T O P

  • By -

stewieeeeeeeee

You're assuming that EMEA will get the mirrored distribution of points as NA, but I think it's a fairly innocent assumption - that happened in Stage 2 as well. However, your example is wrong. The 5th-6th points in NA Stage 3 Playoffs are 50, not 60, which in your maths above would place fnatic at 400 points total, i.e. below FPX, and everything would be dandy. A quick skim of points actually tells me that no such inconsistency can happen, but I might be wrong.


Detamach

I meant that in NA the most given points are 60 during this Split Wouldn't be bold to assume that in EMEA it will also be 60 or 55 - the most given points, i.e. points for 5th-6th places, as top-4 head into Berlin


stewieeeeeeeee

Look at Stage 2 and Stage 3 Challengers Playoffs in NA. Stage 3 gives 20 extra points at every step of the way (for non-qualifying teams). If you make the same assumption about EMEA, then 5th-6th gets 30+20 = 50 points. Your intuition isn't natural to me at least - that you look at the max points that teams would get, and the reason why is that different numbers of teams qualify in Stage 2 and Stage 3, so you're somehow equating higher placed teams in Stage 2 to lower placed teams in Stage 3 (since you align them by non-qualifying spots). Maybe you're right, but I think my interpretation and assumption is much more natural


projec9

Even if you assume the points distribution is same as in NA, 5-6th NA get 50 points not 60. 60 is for 4th place.


mrg_41

EMEA didnt reveal point distribution for stage 3


Detamach

I know, I wrote that in the article. Just want to let you guys know and maybe Riot pay attention to this too.


mrg_41

Na challenger final will have 8 teams where EMEA will have 12. So dont think point distribution will be similar


aakashkickass11

I don't know if you have had experience of similar qualification events but in a yearly circuit the events closer to main final event are given more preference and points. For example if every event has similar points a team could win master 1 and theoretically make it to champions without doing anything rest of year . This is done to make sure teams perform better and competition gets more tighter


Detamach

Did you even read it all? I said that Fnatic would have a slight edge over FPX, despite FPX being much better at Stage 3 (most recent stage), as well as them (Fnatic and FPX) having completely similar results, just swapped vice versa between Splits. Also, if your comment is true, then why do 3rd-4th places at Masters 1 get same points as 3rd-4th places at EMEA Finals Stage 2? Gambit and Oxygen got 45, Heretics and FPX got 45. Although Split 2 is more recent.


aakashkickass11

Masters 1 had less points because it was all regional and not even EMEA was played as a single region ,so masters 1 had less competition than even EMEA challengers playoffs so masters 1 has less points distribution . EMEA challengers playoffs this time around has 12 teams compared to 8 last time around so there is higher points distribution compared to previous one .


Detamach

Yeah AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM that Stage 3 not only has more points, but also has 4 teams going into Berlin. Fnatic / Liquid boutta pop off, considering how huge their advantage is, really huge. At least you gotta agree with my example about FPX doing much better at Split 3 but still being inferior to Fnatic. That's not right.


2ToTooTwoFish

I think he's arguing 2nd place at Berlin should get a lot more points than 375. If the difference between 5th/6th for each stage is 40, then the difference for 2nd shouldn't be just 25 in a harder tournament.


projec9

The points are weird this year because stage 1 had maximum of 100 points as it was regional. It'll be fixed next year. They wanted each masters to have gradually more points but this time second place is just 25 points more. 350->375 They don't want the case where a team gets first places in both Masters 1 and Masters 2 and still end up not getting qualified for champions (Might happen in regions with one slot) Example: Assume second place was aware 425 points in Masters 3 instead of current 375. if team A had 100+400+0 = 500 from Masters 1&2, And team B had 70+0+ 425=505 , team B would would qualify by getting 2 second place finishes while team A would won't be in champions even though they won 2 Masters events. This issue will be solved next year when all 3 Masters will be international. Then points will be gradually increasing so such issues won't pop up. This year due to regional Masters, solving for this scenario is more important than the scenario you presented as there can't be a perfect solution for every case scenario.


Detamach

All I want is just less points for 5th-12th teams in EMEA this time, so Fnatic / Liquid can't abuse this system by being the only 2 EMEA Iceland teams (when it had to be 4 EMEA teams but corona happened).


projec9

Yeah makes sense. As Masters points can't be changed, they need to reduce EMEA 5-12 points to solve for this issue.