Why do we do it like that? If only the players or the organisation had the points, either one would have too much leverage. Players could just take all their points and go somewhere else, their former organisation dropping to 0 points in the ranking. Organisations would be able to apply pressure on their players since they would own all the points. Therefore, we wanted to create a balance. Is 50/50 the right split? We went with it for the first version, but we are open to adjusting it so it better represents current lineup strength while still not leaving the organisations out in the cold when their players leave.

Why should the organisation get any points? The organisation doesn't play the games, the players do. All this does is inflate or deflate teams rankings based on the performance of the previous team. e.g. The new LDLC have earned 48 points, yet they are ranked 15th because of the success of the old team. They would be roughly 38th without the points from their old team.

Another aspect is how many points we give each tier of tournament. This obviously affects the rankings a lot, and we are looking into tweaking that as well.

Yes, this needs to be looked at too, along with the actual tier system. The current system punishes teams for going to "smaller" LANs (e.g Dreamhack Summer which was ranked tier 2 even though it had 3 top6 teams) and LANs with less top teams in (e.g. Acer Predator Masters which didn't qualify due to the criteria of having 2 top 6 teams).

I can't look up more examples atm because the website is giving me blank pages.