the problem with your arguments have nothing to do with a grasp of finances, or logic, it's the assumptions. many are dead wrong, and others suspect.
I'm all for raising awareness, but what can we actually do to instigate change? i know what i can do, and it's more then write an article or comment on one. i'll let you know what comes of it.
I believe you meant to address this to the original poster?
Reread the first post. They wouldn't, and that's the problem. As I said:
My call is to get wizards to create greater competition between TOs for PTQs, not for Wizards to demonopolize. I'm not sure why you think I would be asking WOTC to demonopolize it's trademarked product.
Not necessarily, as I already explained:
So you are saying that monopolies are bad for consumers?
I don't think you are going to be getting the Nobel for this advancement in economic thinking.
smenendian: TOs are GREEDY and BAD PEOPLE.
Us: Why?
smenendian: They make too much money! They should give us more prizes!
Us: Why?
smenendian: We need more players in PTQs or the game will die! More prizes = more players = yay magic!
Us: That does not logically follow from any set of facts you've identified or assumptions we've agreed to.
smenendian: I have a degree in economics! What do you have?
Me: Snap Call. Sup?
smenendian: You are a BAD PERSON and MEAN.
Everyone: That was so funny!
smenendian: The community sucks! What jerks!
[100 Tweets later, scene change to mtgsalvation]
smenendian: TOs are GREEDY and BAD PEOPLE
<repeat>
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- posts designed for humor but actually have nothing to do with the substance of the thread. It's trolling for lulz. You accuse me of misdirection, but that's the puropse of these kinds of posts.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- posts designed for humor but actually have nothing to do with the substance of the thread. It's trolling for lulz. You accuse me of misdirection, but that's the puropse of these kinds of posts.
What you don't seem to get is that this entire thread is an enormous joke, and, as such, my post is right in line with its substance.
I know constructing a model is a foreign idea for an economics major. Oh, wait...
Seriously. This too.
@smennenenenene
If you're so convinced that this theortical monopoly graphy you've brought over from wikipedia (which every academic knows is a great source to use to support your argument), why can't you use your "guestimates" to calculate how mcuh you really think it would change? We all know and agree how much the TO's can bring in. You're saying its too much. Show us how that changes if we your thought of opening the doors to free competition in this market? First of all, the PT's would be bloated, as every no-name TO would be hosting ptqs to get their name out there, and they would be so common that why wouldn't every tournament just be a ptq? pretty soon there'd be 30-40man ptq's firing in every major market all the time. That's my main issue with it.
Seeing as you claim its not rocket science, and you've done lots of "internet research" to find some guestimates, lets see what you really expect the results to be by adopting your changes.
As Glen said, he's tried toying with prize support and the effect on turnout is pretty small (10%).
I think you've adequately estimated what the revenues and costs are of a PTQ, but how would that change? No need to keep repeating irrelevant data. Unless we could see what the new scenario would look like, how can we honestly make a comparison to say your system or reccomendations would make a better market. Other than reading quotes off wikipedia and other microecon101 text books about how inefficient monopolies are. let the producers have their damn surplus, and move on.
You beat me to making this very point. Invites are a finite, non substitutable good. If anything, I question why TOs waste even a single pack on prize support. The MTGO PTQs certainly don't (something like 16 packs for 5th place in a 500! person tournament) and clearly the market forces are reinforcing that valuation of the first prize.
If Magic PTQ TO's found no value in awarding packs, they woudn't. Clearly, they draw players in and generate additional attendance, otherwise they wouldn't give them out.
Moreover, as I said:
It’s also reductionist to discount or minimize the other important reasons play, such as to hang out with friends, enjoy an afternoon, etc. For more on this particular aspect of the argument, read my free SCG article here: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/m..._the_Game.html
Also, as I said:
price matters. Even if a player is playing only for an invite, the entry fee is a part of the calcluation of whether to attend, and therefore goes to the heart of the issue of monopoly pricing.
Increasing prize support is another way of adding value to a player cost/benefit decision of whether to attend, just like reducing entry fee. Why is that relevant?
Even assuming the only thing that a player wants out of a PTQ is an invite, the entry fee is still part of hte consideration, otherwise slopped demand curves for PTQs would not exist and it would be perfectly inelastic. Increased prize support is just the logical similar to reducing entry fees.
Menendian - Instead of spending 10,000 words trying to quantify how much money TOs make (BECAUSE THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO YOUR "ECONOMIC" ARGUMENT), you should spend that time and those words attempting to quantify the necessary growth in attendance that would be needed to support your proposed pack distribution plan. You should also model future tournament growth under the traditional and your alternative methods to show that TOs would be better off in 3 years under your plan.
I know constructing a model is a foreign idea for an economics major. Oh, wait...
We already have a model, it's called the monopoly pricing graph:
I am going to do you a HUGE favor. Instead of posting another massive block of convoluted text, let me preempt you and give you this form to fill out:
My ultimate goal for a new system is [75 word limit].
The fundamental flaw in the current system is [75 word limit].
To correct for this flaw, my system would [150 word limit].
Then we will all know what you are talking about as you will have expressed yourself clearly and concisely. I will no longer feel like I am chasing a moving target with your every post and I will be able to control the (at times) overwhelming urge to devolve into mocking you shamelessly.
My call is to get wizards to create greater competition between TOs for PTQs, not for Wizards to demonopolize. I'm not sure why you think I would be asking WOTC to demonopolize it's trademarked product.
We're talking about PTQs, why would you assume a non-sequitir to the de-monopolization of the entire product? I'm referring to de-monopolizing the PTQ assignments. As it is, they are a monopoly for a region.
So, you do want Wizards of the Coast to de-monopolize the PTQ system. Please address the reasons I provided why this would not work, specifically
The ability to award invitations to the Pro Tour must be closely controlled and regulated, thus a Monopoly. Take Boise, ID. There should not be more than one invitation per season coming out of that "area" (and some might argue less than that)
Finally, to address your thoughts on players, players are entering into a voluntary transaction with the PTO.
Your argument boils down to "The TOs could make less money and make more people happy!" Yes, and Sears could cut the price of lawnmowers so that more people could get a new one, but they would MAKE LESS MONEY, which is not the goal of businesses.
We're talking about PTQs, why would you assume a non-sequitir to the de-monopolization of the entire product? I'm referring to de-monopolizing the PTQ assignments. As it is, they are a monopoly for a region.
So, you do want Wizards of the Coast to de-monopolize the PTQ system. Please address the reasons I provided why this would not work, specifically
Finally, to address your thoughts on players, players are entering into a voluntary transaction with the PTO.
Your argument boils down to "The TOs could make less money and make more people happy!" Yes, and Sears could cut the price of lawnmowers so that more people could get a new one, but they would MAKE LESS MONEY, which is not the goal of businesses.
I'm going to do Mr. Menendian a favor and answer this for him.
Alternative system:
Wizards determines how many slots to alot to each region and then allows each TO in the region to bid for the right to host the PTQ. The bidding metric is % of entry fees returned to the player base in the form of prize support.
This seems to satisfy Mr. Menendian's goal of maximizing prizes.
There are any number of problems with this system, but I'll give others a chance to engage with it before commenting on its flaws.
I am going to do you a HUGE favor. Instead of posting another massive block of convoluted text, let me preempt you and give you this form to fill out:
My ultimate goal for a new system is [75 word limit].
The fundamental flaw in the current system is [75 word limit].
To correct for this flaw, my system would [150 word limit].
Then we will all know what you are talking about as you will have expressed yourself clearly and concisely. I will no longer feel like I am chasing a moving target with your every post and I will be able to control the (at times) overwhelming urge to devolve into mocking you shamelessly.
I've already stated the answer several times. The model is to create competition and let the market sort out the answers. Let the market -- through competition -- determine what the proper pricing, prize support, etc is.
As I said: I acknowledge that my point that the current system is unfair was subjective, as I said in the first post:
While this may appear to be a subjective question, there are a number of ways of addressing it, and getting to a real answer.
First of all, there are standards by which we can compare it. Simply put, I would argue that giving out only 20% of gross revenues in prize support is grossly below average for most Magic tournaments, despite the fact that many PTQ TOs have much greater overhead, particular those that don’t host PTQs in a retail store.
More importantly, an answer to a question like this is determined by the market, and by competition. In any other environment, we would compare the price or value of a service by looking at what a competitor is offering. Unfortunately, that’s not how PTQ’s work. Wizards awards regional monopolies to certain TOs, barring very substandard service.
But, I will oblige your form:
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs. [more fully elaborated in the first post]
The fundamental flaw in the current system is that monopolistic pricing is bad for consumers and hurts the game in the long run. [fully elaborated in the first post]
To correct for this flaw, my system would create competition among PTQ TOs to allow the market to determine who performs best. As I said:
by outperforming their competition by providing a better experience and better value. Only competition will tell who is doing that.
I'm going to do Mr. Menendian a favor and answer this for him.
Alternative system:
Wizards determines how many slots to alot to each region and then allows each TO in the region to bid for the right to host the PTQ. The bidding metric is % of entry fees returned to the player base in the form of prize support.
This seems to satisfy Mr. Menendian's goal of maximizing prizes.
There are any number of problems with this system, but I'll give others a chance to engage with it before commenting on its flaws.
The free market solution? Yeah, that'll work until a TO in Podunk, Wherever bids for all the slots promising absurd returns to the player, just so that TO's player base can get the invites, regardless of value to the region.
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs. [more fully elaborated in the first post]
The fundamental flaw in the current system is that monopolistic pricing is bad for consumers and hurts the game in the long run. [fully elaborated in the first post]
To correct for this flaw, my system would create competition among PTQ TOs to allow the market to determine who performs best. As I said:
I don't think that is actually your goal. That is a means to your end. Isn't your actual goal to improve the player experience and ensure the long term health of the competitive game? Competition just for the sake of making TO's compete seems frivolous.
Also, can you propose (concisely) 2 systems that would permit TO competition without increasing the # of slots awarded? I suggested one of these on your behalf previously in this thread.
The free market solution? Yeah, that'll work until a TO in Podunk, Wherever bids for all the slots promising absurd returns to the player, just so that TO's player base can get the invites, regardless of value to the region.
Bidding will only be permitted by TOs with a presence in the region and the tournament must be held in the region.
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs. [more fully elaborated in the first post]
The fundamental flaw in the current system is that monopolistic pricing is bad for consumers and hurts the game in the long run. [fully elaborated in the first post]
To correct for this flaw, my system would create competition among PTQ TOs to allow the market to determine who performs best. As I said:
You seem to not like the trolling, but you only respond to the troll.
Many of us have commented on this. There are MANY very good reasons why you can't just open up the PTQ circuit to a free market. And since I tend to rant, I'll bullet them here and move on.
1. We need quality control at PTQ's for the players benefit of a decent experience, as determined by a 3rd party (not the market).
2. The free market's ability to flush out poor TO's will be too slow, and cause too much damage in the mean time.
3. WotC would be out of their mind to let any TO give away PT Invites. Imagine if I was a TO, I could simply not market my event, tell my 32 friends about it, and continue to hold a tournament every week until all 32 friends qualify. This is extreme, but you see the point. Even more extreme would be to simply falsify event results, and give away (or even sell) invites.
4. The larger markets would be the places that ended up having way more To's and PTQ's under a free market under competition, because there is proportionally more demand there. THis would actually reduce the size of PTQ's in that area making qualifying much simpler, and quickly bloat the PT.
Bidding will only be permitted by TOs with a presence in the region and the tournament must be held in the region.
Sure. The PNW has typically 5 invites (2 in Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, and Boise). Let's say the Boise TO makes the winning bid to get all five slots. How is the region served well then?
You seem to not like the trolling, but you only respond to the troll.
Many of us have commented on this. There are MANY very good reasons why you can't just open up the PTQ circuit to a free market. And since I tend to rant, I'll bullet them here and move on.
1. We need quality control at PTQ's for the players benefit of a decent experience, as determined by a 3rd party (not the market).
2. The free market's ability to flush out poor TO's will be too slow, and cause too much damage in the mean time.
3. WotC would be out of their mind to let any TO give away PT Invites. Imagine if I was a TO, I could simply not market my event, tell my 32 friends about it, and continue to hold a tournament every week until all 32 friends qualify. This is extreme, but you see the point. Even more extreme would be to simply falsify event results, and give away (or even sell) invites.
4. The larger markets would be the places that ended up having way more To's and PTQ's under a free market under competition, because there is proportionally more demand there. THis would actually reduce the size of PTQ's in that area making qualifying much simpler, and quickly bloat the PT.
@torerotutor
I proposed a solution that I believe addresses all of these concerns and also results in competition among TOs.
Sure. The PNW has typically 5 invites (2 in Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, and Boise). Let's say the Boise TO makes the winning bid to get all five slots. How is the region served well then?
I think you are getting stuck in the weeds here. Wizards can specify the cities that will host the tournaments.
The actual method of apportioning the slots is not germane to the idea as a whole, which forces TOs to competitively bid against each other and increases player prize payout.
rather then debate your increasingly baseless conclusions and ideas i'm forced to simply acknowledge that your wrong and move on to the next ranting lunatic. anyone out there want to try and condemn the Elo rating system?
We're talking about PTQs, why would you assume a non-sequitir to the de-monopolization of the entire product? I'm referring to de-monopolizing the PTQ assignments. As it is, they are a monopoly for a region.
So, you do want Wizards of the Coast to de-monopolize the PTQ system. Please address the reasons I provided why this would not work, specifically
The ability to award invitations to the Pro Tour must be closely controlled and regulated, thus a Monopoly. Take Boise, ID. There should not be more than one invitation per season coming out of that "area" (and some might argue less than that)
These obstacles are hardly insurmountable, and ther are numerous examples of how they've been dealt with in other contexts.
Firt of all, it's not true that there is only one PTQ per city or region per season. For example, there are two PTQ Paris in Columbus, one in November and another in December. Award them to different TOs!
But even in cities where there is only one PTQ per season, there are many ways to foster competition PTQ TOs For example, award PTQs to different TOs in different seasons to see who performs better among players. Another more important way to do this is to break up the regional monopoly, and give PTQs within a larger region to differnt TOs. For example, instead of giving all of hte PTQs in Ohio to one TO, give the Cincinnatti PTQ to one TO, the Columbus PTQ to another, and the Cleveland one to another, and see who performs better.
Finally, to address your thoughts on players, players are entering into a voluntary transaction with the PTO.
Your argument boils down to "The TOs could make less money and make more people happy!" Yes, and Sears could cut the price of lawnmowers so that more people could get a new one, but they would MAKE LESS MONEY, which is not the goal of businesses.
Did you not see the part of my original post where I pointed this out? That's part of my argument, that TOs are actually profit maximzing. See the monopoly pricing graph.
On the first page I said:
the point is much broader than just a particular TO’s profits. It’s a structural argument, about how these TOs aren’t actually interested in maximizing attendance because of the system of regional monopolies.
I proposed a solution that I believe addresses all of these concerns and also results in competition among TOs.
I disagree. I think your solution was obviously actually A solution, and its much appreciated. I'm on your side as far as steve's blathering, and no personal attack intended at your whack at proposing an acutal option. I think that proposes other problems. This is the same problem we have in Legislature, that every proposed bill will also have enough problems, that it won't get enough votes to change it.
Regarding your proposal:
It has some good ideas, some I had considered, others I hadn't. I personally have no issue with the current system.
I think bidding is a problem. I've got some experience with decision analysis and game theory models, and typically bidding wars don't put the highest quality product at the top. In my opinion (and yes, its just an opinion) Quality Control has to be the first and foremost priority for WotC to select TO's for high level events of all types. I agree with your thought of selecting the number of slots given to each region, and then potentially splitting those out to a variety of TO's, but having them bid for the spots seems bad. I guess if your main priority is to get prize support back to the players, then I guess its fine. I dont think to most of us (non-pro's) that is of a HUGE concern. To put it bluntly, I'd rather be at a smooth well-run PTQ and get 0 packs for finishing 17th, than be at a crappy one, that ran 2-3hours longer than neccessary, with various issues like repairings to make that 17th place finisher end up with a few packs.
An alternate solution (which i probably don't prefer to status quo either):
Have WotC have a metric of QC that they measure each TO on a series of values, Prize support, smoothness of event (maybe total time of event divided by number of rounds etc), #of judges/player, and maybe even a survey scored by the players. Create some sort of index, and distribute PTQ's within each region accordingly. I see this as an adaptation of your idea that would balance many peoples priorities.
These obstacles are hardly insurmountable, and ther are numerous examples of how they've been dealt with in other contexts.
Firt of all, it's not true that there is only one PTQ per city or region per season. For example, there are two PTQ Paris in Columbus, one in November and another in December. Award them to different TOs!
But even in cities where there is only one PTQ per season, there are many ways to foster competition PTQ TOs For example, award PTQs to different TOs in different seasons to see who performs better among players. Another more important way to do this is to break up the regional monopoly, and give PTQs within a larger region to differnt TOs. For example, instead of giving all of hte PTQs in Ohio to one TO, give the Cincinnatti PTQ to one TO, the Columbus PTQ to another, and the Cleveland one to another, and see who performs better.
This is why we think you have no understanding of (at least applied) economics. These are not competing events. Two PTQs in different months will not force people to choose one over the other. All of the people who you say go for the prize despite getting screwed will just go to both.
Competition can only take place at two levels - either Wizards forces competition in their method of awarding PTQs (relevant to your second paragraph) or Wizards forces competing events by making them concurrent and each equally accessible (in response to your first paragraph). If wizards simply evently distributes PTQs to multiple TOs for a given season, this doesn't actually create ANY competition. I can't understand how you don't get this.
I disagree. I think your solution was obviously actually A solution, and its much appreciated. I'm on your side as far as steve's blathering, and no personal attack intended at your whack at proposing an acutal option. I think that proposes other problems. This is the same problem we have in Legislature, that every proposed bill will also have enough problems, that it won't get enough votes to change it.
Regarding your proposal:
It has some good ideas, some I had considered, others I hadn't. I personally have no issue with the current system.
I think bidding is a problem. I've got some experience with decision analysis and game theory models, and typically bidding wars don't put the highest quality product at the top. In my opinion (and yes, its just an opinion) Quality Control has to be the first and foremost priority for WotC to select TO's for high level events of all types. I agree with your thought of selecting the number of slots given to each region, and then potentially splitting those out to a variety of TO's, but having them bid for the spots seems bad. I guess if your main priority is to get prize support back to the players, then I guess its fine. I dont think to most of us (non-pro's) that is of a HUGE concern. To put it bluntly, I'd rather be at a smooth well-run PTQ and get 0 packs for finishing 17th, than be at a crappy one, that ran 2-3hours longer than neccessary, with various issues like repairings to make that 17th place finisher end up with a few packs.
An alternate solution (which i probably don't prefer to status quo either):
Have WotC have a metric of QC that they measure each TO on a series of values, Prize support, smoothness of event (maybe total time of event divided by number of rounds etc), #of judges/player, and maybe even a survey scored by the players. Create some sort of index, and distribute PTQ's within each region accordingly. I see this as an adaptation of your idea that would balance many peoples priorities.
Oh, I completely agree that the method is terrible in practice. I was attempting to find a solution that operates under Menendian's assumed value criteria; namely that we find a system that forces more prizes support for players (as a proxy for the health of the player base). If that is the only goal, then I think the system I proposed is a very elegant way to achieve it.
As I stated previously, I categorically reject his assumed goal. I don't think the goal should be to maximize prizes or even to maximize attendance as I don't think these are suitable proxies for ensuring the on going success of competitive magic.
And what's the risk/reward scenario of de-monopolizing the PTQ system. If it works, it makes the sytem better in a non-zero, but certainly not massively improved, form. it is a minimal to possibly moderate gain.
If it fails (e.g., a good TO gets undercut by a terrible one, which then causes a significant setback in Competitive Magic in that area) Wizards of the Coast is significantly impacted. I see there being far more risk than reward to this system.
Riki Hayashi also chimed in, pointing out the (often painful) learning curve of running large events. Even in a best case scenario, we're taking steps backward to possibly take steps forward. more reasonably, we probably end up very close to where we were while having suffered painful transition periods.
Additionally, what are the criteria for potentially being a PTQ host? Where do you set the bar? Set the standards too high, and you're just marginally widening the monopoly while not actually opening up competition. Set them too low, and you see devastating results. I would even contend that these overlap, and that there is no actual amount of potential TOs you can add that both helps competition and does not expose significant risk.
Finally, I still don't see how this is a needed change. Magic is thriving, and players are still engaging in voluntary transactions. Some choose to attend, others choose not to. Many of them seem, if not satisfied, at least not dissatisfied. You seem to want to increase PTQ attendance for its own sake.
I was attempting to find a solution that operates under Menendian's assumed value criteria;
Gotcha. I'll agree your solution does that. And it's truly sad that it took 2 days, 2 forums and a tweetfight to get someone to come up with one, and even more sad that that person wasn't Menendian himself.
This is why we think you have no understanding of (at least applied) economics. These are not competing events. Two PTQs in different months will not force people to choose one over the other.
You can drop the ad hominems.
While the events don't directly compete (althoguh they do in some extent given the fact that people have limited wallets and time), that doesn't mean that the TOs aren't competing against each other for Wizards to award them PTQs. The TOs that over time provides the best service, prize support, value, etc would prove it by attendance, etc.
Players have a finite amount of resources and ability to travel. For example, you are a PTQer in Cinncinnatti, you may only be able to attend one of those events in Columbus, given your budget. In that regard, these events DO directly compete. They are, in that case, and similar cases, fungible, and the player has to choose one or the other.
Competition isn't a binary: it's actually a matter of degree. For example, a PTQ in Columbus and a PTQ in Philadelphia are probably not in competition for most players, but they may be for a few. They may be mildly competing against each other.
Even so, events are different days can still be competing against each other for the limited amount of resources that players can put towards their PTQ budget, and which event they'll go to will definitely be affected by things like cost of entry, prize support, amenities, and the like.
All of the people who you say go for the prize despite getting screwed will just go to both.
Competition can only take place at two levels - either Wizards forces competition in their method of awarding PTQs (relevant to your second paragraph)
Which would be a step in the right direction.
or Wizards forces competing events by making them concurrent and each equally accessible (in response to your first paragraph). If wizards simply evently distributes PTQs to multiple TOs for a given season, this doesn't actually create ANY competition. I can't understand how you don't get this.
I don't understand how you can't recognize that PTQ TOs are competing against eaach otehr for the support of PTQers (and their budget) in that system, even though events are on different days, and competing against each other for Wizards to continue to award them events, as opposed to other PTQ TOs in the region. For example, Wizards could set up a system where it awards the two Columbus PTQs to different TOs, and then the worst performing of the two loses one of the next PTQs, which goes to a third TO, and so on.
And what's the risk/reward scenario of de-monopolizing the PTQ system. If it works, it makes the sytem better in a non-zero, but certainly not massively improved, form. it is a minimal to possibly moderate gain.
If it fails (e.g., a good TO gets undercut by a terrible one, which then causes a significant setback in Competitive Magic in that area) Wizards of the Coast is significantly impacted. I see there being far more risk than reward to this system.
Riki Hayashi also chimed in, pointing out the (often painful) learning curve of running large events. Even in a best case scenario, we're taking steps backward to possibly take steps forward. more reasonably, we probably end up very close to where we were while having suffered painful transition periods.
Additionally, what are the criteria for potentially being a PTQ host? Where do you set the bar? Set the standards too high, and you're just marginally widening the monopoly while not actually opening up competition. Set them too low, and you see devastating results. I would even contend that these overlap, and that there is no actual amount of potential TOs you can add that both helps competition and does not expose significant risk.
Finally, I still don't see how this is a needed change. Magic is thriving, and players are still engaging in voluntary transactions. Some choose to attend, others choose not to. Many of them seem, if not satisfied, at least not dissatisfied. You seem to want to increase PTQ attendance for its own sake.
Again, reading the original post Jeff is a good thing. ALmost every single one of your posts now has been directly addressed in the first post, including this one.
I directly referenced Riki's post here:
One judge said that they’d estimate that it would take 1-3 seasons for other TOs to ‘catch up.’ That’s an empirical question that can only be known by trying it. But everything we know about economics suggests that competition is the only way to know who provides the best service. Saying that these TOs provide great service is not an answer because a competitive market would likely provide a much better service, especially for consumers. Isn’t that the whole idea behind our economic system?
I don't know what possessed me to consume any of that wall of text, but some impressions:
1) Modelling an MtG:PTQ as a single monopolized good/service like that is based on the assumption that it cannot be substituted. Otherwise we would be modelling it as "Crap related to hobby gaming I could do with my weekend." I could be playing Warhammer, I could go to FNM instead, I could play YuGiOh, whatever. Any model of a PTQ as some kind of monopoly is based entirely on there being no substitute good for the blue envelope. If you talk about altering it in ways other than the supply of blue envelopes, I don't think the monopoly model is valid anymore. If you're offering me something other than a better shot at a blue envelope for my time, you're now entering into competition with everything else I could do with my time.
2) What is the basis for more prizes = better player experience? Doesn't better player experience mean better organization, better judging, better score keeping, better clock management? Doesn't reducing the TO's cut disincentivize them to put more effort into these secondary tasks that build player experience? Basically only 7 of 200 people's 'player experience' is related to how the prize support got paid out.
3) Free markets result in collusion, not competition. Anybody who reads a history book along side their economics book knows this. If you want TOs to compete to actually server players better, both entry fee and prize support should be fixed by wizards.
4) The OP claims that it is "undeniable" that PTQ demand is elastic with regard to prize support. This is an assumption of the model, not a conclusion. With no data whatsoever, it's just an assumption.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe you meant to address this to the original poster?
So you are saying that monopolies are bad for consumers?
I don't think you are going to be getting the Nobel for this advancement in economic thinking.
Merged.
-Memnarch
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- posts designed for humor but actually have nothing to do with the substance of the thread. It's trolling for lulz. You accuse me of misdirection, but that's the puropse of these kinds of posts.
What you don't seem to get is that this entire thread is an enormous joke, and, as such, my post is right in line with its substance.
Seriously. This too.
@smennenenenene
If you're so convinced that this theortical monopoly graphy you've brought over from wikipedia (which every academic knows is a great source to use to support your argument), why can't you use your "guestimates" to calculate how mcuh you really think it would change? We all know and agree how much the TO's can bring in. You're saying its too much. Show us how that changes if we your thought of opening the doors to free competition in this market? First of all, the PT's would be bloated, as every no-name TO would be hosting ptqs to get their name out there, and they would be so common that why wouldn't every tournament just be a ptq? pretty soon there'd be 30-40man ptq's firing in every major market all the time. That's my main issue with it.
Seeing as you claim its not rocket science, and you've done lots of "internet research" to find some guestimates, lets see what you really expect the results to be by adopting your changes.
As Glen said, he's tried toying with prize support and the effect on turnout is pretty small (10%).
I think you've adequately estimated what the revenues and costs are of a PTQ, but how would that change? No need to keep repeating irrelevant data. Unless we could see what the new scenario would look like, how can we honestly make a comparison to say your system or reccomendations would make a better market. Other than reading quotes off wikipedia and other microecon101 text books about how inefficient monopolies are. let the producers have their damn surplus, and move on.
If Magic PTQ TO's found no value in awarding packs, they woudn't. Clearly, they draw players in and generate additional attendance, otherwise they wouldn't give them out.
Moreover, as I said:
Also, as I said:
Increasing prize support is another way of adding value to a player cost/benefit decision of whether to attend, just like reducing entry fee. Why is that relevant?
Even assuming the only thing that a player wants out of a PTQ is an invite, the entry fee is still part of hte consideration, otherwise slopped demand curves for PTQs would not exist and it would be perfectly inelastic. Increased prize support is just the logical similar to reducing entry fees.
We already have a model, it's called the monopoly pricing graph:
Congratulations on continuing to admit that you are just a troll. I hope the mods recognize as much.
Merged.
-Memnarch
I am going to do you a HUGE favor. Instead of posting another massive block of convoluted text, let me preempt you and give you this form to fill out:
My ultimate goal for a new system is [75 word limit].
The fundamental flaw in the current system is [75 word limit].
To correct for this flaw, my system would [150 word limit].
Then we will all know what you are talking about as you will have expressed yourself clearly and concisely. I will no longer feel like I am chasing a moving target with your every post and I will be able to control the (at times) overwhelming urge to devolve into mocking you shamelessly.
We're talking about PTQs, why would you assume a non-sequitir to the de-monopolization of the entire product? I'm referring to de-monopolizing the PTQ assignments. As it is, they are a monopoly for a region.
So, you do want Wizards of the Coast to de-monopolize the PTQ system. Please address the reasons I provided why this would not work, specifically
Finally, to address your thoughts on players, players are entering into a voluntary transaction with the PTO.
Your argument boils down to "The TOs could make less money and make more people happy!" Yes, and Sears could cut the price of lawnmowers so that more people could get a new one, but they would MAKE LESS MONEY, which is not the goal of businesses.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
I'm going to do Mr. Menendian a favor and answer this for him.
Alternative system:
Wizards determines how many slots to alot to each region and then allows each TO in the region to bid for the right to host the PTQ. The bidding metric is % of entry fees returned to the player base in the form of prize support.
This seems to satisfy Mr. Menendian's goal of maximizing prizes.
There are any number of problems with this system, but I'll give others a chance to engage with it before commenting on its flaws.
I've already stated the answer several times. The model is to create competition and let the market sort out the answers. Let the market -- through competition -- determine what the proper pricing, prize support, etc is.
As I said: I acknowledge that my point that the current system is unfair was subjective, as I said in the first post:
But, I will oblige your form:
My ultimate goal for a new system is to create competition between PTQ TOs. [more fully elaborated in the first post]
The fundamental flaw in the current system is that monopolistic pricing is bad for consumers and hurts the game in the long run. [fully elaborated in the first post]
To correct for this flaw, my system would create competition among PTQ TOs to allow the market to determine who performs best. As I said:
The free market solution? Yeah, that'll work until a TO in Podunk, Wherever bids for all the slots promising absurd returns to the player, just so that TO's player base can get the invites, regardless of value to the region.
I don't think that is actually your goal. That is a means to your end. Isn't your actual goal to improve the player experience and ensure the long term health of the competitive game? Competition just for the sake of making TO's compete seems frivolous.
Also, can you propose (concisely) 2 systems that would permit TO competition without increasing the # of slots awarded? I suggested one of these on your behalf previously in this thread.
In all seriousness, this is more evidence for my argument that competitive Magic will destroy Magic.
Bidding will only be permitted by TOs with a presence in the region and the tournament must be held in the region.
You seem to not like the trolling, but you only respond to the troll.
Many of us have commented on this. There are MANY very good reasons why you can't just open up the PTQ circuit to a free market. And since I tend to rant, I'll bullet them here and move on.
1. We need quality control at PTQ's for the players benefit of a decent experience, as determined by a 3rd party (not the market).
2. The free market's ability to flush out poor TO's will be too slow, and cause too much damage in the mean time.
3. WotC would be out of their mind to let any TO give away PT Invites. Imagine if I was a TO, I could simply not market my event, tell my 32 friends about it, and continue to hold a tournament every week until all 32 friends qualify. This is extreme, but you see the point. Even more extreme would be to simply falsify event results, and give away (or even sell) invites.
4. The larger markets would be the places that ended up having way more To's and PTQ's under a free market under competition, because there is proportionally more demand there. THis would actually reduce the size of PTQ's in that area making qualifying much simpler, and quickly bloat the PT.
@torerotutor
Sure. The PNW has typically 5 invites (2 in Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, and Boise). Let's say the Boise TO makes the winning bid to get all five slots. How is the region served well then?
I proposed a solution that I believe addresses all of these concerns and also results in competition among TOs.
I think you are getting stuck in the weeds here. Wizards can specify the cities that will host the tournaments.
The actual method of apportioning the slots is not germane to the idea as a whole, which forces TOs to competitively bid against each other and increases player prize payout.
rather then debate your increasingly baseless conclusions and ideas i'm forced to simply acknowledge that your wrong and move on to the next ranting lunatic. anyone out there want to try and condemn the Elo rating system?
These obstacles are hardly insurmountable, and ther are numerous examples of how they've been dealt with in other contexts.
Firt of all, it's not true that there is only one PTQ per city or region per season. For example, there are two PTQ Paris in Columbus, one in November and another in December. Award them to different TOs!
But even in cities where there is only one PTQ per season, there are many ways to foster competition PTQ TOs For example, award PTQs to different TOs in different seasons to see who performs better among players. Another more important way to do this is to break up the regional monopoly, and give PTQs within a larger region to differnt TOs. For example, instead of giving all of hte PTQs in Ohio to one TO, give the Cincinnatti PTQ to one TO, the Columbus PTQ to another, and the Cleveland one to another, and see who performs better.
Did you not see the part of my original post where I pointed this out? That's part of my argument, that TOs are actually profit maximzing. See the monopoly pricing graph.
On the first page I said:
I disagree. I think your solution was obviously actually A solution, and its much appreciated. I'm on your side as far as steve's blathering, and no personal attack intended at your whack at proposing an acutal option. I think that proposes other problems. This is the same problem we have in Legislature, that every proposed bill will also have enough problems, that it won't get enough votes to change it.
Regarding your proposal:
It has some good ideas, some I had considered, others I hadn't. I personally have no issue with the current system.
I think bidding is a problem. I've got some experience with decision analysis and game theory models, and typically bidding wars don't put the highest quality product at the top. In my opinion (and yes, its just an opinion) Quality Control has to be the first and foremost priority for WotC to select TO's for high level events of all types. I agree with your thought of selecting the number of slots given to each region, and then potentially splitting those out to a variety of TO's, but having them bid for the spots seems bad. I guess if your main priority is to get prize support back to the players, then I guess its fine. I dont think to most of us (non-pro's) that is of a HUGE concern. To put it bluntly, I'd rather be at a smooth well-run PTQ and get 0 packs for finishing 17th, than be at a crappy one, that ran 2-3hours longer than neccessary, with various issues like repairings to make that 17th place finisher end up with a few packs.
An alternate solution (which i probably don't prefer to status quo either):
Have WotC have a metric of QC that they measure each TO on a series of values, Prize support, smoothness of event (maybe total time of event divided by number of rounds etc), #of judges/player, and maybe even a survey scored by the players. Create some sort of index, and distribute PTQ's within each region accordingly. I see this as an adaptation of your idea that would balance many peoples priorities.
This is why we think you have no understanding of (at least applied) economics. These are not competing events. Two PTQs in different months will not force people to choose one over the other. All of the people who you say go for the prize despite getting screwed will just go to both.
Competition can only take place at two levels - either Wizards forces competition in their method of awarding PTQs (relevant to your second paragraph) or Wizards forces competing events by making them concurrent and each equally accessible (in response to your first paragraph). If wizards simply evently distributes PTQs to multiple TOs for a given season, this doesn't actually create ANY competition. I can't understand how you don't get this.
Oh, I completely agree that the method is terrible in practice. I was attempting to find a solution that operates under Menendian's assumed value criteria; namely that we find a system that forces more prizes support for players (as a proxy for the health of the player base). If that is the only goal, then I think the system I proposed is a very elegant way to achieve it.
As I stated previously, I categorically reject his assumed goal. I don't think the goal should be to maximize prizes or even to maximize attendance as I don't think these are suitable proxies for ensuring the on going success of competitive magic.
If it fails (e.g., a good TO gets undercut by a terrible one, which then causes a significant setback in Competitive Magic in that area) Wizards of the Coast is significantly impacted. I see there being far more risk than reward to this system.
Riki Hayashi also chimed in, pointing out the (often painful) learning curve of running large events. Even in a best case scenario, we're taking steps backward to possibly take steps forward. more reasonably, we probably end up very close to where we were while having suffered painful transition periods.
Additionally, what are the criteria for potentially being a PTQ host? Where do you set the bar? Set the standards too high, and you're just marginally widening the monopoly while not actually opening up competition. Set them too low, and you see devastating results. I would even contend that these overlap, and that there is no actual amount of potential TOs you can add that both helps competition and does not expose significant risk.
Finally, I still don't see how this is a needed change. Magic is thriving, and players are still engaging in voluntary transactions. Some choose to attend, others choose not to. Many of them seem, if not satisfied, at least not dissatisfied. You seem to want to increase PTQ attendance for its own sake.
You should read them.
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen"
Gotcha. I'll agree your solution does that. And it's truly sad that it took 2 days, 2 forums and a tweetfight to get someone to come up with one, and even more sad that that person wasn't Menendian himself.
You can drop the ad hominems.
While the events don't directly compete (althoguh they do in some extent given the fact that people have limited wallets and time), that doesn't mean that the TOs aren't competing against each other for Wizards to award them PTQs. The TOs that over time provides the best service, prize support, value, etc would prove it by attendance, etc.
Players have a finite amount of resources and ability to travel. For example, you are a PTQer in Cinncinnatti, you may only be able to attend one of those events in Columbus, given your budget. In that regard, these events DO directly compete. They are, in that case, and similar cases, fungible, and the player has to choose one or the other.
Competition isn't a binary: it's actually a matter of degree. For example, a PTQ in Columbus and a PTQ in Philadelphia are probably not in competition for most players, but they may be for a few. They may be mildly competing against each other.
Even so, events are different days can still be competing against each other for the limited amount of resources that players can put towards their PTQ budget, and which event they'll go to will definitely be affected by things like cost of entry, prize support, amenities, and the like.
Which would be a step in the right direction.
I don't understand how you can't recognize that PTQ TOs are competing against eaach otehr for the support of PTQers (and their budget) in that system, even though events are on different days, and competing against each other for Wizards to continue to award them events, as opposed to other PTQ TOs in the region. For example, Wizards could set up a system where it awards the two Columbus PTQs to different TOs, and then the worst performing of the two loses one of the next PTQs, which goes to a third TO, and so on.
Again, reading the original post Jeff is a good thing. ALmost every single one of your posts now has been directly addressed in the first post, including this one.
I directly referenced Riki's post here:
1) Modelling an MtG:PTQ as a single monopolized good/service like that is based on the assumption that it cannot be substituted. Otherwise we would be modelling it as "Crap related to hobby gaming I could do with my weekend." I could be playing Warhammer, I could go to FNM instead, I could play YuGiOh, whatever. Any model of a PTQ as some kind of monopoly is based entirely on there being no substitute good for the blue envelope. If you talk about altering it in ways other than the supply of blue envelopes, I don't think the monopoly model is valid anymore. If you're offering me something other than a better shot at a blue envelope for my time, you're now entering into competition with everything else I could do with my time.
2) What is the basis for more prizes = better player experience? Doesn't better player experience mean better organization, better judging, better score keeping, better clock management? Doesn't reducing the TO's cut disincentivize them to put more effort into these secondary tasks that build player experience? Basically only 7 of 200 people's 'player experience' is related to how the prize support got paid out.
3) Free markets result in collusion, not competition. Anybody who reads a history book along side their economics book knows this. If you want TOs to compete to actually server players better, both entry fee and prize support should be fixed by wizards.
4) The OP claims that it is "undeniable" that PTQ demand is elastic with regard to prize support. This is an assumption of the model, not a conclusion. With no data whatsoever, it's just an assumption.