But you're oversimplifying it... whether it's sports or video or computer games, it's not just about "the best wins the quickest." It's about matchups... take the players I used for an example. Again, I match up against acid in a way that it takes a long time to complete the matches. A lot of wins may be piled up in quick wins between vash and acid. We could have a close game, like a 7-6 or something, and they could have a close game, like 12-11... but somehow those twelve wins are worth more and show more skill than the 7 in the other match? And you say you don't see the difference... I showed the difference.
By win total:
Player1 beats Player2, 10-7
Player2 beats Player3, 8-7
Player3 beats Player1, 7-1
1st: Player1, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player3
By margin of victory:
Player1 - 3
Player2 - 1
Player3 - 8
1st: Player3, 2nd: Player1, 3rd: Player2
By combination margin of victory and loss:
Player1: -3
Player2: -2
Player3: +7
1st: Player3, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player1
I just showed three different results, all with possible scores, or scores potentially similar. You would say that player1 was the best? He won a decent game, got destroyed, but because he piled up enough wins he is the best and the winner. Whereas take a look at player3... he only narrowly lost and then won convincingly... who seems to be the best and get the better of the two? Just because he slipped up one or two rounds in a match and he took a longer time to get wins (I take a long time, I'm more patient and calculated), you're gonna drop him to third when he arguably played the best. My ideas aren't a great system either, I can see where it would fail to show the best... I'm just saying total wins in a victory does not show who the best is.
By win total:
Player1 beats Player2, 10-7
Player2 beats Player3, 8-7
Player3 beats Player1, 7-1
1st: Player1, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player3
By margin of victory:
Player1 - 3
Player2 - 1
Player3 - 8
1st: Player3, 2nd: Player1, 3rd: Player2
By combination margin of victory and loss:
Player1: -3
Player2: -2
Player3: +7
1st: Player3, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player1
I just showed three different results, all with possible scores, or scores potentially similar. You would say that player1 was the best? He won a decent game, got destroyed, but because he piled up enough wins he is the best and the winner. Whereas take a look at player3... he only narrowly lost and then won convincingly... who seems to be the best and get the better of the two? Just because he slipped up one or two rounds in a match and he took a longer time to get wins (I take a long time, I'm more patient and calculated), you're gonna drop him to third when he arguably played the best. My ideas aren't a great system either, I can see where it would fail to show the best... I'm just saying total wins in a victory does not show who the best is.