Giving 10 pts to 4th placei is such a terrible idea, quite frankly I don't know why you guys changed the scoring system so much, seriously, tell me what was wrong with the previous format. The previous format encouraged people to play for win more than anything, or even not to finish 4th at all since it only gave 5 points. The previous system basically weeded out all the players who clearly didn't play smart enough to make it to the play offs and eventually finals, with this new system is like grouping all the 4th, 3rd and 2nd places in one big clump.A you sure old system play for win !? oldy system play for: not die first ! not get 5 score.
Last place was always punished way too harshly.
I don't mind the point system change. I don't think it will change anything tbh, but I'm not opposed to trying something new. The only thing I really don't understand is why 1st isn't 21 points? It seems very wrong to me that two 4th place finishes = same points as 1st place. Also, if someone doesn't show to a match but informs admins they can't make it, such as in previous seasons, do they get 10 points now?
I don't mind the point system change. I don't think it will change anything tbh, but I'm not opposed to trying something new. The only thing I really don't understand is why 1st isn't 21 points? It seems very wrong to me that two 4th place finishes = same points as 1st place. Also, if someone doesn't show to a match but informs admins they can't make it, such as in previous seasons, do they get 10 points now?
So, answer to the last question is yes, they will get 10.
To answer the first one is more complicated: While it might sound weird to say, the actual point amount changes don't matter much in the long run. A player who got last twice and second twice will still be ranked below someone who got second three times and last once. In your example, two last places will equal a first but only if that first is a non-top score first. We want to reward players for activity and showing up for games thus a higher point value for last place is needed. Winning once and no-showing the next game should not be rewarded.
What matters is the difference between each point amount and the amount of bonus the players get for highest score. For this season, we wanted one high score second place to cancel out a last place finish. It you're impressive enough, four of them will essentially turn a second place finish into a (non-top score) first.
You also have to remember that 85% of all wins will actually be 22 points and not 20, since the winner usually always gets top score.
]In that case, I agree it really won't matter in the long run. Finalists will still have to win 3 matches, and semi finalists will still have to win 1-2. scores will look closer on paper, but in reality you still need basically the same results to advance to the "postseason".
And its promoting very shallow things - gameplay style and increasing spectators. You are rewarding mediocre play and giving a handicap to players who lose often, to allow them to compete. That is pretty lame, i think. You let almost anyone play in this league, but only the winners should rise to the top. I think this scoring change will water down the games and make them a little bit more basic, more predictable, less complex and yes, probably shorter and more "action packed" - but will the best players be rewarded? Will it be real strategic action or just micro wars? If losing bravely is almost as valuable as winning, players have more incentive to suicide, to take 4th, to play more recklessly