A more equitable prize structure#282

What’s the reasoning behind the massive winner and runner up prizes? If working with budget constraints, would it have been better to create a more equitable prize structure, with larger winning bonuses across the board as opposed to the bulk sum of prizes landing on the top two bots in each class?

That doesn’t make sense, prizes are a reflection of the achievement in performing well enough in a competition to win or come extremely close. If we give out participation trophies to every bot who attends, winning means nothing. Let the best bots get the prizes - those that win - as a recognition of their effort and hard work. If someone has a bot that doesn’t win competitions and thus doesn’t get prizes, they should use that as a reason to improve and continue interating, rather than asking for small rewards for everybody because of the lack of success of their own robot.

The prize structure is intentional and it reflects what this stage of Pro is meant to be. The Open is where you rise through the ranks and build the competitive foundation to get here. The Pro Tour is a different tier entirely. It’s where the ceiling gets established, not the floor.
We are firm believers in lowering the floor as a means of growing a healthy sport, and we invest in that heavily at the Open level. The way we fund our business is deliberately structured so it allows builders to invest as much as possible into their robots. We don’t charge entry fees or membership fees. We staff and maintain a large workshop for builders to access. We provide free meals and snacks on event weekends. We negotiate room blocks. We pay builders to work our events. We have built a social media presence that reaches more people than many major sports, creating value and interest that individual builders can take to their own sponsors. We’ve done major rounds of giving to help teams get established and get better. We work with small business owners in the builder community, hiring them as consultants or suppliers, supporting their efforts, keeping dollars in the ecosystem. That work happens at the Open level because that’s where it belongs.
The Pro Tour prize pool is top-heavy because at this tier, the money should incentivize the strongest performance. That’s how we define what Pro looks like and differentiates it from Open and Invitational formats. As the Pro tier grows and the sport evolves, the economic structure will likely evolve with it. But the aspiration behind it will remain consistent: winning at the highest level is the point.

Will the prize structure be consolidated if there are less than the expected number of bots?