Brawl : UK Player Rankings 2009

[MakoMako]

UK Player Ranking List : 2009


Rules & Requirements

Rule #0 : This isn't a tier list
Rule #1 : This data is entirely objective, therefore it goes without saying that opinions about X should be above Y mean nada here
Rule #2 : DO NOT POST A SINGLE RESULT (e.g. I came 4th at a tournament on monday), such posts will be regarded as spam and ignored
Rule #3 : MK mains should not be allowed to repopulate the planet

Requirement #1 : The tournament must consist of at least 13 participants
Requirement #2 : In order to be included, you must have at least 2 top 8 placements
Requirement #3 : The tournament must have taken place in the UK after January 1st 2009

The benchmark to qualify to be on the list will be increased as the number of people on the list increases.

If you feel that some information is incorrect, please do not hesitate to inform me via post or PM.

If you are qualified to be included but you're name isn't on the list, please CTRL-F the tournament results section below and then copy-pasta the results which enable you to qualify and you will be included.

When posting results, please include :
Full results including the names (and characters) of the Top 8
Number of entrants
Date of the tournament

Key
Blue Previous unranked
Green Went up
This Colour Went down

NEW FORMULA HAHAHA
Wins = Number of Top 8 placements
Average = Mean placement within the top 8

1st

Calzorz (Wins 8 ~ Average Placement : 2nd) - 59.94
2nd

Trio3 (Wins 8 ~ Average Placement : 3rd) - 55.89
3rd

Mako (Wins 4 ~ Average Placement : 3rd) - 55.17
4th

Willz (Wins 6 ~ Average Placement : 2nd) +1 - 54.59
5th

Yeniths (Wins 9 ~ Average Placement : 4th) -1 - 53.49
6th

Smudge (Wins 9 ~ Average Placement : 4th) - 53.11
7th

Aiko (Wins 6 ~ Average Placement : 3rd) - 52.85
8th

Blinky (Wins 6 ~ Average Placement : 5th) - 51.81
9th

Fuzzyness (Wins 3 ~ Average Placement : 4th) - 51.31
10th

Kira (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 2nd) - 51.09
11th

Ryuken (Wins 6 ~ Average Placement : 5th) +1 - 48.49
12th

Retroking (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 2nd) -1 - 48.19
13th

CCPLZ (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 6th) - 47.23
14th

Oniboy (Wins 3 ~ Average Placement : 5th) - 46.35
15th

Dooan (Wins 4 ~ Average Placement : 5th) +2 - 46.26
16th

Almas (Wins 4 ~ Average Placement : 6th) -1 - 45.31
17th

Ixis (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 4th) -1 - 45.09
18th

Cong (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 4th) - 44.35
19th

Bickers (Wins 3 ~ Average Placement : 5th) - 43.54
20th

SolidPit (Wins 2 ~ Average Placement : 6th) - 42.71

 

[MakoMako]

Date		Entrants		Result	Name
						
02/15/2009		20		1	Mako
					2	Aiko
					3	Smudge
					4	Blinky
					5	Nillix
					5	RyanGraubner
					7	Ryuken
					7	Zero
						
						
02/20/2009		13		1	Aiko
					2	Willz
					3	Yeniths
					4	Blinky
					5	Dam
					5	Calzorz
					7	Knuttz45
					7	Almas
						
						
03/22/2009		16		1	Calzorz
					2	Fuzzyness
					3	Aiko
					4	Blinky
					5	Smudge
					5	MalcolmX
					7	Oniboy
					7	Yeniths
						
						
04/19/2009		18		1	Retroking
					2	Mako
					3	Oniboy
					4	Aiko
					5	CCPLZ
					5	Smudge
					7	Jankai
					7	Ryuken
						
						
04/25/2009		13		1	Calzorz
					2	Willz
					3	Yeniths
					4	Kais
					5	Trio3
					5	Halo
					7	Phear
					7	Almas
						
						
05/17/2009		16		1	Calzorz
					2	Trio3
					3	Yeniths
					4	Oniboy
					5	Smudge
					5	Blinky
					7	Jankai
					7	Bickers
						
						
05/24/2009		15		1	Calzorz
					2	Yeniths
					3	Trio3
					4	Willz
					5	Ixis
					5	Aiko
					7	Dam
					7	Blinky
						
						
06/13/2009		14		1	Calzorz
					2	Willz
					3	Ixis
					4	Trio3
					5	Almas
					5	Yeniths
					7	BloodBowler
					7	Cong
						
						
06/21/2009		21		1	Kira
					2	Retroking
					3	Calzorz
					4	Fuzzyness
					5	Yeniths
					5	Mako
					7	Smudge
					7	Trio3
						
						
06/27/2009		42		1	Calzorz
					2	Mako
					3	Kira
					4	BKing
					5	PTR
					5	Blinky
					7	Fuzzyness
					7	CCPLZ


7/22/2009		22		1	Siri
					2	Cong
					3	Minh
					4	iNsOmNiA
					5	Twighlight-Falco
					5	Untouched
					7	Brawler_Pit
					7	CloudRain


4/08/2009		14		1	Smudge
					2	Dooan
					3	Bickers
					4	Ryuken
					5	SolidPit
					6	Gemma
					7	LBX
					8	BlippedMoon



8/08/2009		17		1	Trio3
					2	Willz
					3	Yeniths
					4	Ryuken
					5	Smudge
					5	Almas
					7	BlippedMoon
					7	Dooan


8/15/2009		13		1	Trio3
					2	Smudge
					3	Yeniths
					4	Ryuken
					5	Bickers
					6	SolidPit
					7	Dooan
					8	Gemma

8/23/2009		13		1	Trio3
					2	Willz
					3	Smudge
					4	Ryuken
					5	Dooan
					5	Aiko
					7	Zero
					7	Nazo

 

[Professor Pro]

Nice, I just need to enter one brawl tournament and then I will be at the top permantely on this chart.

 

[Kone]

Could you explain the formula you use? im curious. Also, should use the big man system lol.

 

[MakoMako]

Could you explain the formula you use? im curious. Also, should use the big man system lol.

"Formula for points : (Placement as a fraction)^-1 x Entrants then divide by 50

Example : Edwin came 1st in a tournament with 18 entrants thereforeeeee

(1/18)^-1 multiplied by 18, then divided by 50 = 6.5 points from that tournament"


I tried to make it as standardised as possible so the points could be generalised for all tournaments. This way, few larger tournaments would earn the player alot more points than simply going to many small tournaments.


Prof wasn't included on this list due to having the unfair advantage of playing brawl for 2 and a half years

 

[Smudge]

Nice idea, I'm liking it.

Plus I can't really complain at Top 10 in the UK can I =P

 

[The Filth]

Hopefully you should start seeing my name about soon, I'm improving vastly =]

Thanks for putting all this together though, interesting to see how everyones doing.

 

[Jolteon]

ask charles for the ranbat placements where I got 7th lolol >_>

 

[Kone]

Hmm the thing is this doesn't take into account the calibre of players at each tournament, the lack of diversity of players at smaller events and lack of activity/decrase in ability over time.

 

[Anaky]

Hmmm i dont understand how Aiko and Blinky are above me.

Edit: then again mabye i do

 

[MakoMako]

ask charles for the ranbat placements where I got 7th lolol >_>

I'm not adding those results at all because :
1. The entire tournament was carried out in best of 1 matches, which pretty much cripples smash as a whole
2. I don't think anyone has the full results

Hmm the thing is this doesn't take into account the calibre of players at each tournament, the lack of diversity of players at smaller events and lack of activity/decrase in ability over time.

Although I understand exactly where you're coming from, this list purposely ignores those aspects because they can be highly subjective which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Extraneous variables like those will always be a problem on lists like these I suppose.

Hmmm i dont understand how Aiko and Blinky are above me.

Edit: then again mabye i do

The exact reason they are above you is most likely because they've attended slightly larger tournaments more often than you have and managed to maintain a steadier placing in them.

 

[K.Mac]

I'm not on the list D:

yay xD ^_^

 

[Kone]

They arent variables that are that hard to accomodate for. Give certain ranbats more or less weighting dependent on level of players involved. Find a suitable way as to determine what is a worthwhile ranbat to include. If you have the same 7 players meeting every four weeks and similar placings then that shoulnt equate to the same points as 20 in london meeting. Your skill can largely be due to your player pool. Larger and more diverse the likely you are to be better at the game.

Also, if a player is inactive for a certain period their points could depreciate i.e. if calzorz stopped turning upto events that werent on his doorstep. Forces people to travel. Also, if points cumulated in older ranbats/tournaments depricate over a set time then it stops the rankings becoming stagnant/motivates people to keep on going to events/stops players relying on past performances for their reptutaiton.

Not really extraneous variables mate, in fact, variables that are the core argument of every ranking system that is used or attempted on these boards or other competitive sports.

 

[MakoMako]

They arent variables that are that hard to accomodate for. Give certain ranbats more or less weighting dependent on level of players involved. Find a suitable way as to determine what is a worthwhile ranbat to include. If you have the same 7 players meeting every four weeks and similar placings then that shoulnt equate to the same points as 20 in london meeting. Your skill can largely be due to your player pool. Larger and more diverse the likely you are to be better at the game.

Also, if a player is inactive for a certain period their points could depreciate i.e. if calzorz stopped turning upto events that werent on his doorstep. Forces people to travel. Also, if points cumulated in older ranbats/tournaments depricate over a set time then it stops the rankings becoming stagnant/motivates people to keep on going to events/stops players relying on past performances for their reptutaiton.

Not really extraneous variables mate, in fact, variables that are the core argument of every ranking system that is used or attempted on these boards or other competitive sports.

What, what? You seem to have totally misunderstood the whole purpose of the formula. It would eliminate the whole purpose of the list if I were to determine which ranbats were worthwhile and give certain tournaments more or less weighting based on MY interpretation of the level of players attending which is incredibly bias. I have already stated that I'm aiming for complete objectivity

And it seems like you're suggesting I do things that have already been done, if you looked more closely you'd notice that tournaments with smaller turnouts such as 13 do not give anywhere near as many points as tournaments with 40 players.

I see what you're saying about decreasing points over time but considering that there's only been 9 brawl tournaments in the UK since the beginning of 2009, I don't think anything like that is needed. Otherwise I'd reset the points at the beginning of ever season (archiving older results) to keep the rankings from coming to a standstill.

 

[Kone]

Depends on how often the 13 or 40 person tournaments happen though . Also, you would use a panel to decide what the criteria would be to determine what tournament was acceptable. In the past we actually dicussed and implemented a tournament season, pre electing what tournaments would be given ranking points/status.

This wont really matter though until the brawl scene are running larger tournaments. I dont really,currently, see the tournaments that are being run as actual tournaments in comparison to melee. There local ranbats with the odd 1/2/3 out of region players turning up.

Thats why i dont think brawl in the uk currently deserves a uk wide ranking list.

 

[Almas]

I think it's certainly possible to run a more complex mathematical analysis to determine which events show a larger display of skill. I have no idea what it is though. Maybe after I've done a couple of years in Uni ;p.

I'm quite surprised to see my name on there. I don't actually play Brawl seriously... I guess I did at the first event I attended, but since then I've kinda given up to hone my Melee skill. Hooray anyway! Maybe this will motivate me to try and stay in the top 16 ;p.

 

[auroreon]

Great Idea Mako, I just hope this doesn't incur too much bickering.

Just thought I'd let you know, you missed the last EM ranbats...

East Midlands Rankings - 13/6/09
14 entrants - £4

1: Calzorz (Snake)
2: Willz (MK/Dedede/Falco)
3: Ixis (Bowser/Falco/Tlink)
4: Trio3 (Tlink/Link)
5: Almas (?)
5: Yeniths (MK/Snake?)
7: BloodBowler (Mr.GAW)
7: Cong (Diddy Kong)
9: Auroreon (Yoshi)
9: Kmac (Yoshi/MK)
9: Brado (Pikachu?)
9: Josh Marni (Flaked)
13: Calzum (ROB)
13: Rega (GAW)

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7608633&postcount=1935

 

[Fuzzyness]

i like how you haven't included the old ranking battles -_- or TKI

 

[jjlinyard]

yeah include the old ranking battles

if only it was before January, then I would have a top 3 placing to add to my name, remember those epic matches mako?? fox vs kirby

 

[Yeniths]

I'm offended, I main Sheik, but this seems like a good idea although I don't agree with a lot of the placings, it seems very heavily influenced by the amount of people who attended a tournament, not the level of the players at the tournament. Anyways keep it up.

 

[Fuzzyness]

meh this ranking seems to make me look bad :/

 

[Jolteon]

TKI should not be included, this is an 09 ranking list.

 

[MakoMako]

I think it's certainly possible to run a more complex mathematical analysis to determine which events show a larger display of skill. I have no idea what it is though. Maybe after I've done a couple of years in Uni ;p.

I really REALLY want a better formula because I agree with Yeniths alot about the points being influenced by attendance too much but I'm not very good at maths, I will attempt to conjure up or steal a better formula very soon

Great Idea Mako, I just hope this doesn't incur too much bickering.

Just thought I'd let you know, you missed the last EM ranbats...

East Midlands Rankings - 13/6/09
14 entrants - £4

1: Calzorz (Snake)
2: Willz (MK/Dedede/Falco)
3: Ixis (Bowser/Falco/Tlink)
4: Trio3 (Tlink/Link)
5: Almas (?)
5: Yeniths (MK/Snake?)
7: BloodBowler (Mr.GAW)
7: Cong (Diddy Kong)
9: Auroreon (Yoshi)
9: Kmac (Yoshi/MK)
9: Brado (Pikachu?)
9: Josh Marni (Flaked)
13: Calzum (ROB)
13: Rega (GAW)

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7608633&postcount=1935

THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR, I was sure I was missing one of the EM tournaments.

 

[Fuzzyness]

mako i really think this is pointless

its the same reason why i cancelled my ranking battles

 

[Jolteon]

I think the formula needs some working due to the huge variation of attendance in the top 10. Charles/Edwin have attended 3 while Blinky has attended 7 and Aiko has attended 6, makes a huge difference.

 

[auroreon]

How about instead of using the # of entrants as a variable in the equation, you use the value of total combined points of all entrants.
I think its a better solution to just using the number of entrants, as it takes into account not just the volume of players there but also the skill level of the players.
For example, if there was a tournament with just 3 entrants Calzorz, Mako and Kira, under the current system there would be very few points awarded for winning as there are only 3 entrants. The problem is that the number of points awarded in no way reflects the skill required to win the tournament.
If we instead to use the system I propose, then the value you are working with is not 3 but 57.02 + 30.64 + 20.58 = 108.24, a much better indication of the combined skill of entrants.
Of course, this is a very extreme example that would never really occur but it demonstrates the advantage of using combined points rather than entrants.
Obviously its not a flawless system, there are problems with it, but I think its better than what is currently in use and over time as more players become ranked the system will be more accurate.

 

[Bullet Bill]

this looks good, well done Mako. Tbh theres too much whining going on in this thread of course it's not perfect but it looks pretty accurate to me. This happens every time there is any form of rankings put up.

 

[Kone]

Ben - i think the whining is what makes ranking lists. Without the debates, discussions and what not they get very boring. Also, if they are meant to be a proper reflection of the uk community competitively then you should argue to define the fairest way to rank people. I think it is cool that mako has started a list but it is also fair that people want it to be representative. If you look at what tournaemnts are being included i.e. very small events then it should take into account the skill level present. Auroreons idea is very good and i think if it was added to the way the list was made then it would sort out a lot of the issues people may have.

In all honesty i like the suggestion a lot and if there was to be a future uk melee ranking list it should defiently adopt it.

 

[K.Mac]

I agree; it's not perfect, but it seems to work.


Maybe there needs to be some sort of a cap placed somehow?

Maybe basing the rankings on a certain number of previously attended tournaments would help? I'm not sure, but if the rankings for each player are calculated on their position in, say, the last 8 tournaments they've attended, it would help balance out who is consistent in placings and who isn't, whilst giving people who -are- good but don't attend many tournaments to take a standing on the list that depicts their true potential.

As this list seems heavily based on the number of tournaments attended, people such as myself (who only go to local ranbats due to travel expenses :x) will have a harder time getting a higher placing than someone such as calzorz (as he just goes to every **** tournament anyway xD)


Of course, this needs to be looked at to decide whether it is also flawed and also unfair on people who go regularly to tournaments... but that remains to be seen. It's just a simple suggestion.

I AM GOING TO GET MYSELF ON THAT **** LIST. I swear it.

 

[Kone]

In past uk melee ranking lists we used to use the only last major tournament results. The most recent results were given points (based on a formula) and each player got 100% of their points. However, for the 2nd most recent results only 80% of the points were used, 60% for third most recent, 40% for fourth and 20% for 5th. This way players couldnt rely on previous placings and it meant players performing at more recent tournaments were fairly represented.

However, melee had regular large national tournament happening every 3 months. At the moment brawl doesnt have this hence why this doesnt really apply.

I think kmac that rankings should reflect how many tournaments you go to especially the ones that have a higher level of player skill. Hence, combining what mako has proposed with auroreons suggestion would be good. If you want to be on a national uk ranking list you used really travel to play others. The ranking list should reflect this fact and not allow people to climb into high list placings without playing the wider community :/

 

[Bullet Bill]

imo It's def good to make it as accurate as possible, but don't forget it will never be completely accurate. It's like all rankings. The WTA rankings for instance had serena williams not in the top ten before she won the Aus open again.

I think a bit of tweaking is fine but theres nothing wrong with it being slightly off it should just be looked at as more statistical and less as a exact reflection of how good players are.

 

[BloodBowler]

I feel a little out of place commenting on a ranking list for a game I don't play, however I like to think I had a decent part in running the UK melee ranking lists and as such my opinion could be worth something here:

No ranking list is definite, conclusive or concrete.

If you have a ranking list that is purely statistical and based wholly on tournament or ranbat data, you have an objective list of good players. However the exact order of these players from top to bottom will be inaccurate. Some regions have more players, meaning a better player may place lower on the list, simply because there are more pros in his or her general area.

If you have a ranking list developed by a series of competitive level players from the game, you have a professional, serious opinion which can take into account such factors, however you also have a serious possibility (If not, certainty) of bias. I don't care who you are, you are not objective.

Developing a ranking list is about weighing the pros and cons, it does matter how neutral your people are or who in depth your numbers develop, you will always turn out with an uneven list. Some people may be the best player in the world and simply be incapable of travel, it can't always be a question of forcing them into the open.

Then again, I think a ranking system based on ranking battles will be sketchy at best, simply because various areas have more players, or have better players, or have more better players. Personally, put your effort into tournament hosting ideas, funding revenues and so on instead of trying to categorize everyone into a list that WILL ALWAYS be argued over.

 

[Kone]

I agree with most of what BB said. Always a very concise and clear poster. However, i dispute three things. You can't expect to be ranked highly in any list if you don't travel. Most sports don't do that. Also, any list should promote the better players travelling to play one another and keep the tournament scene going. Look at the current melee slump :/.

I also think a data list>any panel. Choosing who should be on the panel and removing bias is too difficult. Especially with the small size of the uk and our community.

Lastly, ranking lists are a good thing. They generate interest, competition and heated discussion. Id much prefer having that on the boards than not having a list. Look how boring swf has became recently.

More topics that generate discussion the better!

 

[OldGeezer666]

Interesting

 

[Willz]

Change my main from MK to Falco and I've entered 4 tourneys and placed 2nd three times and 4th once.

 

[auroreon]

Lol... people not wanting their main as MK.
I agree with what Mako has done in displaying the character people are most successful with. If you don't want your main displayed as MK, then don't use him to win.
But I think Willz has actually been more successful with Falco...

 

[Almas]

Well, I've never actually used G&W in a tourney as far as I can remember... ;p

 

[MakoMako]

Blinky told me what char Almas used but I couldn't remember so I put G&W cuz he's cool and has the same skin complexion as me

 

[Anaky]

WTF no Willz isnt the most succesful with Falco, no way, not ever. His Metaknight is his best char, and Mako arnet u the most succesful with ZZS? But srsly put Willz for MK, his best chars are probz, MK > D3 > Falco.

 

[Willz]

Yeah okay w/e Andy lol.

I don't get what this Average placement means. Someone explain how my average placement is 6th?