AndreaModa wrote:I think a suitable time to review the system would be when reliability starts to prevent smaller teams from scoring. This may be next season, it may be in three seasons' time, it's hard to say. Now that Aerond has made his opinion clear on the matter, would anyone like to raise any problems they have with it?
While I don't necessarily have a problem with the unreliability argument, I'd like to point out the average number of finishers in 2013 was around 11-12 (11.7 to be exact). Considering there's 26 starters and 6 points-scoring positions, an argument could be made either way based on that.
EDIT: Being the calculating person that I am, I decided to calculate how many extra points and credits each team would have scored last year with the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system.
Dagnall: 116 pts (+10) (+50 credits)
Gillet: 71 pts (+14) (+70 credits)
HRT: 78 pts (+29) (+145 credits)
Jones: 71 pts (+23) (+115 credits)
ArrowTech: 56 pts (+26) (+130 credits)
Sunshine: 43 pts (+14) (+70 credits)
ARC: 38 pts (+15) (+75 credits)
GRM: 33 pts (+12) (+60 credits)
Prospec: 35 pts (+23) (+115 credits)
Foxdale: 10 pts (0) (0 credits)
Flying Fish: 15 pts (+6) (+30 credits)
FAT: 14 pts (+7) (+35 credits)
Kahama: 18 pts (+11) (+55 credits)
MRT: 15 pts (+11) (+55 credits)
Phoenix: 6 pts (+4) (+20 credits)
Calinetic: 3 pts (+2) (+10 credits)
Interestingly, the teams that benefit the most are the ones in the 3rd-8th and 9th bracket, the very teams that were 'ignored' the most by the prize money system which led to the formation of the equalisation formula in the first place.