Hello, friends- The ranking system was updated for the new year with one key change.
The period for ranking points was reduced from 360 days to 300 days last year. With the re-commitment by ESL of its Impact circuit as well as potentially more key events on the 2023 calendar, the scoring period has been reduced by another 60 days, from 300 days to 240 days. The goal of this change is to underline recent performance even more.
During the year, we'll continue to monitor the events and apply re-balancing when appropriate.
This update (including examples) is also included in the article explaining the ranking system.
Hello, friends- The ranking system was updated for the new year.
The period for ranking points has been reduced from 360 days to 300 days. This change reflects a higher (expected) frequency of events. The intended goal is to keep the ranking as "fresh" as possible, but not make the change too drastic because the calendar is still dependent on the global response to the pandemic.
A small number of points will be given for losing. This is meant to reward teams for being active and participating in events. This will help more teams get ranked and active teams will achieve a higher ranking than less active teams.
The amount of points will be a percentage of the number of points for winning:
Example: If the winner of a Group Stage match gets 100 points, the loser gets 1 point.
Losses as a result of disqualification will not be awarded points. Instead, they will be considered a loss by forfeit (= 0 points).
Previously, bonus points were awarded for teams that were invited to an event as well as teams that qualified for an event. No more bonus points will be awarded to simplify the scoring and make it completely match/results-based.
If a team temporarily plays with a minority-female line-up, we can make a manual adjustment to the points they earn.
Example: Vicimus Elda finished ESEA Season 39 with a minority-female line-up (2 women + 3 men). The points they received for winning/losing was reduced to 40% to reflect the change in roster composition.
These features (including examples) are also updated in the article explaining the ranking system.
Following the first edition of ESEA's Women's Cash Cup, several teams were reinstated. They inherit the points from the previous iteration of their team because at least three players are still together. The were the reinstated teams (former team name in parentheses if applicable):
Hello, friends- The ranking system was updated with a few new features.
The biggest update is that points will now be calculated by the date of the match instead of the end date of the event.
If the match is tracked in the Results overview, points are calculated based on the date on which a map was played.
Some events will still use the end date of an event. These are often one-day events or qualifiers, in which case an exact date doesn't matter much.
Going forward, wins by forfeit (FFW) will no longer be awarded any points.
These features (including examples) are also updated in the article explaining the ranking system.
Hello, friends- The ranking system was updated with a few new features.
The biggest update is that points have been "normalised", which means that the ranking will no longer show the number of event points for each team.
Instead, teams will have between 1 and 1000 ranking points, somewhat comparable to how the HLTV ranking works.
The ranking points are still based on the event points, but with an extra calculation derived from the points leader.
The idea behind this update was to make the absolute difference in points smaller between all the teams, but still maintain an accurate relative difference between the teams.
Example
As of 14 December 2020, Galaxy Racer Fe had the most event points (points scored from winning games / events): 2393.
Their points are then divided by 1000: 2393 / 1000 = 2.393.
Every team then has its event points divided by this number to end up with the number of ranking points (points displayed in the ranking):
Split-format refers to when BO1 and BO3 are both used within the same portion of an event. One example is a playoff structure with a BO1 upper bracket but a BO3 lower bracket.
Going forward, split-format event portions will count as "multi-map", but BO1 matches within those formats will only receive half the amount of points.
This makes an upper bracket win still count as a BO1 even though the (rest of the) event portion is scored as a BO3.
In the past, a forfeit win (FFW) was awarded the same amount of points as a regular win.
Going forward, a FFW will only be awarded half the amount of points of a regular win.
No points are given for FFWs in qualifiers.
Previously, qualifiers weren't scored for the ranking.
Going forward, points will be awarded for wins during qualifiers. However, points are only recorded for teams that have participated in at least two previous qualifiers (regardless for which event).
These features (including examples) are also updated in the article explaining the ranking system.
Hello, friends- The ranking system was updated with a few new features.
This is the new base points table for online events:
| Event & Tier | League | Invitation | Qualification | Groups | Playoffs - UB | Playoffs - LB | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online - Tier 1 | 160 | 64 | 192 | 128 | 256 | 192 | 512 |
| Online - Tier 2 | 80 | 32 | 96 | 64 | 128 | 96 | 256 |
| Online - Tier 3 | 60 | 24 | 72 | 48 | 96 | 72 | 192 |
| Online - Tier 4 | 40 | 16 | 48 | 32 | 64 | 48 | 128 |
| Online - Tier 5 | 30 | 12 | 36 | 24 | 48 | 36 | 96 |
| Online - Tier 6 | 20 | 8 | 24 | 16 | 32 | 24 | 64 |
| Online - Tier 7 | 15 | 6 | 18 | 12 | 24 | 18 | 48 |
| Online - Tier 8 | 10 | 4 | 12 | 8 | 16 | 12 | 32 |
| Online - Tier 9 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 16 |
| Online - Tier 10 | 2.5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
The original points system didn't distinguish between single-map matches (BO1) and multi-map matches (BO3 / BO5). There is now a 2x multiplier for multi-map matches.
The original points system used linear points degradation over 360 days. The system now emphasises recent results by having points degrade in three stages:
During Stage 1, a team loses max. 6% (1/17th) of the points it gained from an event. During Stage 2, a team loses max. an additional 23% (4/17th) of the points from an event. Finally, during Stage 3, a team loses the remaining 71% (12/17th) of the points from an event.
A simpler way to look at it is on a per-day basis. Each day during Stage 2, the points from an event lose value 2x as fast as during Stage 1. Each day during Stage 3, the points from an event lose value 2x as fast as during Stage 2 (or 4x as fast compared to Stage 1).
These features (including examples) are also updated in the article explaining the ranking system.
Last updated: 13 January, 2023
This article explains the mechanics behind the FemaleCS.com ranking.
Teams can gain points in two ways:
This is the predominant way of gaining points. For each win, a certain number of points are assigned to the team, depending on:
A small number of points will be given for losing. This is meant to reward teams for being active and participating in events. This will help more teams get ranked and active teams will achieve a higher ranking than less active teams.
Below is the base table for assigning points:
| Event & Tier | League | Groups | Playoffs - UB | Playoffs - LB | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAN - Tier 1 | 640 | 512 | 1024 | 768 | 2048 |
| LAN - Tier 2 | 320 | 256 | 512 | 384 | 1024 |
| LAN - Tier 3 | 240 | 192 | 384 | 288 | 768 |
| LAN - Tier 4 | 160 | 128 | 256 | 192 | 512 |
| LAN - Tier 5 | 120 | 96 | 192 | 144 | 384 |
| LAN - Tier 6 | 80 | 64 | 128 | 96 | 256 |
| LAN - Tier 7 | 40 | 32 | 64 | 48 | 128 |
| LAN - Tier 8 | 20 | 16 | 32 | 24 | 64 |
| Points for Loss (% of Winner's Points) | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1.5% | 4% |
| Event & Tier | League | Groups | Playoffs - UB | Playoffs - LB | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online - Tier 1 | 160 | 128 | 256 | 192 | 512 |
| Online - Tier 2 | 80 | 64 | 128 | 96 | 256 |
| Online - Tier 3 | 60 | 48 | 96 | 72 | 192 |
| Online - Tier 4 | 40 | 32 | 64 | 48 | 128 |
| Online - Tier 5 | 30 | 24 | 48 | 36 | 96 |
| Online - Tier 6 | 20 | 16 | 32 | 24 | 64 |
| Online - Tier 7 | 15 | 12 | 24 | 18 | 48 |
| Online - Tier 8 | 10 | 8 | 16 | 12 | 32 |
| Online - Tier 9 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 16 |
| Online - Tier 10 | 2.5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
| Points for Loss (% of Winner's Points) | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1.5% | 4% |
The list of events used in the current ranking can be found here. The list is dynamically updated based on the date of the most recent ranking update.
The tier system attempts to reflect the entire CS:GO scene rather than focus on the female scene only.
“Reference events” are used to assess events and place them in an appropriate tier. These are examples of reference events used for the base points system:
The tier system is a dynamic concept: events can move up or down tiers, depending on factors explained below.
Prestige is a relative concept and considered to consist of:
Both the quality and quantity of teams in an event impact its tier.
Example: Despite a larger prize pool, GirlGamer Esports Festival is rated below Copenhagen Games, because it has a more restrictive format in terms of teams that can play in the event. (CLG Red never had a chance to qualify for the event, for example.)
An event that takes place every month offers more opportunities to score points versus an event that takes place quarterly. Especially for online events, this can create regional discrepancies in the number of matches per team. Because of this, some events will be “downgraded” to compensate for frequency differences between regions.
Example: The Latin-American Liga Gamers Club are intentionally rated lower than ESEA, because these leagues take place every month, whereas ESEA is four seasons per year. They also have a different playoff structure.
An event’s format will also influence its rating. Some tournaments are league/group-heavy but have a short playoff format. Other tournaments are group-light and more playoff-heavy. Some events consist only of a single-elimination bracket, whereas other events use a double-elimination system.
The tiering system tries to balance out events based on the different format factors.
The base number for the points system is the number of points for winning an event (“Final”). The general logic for the event tiers is as follows:
The number of points for any tier event are derived from the “Final” points:
No points are given for wins by forfeit (FFWs).
The base points system is based on a single-map scenario (BO1).
In the case of multi-map matches (BO3 or BO5), points will be multiplied by 2.
The distinction between single-map and multi-map is administered separately for each event’s league/group stage and its playoff stage.
Example: ESEA regular season matches count as single-map matches, but the playoff matches count as multi-map matches.
In the ranking, points are rounded to the nearest integer.
The points in the ranking are "normalised", which means that the ranking doesn't show the actual number of event points for each team.
Instead, teams will have between 1 and 1000 ranking points, somewhat comparable to how the HLTV ranking works.
The ranking points are still based on the event points, but with an extra calculation derived from the points leader.
The idea behind this is to make the absolute difference in points smaller between all the teams, but still maintain an accurate relative difference between the teams.
Example
As of 14 December 2020, Galaxy Racer Fe had the most event points (points scored from winning games / events): 2393.
Their points are then divided by 1000: 2393 / 1000 = 2.393.
Every team then has its event points divided by this number to end up with the number of ranking points (points displayed in the ranking):
Nothing lasts forever. Any points gained by a team will lose value over time. Currently, points are set to degrade over 240 days in three stages:
During Stage 1, a team loses max. 6% (1/17th) of the points it gained from an event. During Stage 2, a team loses max. an additional 23% (4/17th) of the points from an event. Finally, during Stage 3, a team loses the remaining 71% (12/17th) of the points from an event.
A simpler way to look at it is on a per-day basis. Each day during Stage 2, the points from an event lose value 2x as fast as during Stage 1. Each day during Stage 3, the points from an event lose value 2x as fast as during Stage 2 (or 4x as fast compared to Stage 1).
The purpose of these stages is to place more emphasis on recent results.
Degradation happens on map-by-map basis if tracked as part of the Results overview, and otherwise on an event-by-event basis.
Example 1:
Team X wins 1,020 points from an event.
Over the first 40 days since the event, the event’s points value will drop by 60 points (6% of 1,020 points). This degradation happens in a linear fashion: each day, the event’s points value drops by 60/40 = 1.5 point per day. After 40 days, the 1,020 points gained by Team X will be worth 960 points.
Over the next 80 days, the event’s points value will drop by an additional 240 points (23% of 1,020 points). Once again, the degradation is linear: each day during Stage 2, the event’s points value drops by 240/80 = 3 points per day. After 120 days, the 1,020 points gained by Team X will be worth 720 points.
Over the final stage of 120 days, the event’s points value will degrade to 0. Each day during Stage 3, the event’s points value drops by 720/120 = 6 points per day. After 240 days, the 1,020 points gained by Team X will be worth nothing.
Example 2:
This event is still in Stage 1 of points degradation (first 40 days since event). During this stage, Dignitas Fe will lose up to 2.8 points (6%) of the 48 points they gained from the event.
Over the past 27 days, they have lost (27/40) * 2.8 = 1.89 points.
The value of Dignitas Fe’s points from Super Girl Gamer Pro 2020 is 48 – 1.89 = 46.11 points on 31 October 2020.
The value of the points will continue to drop by 0.07 points per day during Stage 1. During Stage 2, the points value will drop at double the rate, 0.14 points per day. Finally, during Stage 3, the points value will drop at double the rate of Stage 2, 0.28 points per day.
In case of a disqualification, the match result(s) of the disqualified team will count as a loss by forfeit. Therefore, no loser points will be awarded to the disqualified team.
Points can retroactively change because:
Finally, points can be manually adjusted for specific matches. If a team fields a minority-female roster, for example, the points scoring can be adjusted accordingly. For example, if a team plays an ESEA match with a team of two female players plus three male players, the points for that match will be set to 40%.
Teams and organisations change, and this doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
Teams will not lose points for incremental roster changes, i.e. 1-2 players per time (compared to a previous event).
If a team changes its name or organisation, but maintains at least 3 players, it will retain its points.
Only the team’s name will be updated in the ranking.
If a team disbands or suspends play, the team will be deactivated in the ranking. This means the team’s points are still in the master spreadsheet, but the team isn’t shown in the ranking.
We try to keep on top of what’s going on, but the information isn’t always very clear and obvious, so some inactive teams might still linger in the rankings.
If a team temporarily ceases playing, but resumes at a later point with at least 3 players from the previous iteration, the team will be reinstated in the ranking and retain the points it previously gained (with degradation of course).
