I think it is a good idea. This 500 table is without domination factor i assume. Tho i think alot of people like the dom factor in it. it can be implemented but thus the win points will draise and the lose points will drop. One thing i think about if u drop the points from 7th position alot of ppl can complan about the huge losses they will have for 7th then? And u know, everyone can have a very bad start huh :)

Yeah, I agree that domination points for higher tables must still be in game. So when you add them the points will increase both possitive and negative (but the sum will remain 0 again). As you see I don't want the difference between lower places to be very wide. It really depends much on luck if you are 7th instead of let's say 5th

No. How is this a good idea? You will scare away beginners and players that are just not that good at the game.

You know why there is such a thing as a participation award in a lot of childhood sports? It's to ensure players come back again and again even if they don't win. If you are going to put people in a position where perfectly average play will net you zero points, it's going to be very detrimental to motivation.

Slowly adding points to the total over the course of a competition is the overall acceptable way of achieving both a clear scoreboard and a sense of accomplishment for people not doing so hot. Otherwise you'd end up with all the member points distributed across a few top players, supplemented with a very small amount of points won on the 0 tables that gets carried over to higher tables.

Unless your entire point is to increase the value of point inflation in fact coming from the tournaments. Tackling the problems with the tournament payout system seems more prudent. As far as I can tell payouts are the entry fees + 7,500 points, which results in a daily net gain of 7/8 times the 7,500 points. And let us be honest most of those points end up with a few very active players. Even though I guess at the end of the month the smaller capped tournaments might be won by newcomers, but unless they stop playing immediately after they receive their newly amassed fortune, it will be siphoned over to the top 10/100.

In short, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I'd rather see everyone with more points than by artificially lowering everyone’s score which would result in unmotivated beginners and average players. Because let's be honest for the top players to end up at the higher tables time and time again, there have to be players that lose more than they win. If that'd happen to me I'd quit in a heartbeat, no-one wants to be stuck at the horrible 0 tables.

Helena wins this thread

I am aware that too many points inflate game from tournamets too. I think tournament must be 0 sum also. Only buy-in points collected from the players must be distrubuted to the winners, with no "bonus" points.
But do not forget that points will inflate game anyway at 0 tables. Because one player simply can not go under 0 you do not have worry that all the players will remain at 0. So qualifying for 500 tables will not be really that hard as it may seen. Anyway everyone will be at the same situation. And this will increase the value of points.
I don't agree that participation must be awarded with inflated points. I want to see most skilled players taking top100 not those who grab points from tournaments and are playing all-the-day long

I don't think you get my point. While this game is incredibly fun, losing isn't all that. By making it harder for beginning and average players to accrue points and gain standing, you will scare them away from the game. As it is, kdice isn't really that popular.

What you want is some way to rank people by their skill rather than their accumulated points. That is a fair point, and more people seem to share that point of view. It's been quite a while for me since they made me study Pearsons and Chi ‘squares, but there is a topic active right now that has a leader board according to skill. Well not exactly but it compares the amount of 1st/2nd etcetera places a player gets compared to an average player. If you are a better player one assumes you'd score more 1st-3rd places, which increases the total cumulative score.

So rather than removing or altering the point system, how about adding a secondary leader board with a rating of some kind (skrumgaer's TAZD list would be an example). Which isn't influenced so much by playing more games, given you pass a certain threshold.

Still I remain on my point of view. It will just put someone on the same situation, so you will not need 12k to get in top100 but you will need maybe 4k. Of course the number games you have to play will not be 3 times less, but maybe 2 times

"But getting a trophy doesn't have to mean that you are obligated to play huge amount of games each month to get it. Unfortunately, this is the thing that happens now - because so many points are inflated in the game, amount of points each player gets depends more on number of games he plays, rather than on his skill. Does winning a trophy has to be so time consuming? "
fun fact: the average number of games among the top 100 is trending downward, as is the necessary number of points to earn a trophy. point inflation isn't a problem.

This is because they earn points playing mainly in tournaments. Look at the top100 list. There are many people with low PPG, they are some even with negative PPG. When I say point inflation I also refer to inflation from tournaments

The number of points necessary to earn a trophy (including tournament points) is trending DOWNWARD not upward. Why would you be "obligated" to play more games to get fewer points than ever to get a trophy? You're not. Even without table points, the average number of tournament points among the top 100 is fairly constant over the last 3 years.
If average number of games AND minimum points needed for a trophy are both trending downward, point inflation is NOT the issue.