GotFrag Nation's Ranking Rules
The goal of the GotFrag Nation’s Ranking is to provide an accurate look at the World of competitive Counter-Strike. In order to do that the system has been model after the famous FIFA World Rankings for Football (Soccer). Some obvious changes where needed to that system to adapt to the unique challenges presented by the eSports World.
One challenge is the different types of events. Each event for a nations ranking falls under three different classifications. These classifications are dependant on the rules of the events themselves. The classifications are as follows; club based play or non-associated nations play, loose nations vs nations play with national qualifiers and strict nations vs nations play.
Other Events Calculation
The first type is defined largely by one of the staples of the Counter-Strike based play since its inception, Cyberathlete Professional League (CPL). With is concern towards the teams or clubs, the CPL has largely ignored nations vs nations conflicts with limited nationalize qualifiers throughout the World. Because of this CPL events are collected into one classification with other events of similar regard for nations vs nations play. Other events with more strict rules have also been included in this listing because of their lack of consecutive years of league play. Here’s a listing of the current events counted in GotFrag’s Nations Ranking as “Other Events”.
2001 - Speakeasy CPL USA Summer
2001 – CPL Holland
2001 – CPL London
2001 – CPL Berlin
2001 – CPL World Championship USA Winter
2002 – CPL Cologne
2002 – LAN Arena 7
2002 – CPL USA Summer
2002 – CPL Oslo
2002 – CPL USA Winter
2003 – CPL Cannes
2003 – Clikarena
2003 – Euskal CPL Qualifier (Minor)
2003 – CPL USA Summer
2003 – CPL Copenhagen
2003 – CPL USA Winter
2004 – CPL Belgrade (Minor)
2004 – CPL UK (Minor)
2004 – CPL Gamegune Spain (Minor)
2004 – CPL USA Summer
2004 – CPL Greece (Minor)
2004 – CPL USA Winter
2005 – CPL Turkey (Minor)
2005 – WEG Season 1
2005 – CPL Spain
2005 – CPL Brazil (Minor)
2005 – Samsung ECG
2005 – ACON5
2005 – WEG Season 2
2005 – CPL USA Summer (Minor)
2005 – Gamegune (Minor)
2005 – CPL UK
2006 – SHGOpen
2006 – Samsung ECG
2006 - WEG Masters
2006 - WSVG Sweden (Dreamhack)
2006 - WSVG USA (ISC)
2006 - Gamegune
The above list is subject to change and recommendations for further event additions are welcome. Qualifications for the list required five different countries in attendance with three of those countries fielding more then two teams. Some exceptions to these rules are made based on quality of competition at the event. Furthermore many events are classified as “Minor” which means they are given half the weight as a Major event. This determination as a minor or major event depends on the quality of competition at the event or number of GotFrag Official World Ranking clubs in attendance.
Points Awarded to Top 8 teams for Major Events:
1st – 100 Points
2nd – 90 Points
3rd – 80 Points
4th – 70 Points
5th – 60 Points
6th – 50 Points
7th – 40 Points
8th – 30 Points
Minor event receives exactly half as many points per placement. Only the top eight teams receive points.
An important rule in order to properly gauge the success of countries rather than the clubs themselves is that countries receive points based on the nationality of the players in the winning teams. For example; in 2004 CPL Winter finished with Team NoA as the victor. The team consisted of three Norwegian players, One Canadian and One American. In this particular situation an addition American representative was added because of the teams heavy management influence originating inside the USA.
With this breakdown, points were awarded to these three nations by dividing the overall points for their placement, 100 points for 1st place, by the number of representatives, six. In other cases without a heavy management wing, teams will only consist of the starting five members or six members who are all players.
NoA Example: 100/6 = 16.666
Norway = 3 x 16.666 = 50 points for CPL Winter 2004
USA = 2 x 16.666 = 33.333 points for CPL Winter 2004
Canada = 1 x 16.666 = 16.666 points for CPL Winter 2004
ESWC Calculation
Starting in 2003, Electronic Sports World Cup (ESWC) became the only event that adapted the style of strict nations vs nations play while still respecting the highly developed team or club based play that dominated the scene. This combination gave way to a strong platform for judging countries performance in the World CS scene.
Still even with these adaptations ESWC provided a few limiting factors. Similar to Other Events, ESWC allows players from different nationality to play on the same team and includes multiply teams from the same country. In order to create a stronger gauge then just a simple top eight placement points, the following point system was created.
Each Round (Group) Involvement – 5 Points
Each Win – 3 Points
Each Draw – 1 Point
Top 8 Placement
1st – 20 Points
2nd – 15 Points
3rd – 13 Points
4th – 11 Points
5th – 9 Points
6th – 7 Points
7th – 5 Points
8th – 3 Points
For un-played out 5th-8th rankings six points was awarded to each team.
The points where then accumulated for each team that attended the event. In a similar fashion as Other Events, points where split to create points per nationality. Once the points are collected then the number of teams from that nationality is divided by their total points.
For example in 2005 the USA sent two teams, Complexity and Team3D. Complexity accounted for 75 points with its victory while Team3D accounted for only 25. With a total of 100 points for the USA, this total was then divided in half to give the USA 50 points for ESWC 2005. Even with USA’s victory in the overall event both Germany and Denmark finished with higher overall point totals due to the better average performance of each of their two teams.
WCG Calculation
The only true nations vs nations format in the Counter-Strike scene is the World Cyber Games. Starting in 2001 and the main thread running throughout the rankings, WCG provides the baseline for the ranking. Even with some problems with attendance in its early years and recent CS:Source use, WCG provides the only place where nationality of all team members is guaranteed.
The following formulas were developed by Trevor “Midway” Schmidt and Jason Collingwood to help accurately score the success of nations at this strict nation vs nation event. Based of the FIFA style of calculation the formula takes into account many different factors to determine the success or failure of a team per match.
Per Match Scoring
Winner
10* [ 1 + (0.005 * (WR-LR) ) + (0.02 * D) + ( I ) ]
Loser
3* [ 1 + (0.005 * (LR-WR) ) - (0.02 * D) + ( I ) ]
Tie
5* [ 1 + (0.005 * (GR-SR) ) + (I) ]
5* [ 1 + (0.005 * (SR-GR) ) + (I) ]
WR = Winning Country’s Rank entering the WCG tournament.
LR = Losing Country’s Rank entering the WCG tournament.
D = Differential in rounds in final score
GR = Greater (Higher) Ranked Team
SR = Smaller (Lower) Ranked Team
I = Importance of Round
The formula takes into account both the current rank of each country and size of victory while also giving an additional factor for the importance of the round in the tournament. In cases where the country has not been previously ranked they are given the rank of the highest currently unoccupied seed. Also in situations where the tournament played a best of three maps format, the average of the rounds won and lost during all three maps is used as the round differential.
To calculate importance of round each tournament is judged based on their number of levels during that actually event. Group play as a whole is judged as one level with each of the following rounds of single elimination and or double elimination also counting as a round.
Example:
Total Number of levels is determined as five.
Group Play: 1/5
First Round of Single Elimination: 2/5
Second Round of Single Elimination: 3/5
Third Round of Single Elimination: 4/5
Finals: 5/5
In the situation where run off matches or third place games take place, the previous round is used as the importance of the round. For example the third place game would be given a 4/5 if the overall number of levels where five while the finals would remain 5/5.
The first two years of WCG, 2001 and 2002, the tournament included two Swedish teams (2001) and two Canadian teams (2002) due to their victories in the tournament the previous year. In this case similar to ESWC, the countries overall points from both teams are divided by the number of teams that took part in the event, two. During 2001, Sweden faced Sweden and in this particular case the results from that match are disregarded because of the equations weighting of pre-tournament ranking per country. NOTE: Canada never faced Canada in 2002 so no such ruling was needed.
Combination of Events
In order to properly weight each event based on their importance and rules structure for determination of national ranking, percentages of points were used. Each countries percentage of the overall category was calculated. For example in 2005 Sweden accounted for 1.21% of WCG’s total points, 3.13% of ESWC’s total points and 16.49% of the Other Events from 2005’s total points.
The overall points from each category (WCG, ESWC and Other Events) are then totaled to give total points awarded during the year. Then the following factoring is weighted against the countries percentages they received during the year to achieve their overall percentage of the total points from that year.
WCG – 40%
ESWC – 20%
Other Events – 40%
In the years prior to ESWC, 2001-2002, both WCG and Other Events received half of the total percentage. So the below shows how Sweden’s 2005 results have been calculated:
WCG – 1.21% x 40% = 0.48%
ESWC – 3.13% x 20% = 0.63%
Other Events – 16.49% x 40% = 6.60%
Overall Percentage for 2005 – 0.48% + 0.63% + 6.60% = 7.70%
Sweden then received 7.70% of the total points for the 2005 year.
Year Modification
Too properly weight each year next to the following year a modification factor was introduced. Similar to the format used in FIFA’s World Ranking, for every year introduced into the ranking an overall total of years is then divided by its timeline in the ranking. For example the below ranking shows the current situation as the start of 2006:
2001 – 1/5
2002 – 2/5
2003 – 3/5
2004 – 4/5
2005 – 5/5
Additional years will be added until the factor of seven is reached. Once seven years has been reached then the initial year will be removed and the factor will remain at seven. During the progress of the year itself the full factor of the previous year will be counted. Once WCG has concluded during that year, the previous year’s results will be then reduced to a lower factor.
Each year is then added up after its factor has been accounted for and included with the current year’s results to achieve and overall point total per nation. This point total is displayed as the countries overall value and used to rank the nations accordingly.
The goal of the GotFrag Nation’s Ranking is to provide an accurate look at the World of competitive Counter-Strike. In order to do that the system has been model after the famous FIFA World Rankings for Football (Soccer). Some obvious changes where needed to that system to adapt to the unique challenges presented by the eSports World.
One challenge is the different types of events. Each event for a nations ranking falls under three different classifications. These classifications are dependant on the rules of the events themselves. The classifications are as follows; club based play or non-associated nations play, loose nations vs nations play with national qualifiers and strict nations vs nations play.
Other Events Calculation
The first type is defined largely by one of the staples of the Counter-Strike based play since its inception, Cyberathlete Professional League (CPL). With is concern towards the teams or clubs, the CPL has largely ignored nations vs nations conflicts with limited nationalize qualifiers throughout the World. Because of this CPL events are collected into one classification with other events of similar regard for nations vs nations play. Other events with more strict rules have also been included in this listing because of their lack of consecutive years of league play. Here’s a listing of the current events counted in GotFrag’s Nations Ranking as “Other Events”.
2001 - Speakeasy CPL USA Summer
2001 – CPL Holland
2001 – CPL London
2001 – CPL Berlin
2001 – CPL World Championship USA Winter
2002 – CPL Cologne
2002 – LAN Arena 7
2002 – CPL USA Summer
2002 – CPL Oslo
2002 – CPL USA Winter
2003 – CPL Cannes
2003 – Clikarena
2003 – Euskal CPL Qualifier (Minor)
2003 – CPL USA Summer
2003 – CPL Copenhagen
2003 – CPL USA Winter
2004 – CPL Belgrade (Minor)
2004 – CPL UK (Minor)
2004 – CPL Gamegune Spain (Minor)
2004 – CPL USA Summer
2004 – CPL Greece (Minor)
2004 – CPL USA Winter
2005 – CPL Turkey (Minor)
2005 – WEG Season 1
2005 – CPL Spain
2005 – CPL Brazil (Minor)
2005 – Samsung ECG
2005 – ACON5
2005 – WEG Season 2
2005 – CPL USA Summer (Minor)
2005 – Gamegune (Minor)
2005 – CPL UK
2006 – SHGOpen
2006 – Samsung ECG
2006 - WEG Masters
2006 - WSVG Sweden (Dreamhack)
2006 - WSVG USA (ISC)
2006 - Gamegune
The above list is subject to change and recommendations for further event additions are welcome. Qualifications for the list required five different countries in attendance with three of those countries fielding more then two teams. Some exceptions to these rules are made based on quality of competition at the event. Furthermore many events are classified as “Minor” which means they are given half the weight as a Major event. This determination as a minor or major event depends on the quality of competition at the event or number of GotFrag Official World Ranking clubs in attendance.
Points Awarded to Top 8 teams for Major Events:
1st – 100 Points
2nd – 90 Points
3rd – 80 Points
4th – 70 Points
5th – 60 Points
6th – 50 Points
7th – 40 Points
8th – 30 Points
Minor event receives exactly half as many points per placement. Only the top eight teams receive points.
An important rule in order to properly gauge the success of countries rather than the clubs themselves is that countries receive points based on the nationality of the players in the winning teams. For example; in 2004 CPL Winter finished with Team NoA as the victor. The team consisted of three Norwegian players, One Canadian and One American. In this particular situation an addition American representative was added because of the teams heavy management influence originating inside the USA.
With this breakdown, points were awarded to these three nations by dividing the overall points for their placement, 100 points for 1st place, by the number of representatives, six. In other cases without a heavy management wing, teams will only consist of the starting five members or six members who are all players.
NoA Example: 100/6 = 16.666
Norway = 3 x 16.666 = 50 points for CPL Winter 2004
USA = 2 x 16.666 = 33.333 points for CPL Winter 2004
Canada = 1 x 16.666 = 16.666 points for CPL Winter 2004
ESWC Calculation
Starting in 2003, Electronic Sports World Cup (ESWC) became the only event that adapted the style of strict nations vs nations play while still respecting the highly developed team or club based play that dominated the scene. This combination gave way to a strong platform for judging countries performance in the World CS scene.
Still even with these adaptations ESWC provided a few limiting factors. Similar to Other Events, ESWC allows players from different nationality to play on the same team and includes multiply teams from the same country. In order to create a stronger gauge then just a simple top eight placement points, the following point system was created.
Each Round (Group) Involvement – 5 Points
Each Win – 3 Points
Each Draw – 1 Point
Top 8 Placement
1st – 20 Points
2nd – 15 Points
3rd – 13 Points
4th – 11 Points
5th – 9 Points
6th – 7 Points
7th – 5 Points
8th – 3 Points
For un-played out 5th-8th rankings six points was awarded to each team.
The points where then accumulated for each team that attended the event. In a similar fashion as Other Events, points where split to create points per nationality. Once the points are collected then the number of teams from that nationality is divided by their total points.
For example in 2005 the USA sent two teams, Complexity and Team3D. Complexity accounted for 75 points with its victory while Team3D accounted for only 25. With a total of 100 points for the USA, this total was then divided in half to give the USA 50 points for ESWC 2005. Even with USA’s victory in the overall event both Germany and Denmark finished with higher overall point totals due to the better average performance of each of their two teams.
WCG Calculation
The only true nations vs nations format in the Counter-Strike scene is the World Cyber Games. Starting in 2001 and the main thread running throughout the rankings, WCG provides the baseline for the ranking. Even with some problems with attendance in its early years and recent CS:Source use, WCG provides the only place where nationality of all team members is guaranteed.
The following formulas were developed by Trevor “Midway” Schmidt and Jason Collingwood to help accurately score the success of nations at this strict nation vs nation event. Based of the FIFA style of calculation the formula takes into account many different factors to determine the success or failure of a team per match.
Per Match Scoring
Winner
10* [ 1 + (0.005 * (WR-LR) ) + (0.02 * D) + ( I ) ]
Loser
3* [ 1 + (0.005 * (LR-WR) ) - (0.02 * D) + ( I ) ]
Tie
5* [ 1 + (0.005 * (GR-SR) ) + (I) ]
5* [ 1 + (0.005 * (SR-GR) ) + (I) ]
WR = Winning Country’s Rank entering the WCG tournament.
LR = Losing Country’s Rank entering the WCG tournament.
D = Differential in rounds in final score
GR = Greater (Higher) Ranked Team
SR = Smaller (Lower) Ranked Team
I = Importance of Round
The formula takes into account both the current rank of each country and size of victory while also giving an additional factor for the importance of the round in the tournament. In cases where the country has not been previously ranked they are given the rank of the highest currently unoccupied seed. Also in situations where the tournament played a best of three maps format, the average of the rounds won and lost during all three maps is used as the round differential.
To calculate importance of round each tournament is judged based on their number of levels during that actually event. Group play as a whole is judged as one level with each of the following rounds of single elimination and or double elimination also counting as a round.
Example:
Total Number of levels is determined as five.
Group Play: 1/5
First Round of Single Elimination: 2/5
Second Round of Single Elimination: 3/5
Third Round of Single Elimination: 4/5
Finals: 5/5
In the situation where run off matches or third place games take place, the previous round is used as the importance of the round. For example the third place game would be given a 4/5 if the overall number of levels where five while the finals would remain 5/5.
The first two years of WCG, 2001 and 2002, the tournament included two Swedish teams (2001) and two Canadian teams (2002) due to their victories in the tournament the previous year. In this case similar to ESWC, the countries overall points from both teams are divided by the number of teams that took part in the event, two. During 2001, Sweden faced Sweden and in this particular case the results from that match are disregarded because of the equations weighting of pre-tournament ranking per country. NOTE: Canada never faced Canada in 2002 so no such ruling was needed.
Combination of Events
In order to properly weight each event based on their importance and rules structure for determination of national ranking, percentages of points were used. Each countries percentage of the overall category was calculated. For example in 2005 Sweden accounted for 1.21% of WCG’s total points, 3.13% of ESWC’s total points and 16.49% of the Other Events from 2005’s total points.
The overall points from each category (WCG, ESWC and Other Events) are then totaled to give total points awarded during the year. Then the following factoring is weighted against the countries percentages they received during the year to achieve their overall percentage of the total points from that year.
WCG – 40%
ESWC – 20%
Other Events – 40%
In the years prior to ESWC, 2001-2002, both WCG and Other Events received half of the total percentage. So the below shows how Sweden’s 2005 results have been calculated:
WCG – 1.21% x 40% = 0.48%
ESWC – 3.13% x 20% = 0.63%
Other Events – 16.49% x 40% = 6.60%
Overall Percentage for 2005 – 0.48% + 0.63% + 6.60% = 7.70%
Sweden then received 7.70% of the total points for the 2005 year.
Year Modification
Too properly weight each year next to the following year a modification factor was introduced. Similar to the format used in FIFA’s World Ranking, for every year introduced into the ranking an overall total of years is then divided by its timeline in the ranking. For example the below ranking shows the current situation as the start of 2006:
2001 – 1/5
2002 – 2/5
2003 – 3/5
2004 – 4/5
2005 – 5/5
Additional years will be added until the factor of seven is reached. Once seven years has been reached then the initial year will be removed and the factor will remain at seven. During the progress of the year itself the full factor of the previous year will be counted. Once WCG has concluded during that year, the previous year’s results will be then reduced to a lower factor.
Each year is then added up after its factor has been accounted for and included with the current year’s results to achieve and overall point total per nation. This point total is displayed as the countries overall value and used to rank the nations accordingly.
