josko.ri wrote:hmm, it sounds very interesting and competitive but I have suggestion about how to improve point system...
"1. Total points Player will get a total number of points based on their finish in each tournament so coming in 2nd in a 16 player tournament would garner .9375 points while a 2nd in a 64 player tournament would garner a score of .9844. Additionally larger tournaments will have a multiplier as its more difficult to win a 64 player tournament than it is to win a 16 player tournament and more difficult still to win a 128 player tournament. Thus the multipliers will be as follows: For tournaments with 16-31 players have a multiplier of 1, 32-60 would have a multiplier of 2, 61 to 89 would be a multiplier of 3, 90-130 would be a multiplier of 4, 131-220 a multiplier of 5 and 221 and over would be a multiplier of 6. In other words that 2nd place finish in a 64 player tournament would then be multiplied by 3 to garner that player a score of 2.95. There will be a running scoreboard with total scores for all players."
so basically a player who plays all 52 tournaments will probably be between TOP 20 because his/her points will grow up every week. I am not fun of PGA so I dont really know how point system there is, but I am fun of tennis (ATP) and I know very good how there is point system. I suppose on PGA is similar. my point is that Roger Federer is number one player in tennis by years but he plays very low number of tournaments. it can be chacked here http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx. he has 18 tournaments while the others from top 10 have 25,26.
so, my suggestion is to make only one difference in point system: divide all players' points by number of tournaments played, and we will then get reliable ranking. to avoid that someone plays only 1 tournament and be high ranked, you may take 20 tournaments as a minimum played for getting full rank. so, points of the players who played less than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by 20, and for the players who played more than 20 tournaments can be sum and divided by number of tournaments played. I think then you will get more representative ranking, at most because of fact that tournaments will be full very quickly, so many interested players will stay without some tournaments.
Unofficial opinion: This is an excellent idea for a secondary ranking system to compare players.
I see a few problems with using this for a primary system:
1> We currently have no way to qualify players (as per PGA or WTA) to see who gets in... if we did, we'd then be violating CC Tournament rules on how much of a tournament needs to be open to how much of the playerbase.
2> This *IS* a game, not anyone's livelihood. Well, PLAYING it isn't anyone's livelihood. As such, comparing it to a sports/profession league is by analogy ONLY.
3> We want to encourage participation in as many tournaments as possible. This system encourages participation in a certain number of tournaments, but only the largest ones. (as they have a better per-tournament score multiplier)
4> Lastly, given how long many of these will run, and the number of games, I suspect 20 tournaments completed to be a significant challenge. Some people who accommodate game loads I would consider INSANE (HA, for example ) will probably not have a problem with 20. I, on the other hand, keep a LOW game load for a premium player (under 25, heck, under 20 if it can at all be arranged), and think finishing 20 TPA tournaments would probably kill me.