The system for selecting server locations is transitioning from a veto-based model to a ranking-based approach.
Under this new method, captains will order their team’s preferred locations from most to least favorable. For every match, the system analyzes the rankings (selected order) from both teams to identify the most equitable shared location.
The entire process begins when a team joins (registers for) the ESEA league. All teams, both those that have just joined and those that registered earlier, will be asked to select or confirm their default server location preferences for the upcoming league matches.
Teams can edit the server list using drag-and-drop. The available locations can be arranged in any order, depending on the team's preferences.
Once the team has created the appropriate list, they should click the “Confirm” button at the bottom of the window to save their changes.
If, after initially selecting their preferences, the team would like to change them again, they can do so at any time. To return to the preferences window, use the “Custom” button on the “Season Details” panel.
However, if the team is unsure about its choices and would like to revert to the default order, this can be done using the “Restore League Defaults” feature, which is available at all times while setting preferences.
Once the team selects it, the default order will be restored. After making any changes, teams should make sure to save them by clicking the “Confirm” button.
To improve transparency regarding the system's functionality, the following section details potential outcomes and explains the underlying logic for various preference scenarios.
Decision Table
Step | What the system compares | Why it matters | Example outcome |
1 | Worst team rank for each location | Prevents a location that is very poor for one team from winning too early | A location ranked 4 by one team loses to a location whose worst rank is 2 |
2 | Combined rank of both teams | Picks the strongest overall compromise among the acceptable options | A 2 + 1 outcome beats a 3 + 2 outcome |
3 | The rank difference between the two teams | Prefers the more balanced outcome when quality is otherwise equal | A 2 - 2 outcome beats a 1 - 3 outcome |
4 | League default order | Gives a final deterministic tie-break | If two locations are still equal, the one placed higher in the league default list wins |
Worked Example A - Both Teams Customized
Valid locations in the region: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles
| Location | Team A Rank | Team B Rank | Worst Rank | Combined Rank | Rank Difference |
| Chicago | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Dallas | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Denver | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Los Angeles | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
Result: Dallas is selected because it has the lowest worst-team rank.
Worked Example B - One Team Defaulted
Regional default list: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles
Team A custom list: Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles
Team B took no action, so the effective list is the regional default.
| Location | Team A Rank | Team B Effective Rank | Worst Rank | Combined Rank | Rank Difference |
| Chicago | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Dallas | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Denver | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Los Angeles | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
Result: Dallas is selected. All three top candidates tie on combined rank, but Dallas wins earlier because it has the best worst-team rank.
Worked Example C - Near-Bottom Elimination Intuition
Team A list: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles
Team B list: Dallas, Denver, Chicago, Los Angeles
| Location | Team A Rank | Team B Rank | Worst Rank | Combined Rank | Rank Difference |
| Chicago | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Dallas | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Denver | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| Los Angeles | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
Los Angeles is the worst or near-worst for both teams and is naturally removed from contention by the worst-rank step. Dallas wins because it is the strongest mutual compromise among the locations that are not highly objectionable to either team.
Worked Example D - Why Difference Alone Is Not Enough?
Consider two candidate locations:
| Location | Team A Rank | Team B Rank | Worst Rank | Combined Rank | Rank Difference |
| Chicago | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Los Angeles | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0 |
If the system optimized only for the lowest rank difference, it would choose Los Angeles because the difference is 0, even though both teams consider it a poor option. The lexicographic rule avoids this failure by prioritizing the worst-team rank first.
Tie-Break Policy
If two or more locations still remain tied after comparing worst-team rank, combined rank, and rank difference, the system selects the tied location that appears first in the regional default ranked list.
Why is this policy used:
- Deterministic and easy to explain
- Controlled by league operations
- Stable across all matches in a region
- Does not require introducing home/away semantics or manual intervention