With the introduction of the new circuit we’re also taking the opportunity to refresh how we rank competitive play. Seeking to avoid the challenges of a hidden, openly-scaling system we’ve identified some guiding principles to drive our design decisions on a new methodology:
Simple, Intuitive Event Scoring: We want to derive an easily-measured, easily-reviewed, and easily-understood scoring system that avoids player confusion or misunderstanding and is transparent and traceable for all involved.
Focus on Player Performance: Circuit scoring should focus on player performance, and circuit rankings should be derived primarily from an individual’s aggregate performance at each event.
Mitigate Access Challenges: The circuit scoring should not openly scale such that any one event overweighs the entirety of the circuit.
Encourage Circuit Growth: The circuit scoring should encourage growth in both the number of events and the size of the events.
So how does one perform well in the UTC? Let’s dig into the system.
Scoring Breakdown
The circuit scoring is broken into five categories, three modifiers and two milestone bonuses for all event types – local leagues and RTTs, grand tournaments, and supermajor tournaments alike. These categories and their respective weights are:
Placing Component – 50%
- Awards between .5 and 50 points based on your tournament placing
- A linearly-scaling component that is based on your final placing percentile to the nearest whole percent
Round Component – 20%
- Awards 2.5 points per round with a maximum round cap of 8 rounds (20 points)
- A linearly-scaling component that is based on the size of the event as determined by the lesser of full rounds played or rounds until a single undefeated champion
Wins Component – 20%
- This awards a baseline of 12 points with an additional .5 points per draw, and 1 point per win over the course of an event, to a maximum of 20 points
- A baseline score with a linearly-scaling win count modifier
Winning Position Milestone Bonus – 5%
- Awards 5 points for entering the fifth round of an event undefeated
- A binary bonus based on the stats center Tournament in Winning Position (TiWP) metric
Top Table Milestone Bonus – 5%
- Awards 5 points for winning and 2.5 points for losing in the championship
- A binary bonus based on whether you achieved playing at the top-table in the final round of an event
As a result, the scoring is overall based on a 0-100 system. Each event, no matter it’s size, can be worth no more than 100 points. As a result of event size minimums (3 rounds) and a performance baseline, the minimum score any one individual can receive is 19.5 points.
The system is designed to reward a players tournament performance regardless of size with the broadest weight coming from the placing modifier. The round modifier is a minority stake but identifies the challenge of playing in a larger, more diverse field. Specifically, it is designed to reward events that place an emphasis on a single undefeated champion while discouraging superfluous rounds for the sake of gaming the scoring system. The performance modifier is a reward for a strong performance which provides a bonus for larger events but limits the double impact of the round modifier by instituting a high baseline of points. Finally, the bonuses are achieved for acknowledging large event top performers (Winning Position) and champions/runner-ups (Top Table). The latter is agnostic of the event size which helps to close the gap between the snowball effect of large events and local rogue trader tournaments ensuring that even those who are limited to a local area have a reasonable opportunity to participate in the circuit.
In future seasons the circuit will record up to a best-ten events. However, in the initial year we’ll likely seek a smaller set as an acknowledgement that the year is already partly past.
Scoring Examples
To help illustrate the system, we’ll use two examples of a super-major and a rogue trader tournament.
Super-Major Example
Suppose a player in a 6-round event finishes with a record of 3-3 in a field of 110 players. That player began the event 2-1 before going 1-2 to finish. As a result, they finished 39th out of 110 players. They would be scored within the UTC as follows:
- Placing Component: 65% – 32.5 points (65% x .5 points)
- Round Component: 6 rounds – 15 points (6 rounds x 2.5 points each)
- Win Component: 3 wins – 15 points (3W x 1 point each + 12 point baseline)
- Winning Position Bonus: No – 0 points (did not enter the fifth round 4-0)
- Top Table Bonus: No – 0 points (did not play on the top table)
As a result, the player finishes with a circuit score of 62.5 points out of a max possible 92 points.
Rogue Trader Tournament Example
Suppose a player in a 3-round event finishes with a record of 3-0 in a field of 16 players. As a result, there are 2 undefeated players at the end of the event and there were 4 undefeated players entering the final round. Our supposed player finishes 2nd out of the 16 players.
In this situation, there is not a clear “top-table” however, the system will reward each undefeated player with a top-table bonus, as each player has the potential to win the event. As a result there will be two top-table winner bonuses and two top-table loser bonuses applied.
As a result, our 3-0 undefeated player will score in the UTC as follows:
- Placing Component: 88% – 44 points (88% x .5 points)
- Round Component: 3 rounds – 7.5 points (3 rounds x 2.5 points each)
- Win Component: 3 wins – 15 points (3W x 1 point each + 12 point baseline)
- Winning Position Bonus: No – 0 points (not eligible for a 3-round event)
- Top Table Bonus: Yes – 5 points (played and won on a top table)
As a result, the player finishes with a circuit score of 71.5 points out of a max possible 77.5 points.
2022 ITC Top-10
If we look at the 2022 results in the ITC, for the top-6 events played by each player, the scoring for the top-10 broke down as follows under this system:
| Rank | Player | Score 1 | Score 2 | Score 3 | Score 4 | Score 5 | Score 6 | Top 6 | Change |
| 1 | Jack Harpster | 100 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 92 | 89.5 | 575.5 | – |
| 2 | Mike Porter | 100 | 98 | 96.5 | 94.5 | 94 | 89.5 | 572.5 | +1 |
| 3 | John Lennon | 100 | 96.5 | 94 | 94 | 93 | 93 | 570.5 | +4 |
| 4 | David Gaylard | 96.5 | 96.5 | 94.5 | 93 | 93 | 92 | 565.5 | – |
| 5 | Vik Vijay | 96.5 | 96.5 | 96.5 | 93 | 89.5 | 89.5 | 561.5 | -3 |
| 6 | Mani Cheema | 96.5 | 94 | 93 | 93 | 93 | 91 | 560.5 | +7 |
| 7 | Innes Wilson | 96.5 | 96.5 | 94.5 | 93 | 89.5 | 89.5 | 559.5 | +1 |
| 8 | Nassim Fouchane | 98 | 95 | 94 | 90.5 | 89.5 | 89.5 | 556.5 | -3 |
| 9 | TJ Lanigan | 98 | 93 | 93 | 93 | 89.5 | 89.5 | 556 | +18 |
| 10 | Anthony Vanella | 95 | 94.5 | 93 | 92 | 91 | 89.5 | 555 | – |
We see a few changes in the rankings, but only two individuals not already in the top-10 entered into the top-10, Mani Cheema and TJ Lannigan. In both cases this is explained by both players winning comparably sized events while still performing near the top and/or losing on the top-table in other large events rather than merely performing well in the largest of events. Mani had won three super-majors on the year and TJ had won three Majors – by contrast the two players seeing the largest drops, Vik Vijay and Nassim Fouchane captured two and one wins respectively (but otherwise performed well). I should note that both Tom Ogden and Colin McDade dropped just out of the top-10 at 11 and 12 respectively with 554 and 553 points respectively.
What is important to keep in mind here is that the structure of the UTC is such that these scores are meaningful only for the purposes of a year-end finale invite. While the exact numbers of invitees are not yet determined, suffice to say that a top-50 ranking will receive an invite.
