[badman7772]

First of all, this tournament was very well ran and I didn't see any point where something went wrong at all. Players that were ineligible were handled accordingly and had a chance to become eligible by following whatever instructions they may have been given. Also it was quite nice to have 20 songs to pick from each round instead of everything riding on one song. Even if you were rusty and you submitted something, it seems like you'll still be getting quite a bit for the efforts.

I do have a question though before I get to my suggestion.

The AAA column in the spreadsheet. Is that for if we AAA songs or is it based on how much AAA equivalency we've obtained over the course of the tournament?

Now for my suggestion. Seems that the ones that are gonna get the most credits are gonna be the ones that got the most raw score improvements on one song. Based on my experience, there wasn't as much of an incentive to fix a blackflag/low SDG on a song that's within my choice of 20 songs. I was having to choose which songs had the most raw score potential and go with that, hoping I could shave off a fairly great amount of raw goods to get something good submitted.

That leads to this: Next time, make it to where improvements on all songs count to get a combined total. This would incentivize players to fix their blackflags/low SDG's instead of leaving them alone because it'd only net them 25 points or something vs the 200 they could get on an 8g to AAA score.

It would lead to another suggestion that would come up. If you were to do all songs at once instead of just their best improvement, next flaw would be this. Players that have many more raw goods to shed than others, and actually shedding a lot of them. I don't see much that can be done about that on my end, but I'm sure together the community can come up with some sort of suggestion in that category like reward more credits per raw good shed or something for those who don't have as many. Example being Matthia with all of his AAA's in top 100.