Hello Everyone, With season 2, we have a new point system and here is how it works. Everyone starts simply with 500 points. For each regulation win, you get 3% of your opponents points, +2 for a win. For a loss, you lose 3% of your points are. For an OTW/OTL, its simply 2%, and +1 for an OTW, and +1 for an OTL. So for example if we look at this image Team SWE has 485 points and is facing a team with 517. If they win in regulation they would get 18 points (517*0.03)+2 = 17.51 (we always round to an integer), so thats 18 points. For an OTW they would get (517*0.02)+1 = 12. Based on these numbers the raiders would lose (-517*0.03)=15.51(rounded to -16), and for an OTL they would get (-517*0.02)+1= -9 pts. So the higher or lower your points, the less the prize. Also every regulation win is +2, every OTG is +1. If you have any questions, ask away.
This looks similar to a system EA used before. My concerns are with a very low minimum "25 games" which having to be played compared to max. A team could easily strike early and sit on the points and wait for the next round. Example, when monthly leader boards came out, teams could play 24 hrs a day loading up with points, then coast for a top 10 finish. Here in the Pro series. A team could get their 25 games in the first week maximizing their points, then after the pack separates sprinkle in a few lower ranked team games and coast to the playoffs. The system should be created to factor in games played at some point. I know some of the top teams will go balls to the walls, taking on anyone like it should be. But there is always those who will win at all cost and manipulate the system to get there. Although I'm not sure where to go with it. I do believe the min. games is too low for the amount of teams in it (I guess something that needs to be looked at next time) I feel it should be 2x the teams in. In this case, 22x2=44 game min. I'd love to have it mandatory to play each team a min of 2 games, but I doubt enough people feel that's fair and is a different subject to the ranking system. ...Just some food for thought from past experience of a similar system that might get that cpu in your head thinking.
I thought there was talk of having some type of point value penalty for playing the same team(s) multiple times over playing many teams.
Thats part of the reason theres a bonus for wins/OTLs to increase the pool of points up for grab as the tournament goes on. Doesnt completely prevent what you're talking about as if a team thats considered average starts 16-9 or something they could just shutdown until the playoffs and probably qualify. They would also probably lose in round 1 if they stop playing competitively for a long time.
I didn't say they stopped playing competitively, just stopped playing tounry games. Is there a rule that if teams match up it counts or does it have to be organized match ups/ challenges? Sorry if its posted and I read over it.
If people want to sit on their lead however many games in to be ranked higher all the power to them, at the end of the day they will eventually have to play some good teams to win the tourney. It would be more gratifying to know you beat a bunch of try hards. I'm not really in it for the money, 50 bucks is whatever. I want to play for the sake of playing competitive fun games with something on the line. I don't care about winning, I care about everyone else losing.
