Quote:
RioRodent wrote:
This how we are going to score our 2006 league...
Final Table (8 players) -
1st 10 + (No. of players / 5)
2nd 8 + (No. of players / 5)
3rd 6 + (No. of players / 5)
4th 5 + (No. of players / 5)
5th 4 + (No. of players / 5)
6th 3 + (No. of players / 5)
7th 2 + (No. of players / 5)
8th 1 + (No. of players / 5)
every other player 2 pts
This would mean that the winner of a 20 player tourney would get 14 points, whereas the winner of a 40 player tourney would get 18 points. |
I will be using some variation of the above point system because it addresses many of my concerns regarding league point systems.
I truly dislike the reverse point system because it allows lower finishes in games with bigger turnouts to have as many or more points as 1st place in games with not as many players. For example, In season 1 I had a tourney with 14 players and a tourney with 10 players and using the reverse point system, 5th place in the 14 player game got the same points as 1st place in the 10 player game. Although I think that a player should be rewarded for getting through more players, I think the example I used shows how the reverse point system can devalue 1st place.
For me a point system should include a calculation where how many players in a particular tournament are factored in BUT not to the extent where lower finishing positions are easily being awarded more points than 1st place in other tournaments. I think the system quoted above (or some variation of it) addresses my concerns with this issue properly. I do understand that many use the reverse point system and it works great for them, but I'm pleased to being on the road to developing the type of point system that I've been in search of.
I am more comfortable with the inequity of the top spot not being awarded "enough" points for going through more players than I am with the inequity of lower finishing positions from larger tourneys being awarded more points than the top spot in other tournaments. I'm sure the variance isn't as bad using a logarithm, but the reverse point system can have an unfair variance (IMO) for tourneys with different entrant numbers.
I also considered that I do not want a huge variance of "available points" from one game to another because if a player is absent from a game that had a bigger turnout than usual, they are unfairly (IMO) penalized as they will not get the opportunity to ever earn that many points in any other tourney. Using the reverse point system, a player could earn 12 points for finishing 1st in a 12 player tourney...but if you miss that game and all the other games end up with turnouts of 7,8 and 9 players...that player missing the 12 player game would never have the opportunity to earn that many points in another game. And since absences can not always be predicted (and are random), I want a system that doesn't place too much weight on turnout as I don't want the swing of a "big tournament" in my point calculation...especially for any player that may not have been able to make that big tournament.
Lastly, I want a system that every player can take the provided league point figures and easily work backwards and understand where each number comes from. I don't want to just give out a number from a logarithm that people would have to just trust is right...I want to empower my players (LOL) so that they understand every factor that goes into calculating their points.
My 18 cents.
Linear Mode
