the top, has got a chance to get into the money if he gets good cards. That rarely happens in quake. (In order to become more like that, quake should be played Bo1so the better player doesn't win that often. And I don't think anyone wants that)

imo it'll motivate them more and if (f.e stermy) would win it would be a much bigger accomplishment for him then to just settle for the 5th-6th because he's easily capable of doing so.

I don't think anyone would simply settle for 5th-6th during a tournament. After all you have usually reached the knock-out phase then. Noone would just throw the match and the chance to get higher just because you get a prize for 5th, too.


Also, if you do not believe that a reasonable prize money for say 5th-8th will motivate the non-regular people to show up, you could look at it this way: Some of those players already sow up from time to time, playing for te trip on their own. If they did happen to win some money, I think there is a good chance that they consider reinvesting it to participate i the next tourney. (Just an assumption, though. I am not convinced I am correct ;P )

So yeah, if you are happy, with always having the same guys competing and winning, then by all means keep the top heavy payouts. (would work great for SK, wouldn't it?)

thinking of this from SK-Gaming POV I think he was basing his opinion on what he really thought [/q]no, I don't. But you assume that I do!

it went like this:

I wrote down that conclusion, that top-heavy pay-outs would favor the currently best players. Then realized that Thorin is with SK, whohave the current number one.
Thought that it was an interesting enough connection too mention it, but not important enough to base my post on. Hence, I added it in parentheses.

You are incapable of subtletly becks, trying to be coy now and reign back the implications of your comment isn't fooling anyone. The inference was loud and clear for anyone reading it, as linkoo has noted.

Well guess what? When you disqualify my opinion based on an unrelated aspect of circumstance you in turn disqualify yourself from being relevant to the discussion for me. Big deal, move on. Instead you've chosen to bleat on and on because you can't have it both ways.

If you think you've won a debate because you've prevented the other party from engaging any of your points by adding in conditions that they defend who they are to you then feel free to chalk this one up on the leaderboard. I'm in no rush to explain anything about my personal or professional life to you.

Your analogy about banking was also beyond terrible. It's more akin to me being an African-American making a point about a policy implemented by Obama and you adding "(well you would say that since you're black, right?)" to the end of your post. I wouldn't attempt debate in that scenario either.

What? Taking the source of an argument into account is not only natural but required for any kind of meaningful debate. Pointing out that someone benefits from a certain line of thought does not render it invalid but raises the burden of proof. You haven't actually engaged in the debate so far.

I am not reigning back anything. I wrote what I wrote and explained why I wrote what when I was asked. It was not supposed to be subtle, it is a true piece of information that should be considered.
You where the one putting too much emphasis on it. A statement it parentheses, no less.

For the same reason Linkoo's reaction, has to be seen with caution. As he had already read your several replis before replying too me . Hardly a basis for an unbiased reply to my statement.


You actually took a very different approach which gives this discssion more fuel, instead of less.
You are basically demanding that people completely ignore the fact that you are with an organisation that profits from these decisions. Remarkable.

It's more akin to me being an African-American making a point about a policy implemented by Obama and you adding "(well you would say that since you're black, right?)" to the end of your post. I wouldn't attempt debate in that scenario either.

Were you born to be SK ?

It's not even that, his analogy doesn't make sense since being the same race as obama has no bearing on whether a policy implemented by him is profitable to a black person or not.
If, however, obama would do something about, say, affirmative action, you would take race into account when debating.

yes.

But even then, joining SK is choice. Just like working for a bank, being a doctor, being animal right activist or working for an oil company. And with all those example, their jobs or memberships in certain groups will be taken into account when evaluating their argument.

But apparantly, e-sports organisatiosn are a different breed. They would never even bother to look for their own benefit.

You're entirely correct.

Those events I attended all cost me money, eventhough I (supposedly) won about 300$ from the IEM, I still lost some money. Same for DreamHack (shit Sweden's expensive).

I hate to say this but you got owned by becks. and that... is sad.

well said becks.

I have to disagree, I think if there's any money there, the players will go. Sure, lets say 1st is $3000 less than it could of been because a tournament payed out to top 12, do you think players like rapha and av3k and cypher won't go because of that? If you look at it logically, you see that the prize for first COULD have been $6000, and is $3000. That leaves you with two options, winning $3000 when you could of won $6000, or winning $0 because you didn't go.

I think it's wrong to ONLY care about the top 3 (or top X) amount of players at a tournament. The rest can try just as hard as everyone else and put in the time, but maybe don't have the talent to be top three. You can have over ten euros and many people from other countries spend money to get to the event, place top 8, yet they receive nothing for their time and talent.

I agree completely. Unfortunately most recent tournaments were far from 20.000 $ prize money.
Imo, the top4 players always should get some money, and dependent on the total sum, the distribution should be extended to top6/8/12/16.
Also, I thought that ESL's system was pretty good, each match was worth some money.

Help the players with their travel expenses.
The tournaments should look for local hotels and make a deal with them.
Announce tournaments early so that everyone can book cheap flights.
Every player in the top 8 should get some money for their expenses.
100-500$, depends on whether it's an international tournament or something like iem europe. People like guard will probably show up, because he won't win any tournament in the near future (sry buddy:P) but there is a big chance that he would finish in the top 8.

So for example instead of this

15k pricepool

1 10k
2 3k
3 2k

do this:

1 8k
2 2k
3 1k

Top 8 4k for travel expenses

the amounts they gave away in 2000/2001 would be sweet xD

about the distribution: it doesnt really make sens to give all players money if you only invite 8-16 players ok?

if you take quakecon, well,,,, what the thread creator proposed doesnt help the suspense in quarters/semis/final because its just about a marginal difference (500-2000k lol)

especially in quakelive, where we have been and will be able to predict top 5 so easily (rapha dahang av3k cooller cpher) i dunno, this top 5 rule prolly threatens more players to challenge than the lack of money for these places.

but i guess player/payouts would be best to put it like 128/16, 64/8,32/4.... what i want to sáy, make the tournaments bigger (somehow lol) and dont increase the range of payed ranks.

so draven would pay almost every eswc player just for attending,,, hmmm

no not really, im sure 32+ will attend when there top12 prizemoney.

im sure there wont outside of america

no that way eswc would owe money forever to 12 people not just 3

Agree, but then the tournament should be bigger as well, like 20 players atleast for the top 12 to get the money

draven's had enough, he wants some money out of gaming.



respect!

top12 is overkill when the tourney has like 16 players

if money is required to keep this game alive, something is surely wrong about:
1. the community
2. the game

ehm, where not talking about increasing the money, just putting the money in differen structure not just top3 (20k) but top12 or more spread over the other players then just top3

money should be a reward for quality. it's quite ironic that the most crappy games like CS or WOW get the most prize money. shouldnt be that way

It should have been always like that. But the prize money hardly gets above 5k these days, so it's quite pointless. Long gone are the days when we had a really fat money tourneys.

rapha must be pretty pissed off that he didn't play back then ;D

I think ESWC scheme where qualified players get their tickets/hotel paid for is close to perfect in this regard. It removes any burden from players in attending LANs but at the same time doesn't give away prize money to losers like draven.
As for the actual prize money, I think there should be a big gap between 1st/2nd/3rd places to encourage more intense playoffs, and some (small) money for all playoffs participants to encourage more intense group games, but it's all really possible only with higher prize pools than we have now.

all this for prizemoney which won't be paid anyway

Yes, and as we know very well from the last year, ESWC is the only Quake tournament in existence.

rewarding more losers? ridiculous

my scheme would be like, £20k pot:
1st - £20k
2nd - £0

rewarding failure just leads to people being contempt. the guys that repeatedly fail at these events have sponsors covering travel etc so they dont need reimbursing. they also dont need any reward for their poor performance (10th? lol)

so 10th in the world is shit nowadays? :)

well if there are like 1000 active duellers from which like 50 are "pro" (play +4h daily or so) and ur like tenth its quite nothing imo.

you're a dumbass

Oh, I love so much to be replied by some of the worlds most genuine people :-)

I'm not sure you know what genuine means

out of like 15 competitors yes

who are either invited because they have proven before they are part of the best and qualifiers where everyone can participate...

shut up and go win eswc.
oh snap...

i cant remember how this eswc was decided

if it was invite then you didnt prove anything by reaching there

if qualifiers then they normally cover flights? reward enough for the failures

some were invited some where qualified

wimbledon has invites as well...

and when federer goes out in the early rounds he hasnt proven anything...nadal did

whats your point?
even the guy that loses in the first round gets over 10000 pounds

tennis is a sport though
and it has shit lots of sponsorship money

Or instead of paying the top12, just pay the accommodation/travel for all the players and then prize money for top3 (Probably a bit reduced to pay for the accommodations).

probably the best idea regarding spreading the prizemoney

that sounds great, but paying accommodation/travel for like 32 players is already a huge amount of money :/
still i like how the eswc is handling it

Well, it could also be either of them, just to lower the barrier for more players to attend such tournaments. Except for like the top3, most players are actually playing just for the fun and as long they need to spend no or at least a low amount of money they will most probably attend most events even if they don't earn anything.

Since Wimbledon was mentioned, they (and I'd assume most other major tournaments) simply half the prize money each round, with leftovers being distributed among the lower rounds. For 20k (still some left), this looks quite reasonable. There is enough seperation at the top to (psychologicaly) matter while the lower placings still get enough to make it worthwhile.

1. 7000
2. 3500
3-4. 1750
5-8. 850
8-12. 480

1. Cadillac El Dorado
2. Set of steak knives
3-32. you're fired