Need some feedback on how I track points. Without going into the formula suffice it to say the current point system basically averages performance (match wins, set wins, game wins) of all matches played regardless if its one match or ten. Therefore a player with only a few matches played but all wins will likely rank higher than a player with many matches played and a few match losses.
I have devised a new point system that awards points per match and then accumulates those points for each match played. It still awards partial points even if you lose a match by assigning partial points for game wins. The benefit of this would be that players who don't finish all their matches will not have as much an advantage if they have mostly wins. Therefore a player with less wins but more matches played might end up with a higher rank due to the points earned in the extra matches played.
We could just go to the 3 points sytem like Oak Creek but that just seems like no fun to me. What do you all think?
2 comments:
wow. I never knew it was that sophisticated! I really like the feature that there are points awarded for sets and games won, even if you don't win the match. It makes sense to reward a player for taking one set, instead of losing in straight sets, and to get something for losing a set 5-7 vs. 0-6. I like that it recognizes different performance with the same ultimate outcome, so I am glad the new system retains that.
Basically, the change in the new system penalizes someone who does not play all of their matches, by taking away a potential advantage. I think that's fair.
I agree. In fact the three pt system that OCTC uses is actually not too dissimilar in that a guy who wins two matches gets 6 pts. But a guy who plays five matches and wins one and loses four tie breaks will have 7 pts. But my system will also award the guy who loses in straight sets especially if those sets were closely contested.
Post a Comment