Hi! To those who don't know what these are, in WCoP round one, there is a system of points that is awarded to teams/players for how they placed (not quite performed) in their pool. Here is a little sample of what some of the group points looked like last WCoP:
At the end of round one, going into quarterfinals, seeding is decided upon these points. However, I'd like to propose a system of BO1 CG OU tiebreaks instead, to make it feel less arbitrary and almost more personal between the two teams tied. Nobody can really argue against wanting a few more high level games to spectate in a team tournament like this one, so that's one mark hit with it. Secondly, one negative aspect of using group points is that your points earned is not entirely dependent on your own performance, so for example being 1-2 can get you 1 point or 2 points, 2-1 can get you 4 or 5 points, solely dependent on how other games unrelated to a player's own games go.
Seeding obviously matters a lot for playoffs, because the higher seeded team will typically have an advantage in the difficulty of who they face opponents-wise in the quarterfinals and semifinals. Deciding ties by playing an entire extra game versus these arbitrary points seems like it would make seeding more accurate to what it should be. I reckon this is not a very major change and a lot of people won't feel entirely one-sided either way, but I am curious to hear if other people agree with my stance or agree with keeping group points.
For transparency, my ideal way would be to have these games played shortly after the very last match of round one, to not delay playoffs too long, and be BO1 CG OU. I wouldn't doubt that there are other good formats to be listed as well, though.
At the end of round one, going into quarterfinals, seeding is decided upon these points. However, I'd like to propose a system of BO1 CG OU tiebreaks instead, to make it feel less arbitrary and almost more personal between the two teams tied. Nobody can really argue against wanting a few more high level games to spectate in a team tournament like this one, so that's one mark hit with it. Secondly, one negative aspect of using group points is that your points earned is not entirely dependent on your own performance, so for example being 1-2 can get you 1 point or 2 points, 2-1 can get you 4 or 5 points, solely dependent on how other games unrelated to a player's own games go.
Seeding obviously matters a lot for playoffs, because the higher seeded team will typically have an advantage in the difficulty of who they face opponents-wise in the quarterfinals and semifinals. Deciding ties by playing an entire extra game versus these arbitrary points seems like it would make seeding more accurate to what it should be. I reckon this is not a very major change and a lot of people won't feel entirely one-sided either way, but I am curious to hear if other people agree with my stance or agree with keeping group points.
For transparency, my ideal way would be to have these games played shortly after the very last match of round one, to not delay playoffs too long, and be BO1 CG OU. I wouldn't doubt that there are other good formats to be listed as well, though.
