My random tourney had that much of an effect? o_o
Why didn't Taj/TKO move up?
Questions are more than welcome. In fact, I highly encourage this, just so you understand how it works.
Taj/TKO didn't move because their overall performance remained the same. Taj placed 33rd out of 63 (better than half, then 7th out of 16. TKO placed 25th out of 63, 9th out of 16. Sovaman's tourney has a bit more weight, but it averages out.
Also, your tourney had less weight than Sovaman, but weight nonetheless. From a statistical standpoint, it's because only two tournies have been used. Without weight added, that's half the data. With weights, Sovaman's tourney has a x1.50 per round. Yours had x1.125. Exponentially, that's a lot smaller. When more tournies come in with more entrants, you'll begin to find that this tourney will lose more and more significance in the rankings. Until then, the results having this effect should not be surprising at all.
lol im starting to hate this list.
I think losing to higher players should have less of an effect. and I think beating lesser players should have less of an effect.
I mean that just makes sense to me.
I mean I beat lie round one, but because Meep went Marth against Taj Lie got a pretty easy bracket and didn't beat anyone notable yet because of a better W/L ratio he gets put up higher.
I haven't lost to anyone in tournament who didn't get top 4 at that tournament, and I lost to 1st place twice(Candy)
Just sayin'
Edit: and how is June 3rd? He got 2nd twice in a row and this weekend he only lost to Candy.
I'm not hating on you No-Idea, I feel your awesome for working so hard on this and I know you put a lot of work into it. I just feel a lot moree factors need to be put into the equation before this list is accurate.
Thanks for the support for starters. To begin, let me remind you that SWF didn't release their national rankings until compiling nearly a year's worth of tourney data, if not more. That's over 70 tournaments, if not more, and even then their rankings have some problems. Well, in defense of the current system, it's only using two tournies. If I really wanted to, I could have released this list 4 months down the line. The only issue is that I'd be hard pressed to get collaboration from the TOs in getting match and set data unless I had something to show for it. This is it.
Now, the W/L ratios are there as a base. When the season resets, the ratios are there to display skill level without using tournaments as an influence. As of now, they're extremely skewed because of "lack of versatility." For example, GIMR you've had to face a total of eight people in the past two tournies. And twice against Candy, when you didn't even progress far into either two brackets. There are 65 people currently in the rankings. You haven't faced 1/8 of the people in MD/VA with the current results used. Of course the ratios are going to have adverse effects. That doesn't mean I will take them out, especially this short in the running. We need to see it long-term. Unless for some reason you're going to be seeded against the same players all the time (in which case suspect the TOs, not me,) the benefits of including this ratio will show later on.
As far as Takeover and June go, they're only separated by less than 1 point difference. This isn't even opinion but fact: that's pretty **** accurate. I honestly couldn't ask for more. It could go either way. The next time Takeover attends a tourney will determine where he lands afterwards in comparison to June. As far as Lie goes, GIMR take note that Lie dropped as well. So don't think just because he was sent to Loser's and had an easy bracket means it helped him.
This list def needs some tweaking noid.
Speed is now 5th place for NOT attending something. >_>
It's meant to measure consistency in performance, not how often you perform. Now, to be fair, there is a reward for more attendance. Look at the weighted statistics in excel. Every round you play in after round 1 gets a multiplier. Meaning if you manage to progress past Loser's Bracket Round 3 consistently, the bonus adds onto itself. Please download the data to see all the information in the columns used to find the ratios.
And finally, to emphasize: two tournies, guys. Two. I'm sorry, but you've got to look at it from a statistical standpoint. To better explain, imagine flipping a coin. You won't get 5 heads and 5 tails after flipping 10 times unless you're lucky. You need a larger sample size to have an accurate data analysis. If you don't understand this, it'll be hard to provide any suggestions as to how to improve the data. It would be providing fixes to something that hasn't been confirmed broken.
Yeah there should be some decay factor added into the chart/equation for each tourney missed, or just weeks without playing etc.
Also agree with GIMR that the rank of the player you lose and win to should play a role in the final number. Like a factor that uses the amount the player is ranked higher or lower on the list should be put into the chart.
EDIT: Like the Multiplier for tiers you have for the Money Match Multiplier may be able to be used for tourney matches with some tweaking. For both who you win to and lose to.
Unfortunately, I don't think lack of attendance should be penalized. If you place 1st in two tournies in a row, then don't show up to the rest, why should you then be penalized? I believe in the opposite: provide an incentive to showing up to more tournies AND winning. You have to do both. You cannot honestly expect me to reward you to showing up to 10 tournies, but then having scattered or subpar results.
Once you gain a >1.0 weighted ratio per tourney (meaning you're above the a certain point of a tourney, like top 17 of 64, or top 13 out of 32,) and then make it consistent, the bonuses stack on and on. Candy is ****** because of this mechanic. If you're not within this placing, it means your ratios are averaging to be near 1, or below 1. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY SIGNIFICANT BONUS if your ratios are unimpressive, no matter how many tournies you go to. This isn't high school, where you can pass a class just by going to it.
As far as ranking of player, the whole multiplier inclusion on where you are in the bracket serves that purpose. If you're facing a ranked player when you shouldn't be, whether because of upset or seeding which I have no control of, it can't be helped. In the case of GIMR, he had the unfortunate seeding of facing Candy in Winner's twice in a row. I am sorry, but that is not of my control.
The most important factor in rankings is consistency. Above all else, this is what you should strive to attain. Once you reach that point, the second step is to improve your performance. If you are not consistent, the rankings will show that. All of the ratios, whether directly or indirectly, will eventually be able to accurately compare you to every other MD/VA player. It can't now because I don't have tourney results. Two tournies for this kind of formula is inefficient.
If you truly want to understand how it works, mathematics and all, feel free to PM me or IM me on AIM. Otherwise, please be patient. That's all I can ask. I assure you, all your input is duly noted and your suggestions will be used once we confirm a problem exists.
