[jojobinks]

Hey folks. Here's how leaderboard points are given out each week.

=ROUND(10*SQRT(Total # of Players)/SQRT(Finishing Position),2)-5

[CaptLego]

Proposed change to the points system for tournies at the start of the second quarter:

1st place - 50 points
2nd place - 40 points
3rd place - 35 points
4th place - 30 points
5th place - 25 points
6-9th place - 20 points
top half - 10 points
entry - 5 points


As I understand it, we decided to go ahead with this, correct?

If so, I'll update the spreadsheet for this new scoring system, and apply it retroactively to Q1 for qualifying for the ToC.

[VARoadstter]

Originally Posted by CaptLego

Proposed change to the points system for tournies at the start of the second quarter:

1st place - 50 points
2nd place - 40 points
3rd place - 35 points
4th place - 30 points
5th place - 25 points
6-9th place - 20 points
top half - 10 points
entry - 5 points


As I understand it, we decided to go ahead with this, correct?

If so, I'll update the spreadsheet for this new scoring system, and apply it retroactively to Q1 for qualifying for the ToC.

Ooh. Retroactively? I'm not sure about that. I consider last quarter's results a done deal. If it makes the average points for the first quarter a touch lower than they would otherwise be (if you were to apply it) then that's ok. It makes Q1 have a little less impact on qualifying for the ToC which would be good in this special case since we're still getting people on board with the tournaments. That being said, if you did apply it retroactively I wouldn't mind personally.

I was the one who proposed the small change to the point system and as far as I know everyone is good with it. It had to be limited so as to not completely mess up the point system we had already agreed to.

[jojobinks]

retroactively or not seems about the same to me.

[CaptLego]

I've got an updated spreadsheet ready to go with the revised point schedule.

I did the retroactive calculations, just to test out the new formula.

It will make some difference, since:
a) There's 20 more points up for grabs each week
b) Those 20 points go to 3rd, 4th, and 5th place finishes. So retroactively, the people with the most finishes in those positions gain the most. (I'm not posting the results of the retroactive calculation, as I think this should be decided on principle, not specific results.) I can say that the top 9 were still the top 9.

In terms of participation, here's the headcount for Q1:

Week: #players
1: 25
2: 30
3: 22
4: 24
5: 26
6: 26
7: 29
8: 18
9: 25
10: 24
11: 26
12: 29
13: 32

Of course, I don't know how many players we'll have for Q2 and Q3, but I don't see a strong trend either upward or downward for Q1.

I'd think that if we're happy with that point structure for this # of players, we might as well apply it to Q1. But I have no compelling argument either way. Whatever the group decides is fine with me.

[SpaceMonkey]

I was assuming we were not going to apply this retroactively. But I don't really care either way. As the first qToC already happened, I don't see any harm in making the new points retroactive.

Somewhere in all these threads, I posted a suggestion that at least starting next year, if not next quarter, we may want to make it 12 events per quarter (and thus count the top 7 finishes).

I say this because Thanksgiving is obviously on a Thursday so turn out would probably be very low. Or at least should be very low. That would give us more flexibilty with qToC scheduling as well. I'm not 100% sold on my own idea here, just throwing it out there.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I was assuming we were not going to apply this retroactively. But I don't really care either way. As the first qToC already happened, I don't see any harm in making the new points retroactive.

Somewhere in all these threads, I posted a suggestion that at least starting next year, if not next quarter, we may want to make it 12 events per quarter (and thus count the top 7 finishes).

I say this because Thanksgiving is obviously on a Thursday so turn out would probably be very low. Or at least should be very low. That would give us more flexibilty with qToC scheduling as well. I'm not 100% sold on my own idea here, just throwing it out there.

since no one wants to make an argument against it, i suggest we apply it retroactively.

as for space's idea about 12 week quarters, i think it's a good idea; thing'll come up, i assume, besides thanksgiving.

also, quarter 4'll have to be short... right?

[ky70]

Can't seem to find the criteria for qualifying for the TOC. I think it would be a good idea to have the criteria made a sticky or added to this thread in one post along with the final ledaerboard scoring system.

Thanks

[CaptLego]

Originally Posted by ky70

Can't seem to find the criteria for qualifying for the TOC. I think it would be a good idea to have the criteria made a sticky or added to this thread in one post along with the final ledaerboard scoring system.

Thanks

Each quarter (13 weeks), we take the best 8 weekly scores for each person and total them up (these are the "QToC" points). The 9 players with the highest totals qualify for the Quarterly Tournament of Champions (QToC).

The top three finishers in each QToC are automatically qualified for the final, year-end Tournament of Champions (ToC). The remaining seats for the ToC (up to a total of 18 seats) will be filled with the players having the highest QToC totals (total QToC points for the year).

[ky70]

Thanks...best 8 out of 13 should work most people who can't make it every week