Update Filter for team to appear in ranking from matches played to matches won

[senglert7]

In the past (pre-2025), tournaments could invite teams they wanted, even if they where not yet ranked on the VRS. This allowed new teams with semi popular players (not good enough for Wildcard invites, but well known in the Tier 2/3 scene) to enter the ranking by playing 10 games or more. For those teams open qualifiers are now the only possiblity to enter the ranking. Winning one open qualifier will most likely not be enough to reach 10 games even with the following closed qualifier. Even winning two could not be enough. And the number of open qualifiers are limited.

Thus in 2025, the filter for when a team needs to be in the ranking should be reduced from 10 to a lower number (e.g. 5). Additionally it would make sense to also base this filter on merit and not just on played games. My suggestion is thus, to change the filter to number of games won instead. My suggested value would be 3 games won.

[elreppo]

Hi, I understand the reasoning, but all components in the algorithm of the initial ranking which VRS calculates, are divided by 10 regardless of whether a team has 10 won matches or not.
Which again means that it is extremely unlikely that a team will have a meaningful rank after only 3 wins.
I fear that this change would flood the ranking with irrelevant teams for the sake of having a few teams pop up on the ranking a little sooner than now.
Are you sure this change would be net positive and most importantly, do you have any examples where a team would have been able to get an invite before they had 10 games played together as a roster?

The new NIP or Parivision core is an example of teams that are not yet visible on the ranking due to not having 10 ranked officials yet, and while it is a bit annoying to have to wait to see them on the ranking, then they would not get an invite based on their new "hidden" ranking.
They basically have to accumulate 10 wins before they "mathematically" have a competitive ranking. However they will already appear on the ranking after 10 games played which I personally find a reasonable compromise.

The whole system is based on the average of the 10 best results from matches won, so being visible on the ranking already at 3 matches won would just be cosmetic, right?

[senglert7]

We dont have the match data so its hard to prove whether this would really change something or not, but lets look closer at the example of Parivision:
They had such a good run through the BLAST Open Qualifiers: So far 4 ranked games with wins against Nemiga, B8 and Gamerlegion. Should they lose one of their two games today, they will not be at BLAST Open, so their journey ends there. (they are lucky that they are still in ESL Challenger League to accumulate more points, but that will not be true for every run like this) But in my mind being able to have such a run and beat those teams should be merit alone to be in the ranking. And I would guess by beating those strong teams they should be able to get enough points with Glicko to be part of the top 100 maybe, which is enough to get for example into CCTs.

A team with 5 games and 4 wins will probably have more points than a team with 10 games and only 2 or 3 wins. So for me it doesnt make sense to use games played and not games won.