|What You’d Like to See…
||What You Want Not to Change
||How I See It…
7: There’s nothing worse than finishing
in 5th place in an event with only four plaques. / Certificates
up to 6th place whenever plaques are not given. / I would like
to see more plaques and prizes. That’s a real part of the fun
of the event. I know they cost. I heard (and perhaps this is
inaccurate info) that there were fewer plaques last year even
though overall attendance rose. I would think that the number
of plaques available would rise (or fall, I suppose) in proportion
to the number of attendees. / More plaques for “trial” events that are not in their first year as an event at WBC. /
Every event should have three plaques—like the Olympics.
Laurels 10: I really like the plaque/laurel
system, and while Vendor vouchers are nice, I prefer having the
souvenir to look back upon in later years. / Plaques are WBC!
/ Plaque only awards—it’s all about pride in being champion.
Money and other awards sully the achievement. / Competitiveness/“Wood”—the WBC is special to me over the typical game convention because
it is a big deal to win your unique plaques as well as the competitive
nature of play and quality of opponents. Don’t let that go away—without those things, I’d have no motivation to make the trek
to WBC over game conventions much closer to home
People “hear” lots of thing about
WBC. Based on what gets back to me, very little of it is factual.
The number of plaques continues to grow. Take it from the guy
who has to inventory and cart them around. What you probably
heard is grumbling from someone whose favorite event lost a prize
level due to lower attendance or GM penalties. Many events are
right on the fault line between event levels and can vary easily
from year to year but the formula for determining prize levels
remains the same.
Providing more plaques for older trial events
would reduce the distinction between Century and Trial events
by adding yet another category and we are already criticized
for having too many rules. Simpler is better.
Desirability of plaque prizes is itself an
issue—thus the survey question. I can’t tell you how many dozens
of the things I’ve thrown away over the years because the winners
didn’t want them. Frankly, as a reminder of a past achievement
I think they’re great, but when everyone gets one, they become
so many dust catchers. We annually award well over 500 plaques
already. Once they become the equivalent of “participation"
certificates I can do wtihout them.
PBeM 1: Online
tournaments shouldn’t count toward laurels. That’s a huge advantage
to guys who play a specific list of games.
PBeM Credits 1: Allow pbem tournament entry numbers to increase chance of WBC
official game status.
Again, we don’t choose the games featured
in email play; the GMs willing to put together the tournament
do. There’s nothing that says you can’t run and promote your
favorite games by putting in the same effort.
On the flip side, I doubt those who think
PBeM laurels shouldn’t be given equal status will be very pleased
with crediting their attendance numbers to the competition.
|Cash Prizes 1: I have become a 100% open gamer after
years of playing in tournaments because I found the tournament
“prizes” failed to compensate for the uneven play experience.
At least back in the days of AvalonCon you could win a gift certificate
to AH but now you just get “bragging rights.” It seems
like there has been a sort of culture shift where meaningful
prizes are seen (at best) as at odds with the spirit of WBC and
(at worst) as mercenary or even unsportsmanlike. Were this to
be reversed I think it would swell the competitive field in many
games and do much to put the C back in WBC. But doing so would
not be without cost, and so I would gladly pay more for either
my registration or some sort of per event fee so as to have meaningful
prizes (a la what you see at chess or CCG tournaments).
||Prize Money NA
3: Do not attach prize money in the
form of vouchers or “dealer” dollars to winning wood.
One of the unique things about coming to WBC is the fact that
“winning” wood is more important then any financial
gain. / The focus is on the gaming, not prizes/rewards. / People
play to win, but winning is not the reason they are playing.
I believe the lack of cash/big prizes is what generates this,
so please do not allow tournaments that have large prizes.
WBC already gets a bum wrap as far as I’m
concerned from internet stories about cheating and “win-at-all-costs"
types. Admittedly, our resources are not such that we can flood
events with paid officials to guard against illicit behavior.
So replacing strictly “honorary” prizes with monetary
ones that attract the wrong element for the wrong reasons is
not something I’d ever do.
We decided long ago that “bragging rights"
was all the prize we needed. I pity those who have to cheat to
win such an award—knowing full well that they cheated to do
so—and knowing that—have won nothing but the contempt of
those they have cheated.
1: Get the game companies to sponsor
a tournament and give certificates for their products.
||Easier said than
done. We’ve floated that idea in the past with few takers. GMT
and MMP to their credit do award prizes annually in support of
their WBC events.
|Allow Choice of
Plaques or Vendor credits 1
||The problem with
that is that plaques must be made in advance. Having them made
individually and mailed after the fact would greatly increase
the cost and time involved—plus send people home without any
prize in hand.
|Base Prize Levels
on # of Players 1: More emphasis to
number of players and less emphasis in player hours to determine
prize levels. It doesn’t seem right to award 6 prizes to a tournament
that accommodates 30 people, and only 3 prizes to an event that
draws 80 people, regardless of game length.
||Spoken like someone
who plays a lot of short events. Doing what you suggest would
be very prejudicial against those who play long events. Our formula
for prize levels takes both number of players and event length
into consideration and therefore is fairer for all concerned.
|Stop Prize Penaltties
1: Stop punishing events for the flakiness
of the GM. Explicitly publicly shame the GM, repeatedly. Announcements.
Listing in the Yearbook. A flag on their badge, etc. GMing is
a social contract; violations have consequences.
||While I live by the
principle that “my word is my bond” and a promise made
should be kept, there are consequences for every action and what
you propose would limit even further the number of GMs willing
to step forward to serve. The fact is that a GM who completes
his other duties but falls short in the report department has
still done far more for his players than everyone else who failed
to take on the job in the first place. His penalty is that he
will not be asked to GM again without a few mea culpas and a
promise to do better. Anything more severe than that is excessive.
No attendee is entitled to have someone else serve him in a particular
tournament because the event simply does not happen without a
GM taking on the task. The prize penalty is simply a reminder
to the fans of a game that the event does not happen without
someone willing to fulfill that role. That GM gave you a tournment
you would not otherwise have had. If you want a better one, step
forward and run the next one yourself—and, in the process,
pay back those who have carried the load thus far.