Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)

[CombatEX]

I feel that points should be based more on game wins than on base health. The fact that winning a match can yield such a huge range of points seems off. I propose that instead of making the points for winning, drawing, and losing so broad, we should make them narrower and always make winning better than drawing.

Current System
Point ranges:
W (2-0): 3 to 11
D (1-1): -5 to 5
L (0-2): -11 to -3

Proposed System
Point Ranges:
W (2-0): 6 to 8
D (1-1): 2 to 4
L (0-2): 0

Explanation:
You get a fixed number of points for the match result:
W (2-0): 5 pts
D (1-1): 2 pts
L (0-2): 0 pts
(I based this loosely on the standard 3:1:0 w/d/l ratio)

Plus you get points based on your remaining base health:
+1pt for 3,4,5 health
+1pt for winning as P2

__________________________________________

Apart from being simpler both for you to calculate and for people to read (no negative points), this way the most important factor is just whether you win or lose more games and not some outside stat like base health (which doesn't really portray who was in control). Anything over 3 health is a good amount since it means you were relatively safe from dying in a single turn (yes, snipers and heavies would do the trick but those are much harder to get in range than a soldier or runner). If nothing else sticks from this suggestion, I'd at least make it so that 3,4,5 health is treated equally. This is especially due to the fact that often times a good player will be willing to take a few points of damage if they know it won't put them in any real danger and will allow them to make a strong move (potentially even winning them the game a few turns down the line).


__________________________________________

(09-01-2012 07:06 PM)RandyDogz Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 05:23 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:17 AM)RandyDogz Wrote:  And for full disclosure I reported my total points, not 1x1 only, cause that made a huge diff in p/w too.

Hm, but perhaps you should state your 1v1 points only? I believe that was awpertunity's intention (correct me if I'm wrong of course).

My 1x1 would have been ~450 I think (finished some game since org post) - I wasn't clear on what one to put. My though was safer to overstate rather than under so it wasn't thought I was sandbagging it....

Just rank me last for being a dumbass if that's easier lol

Ah, but over-stating actually gives you an advantage in seeding, not a disadvantage =P