Official BBR Tier List v7

[bubbaking]

Marvel is that game where it's never over. Anything that can happen WILL happen.
You can't take your eyes off the screen for a second.

Not really true, IMO. Combos are so long and damaging (and easy) that you can pretty much put down the controller 10 seconds before the end of the match because you know it was over when you got hit. That and chip damage give us plenty of situations where you can just "take your eyes off the screen" because you know the game should be over. If you want games where "anything that can happen WILL happen," then you should head on over to 3rd Strike or Eternal Fighter Zero. That's where the good stuff is. Parries and perfect blocks?!? It's almost as good as Smash!

 

[Zankoku]

You're saying is that all the players that would place above your were the same.

What if the lower-placing players were stronger overall at the 1st tournament?

Not to mention you got a bye, which meant that you got an easier time in the bracket.
Seems more like a seeding error was the cause behind inconsistent results(not to mention that lower placements are more interchangable among players than the tougher top spots)

Seeding error is a direct product of seeding by skill. Even worse is that seeding by skill is done with no prior references a lot of the time.

 

[Gardex]

Second tournament whoever was seeding accidentally give me a bye first round and I won my first match in winner's, then lost vs. Keitaro, then beat a couple of mid-level players knocked into losers round 1 and finally lost to... uh... can't remember, someone really good. Second tournament, both had the same amount of attendants, and I placed 17th. Why? I wasn't actually better, but the TO thought I was or messed up. It's insane to me that so much rides on some guy's opinion of you. lol

Sounds more like it was an one-time accident where the TO accidently gave too high of a seeding or something. It leaves too much up to assumption for me to consider as a legit example of inconsistency in Smash tournies(which isn't anything I'm taking a stance about atm, just pointing this out)



Just to keep this going: I wonder when Gheb is coming with his response. I'm pretty hyped.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It isn't about "consistency" which is a bad word to use here anyway. "Consistency" shouldn't be the goal of seeding in locals with no point system or numbers. The only goal when seeding should be to make sure two players that live very close to each other don't have to play each other. Unless there are random factors within the game (lol, tripping) "consistency" should be largely a given. As I said before: Ankoku ran several simulations and top 4 placements were "expected" to a very high degree. The primary differences were in placements below the money.

However, differences don't really imply "inaccuracy" because I said before, skill seeding advocates imply by proxy that they already know who is going to place well and who isn't. If someone unexpected gets 17th, it probably means they didn't run into any good players but no one was robbed of any money. Using the word "accuracy" is wrong, because being inaccurate isn't the same thing as being different from what we expected.

Using the word accuracy before a tournament begins implies we know how players are going to place before it starts. Using those perceptions is a very bad "seed." If you know who is going to win, why are we all here? lol

There are a multitude of benefits to location-based seeding at locals that come one expense: sub-money results are muddier slightly. A side benefit could be that this also gives low- and mid-level tournament players more experience and more games where something is on the line which ultimately makes them better players over time. This should, over time, give us more players with competitive experience and a more competitive community. We ask a lot of less experienced players. Either they can take out Ally round 1, or they can take out a high-level player in round 2 losers, or they're out. Location-based seeding hurts no one but benefits everyone.

 

[Gardex]

Would you allow some "exceptions" in addition to the location-based seeding? Seeing as putting four "expected top 4"s beside eachother would result in one of them taking dead last.(Let's say they were from different regions)
What would be your take on this?

 

[NickRiddle]

Would you allow some "exceptions" in addition to the location-based seeding? Seeing as putting four "expected top 4"s beside eachother would result in one of them taking dead last.(Let's say they were from different regions)
What would be your take on this?

So, because they're good, they get free rides to the top? Self-fulfilling prophesy results!

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

If we don't take skill into account AT ALL then there could be brackets where top players place last.

Think of bracket where in the first round, Nairo is playing Esam and Gnes is playing DEHF. The winners of those two sets play each other and the losers of those two sets play each other. That could result in someone who could possibly win the tournament and would almost definitely place in the money getting last because they had to play 2 other top players right away and happened to go 0-2.

On the other hand, you could have a 4 player grouping of Random Smasher 29, Ganonplayer1345, animefangirl87 and DKrox249. Assuming this grouping is part of the same bracket as my earlier example, you could very likely have Ganonplayer1345 outplacing Gnes at this tournament.

If we decide to seed bracket using pools results, where say, top 4 make it out of an 8 man pool and we seed the bracket by having 1st and 4th from pools playing, and 2nd and 3rd in pools playing while using ONLY location based seeding to make the pools, we could have one pool of Nairo, Esam, Gnes, DEHF, Mr. R, Ally, Zero, 9B. That would a perfectly seeded pool location wise, but only 4 of these players, all of whom are arguably #1 in their region, make it out.

Say another pool is Random Smasher 29, crappyplayer4, Ganonplayer1345, animefangirl87, bestsmashplayerintheuniverse, Player-XYZ, yugiohking1337 and DKrox249. In this hypothetical tournament, players like Mr. R or DEHF would not be participating in the bracket, while players like Random Smasher 29 are.

Now, before you attack me, I'm necessarily against what you are proposing, just pointing out that there are very clear flaws to only using location based seeding and not taking skill into account at all.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Think of bracket where in the first round, Nairo is playing Esam and Gnes is playing DEHF. The winners of those two sets play each other and the losers of those two sets play each other. That could result in someone who could possibly win the tournament and would almost definitely place in the money getting last because they had to play 2 other top players right away and happened to go 0-2.

This happens to everyone not named Gnes all the time. Given that they had no empirical basis for giving Gnes an easier seed, I don't really see the problem.

Here, do me a favor: put me in Gnes' place in the example you gave. Now I'm last. If there's a change in your attitude towards the situation then you are the problem.

The reality is that the expectation that you have a right to a higher placement because you've done well at other tournaments that aren't part of a series is the problem here. At the beginning of a tournament no one should have a right to anything.

 

[Luigi player]

So you want tourneys to be pool only format... like a giant round robin with all the players. Cuz that's the only true fair way.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

There's nothing unfair about gnes getting last place if he was outplayed, just like there's nothing wrong with Ganon24Player getting outplayed and getting last.

 

[Luigi player]

of course it's unfair if you lose to the best people and place last so you're evened up with others that lose to really bad players and get last, while others place higher that have an easier bracket... like if you're top 5 in a 200 people tourney and get last, what the **** is up with that? how is that not unfair if you lost to people in the top 4 while it is obvious from previous results that you would very very likely be top 5? (if you wouldnt be you wouldn't place like that anyway unless the bracket is seeded like **** like you'd do it)

you'd need many brackets to make up for **** like that. which would not be that big of a problem imo for smaller tourneys. but for really big ones it sucks cuz everyone could get effed up really easily. it doesnt make a difference if player abc has a 80 % chance of last place and 20 % chance of 2nd to last or if he has a 50 % chance for both, but it makes a big difference for good players if they have a 80 % chance on money or a 10 % chance. :x

also results should somewhat accurately show how good people are, which they wouldn't if you don't seed, but it still always does if you do seed (of course nothing is 100 % correct cuz people don't always play/place the same).

also for pool seeding I don't see a problem with pools being seeded regionally and skill-based.

if you don't see a problem with like 8 people in pool A that are all better than 8 people from pool B and not all of pool A get out while others from B get out then there's nothing to be done :[ but it doesnt matter cuz it wont be changed anyway

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

This happens to everyone not named Gnes all the time. Given that they had no empirical basis for giving Gnes an easier seed, I don't really see the problem.

Here, do me a favor: put me in Gnes' place in the example you gave. Now I'm last. If there's a change in your attitude towards the situation then you are the problem.

My attitude still doesn't change. It still isn't right to have people who have consistently shown themselves to be the among the best in the world to have to play each other, while players who have never done anything notable get to play each other and possible do better than the top players.

The reality is that the expectation that you have a right to a higher placement because you've done well at other tournaments that aren't part of a series is the problem here. At the beginning of a tournament no one should have a right to anything.

Yes, no one should have a right to anything. Gnes in my original example doesn't deserve to be put through a gauntlet of extremely high level players, and Random Smasher 29 doesn't have a right to get such an easy bracket. Why does Random Smasher 29, who's never done anything notable, deserve to have an easy bracket while Gnes, who has consistently proven that he is a top level player (since the beginning, might I add) is forced to play other top level players and probably place lower than someone that, by all provable means, he is better than.

So you want tourneys to be pool only format... like a giant round robin with all the players. Cuz that's the only true fair way.

If this was possible time wise with more than, say, 20 players (random # ftw) it would definitely be the best way to run tournaments and have truly accurate results.

 

[RaptorTEC]

There's nothing unfair about gnes getting last place if he was outplayed, just like there's nothing wrong with Ganon24Player getting outplayed and getting last.

It is extremely unfair when there's money involved and someone deserves to make money after reaching a certain level. If you're not gonna seed, well have fun getting janky results.

The main problem here though is money.

 

[Jimmy?]

All entrants are paying the same amount. Making it so no one who's never made money in a tournament yet has a substantially more difficult time placing in the money than someone who has doesn't really sound "fair" to me. D:

Money is at stake for all people in the tournament. Saying "Well, person X wouldn't have made money anyway" doesn't mean you should try making it so they definitely cannot, especially when their claim to any money the tournament will be awarding is equal to every other entrant--they all pay the same fees to get in.

I don't get how it's fair to let people you don't know lose, but people who have proven to be top players are given free rides to the money and only have to play to determine how much they win, rather than if they win any. Why not just prohibit new people from playing and just have the top 8 play. I mean, you've already chosen them from the start anyway, so you're not really fooling anyone.

bee tee dubs, I don't think SfP is saying seeding is bad, but seeding arbitrarily because "Well, this guy is gonna win, so let's give him first seed" is bad. Getting points for seeding for participating and placing in a tournament of the same series makes sense. Saying "Well, this is a brand new tournament series that has no data to draw from since it's the first one, but that's not a big deal, I know who's gonna win anyway, so seeding will be easy" doesn't really work out. .-. I mean, it does work out, but not with any sort of fairness. That's just artificially stacking the results in someone's favor.

 

[Gardex]

Would "seeding in bulks" be a middle-ground for this controversial discussion?

 

[Luigi player]

a "bad" player has the same chance of placing in the money than a good player if you just want to look at the "bracketway" or "poolway" that he can take. He could beat all people in the pool instead of the top seed, then beat the same people the top player would beat, then he'd deserve it too.

also it's not like people never get their chance on more different people.

 

[Scatz]

Just make a circuit and call it a day.

Use the tourneys as seeding, then have Apex the last of the circuit. Or you can hold regional circuits that come together at Apex. Apex uses the points from regionals to seed those players.

 

[Luigi player]

I don't see how it's not fair to use other tourneyresults as a reference for a "different tourney series". Atm we should have enough data/results to show us somewhat accurately how we can seed.

 

[infiniteV115]

The whole reason we give money to top3/top6/top8 at tournies is because we're acknowledging that it takes skill, hard work, dedication etc to get to top3/6/8, and we want to reward that hard work and dedication with money. (And also so that players have additional incentive but that's irrelevant)

Referring to experimental probability, a player who has attended multiple tournaments and has gotten top 8 at 90% of them is more likely to make top 8 at an upcoming tournament than another player who has attended multiple tournaments and has gotten top 8 0-10% of the time.
This is the most objective way to examine the probability of people placing in top 8, or top 6 or top 3 etc. It's entirely based on observation.

That said, why should these players who have consistently performed well be as likely to make money as players who have consistently performed poorly?

TL;DR
Money is given to people who perform well.
Players who have consistently performed well recently (over multiple tournaments) are more likely to perform well than players who have consistently performed not-well.
Therefore, the players who have consistently performed well recently over multiple tournaments are more likely to win money.

What is wrong with the above?

Also...keep in mind that with random seeding, this game would die out pretty quickly cause it would become MUCH more likely to see GFs as a top level player destroying a mid-level player (due to the increased chance of the better players facing each other early on in bracket -->being knocked out of bracket by each other early on)
And top lvl player destroying mid lvl player as GFs isn't exactly something that people want to watch.

 

[da K.I.D.]

If you have a guy that you have all reason to believe is going to win a tournament, i feel like you have all right to make sure he doesnt play the guy that everyone knows is going to get second first round of the tourney. For the most part, I say seed the top 4 at opposite parts of the bracket (or depending on the entrants, give the best players byes so a bad player doesnt get stomped out round 1) and everyone else fend for themselves. You can make the attempt for two guys that drove for five hours in the same car to not play each other, but youre more or less on your own.


Theres reasons for both sides, i dont feel either method is bad (except the 'all random seeding' dont do that) but just like everything else, TOs discretion

And bubba youre still wrong on most of what you said about marvel, but i dont feel like constructing that post on my phone

 

[bubbaking]

It's fine. Even if you did, I think I was done with the topic. Smash is more related to Smash, you get what I'm sayin'?

 

[Gardex]

This thread has recently been filled with Pokemon, MvC, ethical tournament seeding questions and other various fighting game discussions.

But we're still waiting for Gheb's counter.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Yes this whole thread is still first and foremost waiting on gehb's response. gehb where you at?

 

[Zankoku]

If you really need to seed and really want to do a skill-based seeding at a tournament with multiple known threats, then only seed up to the last placement that you are paying out to, and seed them categorically rather than absolutely. Paying out to top 4? Seed the top four players randomly on different quarters of the bracket, then seed the remaining players randomly while separating by location. This ensures accuracy to the level that actually matters, yet still allows for bracket variance (which is very important to ensure continued entertainment at repeat tournaments or a series).

There is very little chance of building a "stacked" bracket in this way; actually, I'd argue that people trying to seed absolutely by skill with insufficient knowledge of all players is more likely to build a stacked bracket than one just completely shuffling the players around. Also, since placements outside the money are entirely for glory (unless you're doing something like seeding points for, oh, APEX, in which case I should hope your tournament had pools or something that allowed you to seed more accurately), separating all of the top X players ensures that nobody who's expected, in one form or another, to get one of those placements will end up eliminating another early on.

 

[bubbaking]

Actually, pools is another story altogether of potential bracket shenanigans. You don't know how many stories I've heard of stacked pools alongside 'free pools' at large tourneys. If we're so concerned about good players being knocked out before they get to advance anywhere, we should be worried about how our pools are made. If four top players end up in one pool and only one ends up in another, well hmmmm, I wonder what will happen to the legitimacy of the resulting bracket?

 

[pidgezero_one]

We ask a lot of less experienced players. Either they can take out Ally round 1, or they can take out a high-level player in round 2 losers, or they're out. Location-based seeding hurts no one but benefits everyone.

truer words never spoken.

everybody knows that someone showing up for their first tournament ever is probably not going to actually learn anything (well, besides "i don't want to come back") from getting 3-stocked by #1 on the regional PR, but nobody likes to admit it

and people wonder why newbies don't stick around...

 

[infiniteV115]

I stuck around.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

As did I

 

[DMG]

I just wanna talk about Mewtwo SADFACE

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

Who doesn't want to talk about Mewtwo?

He's perfect in every way.

The only way to improve him is to make him shiny.

 

[Jimmyfosho]

Too bad shiny Mewtwo looks horrible.

 

[pidgezero_one]

we all stuck around, that's fine. now compare the number of regulars our scene has to the number who got discouraged and never showed up again.

 

[Zankoku]

Actually, pools is another story altogether of potential bracket shenanigans. You don't know how many stories I've heard of stacked pools alongside 'free pools' at large tourneys. If we're so concerned about good players being knocked out before they get to advance anywhere, we should be worried about how our pools are made. If four top players end up in one pool and only one ends up in another, well hmmmm, I wonder what will happen to the legitimacy of the resulting bracket?

Stacked pools occur when people make them by going "I think these two are nobodies" and inadvertently seeding two guys who end up topping the pool with two others who are actually known to be strong players. Again, avoidable by minimizing subjectivity in seeding, and again, sadly enough, far more likely to occur through hand-built pools compared to random ones.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

Too bad shiny Mewtwo looks horrible.

You take that back!

 

[infiniteV115]

I actually prefer regular Mewtwo over the shiny version as well XD

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

You people are insane!

 

[bubbaking]

I just wanna talk about Mewtwo SADFACE

Mewtoo is UU, you punk!

 

[Neon!]

Guys I can settle the Jiggs vs GW discussion.

I live 10 minutes from UTD Zac and Jiggs is one of my best low tier characters.

We'll upload the matches and you guys can decide how bad the matchup is based on how bad I lose.

For those who care, I kept my promise...

Neon (Jiggs) vs UTDzac (GW)

 

[bubbaking]

I watched, but I have to say, even if you won, it wouldn't prove anything 'cause apparently Will beating good DDD's (with the infinite legal) doesn't prove that DDD:DK is not a +4.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

Will beating good D3's doesn't prove that DDD:DK isn't +4

it proves that DDD:Will isn't +4


That's the problem that occurs when a character only has one high/top level main