Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If this were a high dollar industry with a high level of competition then I would totally support this proposal. 

Instead we're talking about a game who's primary focus isn't competition, but fun and fellowship.  Redemption makes enough to survive in this niche market but not a lot more.  Tournament hosts are raking in the dollars and many are taking a loss for something they love.

The people who win their regional events want a shot at the National title just like everyone else.  If they can afford to make it to the Nationals location they can afford to pay their entry fee.

Quote

Not to be a wet blanket, but requiring hosts to accept Redemption Cash for tournament fees is not a viable idea. You may as well say they have to allow the players to attend free in terms of having the hosts cover the costs of hosting.

Jaybee... just stop. Start thinking please.

Hiatus... take a chill pill. Start learning about reading in context please.

How can you say you may as well allow players to attend free?

The proposal was that Regional winners be allowed to play for free.  Prof Underwood countered that Regional winners should be allowed to pay with Redemption cash. I said that if you were going to make the hosts accept Redemption cash (for the Regional winners cause that was the Prof's proposal) that you may as well require that "the players" be allowed to play for free (meaning--of course--the Regional winners cause they were the only players who were going to get to pay in Redemption cash anyway.)

I don't know what your problem is, but please get over it.

Everyone so far has agreed that something needs to be done, yet you keep bringing up points that are not too relevant to the topic. Yes they somewhat touch on the topic, but it is not really anything constructive. All of us agree something needs to be done, so bring up points that help us all think of a possible solution to the problem, or simply don't post anything.

OK, I re-up my suggestion that whatever decision is made that Regional hosts be required to share the burden with the National host (and hopefully Cactus). As I pointed out earlier--and you quoted so I assume you agree--Regional hosts share in the benefits that accrue from having the winner of their Regional attend Nationals. Please explain how this suggestion is not relevant to the discussion and how it is not an attempt to be constructive?

It's real easy to agree "that something needs to be done" if your solution is to force someone else to pay for it.

Who said anything about people staying home because their entry fee is not covered? Only you brought that farfetched idea up.

You were the one who was promoting free attendance as an incentive to have more regional winners appear at nationals.  You even turned Matt's words back around on him to make your point.  AND you just said it AGAIN in this post: "Having nationals paid for would almost be like an invitation".  So players are going to turn their nose up at $75 in Redemption Cash that they "don't need" as long as they get the prestige of a free ride on an entry fee that you would cap at $5 anyway?

You spent a lot of time accusing me and others of making things up and almost no time answering the questions I posed, or Matt's counter-suggestion about regional host sponsorship.

There seems to be an ongoing effort to make it seem like this effort is costing the tournament host nothing or next to nothing... why?

It's not an effort to make it seem next to nothing, it's slimming down the categories, which would then make it easier to do on the host.
 

What does that accomplish?

If hosts took in so little revenue from tournament fees, how would they cover their costs at all?  

Which is why I slimmed down the categories.

And if it's such a small setback for the hosts, it's considerably less of a setback for the regional winners.  What, a guy's gonna spend potential hundreds of dollars trucking across the country in his car or on a bus or in a plane, but if you can't cover his supposed "five bucks" he's just going to stay home?  How does that make sense?

I never said the players could not afford it, it is simply a nice reward for winning a regionals. An "invitation" to the tournament, not the kind of invitation which you think I am referring to.  I am quite sure the players can afford it, it is just a nice reward for being recognized for winning regionals. It is not a matter of money.

FWIW: I think John M's website states that he will accept Redemption cash to cover entry fees.

EDIT:  I'm an idiot...ignore me and my posts.

Just think all you h8ta's are taking away the dreams and ambitions of regional winners, you gypsies.

Five Dollar Footlong Extended Dance Mix

The other categories are all great and all, but if you are talking about how much money the host is losing, lets only make it to open 2 player categories, since those are the top ones.

But a partial answer highlights the two critical problems with subsidizing tournament fees.  One is that it demonstrates how we'd be asking the host to pay potentially hundreds of dollars just to "reward" the player with a $5 fee.  The other is that by trimming it down in response, it muddies the real value of what you're offering.  If it was a great reward for success, it's not fair not to give it to a full 75% of regional tournament winners.  But if it's not a big deal and the other 75% can live without it, then you're not really giving anything of value to the privileged few.

It's not an incentive. I never said it was. I said it was a nice "invitation", or reward, and that something more needs to be done for the regional winners.

You're really kind of saying the same thing two different ways here, as far as I can tell.  Read below to see the upshot of this whole thing.

I just think we were trying to help your points out more, by saying only the two players, and when we were trying to come up with solutions for trimming down the hosts cost, you said another point that hurts my solution. Just can't win for losing.

That's how ideas work; they are tested.  They are subjected to logical and practical scrutiny.  A good idea, or an idea that is well-formed over time, will identify a real problem and present a workable solution that answers the questions asked about it.  Again, I am leading to my big point at the bottom...

Now do you have a good solution to what we could do, or should we all agree nothing will get done and leave it at that?

Here is the crux of it: a good solution about what?  Nothing would get done about what?  I have not seen a clear identification of what real problem is being discussed here, or how tossing a select few regional winners a fiver is a solution that takes that problem and accomplishes something that people can see and approve.  So I can't answer your question without knowing what we're trying to fix here.

Hahaha. For real, rain on the parade some more why don't ya.

i dont understand why people get the idea that a free entry (no matter how small) to nationals because they win a regionals event is somehow owed to them?

because we are the land of the entitled.

no such thing as a free lunch in america.

but we are entitled to one and that makes all the difference.   

i dont understand why people get the idea that a free entry (no matter how small) to nationals because they win a regionals event is somehow owed to them?

I agree that no one "owes" the Regional winners anything.  I am a Regional winner, and no one "owes" me anything.  The fun of the tournament was worth it.  The prizes that I received were generous beyond what was needed.  Really, I only won because God gave me the right cards at the right time (ie. SoG/NJ early and LSs to take with them right before CrustPope attacked me with Hur).  So I have no case to demand anything other than asking people to give the credit to God and not me.

I also don't think that 5 bucks off a category will make a difference for anyone going to Nats.  I can't go to Nats this year and wouldn't be able to even if the whole thing was free.  About the only thing that would make it possible for me to go would be if the host was willing to send someone to take my place at home helping my wife take care of our 4 young kids for the week.

I think that letting the Regional winners pay with Redemption cash would be a nice gesture, and is something I would do if I ever hosted Nats.  But it certainly isn't something that anyone is "entitled" to

i dont understand why people get the idea that a free entry (no matter how small) to nationals because they win a regionals event is somehow owed to them?

No one said it was owed to them what so ever.
I completely agree with Mark's last post.