lepolac | Profile | Betting History | Blogs
Tournaments purse distribution
2013-04-23 16:55
Hi there,

Just wanted to start a discussion around what I think is
a thought-worthy topic : the prize distribution in tournaments.

Most tournaments only reward the top3/4 teams.
Back in the days some big tournaments used to reward top8 placings.

Whilst this is mainly due to economical reasons, as in, not enough budget to reward more teams without significantly cutting out the top end share, some recent comments or reactions I've seen from top SC2 players made me put some further thoughts on this.

For the first time ever, I've seen players asking for a wider prize distribution, even if it boils down to reducing the top3 share.
I thought myself, wow, is SC2 being that dominated by a few players ?
Do players care enough about their scene sustainability to raise such concerns ?

So, why not ?

Most tournaments who chopped the top4-8 prizepool did so for the sake of preserving a big top figure for the winner (no winner takes it all here, but almost).
This happened a while ago (around 2008 I reckon, when esports faced its biggest funding challenges), and since then things haven't evolved much.

So now the question is, should tournaments reward sub top3 placings ?
I'm indeed implying without extra cash being put in the purse overall.

This question is even more relevant in CSGO, a somewhat dominated scene.

Rewarding those placings would sure benefit teams attending all those events and not winning, and obviously help smaller structures to keep sending their players, helping in maintaining the scene at a critical mass.

On the other hand, if this comes with a top3 prize reduction, it could also make it less sustainable for the big names to attend every event during a season.

I think there's a compromise to be found here, as the correct ratio between not diminishing best placings too much but still enabling support for midrange teams to attend, could provide some leverage to grow the scene, and at some point be able to dish out bigger prizes.

tl,dr; share now, grow further
True
2013-04-23 17:28:17
There is a surtain truth idd :)
2013-04-23 17:37:05
i think esea had prizemoney for everyone but ye a amount that can cover some of the travel for the team can help alot,it atleast makes more attractive. atleast for teams that have little to non funding what so ever.



Post edited 2013-04-23 18:14:30
2013-04-23 18:13:50
i think prize pool need paid just for only 4 teams max
2013-04-23 18:17:48
1-8th for 32 teams
1-4th for 16 teams
2013-04-23 18:28:03
+1
2013-04-23 18:59:47
And how would you share 10k over top8 ?
2013-04-23 18:40:58
Think it was meant to bigger prizepots
2013-04-23 18:43:20
good question, wouldn't be sustainable I think... too less to win for the top tier :(
2013-04-23 22:14:59
indeed!
2013-04-24 01:41:11
by: Tgwri1s - HLTV.org
#8
I do think the tournaments should reward down to the 8th place, but only if the 5th-8th place prize averages at least 2,000.

The last few events (ESEA, Cph Games and RC EMS One) have all awarded top8, but in Cph that 5th-8th prize was 500-750 and in ESEA it was $1,000-$1,500 which in the end turns out being more symbolic than actually helping the teams or the scene to grow.

If it was 2,000+, even though barely any team would actually profit by placing there, it could still help justify the travel (unless you're traveling from one continent to another), and top8 is something every team that goes to a foreign country at least hopes for.

Now for the top prizes, I see most tournaments going for "1st place = 50% of the prize purse", but that's not really necessary (and I don't even mean because NiP is dominating).

Yes, the goal should be that the 1st place prize has to be bigger than the rest so that it instills some prestige, but you could still create that with 35-40% and with a good distribution.

Let's take Cph Games as an example, which had 33,000 total prize purse. This could have been a more even distribution:

1. 12,500 (actual prize was 16,500, down to 38% instead of 50%)
2. 6,000 (8,000)
3. 4,000
4. 2,500 (2,000)
5-6. 2,200 (750)
7-8. 1,800 (500)

While this would take 6k from the top 2, it wouldn't make the tournament not worth attending since the 1st place is still much bigger than the rest, and so is 2nd. And the prizes between the rest don't need to differ much, because by going to the next round (from 7-8th to 5-6th) you're not fighting for the extra few hundred, but you're fighting for the chance at top3.

So yea, I do think it is possible to pull this off even with today's lower prizes. But still the prize purse needs to be big enough to be able to have these 2k prizes down low and not diminish the top - meaning at least 30k overall.
2013-04-23 18:52:17
Can you please stop writing walls ? Thanks :D
2013-04-26 14:41:56
Interesting reply, somehow I knew you'd answer something knowledgeable ;)

2013-04-26 14:59:06
would be quite a sad price then for the first tho
2013-04-26 17:25:20
I'm not really sure whether I agree or not.
In my opinion, 1st place should be rewarded much more than any other because becoming a winner is the main target. Anything other is totally irrelevant.
You either become first or some of them in the shadow. Teams should be motivated even more to become the best.

Look at G-1 League in Dota 2. 1st prise in this season will be 40k$ and second will be 12k$.
However teams will be paid up to six places.

The only problem I see is that not every team have enough funds to send their squad to lan. Moreover, not every professional team have a sponsor so they've got to pay from their pocket. So paying to more teams (and cutting first prize) is better for them.
This is a hard dilemma.
Though I myself think it should be solved by acquiring and gathering more sponsors in the esports world, not cutting money for first place.
2013-04-23 20:32:08
Nice brain.
2013-04-23 21:00:50
for example ESEA 13
prize 35 000 $$
real prize purse
Ninjas in Pyjamas - $17,500
2. Quantic Gaming - $7,000
3. VeryGames - $4,000
4. ESC Gaming - $2,500
5-6. n!faculty - $1,500
5-6. Curse - $1,500
7-8. Dynamic - $1,000
7-8. Denial $1,000
my prize purse
1) 17 500
2) 9 000
3) 6 000
4) 3 500
Or RC EMS ONE
real
. NiP - $12,000
2. fnatic - $7,000
3-4. VeryGames - $4,000
3-4. Absolute Legends - $4,000
5-8. k1ck - $2,000
5-8. n!faculty - $2,000
5-8. Anexis - $2,000
5-8. Imaginary Gaming -$2,000
my
1) 16 000
2) 9 000
3) 6 000
4) 4 000
IMO i think that better give more money first 4 teams and didnt gave anything others

Post edited 2013-04-23 21:17:53
2013-04-23 21:13:04
i do not agree, underdogs/even one of those new/unfunded teams should be motivated to participate, because that way we would see more teams that would try and maybe surprise. even if they suck or not nobody will learn from first try.

Post edited 2013-04-23 22:53:07
2013-04-23 22:52:43
by: VxO4
#14
And the next thing you complain is the orgs should transfer the money within one week :D
2013-04-23 22:47:15
well ESEA does pay instantaneously so why not?
2013-04-26 13:13:14
by: VxO4
#21
Because not every org gets their money from the players infact from the sponsors not like ESEA. And that money doesnt go directly to the orgs who run such tournaments

Post edited 2013-04-26 17:20:10
2013-04-26 17:19:50
Totally agree with you
2013-04-26 11:03:15

Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.