The North Carolina Melee Power Rankings! Updated 8/14/14!

[Dorsey]

Kumar: Lmao

Jesse: I love you buddy but I facepalmed about 4 times during your last post. When I get caught up at work I'll explain so just hang tight. PR's reflect how well a player performs in tournament, not what place they get. Placings are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT past probably top 4 or 5, where everyone plays each other. Like Alex said it is completely possible to place high at a tournament and have only 1 substantial for PR's win.

More to come.

EDIT:

What are you even talking about? Stuff like that happens at stacked tournaments all the time. Unless you are top 4 on the PR's, there is an almost definite chance that you will have to play a highly ranked PR player early in a 16 man bracket, and have to play another good player, almost immediately after. Have you really never heard people say, "Man, today sucked. I had a Bye, then had to play PP, then had to play Ali in Loser's after he lost to XXXX unexpectedly"?

All this are just examples of ****ty experiences you guys have had. There is not a single detail as to why you think that this **** is happening, only that you think it's great that we have a panel to interpret "how well someone does in tournament" correctly because according to you, placing clearly does not. Lets forget about the word PR, and lets take an 8 man bracket, seeded properly 1-8.

W1
A
player1
player8
B
player5
player4
C
player3
player6
D
player7
player2

L1 L2
Loser of B v. Loser of F
Loser of A

Loser of D v. Loser of E
Loser of C

The winners of A and B would go to round E, and the winners of C and D would go to round F, for clarification, and so on. I see no problem in how this is organized, IF THE SEEDING IS DONE PROPERLY. And this is an 8 man bracket!, it's undoubtedly easier the more people that are involved. Please, instead of posting your own negative experiences with how you think one can come up short in placing, post an argument that has nothing to do with our PR and only in regard to players1-8, which are seeded 1-8.

Please give me an example of how either of these players, 1-8, could get screwed over to the extent where their placing doesn't matter whatsoever. Lol, the flaw isn't in the process, fellas. I think a lot of you need to realize that wins/losses can be very random between similarly skilled players, just like it is with many video games.. in particular games that have been around forever. So yeah, I think wins/losses can be random in that sense, but the tournament doesn't measure that; it measures who can rise to the challenge and win that match. It's the people who are best at doing THAT that I feel should be represented by the PR in our state. Someone's bracket path being 'ruined' because they got upset early on is immaterial, because as I said, nothing of that sort will happen assuming that the higher seeds will win. So do the seeding right, and it's the most right/fair thing you can do.

Anyway... I've been admining/running leagues, tourneys, ladders, etc. for years and years, often under the scrutiny of sponsors like global gamers, worldOGL(official gaming league), ESReality, and SG. I have always been fair, even TOO fair by giving myself much worse seeds / match-ups for the sake of others. This has something to do with my opinions you're seeing now on this.



Edit:

Josh clearly knows what he's talking about.

^My first troll

Edit2:

Please see this post josh, and form your arguments because of that. I am criticizing the PROCESS of how this is done in comparison to a point system. I am not even talking about how the results can be bad, after all I don't need to because there's an example every single ranking period just about. And it is subjective, because you guys are weighting your own analysis of the match-ups over tourney placing, whether right or wrong.

So really, compare a point system v. our current system, instead of thinking about every possible way a pt system could be flawed. Notice I said that it's the "MOST" fair thing, and also remember what I said about what the PR should represent.

 

[lord karn]

Karn, the only way I can think of your example even happening, is if a good player that hasn't attended in quite some time gets a lower seed than normal(getting dr. peepee early on, getting lozr in late LB assuming an NC-only tourney). But....... that person hasn't attended anything in forever, so they SHOULDN'T get a wonderful seed(something like sneak said, and even if not, wouldn't assigning a proper seed to this person be a good job for the panel?). Then after doing what you just said, he'd have a great seed for the next tournament. So really.... not a good point D:

It happens all the time on a much smaller scale, as everyone in this thread has pretty much agreed on. You're right though, they shouldn't get a wonderful seed, and they don't, at least not until the next period if they get PR'd. However, such things happening really make the actual place you get at a tournament really skewed. By making PRs based off tournament rankings, you are creating a really biased list. Low seeds have to play really good players early on. High seeds don't. If a player suddenly gets good, but has to play PP first round, he's still going to get sent to losers, and he's going to place much lower overall because of it more than likely. However, this player actually might be able to beat more people than say I would be able to, but because I came in with a higher seed, I still place better than him. If you make it based off tournament, all you are doing is creating a vicious cycle where previously PRd players have a much much easier time to become PRd again, thus having a higher seed, and thus being more likely to place higher again, and so on. You're place in a tournament is not only an indicator of who you beat, but the seed you came into that tournament with.

I honestly have no idea why anyone would want to measure this. It baffles me. It is obviously not a strong indicator of who you would be able to beat in tournament. It's largely just an indicator of how well you were seeded at the beginning. That is just backwards and stupid. Not only is it stupid, but it is just plain wrong to give previously PR'd players such an advantage when money is on the line in tournaments.

Arbitrary Arbitrary Arbitrary Arbitrary

Dorsey's makin some sense

Cam too a bit

Placing should def matter, being that they earned that placing

Yea that's it

Why did they earn said placing? Because they were PR'd last season and got a really good seed? Do I deserve to have the same PR as Ali, just because I placed the same as him at G64? Even though I only beat Peter and he beat several other good players?

That would be absolutely ********.

You guys do of course realize there are multiple Brawl Rankings that have already come up with a formula that does what you want it to do right? If you want that kind of a system just message them and ask if you can use their spreadsheet lol.

Do they account for set counts as opposed to strict placement?




I don't get you people.

 

[lord karn]

so it's my fault theo went and lost to sneak and made me get an "easy" bracket for G6?

btw josh, if you read the rest of my post, you'd see that i came to that conclusion and was not disappointed by it. but i can't see how people say that the rankings start "fresh" when the importance of a win is based on the "current" PR. my win vs sneak didn't matter at all because he wasn't pr'd.

i don't think i got some sort of wonderful seed either. i beat JMH, lost to yay, beat carter, john, and sneak, and lost to l0zr.

a point system based on the "current" pr wouldn't have helped me either. as i would have gotten no points for beating sneak, but he would have gotten "points" for beating theo. it seems like this is sorta how it already works anyway...

karn claimed that sneaks win vs theo mattered because theo beat cam, not because he was pr'd on the "current" pr. which is true?

edit: i got 7th at G6 with no notable wins. i placed over 4 pr'd players and got no notable wins. i don't think they seeded wrong though. but sneak got the "notable" win before i could so yeah.

It's not anyone's fault. We looked at your results, we looked at his results, and his were better.

Theo beat Gofg and cam (maybe others, don't remember), lost to sneak

You beat Sneak, lost to several other people (don't remember right now)

Sneak beat Theo, lost to Gofg/You/David

Theo has a bad loss to sneak, but two pretty good wins. That placed him above the people below him because everyone below him had several bad wins. That means that his overall record is pretty good. That means that sneak's victory over him is pretty significant (not because he was ranked last season. Your victory over sneak was not as important, because sneak's record this season was not that impressive (not because he was not ranked last season.

 

[Dark Hart]

I didn't say use only tournament results, im just saying, how can you create a list which is supposed to show who's done the best in tournament without taking The actualy placings into account?

That IMO seems ********

 

[Dorsey]

Dorsey: Placing is a really stupid way of determining...anything. If you lose first or second round in WB, you can sometimes get a MUCH easier bracket going through losers and wind up outplacing the person who beat you, even if their wins were better. While I more or less think Kevin handled your other points, I think you need to realize that there was little, if any, bias used for this data. I say that because...

And yes Josh, assuming all the higher seeds win, a situation like this is impossible to happen. Please prove me wrong in terms of the 8 man bracket I posted. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[lord karn]

I didn't say use only tournament results, im just saying, how can you create a list which is supposed to show who's done the best in tournament without taking The actualy placings into account?

That IMO seems ********

Incorporating it at all is incorporating that arbitrariness. The PRs are a measurement of how well players did against each other, not how well they placed in tournaments. Tournament placement is only slightly correlated with how players did against each other, whereas measuring set counts is not a correlation at all, it is actual data of how well players did against each other! Incorporating tournament placement at all lowers the purity of the result.

 

[Dorsey]

Karn, I am not for giving previously PR'd players a seeding advantage. No clue what you're talking about. I am for the seeding being done by the pt system, though, which is self-sufficient to provide seeding in itself(which would not favor previously PR'd people).

To initially assign seeds and to begin this system, it would be cool to start off at a tourney where most nc players are there / you do pools.

 

[lord karn]

Karn, I am not for giving previously PR'd players a seeding advantage. No clue what you're talking about. I am for the seeding being done by the pt system, though, which is self-sufficient to provide seeding in itself(which would not favor previously PR'd people).

To initially assign seeds and to begin this system, it would be cool to start off at a tourney where most nc players are there / you do pools.

Well, you were talking about tournament placement being the main thing involved in ranking players. If you use tournament placement at all, it will always favor players who were previously ranked. Already ranked players have an obvious advantage of getting further into the tournament, thus they have an advantage in being on the new PRs.

 

[Dark Hart]

I thought the PRs were supposed to show who performs the best and most consistently in tourney? Don't placings do a fairly good job of showing that?

 

[Dorsey]

Well, you were talking about tournament placement being the main thing involved in ranking players. If you use tournament placement at all, it will always favor players who were previously ranked. Already ranked players have an obvious advantage of getting further into the tournament, thus they have an advantage in being on the new PRs.

so... It's a bad thing that better players coincidentally get seeded better, place better, and in turn get ranked better?

D:

It's a pyramid.. The guy who plays Dr. peepee first round needs to win a match or two in LB so he can get a *slightly* better seed to avoid playing him until 2nd round, next time. It's a self-sufficient, and most fair available, process :>

 

[Sneak8288]

Lol this is going to be a never ending arguement

 

[Lightsyde]

BECAUSE THE PLACING

AT A TOURNAMENT

REFLECTS ONLY WHO THEY PLAYED IN TOURNAMENT

NOT NECESSARILY THE PLAYERS WHO PLACED IN FRONT OR BEHIND THEM

Why is this so hard to grasp? lmao Placings would be accurate respresentations if we had the same attendance at 3 straight tournaments.

 

[Dark Hart]

Because it's a circular argument, the blame of the situation keeps going to different parts ofthe process, and right now we're as partisan as the damn US Congress



Lol k Josh, blame the people

 

[lord karn]

I thought the PRs were supposed to show who performs the best and most consistently in tourney? Don't placings do a fairly good job of showing that?

It shows how well players do vs each other, not how well they place in tournament. As I've said a million times, tourney placing also measures how highly you were seeded, which doesn't necessarily have much correlation with how you perform or how well you did vs. other players.

so... It's a bad thing that better players coincidentally get seeded better, place better, and in turn get ranked better?

D:

It's a pyramid.. The guy who plays Dr. peepee first round needs to win a match or two in LB so he can get a *slightly* better seed to avoid playing him until 2nd round, next time. It's a self-sufficient, and most fair available, process :>

Yes, it is definitely bad. It makes it much much harder for a newer skilled player to get ranked. If some new guy shows that he can beat 4 good players (which is determined by those players in turn beating many other people), then I think he should be ranked higher than a previously ranked player who only showed that they can beat 1 good player. Of course, this is an oversimplified example, but it still shows my point. The fact of the matter is that money is on the line in tournaments. Since the PRs determine seeding, we are directly affecting players chances of making money. It is not fair that someone continually has to prove himself just because he wasn't PRd previously, whereas said PRd player can make their way to the higher placing without even doing much, just because they had a high seed from the previous PR. As I showed before, this creates a vicious cycle that makes it hard for newer players to ever get PRd.

 

[Lightsyde]

Because it's a circular argument, the blame of the situation keeps going to different parts ofthe process, and right now we're as partisan as the damn US Congress



Lol k Josh, blame the people

It's not a circular argument. I'm not sure you even understand what that term means if you think so. If you would pay attention, you'd notice that no one who understands the system (except Sneak maybe, who loves his point system, understandably) has pointed at anything other than sparse data. Sparse data is a DIRECT RESULT OF ATTENDANCE.

Also, I have a lot to do at work and have plans after work so I'm not likely to respond much more for now.

 

[Dorsey]

BECAUSE THE PLACING

AT A TOURNAMENT

REFLECTS ONLY WHO THEY PLAYED IN TOURNAMENT

NOT NECESSARILY THE PLAYERS WHO PLACED IN FRONT OR BEHIND THEM

Why is this so hard to grasp? lmao Placings would be accurate respresentations if we had the same attendance at 3 straight tournaments.

Why couldn't you refute anything I said? Or even respond to what I was saying lol. The seeding and LB itself were made to counteract the whole "it only matters who they played" thing.

And uhh, Josh... I have not mentioned sparse data. If you have a point system that factors in both attendance flawlessly that's proportionate to tournament placing(easy to do, whether you see this or not lol) then attendance isn't a problem to factor in.


ARBITRARY!!!!

 

[Ocean]

Because it's a circular argument, the blame of the situation keeps going to different parts ofthe process, and right now we're as partisan as the damn US Congress

just jumping in real quick to remind you to stop using debate terms if you don't know what they mean.

EDIT::

 

[Dark Hart]

Iunno man, this argument seems to be going in circles to me

So its Circular argument

Don't care about your arbitrary terms and their arbitrary meanings

Being that this whole thing is going in circles, and is an argument, it's a circular argument

 

[Dorsey]

Yeah, I just thought he was commenting on the cyclical nature of the debate, is all. It's actually moved on to several things, as I've been refuting some stuff. We seem to be cyclically going back forth though, atm, making no headway.

And karn--what would pools do to this problem of yours?

 

[Dark Hart]

Pools are amazing

 

[OmniOstrich]

Unless the pools are very large, or the tournament consists of every other player being a ranked player, then due to the nature of seeding their effect on the issue is minimal.

 

[Sneak8288]

Ok so what do people think of a singles only round robin tourney/ranbat where everyone who attends plays everyone before the day is over. One per season, each season for optimal data?

 

[stingers]

what is this, street fighter? i'm shapalled.

 

[Dark Hart]

Why don't we start doing Swiss style?

If I'm thinking of the right style that is....

 

[Dr Peepee]

I suggested Swiss as a compromise to see how it goes.

Either way as long as we're trying to do formats that get us more data the way we do it shouldn't matter terribly much.

 

[Lightsyde]

Why couldn't you refute anything I said? Or even respond to what I was saying lol. The seeding and LB itself were made to counteract the whole "it only matters who they played" thing.

And uhh, Josh... I have not mentioned sparse data. If you have a point system that factors in both attendance flawlessly that's proportionate to tournament placing(easy to do, whether you see this or not lol) then attendance isn't a problem to factor in.

To answer your question,

Also, I have a lot to do at work and have plans after work so I'm not likely to respond much more for now.

was why. Also, your arguments had already been made by other people and refuted like 3 or 4 separate times on prior pages. And I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because I don't want to believe that you really don't understand on the level that you're conveying with your posts. Not worth my time when I'm busy/not bored at work. lmao

Also, if you read one of my first posts in this thread, I was the first person to propose that if a point system was used, we would need to include a variable to show that factored in attendance. Sneak even quoted it and there was discussion. lmao

Lucas: Circular arguments are arguments (proposals, proofs etc, NOT exchanges between two people) in which the premises (the points being made that build on each other in logical order) assume the truth of your conclusion prior to actually arriving at the conclusion. They are logical fallacies because the premises prove the conclusion and the conclusion proves the premises, hence being "circular" and thus cannot be "disproved" per se. It has nothing to do with the arguments between two or more parties going in circles. Like Kyle said, don't use logical terms that you don't understand, it makes you look like an idiot and you're not.

 

[Ocean]

Don't care about your arbitrary terms and their arbitrary meanings

how ironic; you are putting together terms with meanings to form a sentence in which you denounce terms with meanings. you apparently don't know what arbitrary is either, because definitions are the farthest thing from being completely based on random choice.

 

[stingers]

you didn't even know what a jew was, ocean. how can I take your word on this?

 

[Bl@ckChris]

dorsey isn't trolling.

so i don't need to use the pr's to decide who to beat. i need to beat whoever is gonna do good that period whether they're ranked or not...got ya.

 

[Dr Peepee]

PRs are typically good indicators of who will do good though, so making them your priorities would still be a good idea. =)

 

[lord karn]

Yeah, I just thought he was commenting on the cyclical nature of the debate, is all. It's actually moved on to several things, as I've been refuting some stuff. We seem to be cyclically going back forth though, atm, making no headway.

And karn--what would pools do to this problem of yours?

Pools give more data and allow us to make better rankings (more accurately show how players did vs. each other).

 

[Dorsey]

To answer your question,



was why. Also, your arguments had already been made by other people and refuted like 3 or 4 separate times on prior pages. And I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because I don't want to believe that you really don't understand on the level that you're conveying with your posts. Not worth my time when I'm busy/not bored at work. lmao

Also, if you read one of my first posts in this thread, I was the first person to propose that if a point system was used, we would need to include a variable to show that factored in attendance. Sneak even quoted it and there was discussion. lmao

Sneak quoting it and saying it doesn't mean anything. It's very easy to incorporate attendance and tournament placing so that they ARE INDEED using the same point system(proportioned to each other). I have already said how to do this. The less good people that are there, the less total point value for the tournament. Attendance is covered. My math is right. And sneak can PM me for more information about it specifically if he pleases, it's painfully obvious that my efforts no matter how right they may be, would be labeled as arbitrary..

Why is there even a panel? Is it normal to have a panel to interpret stuff like this?? No, I have never heard of such a thing, therefore I can only conclude that the use a panel/system was done on a whim by the NC smash scene, therefore it is arbitrary. rofl.. just some weird logic that's applicable to just about everything(the whole arbitrary thing).

And josh, when you would get a hot head on these forums and rage about smash on occasion(I know you've gotten a lot better in regard to this), I certainly didn't laugh and consider your words beneath me like you're doing so now. I actually turned a blind eye to it just as most of everyone else, because they either like you or didn't want to deal with the reaction. And if you have trouble reading/comprehending my posts(apparently, you do) then I suggest that you go back and read them again instead of laughing.

Thing is you're flat out wrong. Sorry if you can't handle that, but it seems that you my friend are incapable of grasping the bigger picture, which is:

The panel says there is no way to be perfect about this, being that seeding is flawed for PR usage, therefore the bracket is flawed for PR usage, therefore placement means nothing whatsoever. So, they use their own discretion between opponents and such to avoid these flaws, or at least that is the goal of it all.

I say that there is no way to be perfect about this, so just do the seeding as best as possible(and perhaps come up with new methods of seeding better, like I suggested) then just go off of placing/attendance, two variables EASILY(yes EASILY) computed into a model. Being that there's no perfect way to go about this, I feel that something absolute, like a point system, is a much more proper/fair thing to do opposed to relying on an intermediary's interpretation(the panel). You could publish all the data right there with the rankings, and then the panel could do their part in making a few changes where they see fit. Due to the data published, it would be obvious for everyone to see why the panel made their decisions in which discretion is involved.

It just seems like a more attractive idea, and apparently several agree.

 

[Sneak8288]

Actually there's a panel for most other states as far as prs go for smash. I was on it in nj for a whole. Ny and pa had a panel as well

 

[Dorsey]

Yeah. I singled out NC just because I wasn't sure if their systems paralleled ours.

Would have made the same statement except saying it was an "arbitrary" idea to start it all.

 

[bossa nova ♪]

Come on y'all.


i mean



U know ha'dizzzzz

 

[bossa nova ♪]

Spoiler

yo no one wants to be like jreecey ( *｀ω´)

 

[NearZzz]

...no

( *｀ω´)

 

[Juno McGrath]

...no

( *｀ω´)

Just..the best.

really.

 

[bossa nova ♪]

......................

 

[Juno McGrath]

Kevin with with quicknesssssss