pockyD
Smash Legend
using previous rankings to determine quality of wins/losses in the current period is a recursively mistake-amplifying system
just sayin'
-
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!
SoCal Melee PR 12/29/2013 Update
- Thread starter HugS™
- Start date
just sayin'
he lost to connor and fly
why wouldnt he be lower than them? that's what i meant
although apparently he beat connor twice so in that case he could be higher
okay so i realized
the two tournaments that had no results were Active Gamers 2 (Aug 30th) and that one Connor tournament where everyone beat each other twice (Aug 8th)
connor/hugo send us results if you have them
why wouldnt he be lower than them? that's what i meant
although apparently he beat connor twice so in that case he could be higher
okay so i realized
the two tournaments that had no results were Active Gamers 2 (Aug 30th) and that one Connor tournament where everyone beat each other twice (Aug 8th)
connor/hugo send us results if you have them
pockyD
Smash Legend
i don't know the socal bag of results so i was only going by what you said there
if he did indeed repeatedly lose to the people that you moved over him, then so be it
if he did indeed repeatedly lose to the people that you moved over him, then so be it
D
Deleted member
Guest
Why is Zhu #2 and Lucky #3 when Zhu had bad losses and Lucky beat him
Zhu lost to Pnoy
Lovage
Lucky
Zhu lost to Pnoy
Lovage
Lucky
joeplicate
Smash Master
then get atlus's name off the front page *****es!
choknater
Smash Obsessed
what happened to HugQ?
pockyD
Smash Legend
zhu beat m2k!
Atlus8
Smash Master
WTF are you talking about n!gg@? I'm NOT on the PR f***er!
pockyD
Smash Legend
he's saying as a panelist
i don't know why oscar is listed as a panelist, then comes out and says "this list is bad, ignoring it"
i don't know why oscar is listed as a panelist, then comes out and says "this list is bad, ignoring it"
Atlus8
Smash Master
That n!gg@ isn't saying panelist!
J.Shadows
Smash Champion
hey what happened to J666?
joeplicate
Smash Master
i meant on the PR panel u tard
otherwise i would've said why is atlus ranked
otherwise i would've said why is atlus ranked
Atlus8
Smash Master
PR is short for Power Rankings you f**k face! God, I f***en love SoCal!
ResidentWaffle
Smash Lord
D
Deleted member
Guest
so that's how it works
But Kira, I have beaten Larry this period.
We are 1-3 this period.
It just seems that this panel takes results in too rigidly. Or the panel is inconsistent when it comes to looking into other factors.
For example, there is just way too much talk about who beat who, rather than the actual circumstances and related factors involved in those losses or victories.
Also, The panel seems inconsistent when it comes into looking at environmental factors as well. Like, the panel is ready to consider the negative effects of slightly laggy tv's at a tournament, but they are not prepared to consider the strength of a performance at a regional event as opposed to a small local. Yeah I was trying vs Kira and Fly @ Chatsworth, but there were roughly 14 people in attendance, and about 7 bucks on the line for 3rd place.
Therefore, the score of 2-2 between myself and Kira is misleading, but I don't think the panel looked into it any deeper. Not that my score with him would be the only factor, but it's just an example of the oversight I feel the panel may have had in this and other decisions.
Or, for example, they are not prepared to look into the factors present in a 1st round winners match when compared to a winner's semis match.
And the placement of Lovage below Connor makes no sense to me despite Connor's recent win. They both had similar performances, without taking into account Connor's purposeful losses this period. So would one win over Lovage really warrant a 4 spot drop to place connor above him?
Rankings are a cumulative process, not a fresh start everytime a new period begins. By taking previous rankings into account, you are also taking history into account. Lovage did not deserve a 4 spot drop. Just a 3 spot drop below fly and Kira, because they both had clearly better performances, and appropriate histories to back up such rises in rank. Though I do not agree with Kira @ 5th.
We are 1-3 this period.
It just seems that this panel takes results in too rigidly. Or the panel is inconsistent when it comes to looking into other factors.
For example, there is just way too much talk about who beat who, rather than the actual circumstances and related factors involved in those losses or victories.
Also, The panel seems inconsistent when it comes into looking at environmental factors as well. Like, the panel is ready to consider the negative effects of slightly laggy tv's at a tournament, but they are not prepared to consider the strength of a performance at a regional event as opposed to a small local. Yeah I was trying vs Kira and Fly @ Chatsworth, but there were roughly 14 people in attendance, and about 7 bucks on the line for 3rd place.
Therefore, the score of 2-2 between myself and Kira is misleading, but I don't think the panel looked into it any deeper. Not that my score with him would be the only factor, but it's just an example of the oversight I feel the panel may have had in this and other decisions.
Or, for example, they are not prepared to look into the factors present in a 1st round winners match when compared to a winner's semis match.
And the placement of Lovage below Connor makes no sense to me despite Connor's recent win. They both had similar performances, without taking into account Connor's purposeful losses this period. So would one win over Lovage really warrant a 4 spot drop to place connor above him?
Rankings are a cumulative process, not a fresh start everytime a new period begins. By taking previous rankings into account, you are also taking history into account. Lovage did not deserve a 4 spot drop. Just a 3 spot drop below fly and Kira, because they both had clearly better performances, and appropriate histories to back up such rises in rank. Though I do not agree with Kira @ 5th.
Adam M!
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,462
yup, hugs' posts are almost always right
the PR reminds me of those NBA/MLB/NFL sports power rankings on SI.com and ESPN.com (john hollinger excluded)
it's a reactionary, emotional and illogical list that weights recent performances as everything without applying any common sense. the people making it just simply don't understand the game.
i.e. lovage can be 10% better than the six spots below him, but if he's 60% to win any set (versus 40% for theo ther) then he's still going to lose often. no one in socal except zhu -- that's right, not even lucky, although he's close -- is way better than anyone else, so simple math tells you upsets are going to be commonplace. you need a panel that has an understanding of this rather than saying, "oh, X has four bad losses and two good ones so he goes down three spots so Y goes up two since he had as many bad losses as good wins."
and that's not even factoring in style differences, importance of tourny, winners v losers bracket, etc.
until then the ranking is a joke
honestly just let hugo and mango ONLY do it, more people = more margin for error
has anyone ever answered that anyway? why are there so many panelists? just appeal to authority here and let the combination of the two best and smartest players do it, especially since it makes it even easier to get people "online" to update it
the PR reminds me of those NBA/MLB/NFL sports power rankings on SI.com and ESPN.com (john hollinger excluded)
it's a reactionary, emotional and illogical list that weights recent performances as everything without applying any common sense. the people making it just simply don't understand the game.
i.e. lovage can be 10% better than the six spots below him, but if he's 60% to win any set (versus 40% for theo ther) then he's still going to lose often. no one in socal except zhu -- that's right, not even lucky, although he's close -- is way better than anyone else, so simple math tells you upsets are going to be commonplace. you need a panel that has an understanding of this rather than saying, "oh, X has four bad losses and two good ones so he goes down three spots so Y goes up two since he had as many bad losses as good wins."
and that's not even factoring in style differences, importance of tourny, winners v losers bracket, etc.
until then the ranking is a joke
honestly just let hugo and mango ONLY do it, more people = more margin for error
has anyone ever answered that anyway? why are there so many panelists? just appeal to authority here and let the combination of the two best and smartest players do it, especially since it makes it even easier to get people "online" to update it
Fly_Amanita
Master of Caribou
How recent are we talking? Since the last update, I recall you beating me three times before Genesis (two of Connor's tourneys and the first AG one) and once after, at Boba's one. Excluding our sets at the tourney with the LCD tvs, I beat you at that one Festizzio tourney, which would make us 4-1 in the whole period and 1-1 since Genesis.
I feel like I started playing better a few weeks after Genesis and the results before then aren't representative of my current skill level. Then again, I don't know exactly what criteria you're using to determine this PR in the first place, so if you want to take into account old victories that aren't very relevant to the present, by my guest.
I question what this list is actually supposed to represent. Is it supposed to rank Socal's players by their net performances since the last update, is it supposed to represent current estimations of our players' skills, or does it represent something else?
Your post is genius. And I agree with your sentiments completely.
And actually, your score this whole period would be 1-1 with Kira, since it began taking in results after genesis.
What this list represents has never been clear since Brawl's release and the beginnings of the new rankings. It's something the panel should really look into understanding and explaining.
I mean, Mango is ready to use me on a WC crew, but hesitant to rank me above those he wouldn't use just yet. So is this strictly a list to rank our talent based on this past period alone? Is this strictly a list to rank our talent based on skill? Is this strictly a list to rank performances based on a cumulative viewpoint where recent results hold more weight? Or is this list meant to be some random mix of all purposes.
Either way, this list fails on all those levels. The purpose I can see this list fulfilling best is one where we attempt to create a list based solely on who beat who, which would still partially fail because they didn't want to count the results involving laggy tv's. This particular purpose would be a ****ty thing to base our rankings on though. So hopefully that's not what we are aiming for.
joeplicate
Smash Master
also, connor lost to fabian at upland
D:
D:
LunInSpectra
Smash Lord
HugS above Lucky, perhaps?
Lovage
Smash Hero
u guys forgot tournaments so these rankings dont matter
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
I always felt that power rankings should be a representation of how the players would on average do at a national tournament, i.e., the people with the most potential to beat people nationally. Or globally, or whatever.
pockyD
Smash Legend
that's not only silly in and of itself as a goal (since regional rankings are meant for the people of that region), it's largely baseless when there are 2 national tourneys a year and most of the data contributing to the rankings comes from local tournaments
imo, rankings should be a largely subjective ordering of observed skill. results already speak for themselves, so formulaic rankings are pretty pointless unless there's either something at stake or it's actually meant to strictly be an accumulation of data
imo, rankings should be a largely subjective ordering of observed skill. results already speak for themselves, so formulaic rankings are pretty pointless unless there's either something at stake or it's actually meant to strictly be an accumulation of data
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
I disagree, we should be making power rankings for other regions to see, not just to have a circle jerk about our own region. The rankings should be something that out of region players can look at and get an idea for which players they will on average have the most trouble with. What's so great about making a list of who beats whom among people that play each other all the time? I don't think it accomplishes anything or produces interesting information to anyone.
i said he beats you, not he's never lost to you.
I believe this point argued in the Brawl power rankings. If you were trying against me and Fly at Chatsworth, then what's to say that you were playing worse at that tournament than Active Gamers? Why couldn't I have played worse at Active because I was tired and sick and smashed out that weekend? There are so many "environmental factors" that it becomes REALLY difficult to determine which ones are legit and which ones aren't. It involves a LOT of personal opinion. This personal opinion about the relative feelings of each player is not a good criteria to base rankings on.
There are no factors present that are worth mentioning. If you lost, you lost. All players understand this and play accordingly. Zhu didn't play as patient against Pnoy as he did against M2K, but does that mean Pnoy's win has no merit? Even if it does have less merit, to what degree do we give Pnoy's victory? How can you even determine that?
No. As I've already said, Lovage had other poor losses that brought him down this period.
I agree to an extent. However, recently Lovage hasn't performed very well at all other than his win over Zhu at Boss' tournament. Overall though, he's been really inconsistent and consistency is obviously very important. That's something everyone has agreed on ever since the first PR.
Please say WHY you don't agree with me at 5th. Nobody is going to change their mind if you don't give us any reasons.
Mango, Atlus, and myself don't understand the game. You're really trying to tell me that? You want to appeal to authority but you think you have a more accurate picture than we do? Why don't we see how many people agree with your PR.
smash results aren't as random or reliant on percentages as much as basketball or football games. when do you ever see zhu lose to a random? The chances of that happening are effectively zero. Remember when Lucky lost to MacD the first time and we all thought it was a joke? Then McCain went on to beat Lunin twice. Smash results happen for a reason.
None of those things should really matter. Style differences are just johns. I've covered importance of tournaments above. Winners vs losers is highly subjective. Both people are in the same round, they will be trying equally hard. Falcomist lost to Blunted Object in 1st round winners at Genesis. If it was semi finals would he have done better? Sure, Falcomist might have tried harder, but so would Blunted; they both would increase their game as the rounds become more deciding.
Also, some people choke and some people play better with the pressure. Does that have to do with actual skill? Do we factor that in too? No, we simply state that a loss is a loss and a win is a win, regardless of how well each contestant plays under pressure, even if we KNOW one of them chokes. We attribute choking as part of the skill required to win. There are a lot of things like this, such as overall health or how much one slept before a tournament. If you didn't sleep beforehand, that's your own fault. Nobody is going to give you credit if you didn't sleep at Genesis and went 0-2. If you really cared to do well, you would make sure you got the required sleep. And so on with every other environmental factor.
Let me define "John" for you. A john is an excuse that effectively has no merit. You can john that you were playing bad, but that doesn't change the final result of the tournament. You can john that you didn't have your controller, and that may have merit for your friends or the people that know you, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't advance in the bracket. You can john that Marth's chaingrabs on Fox are broken, you can john that you didn't eat, etc etc but the final result remains the same. Results should take ultimate precedence over any other factor.
If you are really, truly better than someone else, it will show. You shouldn't have to worry because you'll prove yourself within the next coming weeks.
Mango alone is going to defer to Hugo at every decision. That's not a good idea. The more people we have the more accurate the decisions will be.
the period starts after the update. So recent would be this period, which would be all the tournaments from July 19th until now. People have this misconception that Genesis was a big marker in terms of ranking period. It wasn't.
By making the last victory the most important, you aren't giving any credit to history.
You haven't "proved" that you can beat me consistently, there's no reason to rank you higher at this moment. What if you were ranked higher than me and I beat you the next time we play? Then the rankings would instantly become inaccurate. As far as we know, I'm more consistent in our matches against each other, so while your win definitely has merit, it isn't enough to push you over the top.
I believe it should be their performances, and their performances alone. Subjectivity will not carry a PR very far. If you can give me good reasons why it should be something other than that, please do so.
I said this above, but no, Genesis was not a cutoff of any sort, nor do I see any reason for it to be.
What this list represents has never been clear since Brawl's release and the beginnings of the new rankings. It's something the panel should really look into understanding and explaining.
Let me explain through a hypothetical example. Let's say in Socal, Zhu beats everybody consistently including you but excepting Mango. Let's also say you recently beat PC Chris, M2K, and DaShizWiz in an OoS tournament that Zhu didn't attend. Even though you have really good national merits, there is no reason to believe (no sufficient evidence) that Zhu would NOT be able to beat those players as well other than subjective opinion. As far as the evidence provides, Zhu could beat all of those players as well.
Mango was also willing to put Brandon on a WC crew, but that doesn't mean he was the right choice (sorry brandon, hate to bring it up but I needed an example).
The only reason we would count that tournament is if we decided laggy TV's are legit (tournament viable). I don't think anyone would ever agree that laggy TV's are legit. Armada lost to WhatisFear in Genesis pools 1st round, then complained and 2-0'd him after.
Well this was a chore but I'm somewhat appreciative of it now that everything has been written out just cause it helps clear up a lot of misconceptions.
Then were are the results? I've asked for them but neither of them have been sent to me by ANYONE. What do you want me to do about that? Send me the results and we'll change it, np.
There's no good way to do that, because not everyone goes to the same OoS tournaments. Also, for example, Lunin does poorly OoS relative to his local results, does that mean you should rank him lower? He still beats almost everyone in Norcal. If he doesn't do well OoS then people will eventually come to understand that, but if it's reflected in the rankings then people will have big misconceptions about how well he will do at any given tournament
pockyD
Smash Legend
I disagree, and I also don't think you understand what a 'circle jerk' entails if that's what you think it'd be
In my experience, I've found that creating rankings best serves to promote improvement and competition within your local community, give players goals to strive for, people to target, etc. People wandering into local PR threads that are even a single month outdated and taking a mental snapshot is how the stupid assumptions of skill level get started.
What information do you think goes into determining the rankings? On what basis can you possibly judge who out of, say, kira and fly, would do best against scar, hungrybox, whoever? How they each perform vs. connor gives absolutely zero indication towards that goal... if the goal is to anticipate their performance on a national scale, then local criteria are no use at all, and we should really just take the results from genesis, cut out everyone who isn't from your region, and make that the rankings, given that it's the only national tournament attended for almost all the players.
Frankly, I think the norcal PR has lacked direction for the longest time too, and you and rey's ambiguous criteria is a big reason why
hope none of this gets taken personally, and I'm pretty sure I've voiced this to you before anyway
joeplicate
Smash Master
wowww i am not reading all that
edit:
I don't think anyone would ever agree that laggy TV's are legit. Armada lost to WhatisFear in Genesis pools 1st round, then complained and 2-0'd him after.
i personally tested out that TV, it had very little lag. that was a straight up john
edit:
I don't think anyone would ever agree that laggy TV's are legit. Armada lost to WhatisFear in Genesis pools 1st round, then complained and 2-0'd him after.
i personally tested out that TV, it had very little lag. that was a straight up john
pockyD
Smash Legend
The problem is that ranking periods are super arbitrary periods of time, with no real rhyme or reason aside from you 'felt like it was time to do new rankings'.
If player A beat player B thrice, then player B beat player A the next three times (with no extra information given), I would say it's much more likely that player B has surpassed player A in skill rather than "they are approximately equal over the course of this period".
Recent results should mean more because the rankings should be a snapshot of whatever your standard is (perceived skill, demonstrated skill, expected performance OOS, whatever) at the date the rankings are released, not for the period dating back to the last rankings. There's a reason it's a "September 29 Update", not "Rankings for July 19 - September 29 Released"
Well if you notice it's always about 2 months every time one is released
i agree with you about the player A stuff, but it's not 3-3, it's 4-1
in that case it should just be a point-based system, like i've been saying for awhile now
i agree with you about the player A stuff, but it's not 3-3, it's 4-1
in that case it should just be a point-based system, like i've been saying for awhile now
Scar
#HarveyDent
namesearched but good **** pocky
i'm excited to see SoCal PRs but we always tried to gear the results towards what one would expect from PA smashers if they all attended a national tournament, how would they in all probability end up in order of who placed higher
i'm excited to see SoCal PRs but we always tried to gear the results towards what one would expect from PA smashers if they all attended a national tournament, how would they in all probability end up in order of who placed higher
pockyD
Smash Legend
but a point system doesn't properly account for activity... but that goes back to what you actually think the "rankings" represent (i.e. if mango misses half the tournaments because he's off wrecking OOS, it's entirely possible he wouldn't be #1 in a point-based system) - and it also doesn't account very well for opportunity and at all for history
also
anyways, it was a much different situation for PA, when we'd play each other once or twice a month at best, as opposed to socal, which plays weekly or more
you are so gay
also
written by yours truly so obv it doesn't hold a lot of weight argument-wise, but at least we DID lay out our criteria instead of just dropping a list of names
anyways, it was a much different situation for PA, when we'd play each other once or twice a month at best, as opposed to socal, which plays weekly or more
Lovage
Smash Hero
I beat Fly twice at my tournament and Psycho lost to joe and me
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
I don't understand why everyone not going to the same OOS tourneys matters. And I think people will have even bigger misconceptions if rankings are overly based mostly on how well you expect people do within their region.
I agree but I don't think that argues for either of our positions because all those things will happen regardless of which criteria we use.
You're exaggerating my position to try to make it look absurd. Local results aren't of "no use at all," just not as much as OOS results. They are still a good indicator of skill, no reason to discard them at all. To me anyway, it seems pretty obvious that how well you do in a match against someone you've never played before is a better indicator of skill than a match against someone you've played several times.
In practice, the process is a lot more transparent. Weren't you there for one of the PR discussions?
I think the first question to address is whether you (you meaning anyone participating in the conversation) think the list should be a list based on digesting the previous tournament data, or whether it should be about predicting future results. Personally I don't see much use for the former because anyone can look at brackets, while not everyone has a good handle on the relative skill of the players in their region and other regions, which is the more interesting question, so I think the list should be a prediction on who would on average do the best at a hypothetical tournament where all smashers attend. It seems like Scar agrees with this, for better or for worse.
I think I'll make a topic in the Melee BR and see what others think.