Socal Brawl Power Rankings - (February 3, 2010 - May 1, 2010) UPDATED

[Atlus8]

You're implying the panel shouldn't be able to look back and notice he wasn't capable of playing well that day due to outside factors.

The reason it is best to not count outside factors is because you would have to take so much stuff into consideration. DSF worked his a$$ off running this tourny which is understandable. However, if you take an outside factor and count it towards the PR then you would have to do it for EVERYONE. What if an outside factor for someone else was a broken hand and staying up all night. Meanwhile, another person's would be a car accident and stepping on a bug? There are SO MANY factors you would have to take into account.

I'm sure if DSF would have won SCSA people would have been saying "He r@ped everyone while he was running the tournament at the same time! That's amazing!" Of course, this wasn't the case. Right now it might sound like this "DSF was really busy running the tournament and couldn't concentrate on who he was gonna play next!" You're making it sound OK for DSF to lose without being affected in the PR. Also, you would make it sound like the people that beat DSF don't get credit for doing so.

A service that can more accurately tell a player if he was ready to play that day or not. It's actually something that should not be left in the hands of the player; The player is of the party with the most self interest in the ranking decision, so you can see why it's a decision that shouldn't be left up to the player. "Oh gee, i'm playing bad specifically on the day that the most pros are attending. I think I'll forfeit so as to not affect my rank"

THAT is not how we rank people.

That is the way we rank people hence the term 'inactive.' Like I said in my previous post, if you only go to like two tournies and r@pe people from the PR then you will stay where you are. However, there can be someone else that beats those same people AND does it on more occasions because he/she goes to more tournies.

The person that goes to more tournies and beats more people would be rank higher than the person that only goes to two. You have to make sure you are ready to r@pe or get r@ped when you enter a tourny. You're pretty much putting your rank on the line when you enter a tourny. If there is an outside factor that would hurt game, don't enter.

Edit- I'm having fun with this s#!+! I'm going to Pats so I'll type from there!

 

[HugS™]

The reason it is best to not count outside factors is because you would have to take so much stuff into consideration. DSF worked his a$$ off running this tourny which is understandable. However, if you take an outside factor and count it towards the PR then you would have to do it for EVERYONE. What if an outside factor for someone else was a broken hand and staying up all night. Meanwhile, another person's would be a car accident and stepping on a bug? There are SO MANY factors you would have to take into account.

I'm sure if DSF would have won SCSA people would have been saying "He r@ped everyone while he was running the tournament at the same time! That's amazing!" Of course, this wasn't the case. Right now it might sound like this "DSF was really busy running the tournament and couldn't concentrate on who he was gonna play next!" You're making it sound OK for DSF to lose without being affected in the PR. Also, you would make it sound like the people that beat DSF don't get credit for doing so.

Being in a panel should be hard work. No short cuts. You are expected to take everything into consideration.

I never said this applied only to DSF. It does apply to everyone. If Rich lost to Mojoe's snake cuz he was mad sick, it'd be something to take into consideration, even if he isn't DSF.

Fly gets credit for beating DSF, just as he got credit for beating Mango. But does he get the same credit as if he had done it when they were both in shape to play the game? Just imagine Fly beating Mango @ pound 3 or SCC, then tell me it'd be the same as him beating Mango @ SCSA 2.

That is the way we rank people hence the term 'inactive.' Like I said in my previous post, if you only go to like two tournies and r@pe people from the PR then you will stay where you are. However, there can be someone else that beats those same people AND does it on more occasions because he/she goes to more tournies.

The person that goes to more tournies and beats more people would be rank higher than the person that only goes to two. You have to make sure you are ready to r@pe or get r@ped when you enter a tourny. You're pretty much putting your rank on the line when you enter a tourny. If there is an outside factor that would hurt game, don't enter.

Edit- I'm having fun with this s#!+! I'm going to Pats so I'll type from there!

If he ***** only in the 2 times he attends, and the other players ONLY **** in his absence, then I wouldn't be so quick to say the other players are better, as you would suggest reflecting in your power rankings.

Inactivity should only affect someone's ranking if it becomes too difficult to judge a person's skill accurately. Near the end of melee, I attended 1 tournament a month. I'd attend events where ALL of socal's best were present, and I'd still get 2nd nearly everytime. SO despite my inactivity, I did not make it difficult for the panelists to rank me accurately. If however, the only tournaments I attended were game store tournaments where no one showed up, then the panel would have all the right to move me down, as they could not compare those performances with the ones from other players at harder events.

And I never said it was ok to lose, I said we should be intelligent human beings, and know what factors have more weight. Losing to someone when you're on your A game should hold more weight than losing to someone when you are sick of terminal cancer. Feel me?

We aren't here to decide if they made a right choice to attend. We are not here to rank them based on their judgment.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Only in Smash Bros community can you use the word "****" in an essay, not use it to mean when someone forces sex on someone, and be totally serious.

With that being said, I'm mostly with Hugo on how to handle the situation and rankings in general. That's why a panel exists: to determine the worth and value of some losses and results over others. The ultimate goal is to make a list and decide which players are most likely to win the next tournament based on that list. To achieve this goal you do indeed need to take into account things on a situation by situation basis, and weigh in some johns over others.

I'm not sure about whether DSF should be first or not, because I haven't looked at the overall results and I don't really know what happened at UCLA. That's why I stopped being on the panel, I don't feel like keeping track of what goes on at every tourney. Unless you were at both UCLA and SCSA and really understand all of the matches that go on, it's hard to weight who should stay first or drop or go higher.

 

[HugS™]

Only in Smash Bros community can you use the word "****" in an essay, not use it to mean when someone forces sex on someone, and be totally serious.

LooooooooooooL

So ****ing true.

 

[Noble-]

Fly gets credit for beating DSF, just as he got credit for beating Mango. But does he get the same credit as if he had done it when they were both in shape to play the game? Just imagine Fly beating Mango @ pound 3 or SCC, then tell me it'd be the same as him beating Mango @ SCSA 2.

It probably wouldn't have been the same, but we can all agree that it would have been an upset! When Mango lost to Fly at SCSA 2 he said that he wasn't used to Melee because he had just been playing in the Brawl tourny. What was to stop him from playing one or two Melee friendlies so he can get warmed up before his set with Fly?

Being in a panel should be hard work. No short cuts. You are expected to take everything into consideration.

Say you do take something into consideration. Say the frustration that DSF was having while running the tourny. How would YOU know if the frustration even bothered him while playing his games? You don't know! Only HE can tell you and that's why players should really think about playing their games before they start the set. If he says that he's 90% alright and that running the tourny won't affect his game, but he ends up losing! Would you take that into consideration as well? How would you know if he is telling the truth?

Inactivity should only affect someone's ranking if it becomes too difficult to judge a person's skill accurately. Near the end of melee, I attended 1 tournament a month. I'd attend events where ALL of socal's best were present, and I'd still get 2nd nearly everytime. SO despite my inactivity, I did not make it difficult for the panelists to rank me accurately. If however, the only tournaments I attended were game store tournaments where no one showed up, then the panel would have all the right to move me down, as they could not compare those performances with the ones from other players at harder events.

This is a good example! You're right! When you entered tournies that had the best of SoCal way back when, you did beat almost everyone. However, the other person that did the same thing, but went to more tournies, was DSF! That's one of the reasons he was ranked #2. Fortunately, both of you did attend tournies where both of you were present and he won most of the games. Hence, he was #2!



Edit - Atlus

 

[Gishnak]

Starting at quiznos IX I think
My boy WarpStatus:

Defeated Camaman x2
Defeated HugS x2
Defeated Teba x2
Defeated dehf
Defeated BoA
Defeated MikeHaze
Defeated Oki

 

[MaNg0]

pat shut up

 

[Noble-]

That Was Miguel Noob.

 

[Kouryuu]

You guys are making this more complicated than it is. Outside factors should be taken into account but only to a certain extent.

If this is the only tourney he has done poorly in (relatively speaking), then it shouldn't hurt him much at all, regardless of the reason. However, if he has lost to Fly before (or has placed just as poorly before) then that means something. There is only room for so much outside factors to consider.

And really, this is where "No Johns" comes in. The only outside factors that should ever be considered are the legit "johns." That's it. If that wasn't the case, then I (along with EVERY smasher) can give reasons as to how/why I placed what I placed for EVERY tourney. Not legit. As for what what is "legit," that's for the panel to consider. It's as simple as that.

And as far as DSF entering the tourney goes, it is NOT a legit john imo. He had a choice to not enter but he chose to do so (knowing that he was running the tourney). Fly could probably say that his dog died the day before and he was still upset about it when he played (so he played mad gay lol). What now? DSF's reason doesn't mean much at all when compared to Fly's but both reasons are NOT legit (imo anyway). So neither reason should be considered.

 

[Charoo]

I'm still the owner of this thread huh haha =_=

update whenever u guys want I guess

 

[HugS™]

You guys are making this more complicated than it is. Outside factors should be taken into account but only to a certain extent.

If this is the only tourney he has done poorly in (relatively speaking), then it shouldn't hurt him much at all, regardless of the reason. However, if he has lost to Fly before (or has placed just as poorly before) then that means something. There is only room for so much outside factors to consider.

And really, this is where "No Johns" comes in. The only outside factors that should ever be considered are the legit "johns." That's it. If that wasn't the case, then I (along with EVERY smasher) can give reasons as to how/why I placed what I placed for EVERY tourney. Not legit. As for what what is "legit," that's for the panel to consider. It's as simple as that.

And as far as DSF entering the tourney goes, it is NOT a legit john imo. He had a choice to not enter but he chose to do so (knowing that he was running the tourney). Fly could probably say that his dog died the day before and he was still upset about it when he played (so he played mad gay lol). What now? DSF's reason doesn't mean much at all when compared to Fly's but both reasons are NOT legit (imo anyway). So neither reason should be considered.

Whether he made the right choice to enter or not does not dictate whether the john was legit.
It is a legit john because the environment did greatly affect the player's performance in a negative way. It's not about whether he made a smart choice or not. The john is legit.

Like at SCSA 3, SK92 said he was sick and couldn't perform well because of it. However, he still beat tyrant, havok, and teba. And lost to TKD and Leepuff, which he could have easily lost to on other occasions, healthy or not. So according to your logic, his sickness was a legit john because he had no choice in getting sick...

Or, according to my logic, it isn't a legit john because his sickness didn't really affect him to the degree expected, since he performed almost as well as he normally would.

Legitimacy of a john has nothing to do with making a right choice.

 

[The calm tyrant...]

When those new rankings coming out??

 

[RichBrown]

I'll read through all the arguments later, but SCSA had such extreme conditions that it shouldn't really count for all that much in general imo.

 

[mikeHAZE]

so, since long day johns are in play, SCSA shouldn't count for me because i got my wisdom teeth removed the day before.

Also, backyard brawl as well, i didn't have my sweater.

 

[HugS™]

so, since long day johns are in play, SCSA shouldn't count for me because i got my wisdom teeth removed the day before.

Yeah I know.

Also, backyard brawl as well, i didn't have my sweater.

Nah, nice try though.

 

[**Havok**]

The panel should discuss what is and isn't in their jurisdiction as far as considering outside influences when placing someone. This discussion started from scratch because it's never been brought up before so I would think it unfair to take action at this point. As soon as the agreement in the panel goes through then taking appropriate action should be taken but not until then.

 

[Kouryuu]

Whether he made the right choice to enter or not does not dictate whether the john was legit.

Yes it does, more or less. He chose to enter knowing he was running the tourney. He knew what he was putting himself into (whether he actually knew or not really doesn't make a difference). Therefore, he will be judged the same way as other smashers who've entered.

It is a legit john because the environment did greatly affect the player's performance in a negative way. It's not about whether he made a smart choice or not. The john is legit.

No, it's not. Not in the slightest. I'm pretty sure everyone was affected by the environment one way or the other. And if DSF's john is legit, then the PR should take into account why everyone performed the way they performed. What about those who performed poorly because they didn't get enough sleep? Or those who were sick? Or what about the smashers that played both Brawl AND Melee?

Like at SCSA 3, SK92 said he was sick and couldn't perform well because of it. However, he still beat tyrant, havok, and teba. And lost to TKD and Leepuff, which he could have easily lost to on other occasions, healthy or not. So according to your logic, his sickness was a legit john because he had no choice in getting sick...

Wrong. He had no choice in getting sick but he did have a choice in entering or not. On top of that, he should have taken better care of himself since he knew the tourney was coming up. Sure, **** happens and not everything goes the way we want it to but that's life.

So in the end, sick johns are NOT legit.

Or, according to my logic, it isn't a legit john because his sickness didn't really affect him to the degree expected, since he performed almost as well as he normally would.

But if he did poorly, it would be a legit john.. ? According to your logic, that's what would be the case. In other words, double standards.

Everyone has got their excuses (I know I do lmao) but it doesn't matter. This is just how it is.

 

[choknater]

man who cares guys

just fight to become number one next time

the top 5 are all really close anyway

 

[ssbbFICTION]

I don't think SCSA #4 should count...it was wayyyy too late to care.

 

[NeighborhoodP]

lol kouryuu the master of the slippery slope

edit: and the strawman

 

[RichBrown]

When are yall updating this???

 

[Kira-]

my 2 cents

johns should rarely, if ever, be considered "legit"

SS being extremely sick, taking nyquil, and losing to germ is legit
running a tournament is not, tired johns are not
there's a difference between being very ill, and simply not being in a good state of mind

plus preparation for tournaments is up to the player. If they fail to prepare correctly it is their own fault, it adds or takes away from their tournament performance. If someone decides to get high beforehand that is their own doing, you can't suggest that their activity for that tournament is less important because of that

people are inherently biased, whether they are conscious of it or not
yes, the panel system has advantages, but in general the less human err allowed in judgments the more accurate the rankings will be

over time, human judgments become warped, misconstrued, or manipulated like 99% of the time
best to eliminate possible error as early as possible so as not to let it get out of hand

comments like, "well yes player A lost to player B, but player A was doing bad, it shouldn't count as much" show too much bias already


bottom line: results are all that should matter

 

[HugS™]

Bottom Line: Results are all that should matter

Then let's get a point system where Futile would still ranked 2nd in West Coast Brawl during January 2009. Just saying.

I can see what you're saying though. Some people do agree with a strictly results point of view. And it's a valid point of view. But it's not what the panel was created for. There are many people who feel that rankings are a more complex process than just copying and pasting results, including myself.

In fact, here are the Power Rankings created by t0mmy using a strict "results only" approach. This was updated June 12, pretty much as current as it gets.

1) FICTION: 0.9688
2) DSF: 0.9417
3) DEHF: 0.9000
3) Leepuff: 0.9000
4) Tyrant: 0.8250
4) Teba: 0.8250
5) BoA: 0.8125
5) Bardull: 0.8125
6) SK92: 0.8000
7) MikeHAZE: 0.7500
7) Chip: 0.7500
8) Catnip: 0.7500
9) Sean: 0.7438
10) Erow: 0.6750
11) Champ: 0.6625
12) Havok: 0.6583
13) Zex: 0.6250
14) Valdens: 0.6035
15) JonT: 0.5250
15) Michael Hey: 0.5250
16) HugS: 0.5166
17) t0mmy: 0.5000
18) Irow: 0.4917
19) Nanerz: 0.4583
20) Dog Latin: 0.4500
20) QTP: 0.4500
21) Oki: 0.4125
22) t1mmy: 0.3500
22) Deva: 0.3500
22) Warp Status: 0.3500
22) Gishnak: 0.3500
23) Sky: 0.3250
24) Oats: 0.2875
25) ViceGrip: 0.2750

It's quite admirable for the work put into it. The system is quite fair as far as awarding points is concerned too.

But maybe you can see where problems would arise as far as accuracy is concerned.
Gishnak 22nd best in the West Coast? Tyrant tied with Teba @ 4th? Dog Latin the ness player @ 20th?

 

[mikeHAZE]

We need an update soon, so that we can stop arguing how to seed people at tournaments. If the panelists are too lazy to do so, is there anything else we can do? can SWF choose new panelists who will be more committed? It's getting frustrating considering there are big tournaments almost every week now, and not knowing where to put who.

Especially when the main arguments are "well he's #_ on the PR" when they haven't accomplished nearly as much as #_ in the past two months.


edit:

I don't think SCSA #4 should count...it was wayyyy too late to care.

How did people miss this one lmao

 

[Kouryuu]

Like Hugo said, results should not be the only thing that matter. Otherwise we wouldn't need the panel.

plus preparation for tournaments is up to the player. If they fail to prepare correctly it is their own fault, it adds or takes away from their tournament performance. If someone decides to get high beforehand that is their own doing, you can't suggest that their activity for that tournament is less important because of that.

I agree completely.

 

[Gishnak]

But Maybe You Can See Where Problems Would Arise As Far As accuracy Is Concerned.
Gishnak 22nd Best In The West Coast?

WOW DON'T TRIP HUGS I'M PRETTY LEGIT AT THIS GAME.

caps

 

[SuperRad]

i take issue with that numbering system

if two players are 4, then the next player is 6.

why do i care

 

[Kira-]

@ Hugo

If it's not accurate then the point system isn't good enough

Obviously I don't know how the system he used works but there are systems that decide rankings based on who you beat rather than what place you get

As for Futile being ranked 2nd still, well it isn't hard to just remove him for inactivity. I don't have any problems with the panel system as long as the panelists are fair and chosen well, but people will always have their opinions on who is better than who, and a systematic way of ranking is generally the best way cause people can't john and promote bias

Despite not knowing how tommy organized his system, i'm gonna go ahead and say that he didn't use a good enough system. There's one for example that a lot of other competitive games use. Some examples are guild wars, halo 2, magic the card game, quake 3, starcraft, WoW, etc etc but they are based off of who beats who rather than the way, say, the SCSA series determines points.

in any case im thinking of hosting a tourney series soon, and if i do we'll see how a calculated system works out for melee. anyway good luck to the panelists here

 

[EdreesesPieces]

The point system will never be good enough, that's the point. It's almost impossible to make one good enough, hence you need to work with panelists. If you can suggest a good point system/mathematical model by all means maybe the panel will consider it, but let's see someone come up with one. Nobody will.

You have to realize that bias goes into the point system as well. For example, an accurate point system will weight Oregeon tournaments at like one tenth the importance of Socal tournaments because Socal is like 10 times better. But this is bias already. Who gets to decide whether Oregen tournaments are one tenth? Oregon players will argue that they are closer to us than that. Just as much bias can go into the points system as the amount of bias goes into the panelists

I'm not sure why you are claiming that t0mmy's point system isn't good enough. It's based 100% on results. In terms of counting results themselves, it couldn't be better. It's perfect mathematically and result wise. The reason you think it's "bad" is because every tournament and every tournament match is weighed equally. The reason for a panel is to prevent them from being weighed equally. You are asking a point sysrtem to come up with a mathametical model that can pre determine bias, which is no different from having panelists weight in the decisions themselves.

Basically, much the same way that Hugs is argueing that DSF's results at SCSA #4 not be weighed as serious, is the same reasoning why an Oregon tournament should not be weighed the same as a Socal tournament. It's called factoring in things that matter to really determine if the result is accurate.

You might argue "but the point system can factor in the higher level of skill at SCSA". So let's say some guy in Oregon gets really good over a 3 week period. Let's say before he got good he lost to me. Then he picked up metaknight and got really good and beat Teba (DDD vs MK, a tough matchup) suddenly on a points system, I look amazing because I beat a player that Teba lost to. THEN, it makes teba look even worse because he lost to a player from Oregon. For the points system to accurately reflect this, it would have to weigh that guy's skill level at the time I beat him relative to his skill level when he beat Teba, to determine who is better, me or teba, assuming all our other tournament results were comparable. You can't do this. There are a million other situations that happen like this. A panel cannot fix all of them, but a panel is efficient at fixing most of these kind of shenanigans. A point system will propogate the error to a really really high degree and small things like this make it look like the list you see above. There are just wayyyy too many factors to create a mathametical model of all the complications that go into tournament results.

 

[Kira-]

1. Oregon has nothing to do with this, nobody has to factor in varying skill levels in different areas. That's one of Tommy's flaws already, he tried to do it across the entire west coast. In that case, yes there is bias like you said, but it's a Socal PR for a reason so that doesn't apply here.

2. a good system has already been created and is commonplace across a lot of games, and not just video games either (elo rating system). It's also easily adaptable to smash, very simple to apply.

3. a point system doesn't compute if Edrees > Oregon guy, and Oregon guy > Teba, then Edrees > Teba

Still don't see any bias.

 

[mikeHAZE]

lmao get *****

 

[Fly_Amanita]

The thought of using an elo rating system for smash is hilarious. It actually could work for a sufficiently small area, but it would be a ***** to maintain.

 

[HugS™]

Edrees is my favorite poster on the boards.

And LooooL @ Mike. Lazy?

Idk if you realized, but members of the panel have been gone from Socal for roughly 8 of the past 11 days due to traveling. It has nothing to do with laziness, and we thought it'd be best to wait for the results of the massively important tournaments that have been happening week after week.

Usually, rankings were updated right after major tournaments, not right before them. I mean, I see your point, but I can't think of a good compromise at the moment.

 

[pockyD]

1. Oregon has nothing to do with this, nobody has to factor in varying skill levels in different areas. That's one of Tommy's flaws already, he tried to do it across the entire west coast. In that case, yes there is bias like you said, but it's a Socal PR for a reason so that doesn't apply here.

How can you just discount results against other regions though? If someone beats M2K, it should definitely count for more than beating #9 in socal or whatever

2. a good system has already been created and is commonplace across a lot of games, and not just video games either (elo rating system). It's also easily adaptable to smash, very simple to apply.

ELO and other rating systems only become accurate with a massive volume of matches, generally even played in an open format; with a bracket system, the number of matches is extremely limited, and in fact, the number of matches can easily be inversely proportional to your actual performance...

Consider if Mango had LOST in grand finals at pound3; by virtue of playing twice as many matches as M2K (and all against quality competition), a ratings system would very likely have awarded Mango more points than M2K over the course of the tournament, even though M2K won, possibly without even dropping a set (the hypothetical, blasphemous version )

3. a point system doesn't compute if Edrees > Oregon guy, and Oregon guy > Teba, then Edrees > Teba

Still don't see any bias.

A "point system" either looks at matches or it looks at overall standings; if it looks at matches, then it most certainly looks at edrees vs oregon vs teba; if it doesn't, then it's near useless, as standings already speak for themselves, and there's no real need for some official set of rankings to "interpret" them literally

 

[mikeHAZE]

Edrees is my favorite poster on the boards.

And LooooL @ Mike. Lazy?

Idk if you realized, but members of the panel have been gone from Socal for roughly 8 of the past 11 days due to traveling. It has nothing to do with laziness, and we thought it'd be best to wait for the results of the massively important tournaments that have been happening week after week.

Usually, rankings were updated right after major tournaments, not right before them. I mean, I see your point, but I can't think of a good compromise at the moment.

You make it sound as if the panel has always kept consistency in updates Hugo. How long was the gap between the last update and this one?

 

[Kira-]

The thought of using an elo rating system for smash is hilarious. It actually could work for a sufficiently small area, but it would be a ***** to maintain.

It doesn't matter what the area size is as long as everyone is connected to some degree (ie as long as it stays in socal or one region), and as long as people have played enough games for the ratings to even themselves out.

How can you just discount results against other regions though? If someone beats M2K, it should definitely count for more than beating #9 in socal or whatever

I'm not, Edrees used Oregon to dispute a point rating system, but in that case Oregon didn't matter because there was no way to mathematically calculate skill levels between states. The panel system is perfect in that regard, because a system could only rate someone based on their previous matches, so if M2K decided to come to a tournament out of nowhere, there would be no way to accurately rate him or his opponents and we'd have to ignore the results of anyone he played for that specific tournament.

ELO and other rating systems only become accurate with a massive volume of matches, generally even played in an open format; with a bracket system, the number of matches is extremely limited, and in fact, the number of matches can easily be inversely proportional to your actual performance...

Consider if Mango had LOST in grand finals at pound3; by virtue of playing twice as many matches as M2K (and all against quality competition), a ratings system would very likely have awarded Mango more points than M2K over the course of the tournament, even though M2K won, possibly without even dropping a set (the hypothetical, blasphemous version )

It becomes accurate after about 30 matches. I think pools solves this problem most effectively, as most people could play 30 matches after a series of 3-4 tournaments. And if we were deciding to input the system now, every consistent smasher, from noob to ranked, would definitely have 30 matches recorded. That's 15 tournaments minimum if you went 0-2 every tournament.

As for the number of matches being inversely proportional to your performance, well that's the players fault, not the system's.

And yes, that situation you said is true, except for the fact that it only considers one tournament. Over the course of 2-3 months that would rarely be an issue. The only time it could is if Mango decides to lose the first match of every tournament, knowing he could still beat everyone else. But even then he would lose a ton of points from losing to whatever noob he played 1st round, so it might be a negligible amount of points in the end.

A "point system" either looks at matches or it looks at overall standings; if it looks at matches, then it most certainly looks at edrees vs oregon vs teba; if it doesn't, then it's near useless, as standings already speak for themselves, and there's no real need for some official set of rankings to "interpret" them literally

Elo system looks at the comparative strength of each opponent. It doesn't say that A > C if A > B and B > C. It simply detracts or adds points based on the relative strength of the person you won or lost to.

 

[Charoo]

how can i be rank 12 if I haven't play since february haha

I'm pretty good at this game I guess

 

[RichBrown]

The point system is bogus. There is no mathematical formula for rating smashers. It's best done by a human panel. I'm pretty sure I posted this example a while ago, but I'll post it again here: Race had a tournament about 2 months ago where Futile randomly showed up. IIRC He beat Bardull and BoA. Technically this loss should hurt them a lot, since Futile is a random, and they are ranked. But obviously a human panel would recognize that Futile is a really good player, even if he hasn't been to a tournament in months. How can a point system account for instances like this, or tournaments like SCSA?

And seriously, update this already lolol

 

[Atlus8]

USCF seems to have a good point system!

 

[BarDulL]

Bottom Line: Results are all that should matter

Then let's get a point system where Futile would still ranked 2nd in West Coast Brawl during January 2009. Just saying.

I can see what you're saying though. Some people do agree with a strictly results point of view. And it's a valid point of view. But it's not what the panel was created for. There are many people who feel that rankings are a more complex process than just copying and pasting results, including myself.

In fact, here are the Power Rankings created by t0mmy using a strict "results only" approach. This was updated June 12, pretty much as current as it gets.

1) FICTION: 0.9688
2) DSF: 0.9417
3) DEHF: 0.9000
3) Leepuff: 0.9000
4) Tyrant: 0.8250
4) Teba: 0.8250
5) BoA: 0.8125
5) Bardull: 0.8125
6) SK92: 0.8000
7) MikeHAZE: 0.7500
7) Chip: 0.7500
8) Catnip: 0.7500
9) Sean: 0.7438
10) Erow: 0.6750
11) Champ: 0.6625
12) Havok: 0.6583
13) Zex: 0.6250
14) Valdens: 0.6035
15) JonT: 0.5250
15) Michael Hey: 0.5250
16) HugS: 0.5166
17) t0mmy: 0.5000
18) Irow: 0.4917
19) Nanerz: 0.4583
20) Dog Latin: 0.4500
20) QTP: 0.4500
21) Oki: 0.4125
22) t1mmy: 0.3500
22) Deva: 0.3500
22) Warp Status: 0.3500
22) Gishnak: 0.3500
23) Sky: 0.3250
24) Oats: 0.2875
25) ViceGrip: 0.2750

It's quite admirable for the work put into it. The system is quite fair as far as awarding points is concerned too.

But maybe you can see where problems would arise as far as accuracy is concerned.
Gishnak 22nd best in the West Coast? Tyrant tied with Teba @ 4th? Dog Latin the ness player @ 20th?

you shouldn't be comparing this to a potential point system for the PR. think about where these points are coming from and how they are assigned...lol