Author Topic: Changes, Experiments, and Updates from El Primo (Read 14279 times)

CactusRob · « **on:** September 18, 2008, 06:27:06 PM »

This is to advise everyone that I am changing prize packages for tournaments. Cactus simply can't continue to send out $276 in Prizes for a $60.00 District Fee - state, regional and nationals cost Cactus even more. I knew I was being overly generous all along but the 2008 finances are forcing the issue.

Example:
Prizes for districts will now be as follows:
1st receive 3 booster packs
2nd receive 2 booster packs
3rd receive 1 booster packs.

The Tournament Fee of $60.00 will cover from Cactus $108.00 in booster pack prizes (or Redemption Cash), plus promo cards for participants and shipping costs for the prizes. I have also reduced the prizes for State, Regional and Nation Prizes. The good news is that I have slightly lowered fees for the larger events too. I am not able to lower the fees for local and district events.

Finally, I will no longer be able to offer travel reimbursement to regional open deck winners or judges.

The Following Documents have been updated at the web site downloads page to reflects the changes in prizes.

Redemption Tournament Guide
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/downloads/tournament_guide_2009.pdf

Host Instructions
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/downloads/host_instructions_09.pdf

Host Application
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/downloads/host_application_0908.pdf

Thank you for your understanding.

BTW, any tournament applications that were received before today, will be honored at the previous prize ratios. These changes apply to applications submitted from today forward.

Sincerely,
Rob Anderson

TimMierz · « **Reply #1 on:** September 18, 2008, 06:33:14 PM »

Thank you not only for your generosity in continuing to send out prizes whose value exceeds the fee, but in your openness and connection with the community.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** September 18, 2008, 07:56:01 PM »

I have 3 thoughts.

1 - Rob has always been generous with the prizes for tourneys (as well as so many other things), so a decrease during hard financial times is not something for me to get bent out of shape about. Hopefully there will be better times in the future and they can increase again.

2 - I noticed on the RNRS points that there was also a change to give 3 pts to a local 1st place finish. Will the Local points still be capped at 10 pts, or still capped at five 1st place finishes (15pts)?

3 - It does seem that winning 1st place at a District would deserve at least 1 more prize pack than winning 1st place at a Local. There's more competition at a District, and the cost is 3 times higher to host one, on top of buying starters and booster packs for the closed events.

Would the following be possible
Local Closed (2,1) and Open (3,2)
District Closed (3,2,1) and Open (4,3,2) Total = Rob's (36) or Mine (48)
State Closed (5,4,3) and Open (7,5,3) Total = Rob's (92) or Mine (84)
Regional Closed (8,6,4) and Open (10,7,4) Total = Rob's (156) or Mine (120)
National Closed (12,8,5) and Open (15,12,9) Total = Rob's (400) or Mine (194)

My other thinking on this is that the Local and District level tournaments are the grassroots of Redemption. If someone wins Nationals, then they are happy enough about winning and seeing all their friends there, that they probably wouldn't mind missing out on more packs. As well as the fact that anyone who wins Nationals probably already has tons of cards. So it seems to me that continuing to give the love to the smaller tourneys and compensating by taking more away from the top tourneys is a good plan.

What do you think Rob?

Gabe · « **Reply #3 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:14:49 PM »

If it's reasonable for Cactus to follow something similar to what Mark has proposed I would be in full support of the larger tournaments taking the biggest "hit" in prize pack reduction. I've been to a number of State and Regional tournaments in the past couple years and (like Mark's example with Nationals) the people winning these aren't the ones in need of more Redemption cards (in most cases). It seems that if those packs could trickle down to the lower level tournaments they would be more likely to end up in the hands of players who need them more.

*Note* - I wholly support Rob's decision to lower prize packs to cut back on excess expenses for Cactus, whatever that may look like.

STAMP · « **Reply #4 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:16:49 PM »

My first question is how can sales be increased other than the basic advertising that comes with hosting a tournament?

What if winners at all levels received a discount coupon to purchase merchandise at Cactus? What percentage would both provide Cactus a profit margin but give winners enough incentive to buy? What if winners could choose the coupon over the promo?

I think adjusting prizes is fine, especially with the advent of Redemption cash. But I'd like to drive more sales for Cactus, too.

CactusRob · « **Reply #5 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:18:55 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 18, 2008, 07:56:01 PM

2 - I noticed on the RNRS points that there was also a change to give 3 pts to a local 1st place finish. Will the Local points still be capped at 10 pts, or still capped at five 1st place finishes (15pts)?

hmmm. That was unintentional. In fact, I am not even sure how that happened. 1st will continue to be worth 2 points in a local. I will fix it.

As for the prizes, let's try it this way for a while and see what impact, if any, it has on applications and player participation. In truth a local tournament in some towns can be more competitive than district tournaments in other towns (read more players). Moreover, I am not sure that it would be a bad thing if we had more local tournaments and fewer district tournaments.

The Schaef · « **Reply #6 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:22:05 PM »

It should be noted that states, regionals and nationals happen only once a year, whereas Districts currently can be held almost at will, like some sort of super-local. Reducing the packs at upper-level tournaments is effectively a one-time benefit, and the prizes at locals (especially since most of them have only one or two categories) are small enough not to put much of a dent in Cactus support of tournament play. The combination of high prize value (over $250 retail) and multiple tournaments per year is what makes Districts the 900-lb gorilla here.

SirNobody · « **Reply #7 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:40:11 PM »

Hey,

I appreciate the generous prize support Cactus has given over the years and understand the need to cut it back at this point in time. That said, there are a couple things that jumped out at me from Rob's post.

I'm a little concerned about how these changes will affect districts.

If I am a host, is there any reason for me to host a district anymore? If I host a six category local, and buy six packs retail to make up the difference in prize support from a district I would actually save $2.00 ($40 entry fee + $18 for six packs vs $60 for district).

Districts already have the disadvantage of requiring a host to run all 6 categories which means they have to have product on hand for sealed events and they have to hope their playgroup is well rounded enough that they'll be able to find three people for Type 2 - Multiplayer (and sometimes 2 people for Sealed) so that they don't have to cancel the category and send the prizes back. In the past these disadvantages for districts were made up for with the larger prize support. If the prizes are now basically the same, it no longer benefits the host to run districts.

On the other hand to a player (that hopes to contend for the top RNRS spots) districts are very important. A single district gives the same number of RNRS points as all the locals you can get in a year, so the two districts you can win are worth twice as much as all the locals you can get to in a year.

So it is not in the best interest of the host to hold a district rather than a local. And it's not in the players best interest to attend a local rather than a district. I realize from my limited experience as a host that the "interest" of the host is really more about being a service to the players than anything, but it concerns me that the other "interests" of the host are now directly opposed to that main interest.

The only solution to this that I can think of is returning locals to their old prize levels of 2 packs for 1st, 1 pack for second, and moving those 2 packs to the district prizes bumping up first and second plack by a pack. It would be nice if the first place prize for districts could be bumped up by two packs (for open categories) so it would be 5/3/1 for 1st/2nd/3rd, but that might be asking too much (and wouldn't be necessary to "fix" the balance between locals and districts).

Edit: A "you cannot host more districts in a year than locals" rule could also be implemented to insure that my suggested change doesn't have more of an effect that intended.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

SirNobody · « **Reply #8 on:** September 18, 2008, 08:42:10 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 18, 2008, 07:56:01 PM

2 - I noticed on the RNRS points that there was also a change to give 3 pts to a local 1st place finish. Will the Local points still be capped at 10 pts, or still capped at five 1st place finishes (15pts)?

Also the RNRS points for third place at a district say 1 whereas it has always been awarded as 2.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

New Raven BR · « **Reply #9 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:01:27 PM »

hey rob, maybe i could help ya on bringing in money.
just thought i'd be kind and offer my assistance to cactus

writing stories and i could send the files to rob and he could print em out and send em to a publisher and send out the books out to christian stores
just my stories that are cactus related like my "Redemption Generation" and if rob gives me the "okay" i'll write the story i'v been thinking about

CactusRob · « **Reply #10 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:13:21 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on September 18, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

Hey,

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 18, 2008, 07:56:01 PM
2 - I noticed on the RNRS points that there was also a change to give 3 pts to a local 1st place finish. Will the Local points still be capped at 10 pts, or still capped at five 1st place finishes (15pts)?

Also the RNRS points for third place at a district say 1 whereas it has always been awarded as 2.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Fixed. Thank you Tim. The funny thing is that I think that table in the tournament guide has had those errors for some time and we just never noticed. The table in the tournament host instructions is what I have used this past year. When I was editing the prizes, I didn't even look over that row until you and Mark pointed out the errors today.

CactusRob · « **Reply #11 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:29:17 PM »

I am getting the sense that some feel I am cutting too deep into the district prizes. Let me give a little more background.

A number of people were unhappy when I announced a second new card set in tins (Rock of Ages). "Great two years in a row that the new set is not a prize option." In answer to these concerns, I borrowed Doug Gray's Redemption Cash idea (with Doug's blessing btw), so that players could win Redemption cash and spend it on anything Redemption. This created its own issues.

Now, I could conceivably increase booster pack prizes for district to 5, 3, 2 for open categories if I reserved Redemption cash as a prize option for State and higher level tournaments. Otherwise, increasing the prizes by 16 packs for district increase the Redemption Cash value by $48.00. Right now if you pay $60.00 for a district you can get $108.00 in Redemption cash, plus promo cards and Cactus covering the shipping both ways. Going to $156.00 in Redemption Cash is too much for me.

So, would you prefer that I limit Redemption Cash to State tournaments and higher and offer more packs for district or leave it at 3, 2, 1 packs for each district category?

SirNobody · « **Reply #12 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:36:55 PM »

Hey,

I think I disagree with Mark regarding the larger tournaments. While it is true that most of the players that win the big tournaments already have all the cards, it is also often true that they have all the cards because they win the big tournaments. By giving the good players significant prizes it helps to keep them interested in the game (getting packs as prizes means they don't have to buy them means it's cheeper to keep up with the new sets means they're more likely to keep playing) and it is important to keep the top players in the game so that the run of the mill player will continue to be driven to compete with or try to beat the top players which also drives them to buy more cards.

I also think the excitement about larger tournaments is driven by the higher level of competition because of the players attending from out of town. And the bigger the prizes they can win the more incentive the out of town players have to attend. Smaller prizes would have a chain reaction trickling back to the excitement about the tournament which can have a major impact on the local player base.

And as Schaef pointed out, state, regional, and national tournament only happen once a year. There are only eight regional tournaments and only one national tournament. I would even suggest increasing the registration fees for regional and national tournament to allow for larger prize support. I think most of the regional tournaments had about 30 players this year (I know we had a thread that listed the exact attendance but I can't find it). Increasing the Registration fee by $100 would make a big difference on paying for prize support but would trickle down to only a $3 increase in cost to the player. I don't know all of the expenses that go along with Nationals, but I'm estimating the registration fees bring in at least $1000 which makes a $200 or even $250 or $300-400 registration fee seem reasonable. And I would think that a lot of hosts would be happy to host nationals even if they knew they were going to loose money on it.

I realize this would affect me more than most players, but I have tried to not allow that to influence my opinions. And I don't expect anything to change because of my posts, I just want to get my thoughts out there for people to consider.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #13 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:46:32 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on September 18, 2008, 09:29:17 PM

So, would you prefer that I limit Redemption Cash to State tournaments and higher and offer more packs for district or leave it at 3, 2, 1 packs for each district category?

That is a tough choice. For experienced players like myself it is definitely nice to get the Redemption Cash at the lower tournaments so that we can use it to get tins, or pay for hosting more tournaments.

However, for inexperienced players who might win a District here or there, they could probably still benefit from the cards that come in packs. And having more packs would mean more benefit.

I think if I had to pick between these options, I would vote for the noobs and say more prize packs at Districts, and Redemption Cash only at higher level tournaments.

P.S. However, I would still prefer the option that I suggested for District prizes to be Closed (3,2,1) and Open (4,3,2). This is a compromise between where they were and where Rob is suggesting. The total number of packs for the District is only 12 more than Rob's suggestion. And that difference would be offset by the massive reductions (about 500 total packs) at the State/Regional/National level.

P.P.S. As for Tim's perspective, I think that the top players would come to Regionals and Nationals even if there weren't any prizes at all. They want the RNRS points. They want the trophies. And most of all they want to play with the people they haven't played since the year before.

The Schaef · « **Reply #14 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:52:12 PM »

If I come to Nationals so I can play Bang!, Queen's Gambit, Cutthroat and Epic Duels in the off-hours, does that mean I don't get a vote on the prize levels?

SirNobody · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2008, 09:52:40 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: CactusRob on September 18, 2008, 09:29:17 PM

So, would you prefer that I limit Redemption Cash to State tournaments and higher and offer more packs for district or leave it at 3, 2, 1 packs for each district category?

What about not accepting Redemption Cash for registration fees? If you only accepted Redemption Cash for Redemption Product (at retail value) would that have a similar effect?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

CactusRob · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2008, 10:00:58 PM »

That creates problems too. A player wins an event and receives Redemption cash. They would like to redeem it right then and buy Redemption items from the host. The host is willing to accept the Redemption cash because he or she knows that they can pay for tournaments with it. If I remove that option, then fewer hosts will want to take Redemption cash and it looses a lot of it's value.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #17 on:** September 18, 2008, 10:06:59 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 18, 2008, 09:52:12 PM

If I come to Nationals so I can play Bang!, Queen's Gambit, Cutthroat and Epic Duels in the off-hours, does that mean I don't get a vote on the prize levels?

I hope not. Thats why I come.

DaClock · « **Reply #18 on:** September 18, 2008, 10:12:23 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on September 18, 2008, 10:00:58 PM

That creates problems too. A player wins an event and receives Redemption cash. They would like to redeem it right then and buy Redemption items from the host. The host is willing to accept the Redemption cash because he or she knows that they can pay for tournaments with it. If I remove that option, then fewer hosts will want to take Redemption cash and it looses a lot of it's value.

The host only loses in that scenario if they are expecting to sell packs at less than retail value, and whatever shipping costs are associated with Redemption Cash purchases.

Personally, I think that Redemption Cash should only be available in scenarios where the prizes are enough to buy a tin at MSRP. That would eliminate the need for Redemption Cash at local and district level anyway.

SirNobody · « **Reply #19 on:** September 18, 2008, 10:23:29 PM »

Hey,

You're right Rob, and I guessed that was the main reason you chose to accept Redemption Cash for tournament fees. I just wonder how many hosts would stop accepting it if they couldn't pay tournament fees with it. All hosts that run district or larger tournaments have to have product to run sealed events, and the vast majority of hosts I've met also sell cards to the players in their playgroup. Which means even if hosts can't pay tournament fees with it they can use it to cover the cost of product which all of them need.

UPC's have a similar value and lots of hosts (at least in my area) accept them from packs. And Redemption cash will always have trade value because it's "backed" by cactus.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

STAMP · « **Reply #20 on:** September 18, 2008, 11:01:59 PM »

I've read some of the feedback and thought about it some more. Here are my thoughts:

1. Continue having Redemption Cash at all levels

- There are many advantages of which some have already been mentioned. I will be redeeming Redemption cash for everything possible, including allowing players to pay entry fees for future tournaments. Kids love that flexibility. And even though they can do the math in their head, it just sounds so much better to receive $12 dollars of Redemption cash than 4 Patriarchs booster packs (when they really wanted Priests anyway.)

2. Cap the number of District tournaments

- I only plan on having three Districts this year, basically one per quarter with the last quarter having all the big tournaments anyway. I think one per quarter is a good cap.

3. Reduce the prizes to reasonable levels

- The bottom line is that Cactus needs to stay in business for us all to benefit. I personally do not have an opinion of what the prizes should be, just so it makes good business sense for Rob.

4. The previous coupon idea

- A coupon or certificate for category winners only, redeemable only at Cactus; something that will promote more sales for Rob; could be substituted for winner promo; would make winners' winnings go a little further.

5. 2009 Nationals in Southern California

-

Gabe · « **Reply #21 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:33:50 AM »

Rob, you're very generous and considerate for allowing players to give input in the first place. Ultimately, you can't please everyone and of course you'll have to do what's best for Cactus.

One thing that might be more important than the input you receive from these boards is to solicit the opinion of the major tournament hosts (such as Chris, Roy, etc). This will potentially have the greatest impact on them and their large player base so their input will be valuable.

As for my opinion, I can see this going both ways. My first reaction was that if the Redemption Cash for first place at a district isn't enough to purchase a tin, then just save Redemption Cash for higher level tournaments. Then I thought about it more and still see the benefits to awarding smaller amounts of Redemption Cash for first. If the player still wants a tin they'll fork over a little extra $ which in the long run helps Cactus. Players can save up their Redemption Cash or win multiple events too. In the long run, I feel that Redemption Cash at lower level tournaments is still a win for everyone.

The Marti · « **Reply #22 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:48:14 AM »

I read through this thread and agreed with a lot of what was said.

What about restricting how much Redemption Cash can be spent on Tournament fees?

There's a few ways to implement this:
Way 1: Only half can be RC (Redemption Cash)
District Tourney: $60
You can only pay for $30 in RC

Way 2: Only a certain amount per year can be paid in RC. Cap it at like $100 of tourney fees can be Redemption Cash

Way 3: Tournament fees can be paid with RC, but product must be bought with regular cash

No idea. I'm just throwing a couple thoughts out there as a tournament host.

~Marti

darkvariant · « **Reply #23 on:** September 19, 2008, 11:57:38 AM »

If that's what Cactus needs to do to stay afloat then let it be done.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #24 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:19:53 PM »

Rob, as far as I can tell with other CCGs, they are not doing anything near what Cactus has been doing. Not only do you offer prizes and promos where most CCGs only offer a promo per player, but you also offer the UPC trade in for product. I for one will continue to host tournaments regardless of the decisions made in regard to prizes and I know that our players will continue to attend. After all, I really think that the big draw at these tournaments is the fellowship, not the prizes. At every tournament I have ever hosted, giving out the prize packs has seemed like a interruption to the great conversations already going on...

Thanks for everything you do Rob!!!

News:

Author Topic: Changes, Experiments, and Updates from El Primo (Read 14279 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

darkvariant