Yes this is what I did. I meant I will remove the two people above who didn't want to respond to that question.

thanks guys! I will change that because I have a feeling many might not have played multiplayer. I will remove your answers to those questions as well. If others have a similar concern let me know!

I made a similar comment at the end of the survey as Mundisv.

Thanks for putting the time to create this Woof. Hopefully you will get significant amounts of responses to draw statistical information from.

For getting to know Vintage players - see my general post, below.

As for different events having different payouts - I said that Wizards could not reasonably try to base payout on the value of the decks being played. It's not because it is hard, it is because it would never be completely accurate, and increasing accuracy comes at a significant cost. And because everyone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that the formula unfairly disadvantages them would complain. The cost of such variable payouts that is, to a great extent, the cost of handling the resulting customer complaints, bad feelings and bad PR such a plan would create.

If wizard offered a prize plan which is unbalanced, people complain. Classic players complained - rightly - when core set packs were much less valuable than the packs being awarded in other formats, and when the prize payout for 3-1 was sort a VMA pack. People are also going to complain whenever the payout for their format is lower than for someone else's. Wizards could do that for some format: just state up front that they intend to favor that format, then live with the complaints. Since I don't tend to favor any one format, I'm not really a fan of such an approach, but it would work to push that format. And I didn't argue that they could not.

What I did say would not work would be to vary formats based on the cost of the decks that are played in that format. The problem is that cost of decks has to be calculated, and doing so will require some assumptions and simplifications. For example, let's try to calculate the average value of a deck in the last Vintage Daily.

Do we calculate the value of just 4-0 decks, just 3-1 or better, or all decks? How about the value of the #16 guy who joined just to fire the event using a standard deck - should that be included in the average?

Should the value of the cards be based on the average cost, lowest cost, or cost of specific cards being played? If you play foils, should they carry a higher value? should I get more prizes because I play a foil Unhinged Island instead of a Theros block one?

Should the value of the cards be based on current price, or price when the player acquired them? If current price, how do you determine that? Do you poll online retailers - if so, which ones? Do you sample Bots, _ or try to find the average price on *all* the bots? If a sample, which ones? If all of them, how do you handle the bots that offer $0.01 for a Tarmogoyf and hope to get lucky?

when I price out decks and cards, I have a consistent set of answers to these questions, which gives me results which are reasonable for my article. A different set of assumptions would give me a different result of things like the "big number." I spell out my assumptions, and they work for my purposes.

If Wizards wanted to vary prize payouts by format, based on the value of decks, it would have to answer the above questions. There is no chance that everyone would agree on all the answers. Since different answers would result in different results, everyone who believes that the formulas undervalue their format will be upset.

In short, I'm not saying that Wizards cannot vary prize payout based on value of decks. I'm just saying that I cannot imaging the benefits to ever outweigh the resulting firestorm of complaints.

I tried to imagine any real world events that do something like this. For example, does anyone know of a golf tournament that varies the prize payout based on the cost of a player's clubs, or a chess tourney that pays more if you are playing with an antique set?

So, as I said in my article, while paying out more boosters would get more people playing, Wizards can reasonable use costs of decks as the justification.

I agree with everything you said. I don't have anywhere near the experience you have but what I do have jibes with your post. I lived on the east coast, dealt with/played with a ton of vintage types and all they ever did was cry.
I remember a free vintage tournament a store did that was just testing the waters to see if there was enough interest to justify having regularly scheduled vintage tournaments. The players who participated cried so much about the prize support for a FREE tournament that the store owner killed that idea pretty quick.
People I know locally that play vintage online mostly cry about prize support there, too. They don't want increased entry fees. They want bigger prize payouts "because our decks cost so much more than standard decks." They want to win, they want to spend whatever it takes to win, and they want the prizes to be proportional to the cost of their decks. It doesn't work that way. Tournament organizers don't say, "Well, your deck is worth five hundred bucks so here's a booster box" and then tell someone else, "Your deck cost a buck ninety-eight so here's a Chimney Imp."

A few comments.

First, I do know vintage players. I have at least a nodding acquaintance with over half the VSL, and have been involved with running a lot of Vintage events, including every Vintage World Championship until Wizards moved it too far east for me to make the drive without talking extra days off. So, yes, I know Vintage players.

At pretty much every single Vintage event I have ever been judging or involved with, except the Vintage side event at GP Milwaukee a decade ago and some local store events, what I remember most are the complaints that the prize structure isn't generous enough. Every single Vintage champs. Nearly every single GP side event, every Vintage event at GenCon, and the old SCG Vintage Opens.

I'm not saying that every Vintage player - or even a majority of Vintage players - are whiney. It's a small minority. But it's a small, vocal minority, and every judge and TO involved in Vintage has heard it. I've been hearing it for 15 years or so.

I have heard plenty of other players complaining about prize support at times, but generally only at events that have prize payouts worth complaining about. (worth complaining about includes when Classic paid out in Core set long after people were drafting the fall sets, or when VMA packs for 3-1 were shorted.) However, Vintage players tend to complain event when their payout is as good or better than other formats or events.

If you have never experienced whiney vintage players, great. Be happy you missed it. And maybe my experience is not representative - but it is real. I have officiated at, run, organized or judge at close to 2,000 events, many of those being Vintage, so my sample size is statistically significant. Maybe I'm just unlucky.

Another point: I have seen Vintage players who want higher payouts who are willing to pay higher entry fees, and those who want higher payouts but the same entry fees. For the first - if that works for you, that's great. The Gold queues are a trial, and if they work, I hope Wizards does more experimentation in that area and/or makes the gold queues permanent. But to those Vintage players who want more without paying for it, because they feel entitled or whatever, and, yeas, I have met a lot of them, and they are almost all Vintage players - sorry, but tournaments have to be profitable. If they are not, they don't happen. It's the way an economy works.

Just to repeat, for those Vintage players wanting a higher cost, higher payout event - that's fine. If there are enough of you, I hope Wizards continues to serve your needs. But for those who want to pay the same entry fee as every other DE, but expect higher payouts - it doesn't work that way.

Should be nice to see the new version in action.

Thanks. It's nice to see that even articles that have left the main page still get some views and even comments! I'll have more cube drafts soon since they are returning.

While I have no idea what constitutes "whiney" - I can say with a degree of certainty that it is probably not wise to alienate any sector of the player base - no matter how large or small.

I could say standard players are a lot less talented than eternal players as a whole and look like a complete jerk - but there is truth to the statement as new players make up some % of the player base - and they sure aren't starting in eternal formats. (and hey - you know me by now - I might just say something like that - but I am more of a lightning rod than you typically are)

In a nutshell I came here to say I disagree with you saying anyone is whiney - especially the playerbase with perhaps the highest average player age.

But hey - support VSL. They don't whine :D

-Zach

I agree with others, I disagree with the use of whiny to categorize vintage players, perhaps we state our opinions more loudly because our format isn't healthy but I don't see it as whiny. In fact I have gotten to know many online vintage players and would not call them whiny at all. Maybe paper players are different (I wouldn't know) but have you really gotten to know vintage players to make that accusation?

It is an interesting discussion on whether different event should have different pay-outs. You have not provided enough commentary for me to truly understand your opinion. Because it is hard? Because if you take it to the extreme and include decklists it seems even harder? That doesn't resonate with me on a good reason. Then you state having special bonus participation cards as a good option. So extra boosters is not good in your opinion but other ways to increase vintage payouts is ok?

Thank you. Roon is a tad pricy but most of the rest are pretty cheap.

I'm not sure I understand how gold queues ruin the economy. The EV is exactly the same as before... it just gives players the opportunity to win a lot of packs quickly... or lose a TON of tix quickly.