What's hot- what's not

[Des]

so when we all agree on a system that everyone likes and agrees upon, could we move onto an easier subject? World peace perhaps?

not real constructive i know.
matty

how about a "Hugs for Matty Norwood" campaign?

[Matty Norwood]

haha Des your allways there when i need you.

[Garth Kay]

Recently Pete sent me an word document outlining changes to the current system and titles we have in place. I forwarded that email to most of the senior managers in the company also voicing that a minority of players are unhappy with the current system and are voicing their opinions on the forum and we have had a great debate on here.
Here is Brayden's response to this, (Brayden is the General Manager for the NPL product):

It’s great to see the care that people have regarding the league.



Creating an equitable system is something we have debated in this office nearly every day for the past two years. And we do our absolute best to appease as many people as possible. Certainly happy to look at more equitable ways of distributing the prize pool and specifically the leader boards as always.



In the system Pete proposes he talks of % final tables made, % finishers in the points etc. This system would reward players that play at smaller venues as the chance of making the final table or into the points are much greater when the number of players is low. As it stands the points are weighted fairly depending on the number of players at an event. We thought long and hard about this but of course we are open to improvements if they can be made.

Just thought you should all know that we are open to change and improving the system if a fairer and more equitable (AND not to complicated) system can be created.

[David]

What would help is seeing the original suggestion(s) !!

[BigPete33]

Thanks for the quick reply Garth.

I did indeed talk of those %'s. They are however not what I suggested be used as the determining factor.

Actual average (same as season 1) was my suggestion for that particular section. The rest was simply for relevant comparisons on an actual leaderboard, specifically so we could all see who was playing in what size field and if they did better in large fields than others etc.

[Garth Kay]

I didn't actually mean to leave that last bit in. Sorry Pete. Did you want to put your proposal up here, or just keep it to yourself. I liked everything you wrote, even though we may have differing views on some subjects.

[BigPete33]

not overly fussed, but it is a bit lengthy.

posting it would mean I can't nag Bruce for excessive quoting anymore lol

Might attach it soonish

[David]

I just read the document - couldn't agree more. Very well thought out.

Is that reply pasted above the entire reply? If so - doesn't really do the suggestions justice.

[Garth Kay]

Creating two leaderboards means that we need to create another prize pool. We definitely want to go ahead with a 5K leaderboard as a way of rewarding multi game consistent players.
That means that 5K for the other leaderboard will be taken from the State Final prize pool.
How about we see what happens with the minimum 15 games over a ten week season first?

[David]

I agree, multi game consistency needs to be rewarded, but having an average not go down after 15 games isn't doing so.

I'm happy to see how it pans out, but I can't imagine the 10/15 numbers being much different to 12/25.

If last season was, say, 12/18 - the top 50 leaderboard wouldn't have changed much at all, apart from the order here and there.

What would result is the 7 worst scores from each player would drop off making every average higher.