NorCal Melee Power Rankings - Summer '15 Update - In Sickness and In Filth

[ShadowBTZO]

Delphiki:
have you beaten anyone ranked? have you beaten anyone that is close to being ranked? (like other members of FTA that are close to making the list, etc)?

then it doesnt matter if he beats you, because you don't have any real impact on the rankings.

Basically yeah, the matches that are listed are the ones of people who have beaten others on the top 25 making them competition for the next top 25.

 

[Delphiki]

Delphiki:
have you beaten anyone ranked? have you beaten anyone that is close to being ranked? (like other members of FTA that are close to making the list, etc)?

then it doesnt matter if he beats you, because you don't have any real impact on the rankings.

No, and no. I have got close to beating players who are close to being ranked, that's about it.

But that's exactly my point. The same difference in skill can be applied to players on different levels than I:

King vs. Simna is a much larger gap in skill than NintendoKing or Simna versus myself. And yet where is the line drawn? Would a loss of Simna's to King be any more worthy of consideration than my loss to Simna, simply because they are both ranked?


Even when taking your example: If I had beaten NintendoKing, the ramifications of my loss to Simna would remain more or less the same.

--------------------

BTZO: If competition is the only factor worth looking at, then my point is again defended: A win of King's against Boback or Bernard would not be considered competition. These losses would not show competitors, however Brian is still correct in that they would reaffirm current placings.

 

[Scamp]

What IS your point exactly, anyway? That some matches are considered and some aren't?


Simply put, we keep track of matches that could, in any way, affect the top 25. In that regard, people in the top 25 are more likely to have their matches noted because even if that particular match isn't important the people around the bottom person's level are more likely to pull off an upset.

Confused? Yeah, me too. Let's put it another way.


Please have a more concise point or re-state it for me because I'm not clear on it.

In any event, people below the top 25 are not going to be considered at all unless they can prove that they can beat someone on the top 25. Consistantly. If that happens, though, we can go back and look at all the matches he played if we need to. It's not like they magically disappear.

 

[Zoap]

Scamp spelled consistently wrong im bored guys

and since were on the subject of something i think bye should be in the top25 next time. I mean he only plays the top players and he is very consistent so much so of recognition at least And he is usually at every single tournament and i never hear him say anything bad about anyone, i vote bye for 25th spot!!

 

[Zoap]

if u havent seen it by now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_E79glEnj0&mode=related&search=

 

[Delphiki]

My point is that there is no set definition of what wins and losses should be recorded. Limiting consideration to just 'top 25' does not help the players who, just as Brian said, beat those who are close to making the list. So top 25 is not valid. Players in competition for the list must have a good majority of both losses and wins recorded.

However all records should be limited to close matches, in which sense I agree with BTZO when he mentions competition. If I get 4 stocked twice in a row, the match is not worth consideration. However if the set went 2-1, and each game went down to the last stock, that would be worth considering, because it is obvious there is a relatively small gap in skill between these players. This shows that simple win-loss records show only who is superior, but not how much. How can this flaw be corrected?




Also, if two players are known to be close in skill, I think that their matches themselves, not just the result, should be considered.

An example: at tournament U, player X beats player Y. At tournament W, player X beats player Y. This evidence lends support to the proposition that player X is better than player Y, and thus should be ranked higher. However the details of the matches are not in consideration. What is the win-loss result? Stocks? These things are necessary in order to accurately related the difference in skill. A point system would help in doing this. Even a simple system, such as one point per remaininf stock for each game; i.e., player X two stocks player Y, then player Y four stocks player X, then player X two stocks player Y. Using a point system, these two players are relatively equal in skill. Without this system, the current considerations (in the case of similar, recurring results) would only show that player X is superior, because he won the set. Thus a point system such as (but not necessarily exactly the same) the one I demonstrated is a more accurate system than the current method used on the master list.

 

[ShadowBTZO]

My point is that there is no set definition of what wins and losses should be recorded. Limiting consideration to just 'top 25' does not help the players who, just as Brian said, beat those who are close to making the list. So top 25 is not valid. Players in competition for the list must have a good majority of both losses and wins recorded.

However all records should be limited to close matches, in which sense I agree with BTZO when he mentions competition. If I get 4 stocked twice in a row, the match is not worth consideration. However if the set went 2-1, and each game went down to the last stock, that would be worth considering, because it is obvious there is a relatively small gap in skill between these players. This shows that simple win-loss records show only who is superior, but not how much. How can this flaw be corrected?




Also, if two players are known to be close in skill, I think that their matches themselves, not just the result, should be considered.

An example: at tournament U, player X beats player Y. At tournament W, player X beats player Y. This evidence lends support to the proposition that player X is better than player Y, and thus should be ranked higher. However the details of the matches are not in consideration. What is the win-loss result? Stocks? These things are necessary in order to accurately related the difference in skill. A point system would help in doing this. Even a simple system, such as one point per remaininf stock for each game; i.e., player X two stocks player Y, then player Y four stocks player X, then player X two stocks player Y. Using a point system, these two players are relatively equal in skill. Without this system, the current considerations (in the case of similar, recurring results) would only show that player X is superior, because he won the set. Thus a point system such as (but not necessarily exactly the same) the one I demonstrated is a more accurate system than the current method used on the master list.

How close the match was is not considered into wins and losses. There are far too many factors to be included if we went through each and every match looking for stocks left, what the set was at, SD's etc...Also I have explained many times that there is a set way to have who is in competition for the top 25. If someone off of the top 25, beats someone who is either on it, or beats someone who is already in competition for the top 25, then they are written as considered for the top 25.

 

[Art?]

delphiki is a master debater.

 

[tc1]

Im Telling You.. Or Maybe Lunin Make ... A CREW NCPR>.. Y NOT... And.. Ok.Ok. I Guess the only real way 2 make it on here is 2 beat people @ the Sanjose Biweeklies,, So U shuld rename it.. SANJOSEPR.. Yup// Obviously. the rest of the norcal tournies arent bein taken into consideration or maybe i dont have enough publicity from enough good people.. Am i wrong//????????/

 

[LunInSpectra]

I believe, if we ever do a point system, it will not be weighted for the rankings but will probably be put into consideration during the rankings.

 

[ShadowBTZO]

Im Telling You.. Or Maybe Lunin Make ... A CREW NCPR>.. Y NOT... And.. Ok.Ok. I Guess the only real way 2 make it on here is 2 beat people @ the Sanjose Biweeklies,, So U shuld rename it.. SANJOSEPR.. Yup// Obviously. the rest of the norcal tournies arent bein taken into consideration or maybe i dont have enough publicity from enough good people.. Am i wrong//????????/

WHAT??? Look at Hyuga's top 25 list and competitors for the top 25, it has wins and losses from a Santa Cruz tournament, your guys' biweeklies, and the SFSU biweekly...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Im Telling You.. Or Maybe Lunin Make ... A CREW NCPR>.. Y NOT... And.. Ok.Ok. I Guess the only real way 2 make it on here is 2 beat people @ the Sanjose Biweeklies,, So U shuld rename it.. SANJOSEPR.. Yup// Obviously. the rest of the norcal tournies arent bein taken into consideration or maybe i dont have enough publicity from enough good people.. Am i wrong//????????/

TC1, are you aware of this:

http://infinityfx.net/teamwc/viewtopic.php?t=24

The only way to make it on the list is to beat good people, AKA people who are on the 25. If someone can't go to any tournies where there are top 25 people, that's their problem. I'm not going to put someone on the list cause they beat everyone on their block. And I don't understand what you mean when you say you "don't have enough publicity." I went to 2 of your biweeklies and brought people that would otherwise never come with me, because Sac smashers always complain about how they never get to play anyone. And I recorded the matchups on my master results list. So I don't know what you want here.

As far as Delphiki's posts:

Yes, the wins I decide to include are mostly arbitrary; they are wins that have no bearing on the person's rank, come next rankings list. This is admittedly by my own standards. I don't feel like reporting that SS beat 5 random people on his way through the bracket or whatever. Since I look at every single match, I can do this on a case-by-case basis, which IMO is better than trying to "draw a line" which is not really worth the debate, and since nobody will agree on the same thing anyway. Just trust me that I know what I'm doing.

Next, as far as recording the matches of people near the top 25: You have to beat someone in the top 25 to get your match records posted. If you beat someone who's on the brink of making it into the top 25, then their loss to you would be recorded in their matchups anyway.

Regarding some kind of points system that you had proposed: I in fact dispute that you can prove it would be more accurate. Even if you could, I just don't think the sheer amount of effort required for such a thing would be worth it. Are we going to have to ref every single match where there's a ranked person involved? And like BTZO said, just stock left isn't really the only factor, so if you're going to go that far, why not record % and SD's and phantom hits or whatever. It's not worth it even if it were more accurate, which I don't necessarily think it would be. The 'W' is more important than anything else. The 'W' is worth more than taking 4 stocks off your opponent. If I get 2 stocked twice, is that the same as him 4 stocking me twice and me 4 stocking him once? It's clearly not.

 

[ProdigyKid]

delphiki is a master debater.

LOL Fcking Art. XDD

WHAT??? Look at Hyuga's top 25 list and competitors for the top 25, it has wins and losses from a Santa Cruz tournament, your guys' biweeklies, and the SFSU biweekly...

Crap you took the UCSC tourney into account??? Good God I didnt even try.... T___T

And I sniff a rivalry between Bay Area and Central Cali

 

[ender]

And don't get me started on "beat squares".

hey scamp sometime you should come over and we can talk about "circle beats"

good job guys who are on this. bad job people who are on this but not going to tourneys. coughbobandgeo

 

[cavesonic13]

Hahahahahaha

 

[Delphiki]

Rhetoric often leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, my point remains valid, even though the point system is unpractical. As I stated in my last post, records should be determined by skill gaps. Just as my loss to Simna is not noteworthy, AfroJustin's losses to SS and the GERM are not noteworthy. As BTZO said, competiton should be large factor in determining what is recorded.



I think it's about time for another ^_^. What of players who have no records? Currently these are Geo, Meep, and Bob$, also Zelgadis has only losses. Their skill is not doubted, but is it fair to include them above other, more commonly competing players? Geo is the extreme example, who rarely makes it to events even a short distance away. I believe that Bob$ has become a somewhat uncommon competitor lately as well. Even considering lack of participation, are their positions justified?

 

[choknater]

everyone knows how good bob$ is >_> geo too

anyways from what i've seen the ncpr do consider results from non-ncb's but they judge much better from what they've seen with their own eyes. my placement on the ncpr was basically finalized at nct2 when i failed to have a good performance. it was a matter of losing to frotaz or not losing to frotaz, or losing to zelgadis or not losing to zelgadis. larger tournaments are much more heavily weighted, even if rankers go to the local tournaments. lo and behold, they win 99% of the time.

i've won a tournament against meep/kfc ONCE, so my name was considered. even then, it was a long time ago. i constantly got 3rd place after that. but i never won a tournament after that and just barely didn't make it to the bracket at nct2 by one loss, so i deserve not having a spot there. i guess right now it's a matter of "who is better between me and boback" lol.

and now there are only ncb's, sac and sfsu biweeklies. TGE's looked like they've stopped, and we might be seeing Stockton Biweeklies soon. so here is my very basic and simplified idea of requirements to get into the ncpr:
1. get first place!
OR
2. impress the panel with their own eyes!
3. "barely losing" doesn't impress anyone.

 

[SuperRad]

Rhetoric often leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, my point remains valid, even though the point system is unpractical. As I stated in my last post, records should be determined by skill gaps. Just as my loss to Simna is not noteworthy, AfroJustin's losses to SS and the GERM are not noteworthy. As BTZO said, competiton should be large factor in determining what is recorded.

Ugh, I don't even get why you argue these things. AfroJustin finished in the Final 8 at the one biweekly hes come to since the NCPR were started. Anyone who finished that high has a chance of beating SS and Germ, even though it might be small. Its just good to keep in mind who they've lost to thats higher for placing reasons.

Another good example:
Germ right now has beaten Falcomist and lost to Falcomist. Now, if you isolate the win, by your standards, it shouldn't be considered as Germ is ranked 7 places above FMF. Then people would only see the loss he got the FMF and not the later victory.

The point is that you vs Simna isn't considered a competitive match because simna is ranked, but you arent close to being ranked. AfroJustin finished top 8, so its imporant to remember that he got Top 8, but couldn't beat Germ or SS once he got there.

 

[Zoap]

srry to say delphiki but zelgadis does have wins u just have to look a little harder. Under the ppl he beat like btzo, its in there loss column and ppl who dont participate in the period are going to go down no matter if we know there amazing. The prime example is bob$ he dropped from 5th to 8th in one period due to lack of competiting and fooling around when competiting. All important wins are kept track of trust sheridan on this. If u cant beat someone ranked in a set then u dont deserve to be on the rankings end of story. It doesnt matter how many 2-1 u have u still cant win the set and until u do u cant be considered. AND with ur example of leaving ppl who beat ppl below them off. I have beat frotaz the past 3 tourneys ive played so i say if he beat me the next time we played that it might MEAN SOmeTHIng

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think it is evident that the skill gap between say, 24th and 25th (not the specific people at those ranks, but whomever are at those ranks at any given time), isn't necessarily the same as that between any other 2 ranks.

The gaps in skill can be considered to be related to the difference in points that the payer receives from the votes of the panelists. For example in the first list, Snap in 9th was ahead of me in 10th by 1 point, but the person in 8th (I think it was Foxroar, I forget) was quite a few more points ahead.

As for inactive players, I am pretty sure I've posted this stuff in Boback's forums somewhere. If not forgive me. Now, I think the panelists will consider these players on a case-by-case basis. Bob$ will be off the next list by his request (and to be honest, I don't think it's fair to let him ride on his past rep for however many months it's been since he played seriously at a tourney). If Geo doesn't go to any tournies, it's likely that he will be off the list. However this doesn't mean that he's "worse than 25th," it just means that we don't have enough info to make an accurate judgement. However, if and when he returns, he won't have to work his way up the list like someone who's brand new to the scene would; he will be considered in the context of his former ranking, and those who were near it, and where those people are now, etc.

 

[Art?]

why not just avoid all argument and record ALL wins and losses, regardless of the difference in skill between the two players. it'll make for good archives.

 

[ShadowBTZO]

why not just avoid all argument and record ALL wins and losses, regardless of the difference in skill between the two players. it'll make for good archives.

We don't do that because there would be way too many matches to record, considering the top players have to beat many people at each tournament in order to win. Also if they are not competitive players, there is no point in considering them for the top 25, which is what the bottom part is for (bottom of Hyuga's list I mean).

 

[Tomi-X]

Aren't the wins and losses recorded in the tournament program used anyway?

 

[LunInSpectra]

Last week we had some technical difficulties with said program (god dang tio....jk tio you're awesome), and we have done some experimenting so that it doesn't happen again.

I have came up with many problems and many solutions to those problems (I wrote solutions), and any new problems will be directed to Neal himself.

Problems WON'T happen again, unless of course, someone spills coffee on my laptop.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

why not just avoid all argument and record ALL wins and losses, regardless of the difference in skill between the two players. it'll make for good archives.

Well that would take at least twice as much work as I spend on it already (since fewer than half of matches at tournies are rankings-relevant), and it took me over an hour to update that stuff after our DRIFT tourney. So basically, because I don't want to. :/

 

[Delphiki]

All tournaments done by Tio can be found here, including the Sacramento Biweeklies and the SJSU Biweeklies:

http://lbpolymusic.com/tio/


Part of the problem is that not all tournaments are done with Tio (yet ^_^). Also, there would be way too many matches to record. If any other matches are needed, they can be found at the database above.

Quick question: if I were to beat Simna at a tourney (example only), would my old loss also be placed on the master list, along with the win? I think it should.

 

[Delphiki]

Updated the SW page, I added the Master List.

Lunin you should stick this link in the first post somewhere:

http://www.smashwiki.com/wiki/NorCal_Power_Rankings

 

[Art?]

perhaps we should make a recommendation to neal that tio should have a history of a player's wins/losses against other players. like, an auto-save feature that'll get it on file as soon as the set is over, as well as how the set went (whether it was a best-of-three or best-of-five set).

 

[whiteboyninja]

delphiki, if you were to beat simna in a tourny match, it would be recorded. then people would watch you. if you did it a second time in a row, then you would probably be seriously considered for the list. however, if you beat him then lose again, it was probably just an upset.

the problem with holding on to old matches too long is skill gaps change. for a quick example, art here used to whup me every game. at the last NCB, i took him to the 3rd match, and held my own against him in the crew battle. if i start beating him a majority of games now (not saying it will, hypothetical) then you cant look at all my past losses, because something has obviously changed.

people who arnt on the list still beat me consistantly, so i know i am not a contendor for being listed. however, a lot of the sjsu regulars have been noting my improvement...and if my improvement continues and i start beating a few ranked people, then i will certainly be considered.

i know it doesnt seem like im making much of a point here, but what im trying to say is that if you arnt beating good people consistantly, then you really shouldnt worry about yourself being on the NCPR.

IIRC delphiki, you were in my pool and finished 5th, so have to have been improving even faster than me to even think about making that list...not that it isnt going to happen, but right now i would suggest focusing on improving teh skillz before focusing on any kind of rankings. thats what im doing, im hoping to continue to slowly climb up the ladder over other smashers.

i know i didnt really help anyone's confusion about how anything works...but i hope people start thinking a little bit less about how they are ranked against other people, and focus instead on just beating the people. results will follow, sheridan will see to that.

 

[Delphiki]

You've taken me wrong. I know I am not yet material to be considered. I never had that assumption. If you followed the thread for the last couple of pages, you may have known that I only asked that question for a specific reason.

As of now, my loss to Simna at the SBII is not on the master list. I asked if I were to beat Simna at our next match, if both the old loss and the new win go on the list. I would like to hear an answer from Hyuga.


But it is very safe to assume that I've got a lot better since NCT2, and while I am not yet considerable for this list, I aim to be.


What Art said wouldn't be too much of a problem, because the panel typically weighs recent results more than old ones. Also, high-stakes matches (i.e., wins at large tournaments) are considered for a longer amount of time than low-stake tournaments. That has also been covered within this thread.

 

[MyKo]

Man wtf is so good about simna and his GHeyNess.

lol.

glad im not on the ranks. im nothing.^^

BUT ON MS..im something. WOOOOO

 

[SuperRad]

You've taken me wrong. I know I am not yet material to be considered. I never had that assumption. If you followed the thread for the last couple of pages, you may have known that I only asked that question for a specific reason.

As of now, my loss to Simna at the SBII is not on the master list. I asked if I were to beat Simna at our next match, if both the old loss and the new win go on the list. I would like to hear an answer from Hyuga.


But it is very safe to assume that I've got a lot better since NCT2, and while I am not yet considerable for this list, I aim to be.


What Art said wouldn't be too much of a problem, because the panel typically weighs recent results more than old ones. Also, high-stakes matches (i.e., wins at large tournaments) are considered for a longer amount of time than low-stake tournaments. That has also been covered within this thread.

if you beat Simna your loss to him would also go on the list. As well as any loss to the FTA members ranked or rank considered, Kev$ or Geo, etc.

 

[Scamp]

Also do not focus entirely on results. These are power rankings, not statistcal rankings.

But of course results tend to be important. What good is power if you don't use it?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

For the answer to Scamp's question, see my sig.

Delphiki: If you got a win over a ranked player, I'd try to go back and find your losses during this rankings period and write those up along with the mention in the master results topic. And GJ on the Smash Wiki page, it looks good.

---

Speaking of rankings periods, I think we should come up with a date for a new list. I propose the weekend of January 6 to be the last weekend for this period, since it is the weekend of the big tourney in AZ, which will hopefully have Norcal attendance.

 

[Delphiki]

What AZ tourney? Oh and thanks for the SW page. I also did one for the SCPR, just to be fair. SW is surprisingly addictive.


I don't know enough of Nietzsche to comment on your sig, but he's someone I'd like to read. I know that if I threw in a nice big chunk of Platonic Republicanism I definitely agree.

 

[KILLA.FOR.CASH.]

Hey....... i was bored last night and i came up with this idea. How bout we just say SCREW the new tourney format and just go back to regular singles format.

But any good player can challenge another good player to a set(on the NCPR or not) and count that win?

and singles would still be taken into account

 

[froz3ntear]

Hey....... i was bored last night and i came up with this idea. How bout we just say SCREW the new tourney format and just go back to regular singles format.

But any good player can challenge another good player to a set(on the NCPR or not) and count that win?

and singles would still be taken into account

Tournements used to be singles?

 

[KILLA.FOR.CASH.]

im talking about the ranking battles thingies. i havent been to an NCB in a while and i thought you guys did this new kind of thing for rankings?

 

[froz3ntear]

im talking about the ranking battles thingies. i havent been to an NCB in a while and i thought you guys did this new kind of thing for rankings?

ranking battles? The NCB's are still the same. The last one we just had was double elimination which is the usual format and 2 biweeklies ago was scamp's drift format, and for the upcoming biweekly, there's talk about a Swiss tournement format. They are just tournement formats, I don't think they have anything to do with rankings.

 

[MyKo]

lol it's funny.

i go to these things without caring or knowing whatever is happening.

you should just go and play carefree haha.^^