I think at some point having a minimum # of games to qualify should be tested
It was tested over many, many seasons of FOL.
And? It sort of doesn't matter though does it, what was done in FOL. It sort of matters what 'people' 'want' 'now'. *shrug* Of course I'm not saying it would change anything necessarily, I'm saying it's a 'clean' alternative to address an issue with parking that tweaking a formula leaves hidden.
Yes, it's 'hard to communicate'. So is everything about any formula. That shouldn't be an excuse though, it should be an opportunity for Cyanide to improve (create) an information screen for each league/competition.
Alternatively, I think that basing rank points of off some kind of CR metric should be looked at to control for the 'easy streak' Jimmy references.
I'll allow Mike to re-educate you on the concept of CR metrics
No need, we've done that actually. There is nothing particularly wrong with using some form of rank point weighting based off of your actual opponents. Mike, as I'm sure you know, has designed methodologies for doing so.
Nothing is perfect though, we all have our own notions of what 'best' would look like.
Absolutely. At some point I'm simply going to say "this as good as it gets as far as I am concerned" and it'll be for Focus/Cyanide to do what they will with it from then on.
Yep, that won't stop others from asking about changing it though
You are well within your rights to accept or decline to use your time any further on a system which 'works' though. And I do think that the system works pretty well right now, but of course, you do need some number of seasons under your belt to get the statistics out of it and see what kind of meta is being promoted. Be it a grindy one or a parky one. Neither is 'wrong' of course, but the answer to what we get isn't really up to you or me or anyone outside of Cyanide/Focus anyway.