-
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 Power Rankings (October 28, 2007)- Will the update ever happen?
- Thread starter EdreesesPieces
- Start date
- Status
st p play me in tournament ;P
futile looked pretty good when i saw him play mike haze, but i wouldn't jump into ranking him just yet
NeighborhoodP
Smash Hero
and i 2-0ed khepri in tournament ^^
AzN_Lep
Smash Champion
Mango for panelist, just cuz I'd love to see how the rankings turn out.
1. Mango
...
...
...
...
...
25. Lucky
Amazing.
1. Mango
...
...
...
...
...
25. Lucky
Amazing.
mango post your versions of the pr and we will all consider you for being a panelist >_>
Inkslinger
Smash Ace
Futile has potential to be ranked, but yes, too early for him to be ranked.
Inkslinger
Smash Ace
Mango for panelist, it's obvious he was joking about being a bad panelist. He goes to most of the tournaments in different areas and has a pretty good idea of the skill levels of many players (even better than some current panelists). I'll say he has a pretty good idea of the people should/would be ranked, because he sees things pretty well, one of the reasons he's so good.
Apparently he just likes to mindgame you guys with jokes ^_^.
Apparently he just likes to mindgame you guys with jokes ^_^.
gimpyfish AND mango for a single panelist spot pl0x
mikeHAZE
Smash Legend
choknater
Smash Obsessed
could you guys encourage the norcal panel to be more active because they don't give a sh*t anymore : )
ballroom tournament? sounds fancy lol
formal attire onry?
formal attire onry?
Ties a must, boutonnieres recommended. Corsages for the lady(s).
wow I'm totally down for a tournament like that, no joke
get your dates ready, I'm taking Ladyfish62
get your dates ready, I'm taking Ladyfish62
I wonder how many times Edrees had to edit his post to spell all those words correctly.
KingJiggyWiggy
Smash Lord
Objection!
Correct3ed.
The Game II
Smash Champion
LuCKy
Smash Master
man i own
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2RQW8WgKFS4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2RQW8WgKFS4
wow you lost to an unranked and never before heard of angrie lonnie, you suck
J.Shadows
Smash Champion
lol get ***** Lucky
did you guys see glenn's statistic PR? it was pretty interesting.
anyways, we gonna update this or what?
remove inactive players please.
EDIT: here is the link
http://www.getyourtournament.com/news/200549.html
anyways, we gonna update this or what?
remove inactive players please.
EDIT: here is the link
http://www.getyourtournament.com/news/200549.html
VERY cool rankings, I like them overall. BUT..
I think tournament win percentage is a bit unfair, because what if you face Hugo 2nd round, then for some reason Mango messes up/sandbags and you face him in losers. Suddenly you are deducted points compared to someone who got an easy bracket.
It works well for top 4-5 players, but after that it's going to make things biased depending on how your losers bracket goes. Maybe there should be an equation to relate a loss to someone who is really good to your win percentage. (Ie, take the win percentage as it stands, and multiply it by a number that is based on who good the people you lost to are.)
For example, if St. Patrick lost to Mango and DSF and placed 9th, he would get (.300) [ (1+.9)/2)] = .285 points. (I took the average of mango and dsf's scores and multiplied it to the score you get for getting 9th) However, if someone lost to players who are worse and got 5th they should NOT be rewarded more. Hence, let's say PlayerX gets 5th, but he lost to Mike Y and Lucky. Then, his score would be
[ (.500) (.300+.820)/2]
Player X gets .28 .
Hence, although St Patrick placed a few spots below Player X, St. Patrick lost to significantly better players than Player X, and Patrick gets pretty much the same score for the tournament as Player X. This seems a lot more fair to me.
I think tournament win percentage is a bit unfair, because what if you face Hugo 2nd round, then for some reason Mango messes up/sandbags and you face him in losers. Suddenly you are deducted points compared to someone who got an easy bracket.
It works well for top 4-5 players, but after that it's going to make things biased depending on how your losers bracket goes. Maybe there should be an equation to relate a loss to someone who is really good to your win percentage. (Ie, take the win percentage as it stands, and multiply it by a number that is based on who good the people you lost to are.)
For example, if St. Patrick lost to Mango and DSF and placed 9th, he would get (.300) [ (1+.9)/2)] = .285 points. (I took the average of mango and dsf's scores and multiplied it to the score you get for getting 9th) However, if someone lost to players who are worse and got 5th they should NOT be rewarded more. Hence, let's say PlayerX gets 5th, but he lost to Mike Y and Lucky. Then, his score would be
[ (.500) (.300+.820)/2]
Player X gets .28 .
Hence, although St Patrick placed a few spots below Player X, St. Patrick lost to significantly better players than Player X, and Patrick gets pretty much the same score for the tournament as Player X. This seems a lot more fair to me.
The Game II
Smash Champion
That's interesting Edrees, because I was thinking something along those lines when I was creating the system -- basing the ratings in part on who you beat. But when I thought of that, I said, "Why not just do ELO ratings?" And then I looked at the formula for ELO and figured that, as good as I am in working in Excel spreadsheets, I might die before the first rating system is released because of all the math I would have to do.
I tried to come up with something that would reward strength of schedule, and I couldn't without killing myself. I thought about weighing bonus points based on ranking, but I couldn't find any system that did that and was even.
I think what ultimately got me was that ... the rating system does not take into account what tournament you go to (which seems to be the main basis for arguments for/against St. Patrick). All you have to do is win.
This rating system has put on the added pressure that one loss hurts, and byes are now more important than before. This might force the TOs to take a closer look at seeding and divisional play (I seriously doubt it, but I had to throw that out there).
Then again, we're talking about a pool that consists of 5 weeks of tournament play; that could be anywhere from 5 to 15 tournaments. If a player has a fluke tournament, he/she can make that up at the next tournament. There are going to be players who go 0-2 in Majors but destroy the field at another tourney that has 0 ranked players.
The only issue I have with your formula is that it's rewarding losses instead of rewarding wins, as if we're saying "Give so-and-so a break because he lost to blah person." I would rather see people say, "I'm playing Mango and I'm going for the F'n win because I'll benefit" rather than "Well, I'm playing Mango so it won't hurt that much in my rating when I lose." That's where the bonus points come in.
--GCII
nublet06
Smash Lord
honestly man, i dont think you really know enough about the melee scene to make a ranking list. whats cool about the socal power rankings is the members have an understanding of the game and also play against the people on the list so they get first hand experience on ability.
i remember in the weeks leading up to the chapman tournament you had a poll on your website saying who would win. and there were only 2 choices. dsf and hugo. and guess who won that tournament? mango. I thought it was silly of you to limit the choices to only 2 people when in theory anyone can win a tournament. especially with your "I'm going for the f'm win mantality" plus edrees was going to the tournament and had beaten dsf and hugo in the passed so i felt it was stupid to leave players like him out. and i was obviously right since your 2 choices did not win lol.
i also remember at that same tournament i reported that i had beaten mike haze and you had to do a double take and make sure i had really beaten him. which no offense to the haze but i was ranked like 13th or something at the time and mike haze obviously wasnt ranked lol. so i thought it was odd that you were suprised.
im happy that you take so much interest in the melee community but i think it would be a lot better if you played. because i dont remember the last time someone (who had a chance to win) didnt try to. Do you have any idea how long people wanted to beat ken when he was on top? nobody ever didnt try against him because it wouldnt change their rankings. they tried their best if anything because just like pokemans we all want to be the very best like no one ever was.
anyway, interesting list and i like it because im better than ken.
I agree completely.
6th Sense
Smash Lord
I also agree with ROFL.
I also want to thank you for interest and dedication to all that you do with the smash community, especially in SoCal and I think I speak for everyone when I say this. I also really think you should learn the game a bit more in depth for two reasons. 1-to describe matches in your blog more clearly and 2-to gain more "respect" for lack of a better term, for our unranked players. I'm not trying to be egotistical or cocky in anyway but I'm sure some of SoCal's unranked players would be ranked if they were to play in another region.
Thank you again for all your hard work
After reading Mike's post below I'd like to note that my post has nothing to do with the list.
I also want to thank you for interest and dedication to all that you do with the smash community, especially in SoCal and I think I speak for everyone when I say this. I also really think you should learn the game a bit more in depth for two reasons. 1-to describe matches in your blog more clearly and 2-to gain more "respect" for lack of a better term, for our unranked players. I'm not trying to be egotistical or cocky in anyway but I'm sure some of SoCal's unranked players would be ranked if they were to play in another region.
Thank you again for all your hard work
After reading Mike's post below I'd like to note that my post has nothing to do with the list.
mikeHAZE
Smash Legend
not being biased since i write for glen, but the rankings he's doing is essentially a win ratio power rankings, which is not the same thing that we have here., so statements like "you don't know enough about the melee scene" aren't really necessary, since for this list, it's essentially numbers.
nublet06
Smash Lord
yeah and i think its a nice thing to have on the side. but i think he intends to create something to take over the whole panelist idea.
the panelist idea does create problems on the tail end of a game that people have a hard time caring about. but i assure you when brawl comes out (assuming it is competative enough) people will be on here every day trying to prove they are the best.
and it may not be the same panelists but there will be another rankings list with a handful of people who care enough to update it every month or so.
the panelist idea does create problems on the tail end of a game that people have a hard time caring about. but i assure you when brawl comes out (assuming it is competative enough) people will be on here every day trying to prove they are the best.
and it may not be the same panelists but there will be another rankings list with a handful of people who care enough to update it every month or so.
Evilnemesis
Smash Lord
I liked Glens list not cuz im ranked pretty high on it or anything but Its better to go by wins than just opinion. And the whole argument about losing to good players early on should be dismissed right off the back. Because I used that same argument when I was trying to get ranked on these rankings and people told me, "if youre good, youd win anyways" or something along those lines. It wont hurt to have two separate rankings if anything it'd be better to give people a better idea of how good people are.
Even the panelists were arguing about removing inactive players, so when they do that I wouldnt be surprised if their new list looked very similiar to Glens.
And one last thing to mention about glens list, what if you beat ranked players from outside of socal? Will they receive bonus points?
Even the panelists were arguing about removing inactive players, so when they do that I wouldnt be surprised if their new list looked very similiar to Glens.
And one last thing to mention about glens list, what if you beat ranked players from outside of socal? Will they receive bonus points?
I think if you could make the rankings system perfect, you could make it entirely mathematiclly based on wins. But as Glenn himself pointed out, it's a crapload of work designing something like that. I think you could set up numbers to account for every little detail (Such as you you lose to, their record, heck, even the matchup) but I think panelists are essential because none of us could ever set up a system that would be that elaborate. To add to what I was talking about, there are dozens of other situations where a system "just based on wins" wouldn't really work. If you beat everyone but had trouble in the Mewwtwo matchup, and for some reason there is a good Mewwtwo in your town, and most of the tournaments you go to are in your town, you're score would heavily be lowered for your losses to mewwtwo, despite you beating top 5 players consistently. This is a wild and exaggerated example, but scenarios like this do occur to a smaller yet more common scale, and system that "Just factors wins" won't account for stuff like this too well, which panelists can.
Much like my friend Rolling On the Floor Laughing, I think the points-wins based rankings are nice and cool to have on the side, but I would never dream of it replacing panelists. However we all agree the current system needs to be fixed (like taking inactives out), so we'll find something in the middle.
Inkslinger
Smash Ace
Panelist list>Glenn's list, I think that even Glenn implies this when you read the criteria for his list. It's just something cool to have on the side, but it will of course not have the importance the panelist list has. Both lists are flawed, but overall the panelist list is the best yet. There are certain factors that not taken into a account when using such formulaic format.
I have heard rumors about cutting the panelist list down to top 15, excluding all the inactive players. I like this idea because trimming it down and focusing on less players will mean more accurate results. I have also not liked the idea of keeping inactive players on the list because it hurts the people who are active, trying to move up the list while the others are not putting any effort and maintain their status. This cut might also bring more respect to good unranked players (such as saint p and danny) because previously ranked players will also join them.
I have heard rumors about cutting the panelist list down to top 15, excluding all the inactive players. I like this idea because trimming it down and focusing on less players will mean more accurate results. I have also not liked the idea of keeping inactive players on the list because it hurts the people who are active, trying to move up the list while the others are not putting any effort and maintain their status. This cut might also bring more respect to good unranked players (such as saint p and danny) because previously ranked players will also join them.
- Status