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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Decay would be useful. Maybe for each time you don't enter the tourney, flat rate of -5 points?
I still think there should be a history. I could even do it with Google Spreadsheets, and somebody could put a link to the spreadsheets on the PR post.
There would be an overall chart showing total points, then there would be other charts to look at that show individual 4-week periods (with the date of each tourney labelled, point shift per tourney, etc.).
I'd be happy to maintain it; if it's alright, I could even do it as soon as the tourney is finished so I don't forget anything, and I can double-check right there.
What if someone beats Ben, but then loses to BADPLAYER due to suicides or something. Ben and BADPLAYER outplace HYPOTHETICAL PLAYER. BADPLAYER would get more points than HYPOPLAYER, despite the fact that HYPOPLAYER had an incredible game vs Ben. A panel would ensure that HYPOPLAYER would be given the recognition that placings can't always afford.
This is why I think my fusion method would be the superior method, BADPLAYER would be weighted because he outplaced HYPO and beat HYPO, but HYPO would get the recognition for playing well and NOT placing. . . especially if HYPO didn't show up all the time.
lol, i gotta say im mad into blazblue right now... my tao is running through everyone except top players (dustloop.com for BB boards) it's a fantastically ballanced game...
anyways, im down for a hybrid... it would probably be good to have a ranking (1-2-3-etc) but also a points total, and people on the pannel could move someone up, but it would still show that they have less points
I also think having a decay on the points is better than a "sliding" window because you a- want someone who doesn't come much and places top to place high and b- someone who doesn't show up for a while take time to go down...
i tend to overthink these types of things, but here's something that might work...
1) only top 5 get points, 10, 7, 5, 3, 3
2) multiply base points by x/16, where x is the number of entrants
(this is how many points you get for the specific bi-weekly)
3) decay could be a simple geometric where each week that passes decreases the points retained by 80%
4) a running total of points is kept, and displayed as a "PR"
5) myself, cam, ariel and bryant (if he wants) could be the "panel" (don't think it would work with +4 people)
6) in the end, who is "placed" first, second etc. on the PR would be up to the panel, but we would use the points as a strong guideline, and current points will always be displayed
lol i told you i get excessive with this crap... anyways, I think that would be really easy to do, and is pretty simple to understand, and should give some good results...
eg. i come in first, then don't show up for 12 weeks (6 bi-weeklies)... 10*(.8^6) = 2.62144 .. so that's how many points I would have... if I came in first once and then second once and then didn't show up for 3 weeks, it would be 10*(.8^4) + 7*(.8^3) = 7.68... so if someone were to just come and place second, I would point-wise be ranked slightly ahead of them...
anywho, just a thought please PM me if you are planning on coming to my place... Tect (mikey) will be here around 11:30, and I am planning on running a $1 entry double elim. bracket... also there will be BlazBlue after the bracket
lol, i gotta say im mad into blazblue right now... my tao is running through everyone except top players (dustloop.com for BB boards) it's a fantastically ballanced game...
well, we'll need the TV for smash to start, i do want to get actual practice in before heading up to HitH, but once things die down a bit we'll sset up blazblue in the back maybe call them then?
speaking of which, what time are things starting on wednesday? I've got nothing to do for the whole of today and tomorrow, so if anyone wants to do something, I'm down.
things will get going around 7, but feel free to show up any time after 5... i only have 1 tv that can work during the day, and 2 at night (projector) but only one set of HD cables so one will have lag... basically, I need people to come through with some kind of setup or else it will be very slow...
Hm, I got to thinking and wasn't sure if this would work out at all but well would it be possible to maybe do it so that people are ranked based more on how they place in bi-weeklies as opposed to losing points for not showing up with a minimum requirement and people who take hiatus being in a separate section? For instance, if somebody shows up for 5 straight bi-weeklies, but misses the 6th, and someone else makes all 6, then the person who makes all six doesn't get a higher rating just for making all 6, y'know? Like, it'd be person A (who will be the guy who made 5, for the sake of avoiding confusion, while the guy who made 6 will be 'B') getting ranked off how he performed in the 5 bi-weeklies he made, while person B gets ranked based off of the 6 bi-weeklies that they were in? Would that be uh....hard to keep track of, confusing, plausible, completely crappy? Like, by all means if it's a horrific idea, let me know.
The thing is that since biweeklies are biweekly, there is always a gap between them when a person could get better or get worse. I never meant to imply that people lose points for not showing up. They just don't gain any. As well, I suggest that it be refreshed every four biweeklies so as to prevent huge differences of skill between each person that may be in accurate.
Taking your example, someone showing up for six biweeklies would have a higher rating(probably) than the person who showed up five because there is nothing to base there ranking on for that biweekly. There is their history, yes, but perhaps everyone improved, or maybe they got worse or maybe everything's still the same. No one can be certain and that information cannot be obtained and should not be speculated on.
8-man (to 11) (minimum for point distribution)
1st: +9
2nd: +6 (+7 if GF1 was 3-2, +8 if GF2 was 3-2)
3rd: +3 (+4 if the set was 3-2)
4th: +1 (+2 if the set was 2-1)
12-man (to 15)
1st: +12
2nd: +9 (+10 if GF1 was 3-2, +11 if GF2 was 3-2) (seeing the pattern?)
3rd: +6 (same rules)
4th: +3 (same rules)
5th: +1 each (same rules as 8-man 4th)
Thoughts on my blatant Mario Kart point distribution rip off?
I support the reset after 4 biweeklies. Past "Ottawa PR Grand Prix" stats will stay posted.
All those numbers gets pretty confusing. My preference would be if we had a standardized point system. Also, your point decay is pretty extreme. 1st is +15 while 3rd is +9, six points lower?. Possibly five points lower? That's pretty unfair imo. I know I wouldn't like being shafted by so many points. If someone gets 1st twice, they're pretty much set for the rest of the circuit(...unlike mario kart).
I support both of the styles, but I think need to be joined together.
Like, all in all I think it should be a small panel that decides it, BUT the GP point system should be put in place. Every month we can look at the GP rankings and the PR, and make amendments from there. The GP system helps clearly illustrate who is eligible for moving up or down based purely on results, and it will help hammer out discrepancies. The panel can help distinguish who is rising up, but perhaps getting bracket ***** or can't make it out enough to get ranked with the GP system.
As for the panel, I nominate Ben, being Ottawa's top player. Beyond that, and no offense if I don't mention you, I think Randy, Cam, Ariel, and Bryant would be most eligible to fill any remaining spots.
Ben, as I mentioned, is Ottawa's top player.
Randy held the last PR up really well. Plus he's a great player, mindgamez are everywhere.
Cam has all that Melee experience under his belt, and his Snake is getting pretty beast. He's the main TO of Ottawa, I think he's deserving for a spot.
Ariel and Bryant are both good players and offer good insight as to the players they play most frequently. Bryant could offer pretty in depth info about how our crew plays beyond mere placings.
That is how I would organize it, anyway. And maybe when I come back to Ottawa and storm the results *I* can get myself a seat in the League of Smash.
You are always welcome on the League of Smash! However, I am against a panel of judges because I feel that it defeats the whole purpose of a point system. The reason I suggested a point system was to have an entirely unbiased ranking system that is results oriented. If we counted friendlies and such, placings would be all over the place. As well, the panel of judges(being the people that we are) will be prone to disagreement and biased influence. Since the biweeklies are competitive and fierce, the PR should be based on results only. I am thinking of the PR as essentially a tracking record of how many win screens you accumulate. In the same way that the game doesn't care that you KO'd yourself right after a stock, the results system also should not care, cause really, no judge is superior to the game. I know I know, tripping and misfires(I hate them so much) are ****ing ********, but that is the game that we accept when we pick up our controllers.
The panel of judges would have pretty subjective information that cannot be properly assessed and organized into a proper PR. Look at it like this: Ben plays Andrew the most, Bryant plays Dave and Riley the most and I play Orlando the most. How can I compare how Orlando plays against Riley? I have no idea how Riley plays! I can discuss it with Bryant, but he does not play Orlando as much as I do, so maybe he sees Orlando as someone really tough, but I am going 50-50 with Orlando. I don't really play Riley, but maybe he's going 50-50 with Bryant. Now how do we place them? Before we can even reach a decision, Ben interjects that Andrew easily trumps them both. However, maybe Bryant has been absolutely destroying Andrew. Maybe in a tournament, Alan beats Orlando and Andrew but loses to Riley? I don't think anyone can make sense of all these variables without intentionally disregarding information. Example: "Alan just got lucky against Orlando and Andrew, while his loss against Riley was a real loss." Then the results don't end up being taken in account for the PR.
Decay would be useful. Maybe for each time you don't enter the tourney, flat rate of -5 points?
I still think there should be a history. I could even do it with Google Spreadsheets, and somebody could put a link to the spreadsheets on the PR post.
There would be an overall chart showing total points, then there would be other charts to look at that show individual 4-week periods (with the date of each tourney labelled, point shift per tourney, etc.).
I'd be happy to maintain it; if it's alright, I could even do it as soon as the tourney is finished so I don't forget anything, and I can double-check right there.
I agree that a record of past biweeklies would be great, if not essential. However, a decay of -5 points is just plain wrong. You could go from 3rd to last in one week since everyone gains points, but you lose points. I know that I can't make it out to every biweekly because sometimes I'll make plans to hang out with friends, or go on a date, or just sleep in. Not only do I not gain any points, I am further penalized... because I wanted to do something else. I strongly disagree with a decay of points. If I come 4th and get 6 points or something, you are taking away my effort by having a decay system in place.
What if someone beats Ben, but then loses to BADPLAYER due to suicides or something. Ben and BADPLAYER outplace HYPOTHETICAL PLAYER. BADPLAYER would get more points than HYPOPLAYER, despite the fact that HYPOPLAYER had an incredible game vs Ben. A panel would ensure that HYPOPLAYER would be given the recognition that placings can't always afford.
This is why I think my fusion method would be the superior method, BADPLAYER would be weighted because he outplaced HYPO and beat HYPO, but HYPO would get the recognition for playing well and NOT placing. . . especially if HYPO didn't show up all the time.
So what you're saying then is that each player carries with them an innate point reward? Beating Ben grants me 3 points, beating HYPO player grants me 1, beating BADPLAYER gives me none? Sorry Mike, but that's ridiculous. Ben being the best player in Ottawa is undisputed right now, but if he ends up placing fourth... then he places fourth. There needn't be any discussion about the points awarded. Fourth is fourth. If HYPO beats Ben but loses to BADPLAYER because of their own mistakes, then they display less skill than BADPLAYER. BADPLAYER managed to stay on the stage, while HYPO did not. It was obviously the better choice to not do risky plays, which perhaps HYPO ended up doing. Suicides/risky plays don't have any room for discussion. Maybe Ben would have beaten BADPLAYER. Maybe not. We can't know because Ben already lost in that situation.
EDIT-Taking out the paragraph that was here because it's stupid and redundant =)
anyways, im down for a hybrid... it would probably be good to have a ranking (1-2-3-etc) but also a points total, and people on the pannel could move someone up, but it would still show that they have less points
I also think having a decay on the points is better than a "sliding" window because you a- want someone who doesn't come much and places top to place high and b- someone who doesn't show up for a while take time to go down...
i tend to overthink these types of things, but here's something that might work...
1) only top 5 get points, 10, 7, 5, 3, 3
2) multiply base points by x/16, where x is the number of entrants
(this is how many points you get for the specific bi-weekly)
3) decay could be a simple geometric where each week that passes decreases the points retained by 80%
4) a running total of points is kept, and displayed as a "PR"
5) myself, cam, ariel and bryant (if he wants) could be the "panel" (don't think it would work with +4 people)
6) in the end, who is "placed" first, second etc. on the PR would be up to the panel, but we would use the points as a strong guideline, and current points will always be displayed
lol i told you i get excessive with this crap... anyways, I think that would be really easy to do, and is pretty simple to understand, and should give some good results...
eg. i come in first, then don't show up for 12 weeks (6 bi-weeklies)... 10*(.8^6) = 2.62144 .. so that's how many points I would have... if I came in first once and then second once and then didn't show up for 3 weeks, it would be 10*(.8^4) + 7*(.8^3) = 7.68... so if someone were to just come and place second, I would point-wise be ranked slightly ahead of them...
anywho, just a thought please PM me if you are planning on coming to my place... Tect (mikey) will be here around 11:30, and I am planning on running a $1 entry double elim. bracket... also there will be BlazBlue after the bracket
Again, I am against a panel of judges because that not only excludes everyone's opinions from being taken into account, it also defeats the whole purpose of having a point system. Why not just have a panel of judges in this case? As well, what I meant by the point system being refreshed every 4 biweeklies, is that everyone's points are reset to zero, with a record of past biweeklies being present(perhaps replacing Harold's history?) Also, I am still against a decay system since it devalues one's efforts and, if my original idea is followed, it would be necessary with everything refreshed every 4 biweeklies.
Points being done as x * (y/16), with x being your base points based on placement and y being the number of people entered sounds pretty ****ing awesome idea, Ben!. Ensures a fair point distribution everytime in relation to everyone else's points. Though, I think it should be more than just top 5 getting points.
So then! I propose a vote for how the PR should be handled. The ideas put forth are Mine, Alan's and Mike/Ben's. I'd explain my idea again, but I think you guys get it by now. Results oriented, refreshed after a certain number of biweeklies and using the kickass formula that Ben proposed as the basis for distributing points with the history being recorded. Simple as Pi (3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510)!
Fortunately I shall be out of the country when this drama goes down.
um what I mean to say is that I would vote for a pure point system where the past 4 bi-weeklies are always considered with the latest one knocking out the oldest, but I will not be here so I don't think my vote is necessarily considered.
I wholeheartedly agreed with your first suggestion, Ariel. I was just trying to accomodate for the other suggestions. Decay is indeed horrible there will be refreshing.
Perhaps something very simple like 1 point for every match you won? Winning the set is an additional point. This way, Byes are accounted for as "skill-cancels", in the sense you don't win anything for a Bye.
1st gets a +3 Bonus, 2nd gets a +2 Bonus, 3rd gets a +1 bonus, etc.
Placement points are modified by entry number, base of 8 entries. For every extra contender afterward, add 1 to the placement points, and supply 1 point to the lower placer. (for 9, 4th gets +1)
Now, due to ties skewing the results, we'll need to make compromises for how to treat them. This is where panels are implemented.
We have two choices:
* Go straight to the panel
* Check match w/l record first, and consult panel in the event of a draw.
Is everybody with me here?
Just to clarify: NO DECAY, COMPLETE REFRESH AFTER 4 TOURNEYS
I agree with Ariel in that there should either be a PR panel or a point system, not both. I would prefer a sliding window system to point decay as far as keeping track of points. Ben's formula looks pretty good, though it punishes bad players like me, who rarely get top 5 and thus would never get any points.
Ariel, Alan, Andrew, are you guys coming via other means?
EDIT: Also, everyone who is coming, I'm assembling a big texture pack to go with the music pack I'm working on. I have a whole bunch of textures loaded on, but no CSPs made yet (Preview pics when you select your character) Reason being: Making the CSPs for all the characters is going to be a long and arduous process. Before I do that, I want to go over my selection of textures with you guys and see if there's any that you guys like, or want to see replaced or whatever.
YOU GUYS GET A FREE TEXTURE FOR YOUR MAIN, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. The rest are up to popular opinion, and, well, me lol.
I have one stipulation though: Every character has to have a primarily Red, Blue, and Green costume for teams. No exceptions, every team texture has to be fairly clearly recognizable as to what team they're on.
So anyone reading this but can't make it to HitH, send me textures you like for your mains.
I wholeheartedly agreed with your first suggestion, Ariel. I was just trying to accomodate for the other suggestions. Decay is indeed horrible there will be refreshing.
Perhaps something very simple like 1 point for every match you won? Winning the set is an additional point. This way, Byes are accounted for as "skill-cancels", in the sense you don't win anything for a Bye.
1st gets a +3 Bonus, 2nd gets a +2 Bonus, 3rd gets a +1 bonus, etc.
Placement points are modified by entry number, base of 8 entries. For every extra contender afterward, add 1 to the placement points, and supply 1 point to the lower placer. (for 9, 4th gets +1)
Now, due to ties skewing the results, we'll need to make compromises for how to treat them. This is where panels are implemented.
We have two choices:
* Go straight to the panel
* Check match w/l record first, and consult panel in the event of a draw.
Is everybody with me here?
Just to clarify: NO DECAY, COMPLETE REFRESH AFTER 4 TOURNEYS
idk, Ben's formula works out pretty well and accomodates for the amount of people entered. I figured that for 5th place, both people would get the same amount of points and so on.
1 Point for everymatch won sounds plausable, but that is bordering on Swiss with eliminations.
see, as i said, as soon as you make a system, you're only attempting to model what's really happening and stuff gets lost on the way... I think that making a system which takes into account matches and things would in the end be better, but creating that system to have meaningful results... well... that's really really difficult... should someone get the same points for beating a better player than a worse player? should the better players get penalized for having byes (since in a double elim bracket they go to the best players, where as in swiss they go to the bottom)...
i think it's just getting into too much...
lol ok just re-read all the posts...
a) I don't really care, either way, as long as stuff gets done
b) I'm really against a sliding window, because missing one bi-weekly will completely drop you off for 3 more tournaments
c) giving every player points is totally fine with me... even last, since they showed up therefore gained experience
d) in my suggestion there would be both a point and a panel, and both would be displayed... so if you think that the points is a more accurate measure, then you go by that, and if you think the judgement placing is better, then go by that... just kinda the base of everything, but as I said first I don't really care, either way i plan on taking 1st (unless a sliding system is adopted, in which case I'll be reppin' the bottom tier all the way... chances of me making it out to every bi-weekly for 4 straight is going to be slim)
e) I like making lists, and I wanted an e
see, as i said, as soon as you make a system, you're only attempting to model what's really happening and stuff gets lost on the way... I think that making a system which takes into account matches and things would in the end be better, but creating that system to have meaningful results... well... that's really really difficult... should someone get the same points for beating a better player than a worse player? should the better players get penalized for having byes (since in a double elim bracket they go to the best players, where as in swiss they go to the bottom)...
i think it's just getting into too much...
lol ok just re-read all the posts...
a) I don't really care, either way, as long as stuff gets done
b) I'm really against a sliding window, because missing one bi-weekly will completely drop you off for 3 more tournaments
c) giving every player points is totally fine with me... even last, since they showed up therefore gained experience
d) in my suggestion there would be both a point and a panel, and both would be displayed... so if you think that the points is a more accurate measure, then you go by that, and if you think the judgement placing is better, then go by that... just kinda the base of everything, but as I said first I don't really care, either way i plan on Ariel taking 1st (unless a sliding system is adopted, in which case I'll be reppin' the bottom tier all the way... chances of me making it out to every bi-weekly for 4 straight is going to be slim)
e) I like making lists, and I wanted an e
a) Yeah, after making that text wall, I realize that it's not that important which method we use afterall. It's not like it's always going to be 100% accurate.
b) I realized this after re-reading your other post a little while ago but I was kinda tired and didn't feel like addressing it earlier.
c) hey look! my mark for world issues!
d) =)
e) Why don't schools use this letter for marking?
EDIT: Making a fairly accurate PR without the use of a panel seems difficult. Making a fairly accurate PR with a panel seems like it'd be difficult for accuracy. Having both seems pointless since one will obviously contradict the other. An interesting puzzle.
Well if you're in hamilton anyway I might as well pick ya up and bring you to the trouney lol, I'll have free carspace. Finding you in hamilton would be the trick, but googley-maps should be able to sort that out. And that's if whoever/wherever you crash doesn't already have the extra carspace.
Then it's up to Cam if he doesn't mind dropping you off / picking you up from some random place in Hamilton on the way thar/back.
Well, it's a friend's birthday today (although I dunno if I'll get to talk to them), I'm wiped out from last night, wanting to relax, tired because I slept in by falling back to sleep by accident...in short, I think I'll be staying at home today.
Okay, we likely CAN'T get the SUV. I've been bugging my mom for a yes or no for the last week, and she said "unless she can get all her running around done tomorrow instead of Satuday, no"
Moses: Don't forget, be at my place tomorrow at 2:30pm. We'll wait until 3, but we're leaving at 3 for sure. Randy/Derek came over today so they know to be here, if you're wondering why I singled you out
Okay, we likely CAN'T get the SUV. I've been bugging my mom for a yes or no for the last week, and she said "unless she can get all her running around done tomorrow instead of Satuday, no"
I john [my win] that Ben's apartment is more spacious and thusly gives me a sense of peace and harmony, relieving pressure and allowing me to think clearly.
"OK, I won't bring a 5th person then. Infzy's plan would work if Hamilton wasn't so far from Port Colborne :/"
wait, what's a port colborne?
oh, is that where the trouney is?
cuz I'll have at least one extra spot in my kitchener -> hamilton car, so I could do a pickup from there to get to.... port town aero dive via pirate ship, or w/e
alternatively, you could drop someone off in toronto in time to catch a greyhound to kitchener and I could pick them up here and they crash friday night lolllllllllll
Kitchener is about an hour away from Hamilton, New Port City is about an hour away from Hamilton. . . but they are on opposite sides of Hamilton. CURSE YOU, GEOGRAPHY!!!
(6 bi-weeklies)... 10*(.8^6) = 2.62144 .. so that's how many points I would have... if I came in first once and then second once and then didn't show up for 3 weeks, it would be 10*(.8^4) + 7*(.8^3) = 7.68... so if someone were to just come and place second, I would point-wise be ranked slightly ahead of them...
please PM me if you are planning on coming to my place... Tect (mikey) will be here around 11:30, and I am planning on running a $1 entry double elim. bracket... also there will be BlazBlue after the bracket 
