[QuantaCondor]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I disagree. Why should someone who most likely spent a lot of $$ have a far better reward output than one whop did not (and who has no chance of winning that particular tournament)? Tournament rewards should solely be based on length of tournament (which equals the chance of winning).

But then again, this is just my personal opinion. We will debate this internally

I guess the core question is "If the rewards are the same, why should I bother with higher rarity tournaments since the investment to be competitive grows very quickly with rarity?" If you can come up with an answer to that question as a designer, then I am fully satisfied.

As a disclaimer, I of course love the shots at Ozzie in silver tournaments; I'm a fully FTP player with absolutely no chance at open, diamond, or even likely salary cap tourneys (or maybe even gold ones) if enough whales mobilize. But silver (and bronze)? I know that format and I have a puncher's chance at even some of the larger rewards. I like that accessibility. I just want to make sure that the higher rarity tournaments have some sort of purpose, since meaningless amounts of PP aren't going to cut it for teams worth 200-300k+ that are entering gold tournaments, for example.