Forum

Wouldn’t this mean you would need a point scoring system to make sure ties were solved, like goals in football?

ties would only matter in the case of people winning their divisions, in which case tiebreakers would be the best.

u cant draw on via

Heavy fist fight instead?

1 point per map win
1/2 point in a tie (no GC)
Average is determined by how many points in total the teams you’ve played against has.

example:

Team A and Team B has the same points

Team A has played against Team X, Team Y and Team Z
Team X has 5
Team Y has 5,5
Team Z has 6,5 at the end of the season

Team B has played against Team C, Team D and Team E

Team C has 4
Team D has 4,5
Team E has 2,5

Since Team A has played against teams that had higher points at the end of the season, they have 17 average points

Team B has 13 average points

Team A is higher on the table because of higher average.

Maybe this as a point system can work in future seasons?

Quoted from Max

…

Maybe this as a point system can work in future seasons?

Determining who’s higher on the table at the end of the season is not an issue,we can do that with the current point system we have using tiebrakers/head-to-head/round difference/sonneborn-berger-score

The matter at hand is to generate as accurate and balanced matchups as possible for the teams as early as the very start of the next week.

To do that effectively we need a clear winner at the end of the previous week.

Tied matches resulting in equal points for both teams won't cut it.

Someone HAS to win,whether it's a 3-0 map win or a 2-1 GC win.

Quoted from fraac

But if Team A and Team B draw, does it matter which of them is scheduled to play Team C? Surely a draw says they’re interchangeable.

I guess this is assuming that we make use of a point system that is able to divide points for draws equally between the teams,like the 0,5 point system that porter suggested?

Let’s say you start from week 1:
In a balanced environment teams who tied their week 1 match will only face equally skilled opponents for the next week if they’re placed against teams who’ve also tied their week 1 match.

So if a draw occured in a week and we want to make balanced fixtures for the next week we’d need at least 4 teams drawing their matches in that previous week.
Same goes for any week after that.
If it’s more than 4 than it’d have to be in numbers dividable by 4 e.g. 4,8,12,16 etc. so that there’s enough tied teams to place against each other for balanced matchups.

If that’s not the case and since there’s only so many drawing teams to place against each other you’d have to create fixtures that are unfair for one of the teams (e.g. a team who tied their week 1 match would end up getting placed against a team who won/lost their week 1 match in their week 2 match,resulting in an uneven seed either way)

To illustrate:

Team A draws Week 1 with Team B
Team C wins Week 1 against Team D
Team E wins Week 1 against Team F
Team G wins Week 1 against Team H

So the Week 1 ending point score is:

Team A: 0,5 Team B 0,5
Team C 1 Team D 0
Team E 1 Team F 0
Team G 1 Team H 0.

Placing the bottom 4 teams is easy and results in balanced matchups,since you only have to place winners vs winners and losers vs losers (Team E vs Team G , Team F vs Team H)

However the top 4 teams will have rather random and unbalanced matchups no matter how you look at it.
Team A or Team B will face a stronger or weaker opponent for their Week 2 match (Team C or Team D).

And this isn’t just an occurence for the Week 1 or Week 2 matches,if you do the math you will figure out that for this kind of system to be balanced you’re pretty much counting on a certain number of draws every week onwards just to even out one or two tied match/es that happened in a previous week.

TL;DR:
Having a clear winner makes all of this easier by eliminating the need for hoping on certain match outcomes just to create balanced fixtures.