Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Reed
Back to the main topic. One thing I have noticed about the people who don't have a problem with this system keep coming up with different ways to say 'get over it and play the game'. My main problem with this idea is that you may learn to play the game in qualifications by manipulation of the scoring rules to your ranking advantage, but this system still hides the beneficial attributes necessary to play in the new scoring system that comes with the elimination rounds.
|
I guess I don't have a problem with the system because I felt like it worked at Kettering. No one made it into the top that made me think "Wow, how did they get there?" and I don't think I ever saw a 6v0 match(I might be wrong, which someone can correct me if I am). Everyone just played to win, and it worked out well.
The problem with it is primarily that it can be exploited to make for some weird situations, and every once in awhile a normally played match also ends up weird. It's not the best way to do seeding, not by a long shot, but I don't think it is a terrible system. On the plus side, it takes into account the power of your opponents, on the negative side in certain extreme situations it falls apart.
Quote:
|
There has to be a better way of weighting your wins to make a more accurate seeding list. What if you take the same system as before, where you get two points for a win, one for a tie and zero for a loss and multiply this number by your strength of schedule. Just like the NFL your strength of schedule will be determined by your opponents W-L record, averaged out of course over each three team alliance you face in each match.
|
Something like that would work better. Another idea I've had and have seen others suggest was the winner receiving the total score for the game and the loser receiving their own score plus .25x the winner's score, or something to that effect.