An alternative to receiving/losing points with each game could be using league performance rating rather than having seasonal standings to decide on playoff standings.
It's a system currently used during chess tournaments as well (called tournament performance rating there for obvious reasons), though it has no effect on actual standings right now (there are other tie-break rules in play in chess that can be applied because there's a fixed number of games) and there are several ways to calculate league performance rating.
What league performance rating means, well, it's just what it says! You take a look at your performance; how many points did you score and how strong was your average opponent. If I were to score 50% of my games (30 wins in 60 games) against 60 people whose average rating was 1200, then my league performance rating is 1200. In other words: The score I got would theoretically be reached by someone with a rating of 1200.
There are various ways to calculate league performance rating, but perhaps it's easier to show
this link for an example. The first table shows a row of percentages next to a row of rating differences.
Let's take season 19 to practice with
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/classic-stats/?s=19Random for example has scored a percentage of about 81%. The rating difference associated with that is +251. Let's say the average rating of his opponents was 1600. This means his league performance rating is 1600 + 251 = 1851. Let's say angus' opponents averaged a rating of 1500. Angus scored 82%, which corresponds with + 262, which makes his league performance rating 1500 + 262 = 1762.
The system therefore makes use of both the score you achieved as well as the average strength of your opponent. I'm not saying this particular calculation should be used, but it's the idea that counts
If this were to be used instead of now, there would be a few advantages (at least in my opinion, though of course some people may disagree
in comparison to previous and current systems.
- Your actual rating plays no role for new seasons. HHC's system already helped in this respect, of course.
- Activity is not enough to qualify. Naturally, you'll need a minimum amount of games played to be eligible for playoffs, but it's the results that count. It doesn't matter whether you win 80% of games against 1500 average opponent with 100 games won or 1000 games won; your league performance rating will be the same. The current system allows you to gather points simply by being active, while league performance rating doesn't have this. But on the other hand, this also means that there is no need to have a maximum amount of games per season
- Each game counts equally. Right now, if you win a game against Random (or lose against me , the result matters most when it happens near the end of the season and if an important result is right at the start of the season, the effect of that game is completely lost at the end of the season.
- Noob bashing could be a thing of the past. This is where the calculation for league performance rating would have to be tweaked I picked the average rating of the opponents for the examples of Random and angus for a reason (I didn't check whether their actual opponents); if you play only weaker opponents, you're making your maximum attainable league performance rating lower. Of course, it's still not a problem to play a new player once in a while since only 2 games will play a relatively small role within 100 games for example.
Just a thought
Forums
Author
Topic: overall points (Read 2933 times)