Official Rule Suggestion Page

[Sammy B. T.]

You win, you get a point, if the other team had a lot more points than you, you get extra points.

[Captain Smollett]

I believe Keyvias stated they're removing that system.  If I understood correctly you get 1 point per week for participating, 1 point per match win and 1 bonus point per match win if you beat a team with more points.

This means you can earn 4 victory points, 1 participation point and up to 4 underdog points per week. 

[Keyvias]

Smollett has the point system correct.

@Zill
Skirmishes don't need refs.
We just wanted to build some community guidelines into the standard tournament rules.
Any organizer can override them based on their preferences.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Alright that's nice to know.

I'm still wanting to hear what the point of participation points are. It just forces me to do one match a week, and can just throw together whoever in order to get it, since it's win/lose. If I don't have the want or ability to play one week, I have enough to worry about points wise without adding in freebie points as well.

[Sammy B. T.]

At the end of the day, this system is going to reward teams that play a lot of matches. These points will largely reflect that. Theoretically if the Knights Sky Warriors completely shut out the points but every time the played the Anglean Sky Pirates they lost, people would know the ASP was the elite team.

[RearAdmiralZill]

You're going to get rewarded for playing anyway by having the chance to earn points. You don't need freebies to make everyone feel special or "elite." This is all to get into a final tourney, not determine at the end of the season who wins, else the point of the tourney is moot.

You get team x who can play only every other week, team y who can just throw crap together every week and takes the seed for the final. They lose and deny a potentially better team a chance because they could be there more. No thanks.

[Sammy B. T.]

Its maximum one point per week

[Urz]

"Those who cannot remember the past..."

With points given for participation and winning, but not removed for losing, it does seem that a team who enters everything and challenges everyone they can, but only win some of the time, could get more points than another team who only play occasionally but usually win.

Seems like it's possible that a team which plays often with middling results can easily pull ahead of teams that don't play as often but soundly defeat their opponents. It seems to reward participation a little more than skill. I'm not sure I'm okay with that.

Why is there this emphasis on participation for participation's sake? Paddling, Brood and a few other teams are taking the sky tournament off, but are coming back for the next season of the Cogs. This is fine. They're setting their own pace to avoid burnout. This doesn't mean they're lesser teams because of it and deserve to be treated as such by some omnipresent rankings system. I understand that organizers want to encourage more competitive play, but penalizing teams for setting a schedule that works best for them might discourage teams rather than encourage them. It actually sets a higher barrier for entry rather than a lower one, because it strongly favours teams with large player pools and/or ones willing to devote very large amounts of time to GoI.

Blech, sounds more like 'Intramural eSports' than a true competitive scene. Does everybody get a little trophy for participating? =]

Some hopefully useful perspective. Six months later people still arguing about flaws that existed in the original CeSports version of the system.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Its maximum one point per week

So in a four week span, team x makes 2 points, and team y makes 4, not including matches. It's a lousy way to lose a seed spot if it came to that.

[Captain Smollett]

Its maximum one point per week

So in a four week span, team x makes 2 points, and team y makes 4, not including matches. It's a lousy way to lose a seed spot if it came to that.

In this example a team wins one match in a month and another clan plays every week that month but unfortunately doesn't secure a win. Are you saying a 1 win team deserves the seed more than a very active team that contributes to the competitive scene every week?

[RearAdmiralZill]

If we want the seeding to be symbotic of skill over who can throw 8 randoms into a team each week, yes.

You also give a fairly large extreme to try to make that point.

[Captain Smollett]

I used your example.  But generally speaking, if all teams compete fairly regularly that 1 point for week shouldn't make a difference.

[RearAdmiralZill]

Then why bother adding it to give it the chance to make a difference where it shouldn't?

[Captain Smollett]

For teams that actively participate by scrimming and competing.

[RearAdmiralZill]

We really aren't to agree on this, so at this point I just hope it doesn't stay for the reasons I've given. We don't need freebie points to force people's participation and potentially alter seeding in a tournament that should consist of the teams who fought to be there, not the ones who showed up more often because they could.