# Timerating FAQ

What's the point of timerating?

Timerating is a way of determining the rank of two or more teams who have the same amount of wins after the end of the groupstage. The main principle is: Winning really fast is better than winning really slow (because stomping your opponent in 20 minutes is considered a better performance than winning a close 60 minutes lategame battle). Losing really slow is however better than losing really fast for the same reason. That makes timerating a secondary indicator on judging the team's results aside from just the options win or loss. In other words: It does not only matter, IF you win or lose, but also HOW FAST you win or lose. Winning or losing stays the most important factor nontheless.

How does timerating work exactly?

Once a match is finished, the gametime shown in the endscreen counts for the timerating of both teams. The time gets added as a positive rating for the loser and a negative rating for the winner. For example: ABC beats XYZ in 30 minutes and 20 seconds => Rating of ABC: -30:20, rating of XYZ: +30:20.
The ratings of all 5 matches from each team get added up to the final timerating. Example (the seconds are ignored for this one): ABC wins the first match in 40 minutes, loses the second one in 30, wins in 35, wins in 25, loses in 50. Timerating = -40 + 30 - 35 - 25 + 50 = -20:00

What timerating is better?

That is simple. +100 is better than +50, +50 is better than 0, 0 is better than -50, -50 is better than -100, etc. Just like real numbers.

So does this mean the losing team gets a better timerating than the winning team?

Yes! The teams with less wins usually have a better timerating than the teams with more wins. If a team wins all matches, it has a horrible timerating (because a win always gives a negative rate). But that doesn't matter, since wins are more important. A timerating comparison of two teams only makes sense, if both teams have the same amount of losses and the same amount of wins. In other cases it is not relevant.

Does timerating favour certain kinds of strategies?

Yes, that can't be denied. Push strats have an advantage, turtle strats are inferior. But that also means that a more agressive and thus (in the eyes of most fans) more attractive playstyle gets rewarded, while "playing it safe" (which is considered boring by many people) get slightly punished. If that is a good thing or a bad thing overall, is free for discussion. In my opinion the pros outweigh the cons.

Why must teams not forfeit early? It's their own problem!

The timerating of one match can influence the outcome of a whole group. If a team concedes and quits the game early, not only do they get a (possibly deserved) handicap themselves, they also give their opponent an unfair advantage over all other teams. Example: Team A and B play each other, and B forfeits after 15 minutes, although they still have all barracks. A ties with another team C thanks to this win and ends up with a slightly better timerating than C. So C suffers from B's early ff. That's why teams always have to defend their ancient as long as possible to ensure a fair competition. In some cases, when a team leaves too soon, the administration adds a few minutes to the gametime for the same reason.

Why not just count kills instead?

Mainly because it can be abused really easily. Imagine this scenario: A team just won a clash 5:0 and can finish the game. But instead they go back and farm to kill their enemies again later - which would give them a better kill difference. The losing team however refuses to defend and hides at the fontain, since they don't see a realistic chance of winning and want to avoid more deaths. That's why kill difference is not an option.

What about head to head comparison? That is used in most tournaments

Yes, it is used in most tournaments, but that doesn't mean it's good. The truth is, it's pretty random. Why should the result of one match be important than the others, just because the two teams who played it happen to have the same amount of wins/points at the end of the season/groupstage? Sure one team has beaten the other, but it has lost to a third team instead. Why should that be less relevant just because this third teams has more or less wins than the other two? We think all 24 participants are roughly on the same (high) level and that all matches are equally important. It doesn't matter who you beat, just beat as many opponents as possible.

To explain these thoughts more properly, imagine a group with 4 teams: A, B, C, D. And let's say only the winner of the group advances (this is not the case in The Defense, but the point is the very same. This example is just a little bit simpler). The first results are: A > B, C < D, A < C, B > D. Every team has one win now; looks like a pretty even group, doesn't it? Now the fifth result is A > D. A has 2 wins now; either B or C will get a 2nd win as well to tie with A. If B > C, A wins the group because they have beaten B. If B < C, A doesn't win the group because they have lost to C. The fate of A completely relies on a match it's not even part of. Why should the match A vs B be the most important one, just because B beats C? That sounds random,doesn't it? Timerating is - at least in my opinion (after several years of hosting tournaments) - a more fair way to determine, who out of the teams with equal wins/points should win the group.

More Questions?
Send them to [email protected]