• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

IHL/Invite-Only Ladder healthy for scene?

SurvivorSeb

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
D I C K S O N (Canberra)
NNID
Brektfast
I'm thinking about hosting an In-House League of sorts for melee, inviting the top 4-8 players in my region to a weekly event where they would play in a ladder (elo based?) for prizes over a monthly period.

My overall goal would be to improve the current level of competitiveness in Canberra which I feel leaves much to be desired. I'm aiming for an environment where players strive to get better and overtake people higher than them on the ladder, and the lowest ranking members trying to stave off being "relegated" each month.

Would this do more harm than good in terms of building competitiveness? Would players not invited feel as though its too exclusive? Will this encourage invited players to even get better?

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on such a system. Does anyone have any experience with something like this?
 

DD_

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
371
Location
Melbourne, Australia
We have leagues for SF4 and Marvel in Melbourne but we by no means exclude people. Instead we have different leagues and the aim for the lower players is to rank up into the higher leagues rather than being told they can't come and play matches for a month. Your idea could have the effect you want, but it also runs the risk of creating a new barrier to entry and just end up deterring people.
 

Mr_Beans

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6
We have leagues for SF4 and Marvel in Melbourne but we by no means exclude people. Instead we have different leagues and the aim for the lower players is to rank up into the higher leagues rather than being told they can't come and play matches for a month. Your idea could have the effect you want, but it also runs the risk of creating a new barrier to entry and just end up deterring people.
If the prizes differ between the different leagues I think it could have the effect you are looking for. Players would continue to strive to excel into higher leagues and it also gives motivation to the better players to continue competing in the higher leagues as well.
 

gomez

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Canberra
I'm all for it. We definitely need to play more full sets amongst each other out of tournament, and tracking results (elo/glicko are great) is definitely good for motivation.

As the actual implementation, yeah we don't want it to come across as being too exclusive. Would have to read what similar things other local scenes have running for ideas.
 

Agonvaga

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
77
Elitism or exclusion of newer & not as skilled players (esp with smaller scenes) will do nothing productive in almost all cases.
I've seen this tried (in a similar way) in CA and PR and it lasted about 2 days in the former and about 4 hours in the latter (the first of which obviously has a very large scene).

As it is there is already a stigma a lot of people feel towards Melee about there being a certain clique of sorts, which a lot of people have been turned away from the scene by.
Though who knows, maybe it'll work in the ACT, but I would never consider it a long term solution (besides, tournaments/pools are pretty much this anyway since they eliminate the not as skilled players early and gain a lot more money for a tournament everyone can compete in.

Anyway regarding the general idea, I'm unfamiliar with how the ACT's Melee scene is (since I left which was over 3 years ago), but back then it wouldn't have worked (maybe at first, but I'd give it a few days/meetups tops) before it just crumbles.
Most people (excluding people like zxv and Dtech) get better by playing people that are flat out better than them; that's how I've always became better; and that's how I've always seen it work in pretty much all cases - as almost anyone who has been overseas will tell you - when they go there they usually get their ass kicked since the skill level is so much higher, but after an hour or two, they start playing better even if it's subliminal, then when they get back to say Australia, they feel like their skill level goes down to what it was before after a few games.
A lot of what I just stated is unrelated in a way, but I still thought I'd mention it given the amount of times I've been overseas and felt my skill level rise and drop each and every time - but I'm no pro-player anyway (I can't be, I'm nowhere near devoted enough, 'specially now).

In other words, I don't particularly like the idea but I don't disagree with it in theory; but also doubt it'll work (for long).
So yeah, messy.
 
Last edited:

Redact

Professional Nice Guy
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
3,811
Location
Amazing Land
Exclusion due to lack of skill or results is baaaaad, like reality is how do you expect a bad player to keep up if they don't get to go to events?

I'd look at having as many people as possible each time, if there is issues with space or setups then you could look at rotating people at random to allow more to come, rather than any specific exclusion.
 

SurvivorSeb

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
D I C K S O N (Canberra)
NNID
Brektfast
I get what you guys are saying but I would be aiming for this not to take away from the already existing meets and tournaments, but be something extra on the side. Is that not a viable idea? I've never hosted anything so don't really know.

Two leagues seems like a great idea which wouldn't exclude anybody, but the higher tier would require a significant incentive to get there to stop people becoming complacent with being highly ranked in the lower tier.
 

Agonvaga

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
77
I'd say host your own tourney and get opinions from people at the event before trying it "at" your first event, because...being a TO (esp with majors) isn't exactly fun in some cases.

But this almost sounds to me like the opposite of an amateur bracket, which again....can just be done without doing anything different by having a normal tourney, but alas, I'm probably not understanding your idea well, so as I said, ask your scene (in person, people tend to be a lot more brave on the net and probably won't even attend in the end anyway).
 

Aussierob123

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
2,033
Location
Gold Coast - Australia
I don't see the point. Regardless at any event, new players or experienced ones, the best players will get to vs each other if they deserve to. You are basically just denying the lesser experienced players a chance to be included.
 

SurvivorSeb

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
D I C K S O N (Canberra)
NNID
Brektfast
I think people tend to be misunderstanding what I mean, but that may be my fault due to awful explanation. To give a quick example:

ACT already has weekly meets on Mondays. (Used to also be Thursdays)
ACT has tournaments once a month. (See Canberra Colosseum).
My "Ladder Meet" would be on another week night agreeable to majority of invited players as to not take away from participation in either the current meets or the monthlies.

Thanks everyone for the input so far.
 

Redact

Professional Nice Guy
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
3,811
Location
Amazing Land
even if theres 10000 other tournaments in your state each week, exclusive meets based on skill level is just bad
 
Last edited:

Mr_Beans

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6
Maybe if two ladders are used, the top 2 players could be seeded into the top 8 ladder and make it a top 6 ladder with 2 added players from the other ladder. Then the higher player ladder could still have to fight for their spots for the prize for the winner through different skill levels. The higher ranked players would have an easier time through seeding (Highest rank player would verse 2nd from first ladder, 2nd highest would face 1st from the first ladder etc) and having the 'Championship' ladder at the end all 3/5 or something would make it interesting. I think the idea is solid but the execution you have to be careful with due to other players reactions or feelings about it. Although, I am far from one of the top 6 or even top 8 players in Canberra in rankings and I fully support and encourage what you are trying to set-up
 

Song_

Smash Cadet
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
42
Location
Melbourne
If you want a more competitive community let people get good
and not just the good ones
 

Agonvaga

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
77
even if theres 10000 other tournaments in your state each week, exclusive meets based on skill level is just bad
This.

And the other stuff, over-complicating things never works out well in Aus smash, trust me, I've done it a number of times (people just want it as simple as possible, esp newbies, which in order for the scenes to grow, you need). <3
 

SurvivorSeb

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
D I C K S O N (Canberra)
NNID
Brektfast
If you want a more competitive community let people get good
and not just the good ones
A very small amount of people in the ACT have motivation to get better at this point which is why I feel as though something which promotes an ultra-competitive environment could work.

At this point I'm still looking for input as nothing is planned yet.
 

Redact

Professional Nice Guy
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
3,811
Location
Amazing Land
A very small amount of people in the ACT have motivation to get better at this point which is why I feel as though something which promotes an ultra-competitive environment could work.

At this point I'm still looking for input as nothing is planned yet.
Just put a entrance fee with a pot for the top placing people, if that doesn't make people competitive then restricting them won't either
 

Hobs_

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 5, 2014
Messages
233
Location
Australia
seems like you only came here to get validation for your idea, not to take anyone elses advice onboard
 

Mr_Beans

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
6
seems like you only came here to get validation for your idea, not to take anyone elses advice onboard
Seems more like he is trying to argue his point of view. It's hard not too when everyone is only stating negative opinions on it
 
Last edited:

Anders

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
24
Location
Melbourne
I think it's admirable that you want to provide incentives for players to improve, but I think that for something like this to be successful, the people have to be motivated to improve in the first place. It's usually pretty clear just from playing sets against people whether or not they're better than you, and if knowing you're worse than somebody isn't enough to motivate you to improve, I'm not sure this will do much to change that.

It seemed like a decent idea at first because I can imagine myself setting the goal of getting good enough to participate and then to hit rank 1 after, but then I realised that my goal is already to get better than everybody else anyway so it wouldn't really change anything.

I mean, if a person's goal isn't to be better than everybody else already, or if they're just not prepared to put in the work to achieve something like that, does adding a ranked ladder really make a difference? I'm not entirely convinced it would.

Besides, even if you're setting aside another day to host the ladder meet each week, couldn't you just use that time to host a more inclusive meet/tournament instead? Playing against people at your own skill level and above is definitely a great way to improve, but only if you have the right mindset when you're playing. Top ranked player vs top ranked player isn't a guaranteed recipe for improvement, because it doesn't guarantee that the players are going to be thinking critically about the ways they can get better. I mean, provided they're not JV 5 stocking them every single game, a smart/motivated player will be able to notice the holes in their game and improve upon them no matter who their opponent is. Also, nothing is stopping them from getting on a TV with more top players than not at an open meet, and if they're good they'll end up playing against the other top players in tournament anyway.

I don't know, I guess I'm just struggling to see the positives of something like this, or at least I'm struggling to see how they outweigh the negatives.
 

SurvivorSeb

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
26
Location
D I C K S O N (Canberra)
NNID
Brektfast
I think it's admirable that you want to provide incentives for players to improve, but I think that for something like this to be successful, the people have to be motivated to improve in the first place. It's usually pretty clear just from playing sets against people whether or not they're better than you, and if knowing you're worse than somebody isn't enough to motivate you to improve, I'm not sure this will do much to change that.

It seemed like a decent idea at first because I can imagine myself setting the goal of getting good enough to participate and then to hit rank 1 after, but then I realised that my goal is already to get better than everybody else anyway so it wouldn't really change anything.

I mean, if a person's goal isn't to be better than everybody else already, or if they're just not prepared to put in the work to achieve something like that, does adding a ranked ladder really make a difference? I'm not entirely convinced it would.

Besides, even if you're setting aside another day to host the ladder meet each week, couldn't you just use that time to host a more inclusive meet/tournament instead? Playing against people at your own skill level and above is definitely a great way to improve, but only if you have the right mindset when you're playing. Top ranked player vs top ranked player isn't a guaranteed recipe for improvement, because it doesn't guarantee that the players are going to be thinking critically about the ways they can get better. I mean, provided they're not JV 5 stocking them every single game, a smart/motivated player will be able to notice the holes in their game and improve upon them no matter who their opponent is. Also, nothing is stopping them from getting on a TV with more top players than not at an open meet, and if they're good they'll end up playing against the other top players in tournament anyway.

I don't know, I guess I'm just struggling to see the positives of something like this, or at least I'm struggling to see how they outweigh the negatives.
It may not change your goal of getting better but it would quantify your progress and reward you for it.

Would you be interested in seeing yourself move up a ladder with weekly updates? Would that encourage you or make you complacent? Similar to how you get a number in any game with MMR/Elo, something to track your progress and prove that you are indeed improving without waiting for the almost non-existent PR updates. It comes down to the individual I suppose.

I don't personally know all of the melee players in ACT so can't speak for their motivation levels, so you do bring up a good point that enough people simply wont be interested enough in being the best to really push themselves to even take part in this.
 

S.D

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
4,062
Location
Sleeping in a submarine
I think a better way to do it (assuming the main issue is an attendance cap) would maybe be to have a few different brackets rotate through if you want to do promotion/relegation. At least then everyone is playing people around their level which is usally the best way to move forward.
 

Aussierob123

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
2,033
Location
Gold Coast - Australia
It's not that were only looking at the negatives here. A meet is a good thing to host to prove the scene. The problem that is glaringly obvious with this is that this meet plan is exclusive to "good" players. Even if you look at it as encouragement for newbies to get better you are straight up denying an opportunity for them to achieve this.

It's like saying "hey get better, but in your own time. Then you can hang with us"
 

Pazx

hoo hah
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,590
Location
Canberra, Australia
NNID
Pazx13
As potentially the worst Melee player in Canberra I worry this will detract attention and attendance from weekly meets which would reduce my chances of improving significantly. If you are dead-set on the idea of an invite-only ladder, why not host it in conjunction with (read: at) the weekly meets so there's still significant opportunity for friendlies with players of all skill levels.
 

Tin Man

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,874
Location
Belconnen, ACT, Australia
Seems like the main premise is to be able to motivate veterans by allowing their improvement and placements to be more glorified with some more prizes and progress tracking while also offering opportunities for these players to play each other more so that they may improve.

Despite what was said above, one pro I can definitely see from it is how it has the potential for newer and less experienced players to enter the scene and be able to compete with players at their own skill level but that would mean that the multiple ladder idea that has been bouncing around should be implemented over this.

This way, if there's say a beginner ladder, an intermediate ladder, and an expert ladder, points can be tracked across all three ladders every week and the players will be regulated on a weekly basis until the end of the month when the ladder's champion is determined.

This would minimise exclusivity as anyone can join into at least the beginner ladder while allowing newcomers to be immersed to a skill level they can handle better, while allowing the veterans to be able to play each other.

Prize incentives are another factor. The value of which will likely depend on how much support the idea gets. At this rate, it's prolly best to let the scene pick back up some speed as we move out of the holiday period because at this moment, there may not be enough active smashers in the scene to support it. Maybe...

Finally as far as motivation goes, what communicates to you Seb that it is severely lacking? Perhaps another solution can be found by exploring this impression your getting. Do you feel that people could be practicing more? Do you get a sense of complacency from the competitors, etc?
 
Top Bottom