• 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!

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

lord karn

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
4,324
Location
Raleigh, NC
Alright, primarily concerning my seeding comment(snap's comment about ewb and josh having the same seed)...

No one has the same seed. Unless(example) you are comparing seeds 8 and 9 of a 16 man bracket(or similarly proportioned to the amount of participants.... or comparing seeds 4 and 5 from an 8 man bracket, same difference) then why in the **** would 2 people have the same seed. You have got to be ****ing kidding me........ I mean wtf. It's inconceivable to me. I make brackets all the ****ing time under more watchful eye than the nc melee pr thread lmfao. Even my drunk *** can't even get this ****(I am very drunk... x-mas eve activities). So let me be clear here....... NO ONE HAS THE SAME SEED. NO ONE. What is this seeding 1-4 value **** or whatever bull**** I've seen at tournaments? I've seen that stupid horse **** at bill fests and that's the only way something like the ewb v. josh thing could happen. The seeding is BULL****. I repeat, no one should be considered the "same" in a seeding value. It's a ****ing bracket. You seed the bracket(everyone has a different seed) then it plays out. The same concept applies to pools...... which may I remind you, this same concept was NOT applied to the most recent NCSU tourney pools(you were also given the 2nd best #1 seed, which was deserved by boss for out performing you in pools, and that's not even considering what whack *** pools they were).

And yeah, that 1-4 seeding billfest value **** should stop. I may be wrong about the 1-4 part(it might be 1-3 or 1-5, lmfaooaoaoaooaa), but I've seen it with my own eyes(people having the same "seed"/numeric value going into the tournament) attending these tournaments. I've seen myself and mohr been given a greater seeding value than dark hart and players alike(whether we're good at melee or not, still had no previous tourney experience). Karn, to say that your methods aren't subjective in comparison, let me just say that you just need to lay off the crack pipe buddy. As a panelist, you also need to step up and not let TREMENDOUS seeding discrepancies happen like they did in your favor at NCSU 4. WTF...All I gotta say.

Seeding should change after every tournament. They should NOT be based off the PR's, although the PR is essentially a good seeding system.. but it should fluctuate after every tournament, instead it just stays the same after 4 tournaments go by all the while pp and karn try to make sense of it all when the seeding for all tournaments wasn't even absolute.

And karn man... I can't believe you said your system could come close to accurately predicting tournament results. I mean....... idk what to say. In perfect competition, seeds in smash bros. are based off who does the best v. who OVER-ALL... How on earth could your system, or any system, predict a bracket in regard to melee character match-ups? Gotta be kidding me man... I mean take me for example; I'd get a horrible seed but if you put me up against a ganon main I am going to eat his *** for breakfast(smirking at chris right now).

Ranking = who does the best in tournament

NC PR = a rating/poll(good for seeding purposes, but seeding purposes demand more frequency than every 3-4 months to actually be accurate)

alright... I need to get another beer. I don't even remember what I just typed... but I will read later and add, just you wait NC.

$mike's the homie

--

k, Now I'm adding.

Seeding should be based on who v. who(what the PR is). Players should have a seeding value. A system should compare wins and losses in terms of one seeding value(x) v. another one (y)... the range(difference) between these seeding values would dictate the fluctuation of the future seeding changes. That way when the panel actually analyzes this "who v. who" crap they'll actually have something to go by. A lot of it is easy calls, but the panel is indeed being subjective by not doing what I'm saying, by the book and for everyone to see, whether they claim to have similar motives or not.

The process is self-sufficient, as I've said. As for the "strength" of the tournament(chris's comment), that could be easily factored in by the sum of the individual seeding values I discussed.... this would simultaneously account for the "strength" of the tournament(how much it's weighted in comparison to others) as well as attendance.

You're right, technically no two seeds are the same. What I mean when I say that, is the two people with the same number have an equal probability of being in certain places in the bracket. This is a problem inherent in TIO and the nature of pools. In TIO, you have to assign players a value of 1-10. If there are more than 10 people, then, people have the 'same seed.' All this means in reality is that they both are going to randomly get one or another seed that are very very close. Of course, we could go through and manually seed every single spot in the bracket and that would theoretically be better, but it would also be really time-consuming to do at every individual tournament, and it really doesn't bother me if there is that small degree of randomness. It's not like the two 'same seed' people are going to get drastically harder brackets.

Pools cause the same problem. You have multiple pools, so all of the winners of the pools have equal standing. The problem is that, even though they have equal standing, you have to put them into a bracket where there are no two same seeds. What always happens is they are given the same probability to get a certain set of seeds (which are all theoretically different seeds). This isn't really that big of a deal.

And I already said that I wasn't ****ing there for the seeding of NCSU. Even if I was, it's not necessarily my responsibility to make sure every tournament is seeded right. My job as a panelist is to create the power rankings. It's the TO's job to make sure it gets seeded right. Now, I genuinely care that tournaments in NC run well, because I care about the community, so I usually try to seed the bracket if I am available. But if I have to haul *** after work to get to a tournament barely in time, I'm not ****ing available to seed it and it's pretty ******** that you think I am still responsible. -__-

And yeah, we have to make judgment calls between non-ranked players. Again, we could theoretically make a power ranking that extended to every player who ever entered a tournament. But because we don't do that, for various reasons (too much work, would defeat the exclusivity of the PRs, and because we just don't have enough data), we don't. We accept that we have to make judgment calls for the lower seeds, but even though we accept that we usually try to base our seeds on how well the players have performed vs. other people in the past. Of course this is not always accurate because we do it on the fly. And if we seeded Mohr above dark hart at some random billfest, then that was a problem in our seeding of the tournament, not in the method I am describing.

And our method does already predict results relatively well. For most of the PRs history, the top five have been some kind of combination of pp/lozr/yay/dop/mike. And guess what, those are almost always the top 5 placers. The times when our system is not a good predictor is when players have drastically improved (as I said a seeding system should not account for) or when we don't have enough data (which is why I said that if we had enough data our rankings would be a good predictor). You're putting too much weight into character matchups. First of all, double elim helps with that a lot. Also for the most part, character matchups only really matter within different levels of skill. Lozr sucks vs. falco, but he's still probably not going to lose to cam/josh (unless they get closer to his skill level, which they both seem to be doing). It would only become a bad predictor if everyone in the state was on the exact same skill level, and then it would become a ranking based of of what matchups randomly happened. But the fact of the matter is that everyone is not at the same skill level, and that's actually kind of the point of a PR at all.
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
I tend to rip on someone a little harder than normal when I'm drunk(actually have a massive headache from last night.... and a stomach ache...) So sorry for that. but, yeah I do think you're partially responsible for that happening man. It's from seeing you say that you typically do the seeding for our state, you being a panelist, and always defending the way ya'll do seeding in our debates in which I say that doing the seeding right is impeccable. I understand it's time-consuming and that you didn't do the seeding this time. But jeez, you didn't notice anything funky about the pools initially? And you didn't realize that you were being given a better #1 seed over someone who had no losses in pools(not to mention, a harder pool)?

I'm not saying your directly responsible, but my expectations for you, of all people, were just very high to notice something like this, going off our discussions in this thread. Especially since it involves yourself, so it's not like everything was completely going over your head. This is why I think you're partially responsible. Your denial of any sort of responsibility for this(saying it isn't your job) also makes me think your past arguments/points with seeding hold less weight... I could go back and find some of your quotes to show this.

For the record, both myself and mohr were seeded above dark hart. I saw it. I believe we were even seeded the same as josh(half-way due to falsely placing me/mohr over tourney regulars such as lucas, behr, half-way due to bill and josh's previous relationship). From my view point, it's pretty obvious why you guys have learned not to place any stock behind tourney placement when stuff like that happens.

And no, I definitely was not placing too much weight on character match-ups. I am quite aware that MUs change with variations of skill, and that it's more of a player v. player deal, as in MUs aren't ridiculously unbalanced when both players are smart, technical, and have complete control of their character. This does not change the fact that a single char MU(something like, a 6th seeded player beating a 3rd seeded player) would debunk your whole system, in which you suggest can come dangerously close to predicting tournament placing. My example of myself with a bad seed and being put against a ganon is a good example... although I don't frequent nc tournaments. When I say char MU I'm combining things like sucking at the MU, being good at the MU, lacking experience in a MU, or the actual meta-game of the MU itself.

Anyway, thanks for the response. I guess in short, I think I'm right about 2 things; NC needing to do the seeding better(it is truly not as time-consuming as you think, once this process becomes self-sufficient), and that the NC Power "Ranking" should be a list of who does the best in nc tournaments. Ya'll know why I think this, so I'll stop for now I guess. It is what it is.
 

Tero.

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,686
Dang I miss Tero's random namesearches.................

He's what made that funny.

edit:Tero if you happen to read this then it's all <3 (no homo).
duuuuuuude what the

i also miss namesearching and finding 200 black mantis post with a link of me vs pepito
 

Bl@ckChris

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
7,443
Location
Greensboro, NC
so dorsey are you saying you shoulda got a worse seed? Idk how good you or mohr were back then, but idk what your beef is with getting a decent seed lol.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,534
Location
The back country, GA
Lol, I'd def say something if I thought I was seeded too high. If I don't feel like I deserved a certain win or placing I'll lose motivation to try.

:phone:
 

RaphaelRobo

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
2,833
I could see PRs staying the way they are and ELO also existing. Although I think they'd work out to be approximately the same.
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
Dorsey, I beat mohr in tourney

So of he was seeded above me then lol

I miss mohr

:phone:
Oh yeah, I saw / remember that set...was a good win for you I thought(at the time anyway lol)

even if you lost to him, it's still lol that he was seeded above ya, imo. I miss him too.

ok so basically just use modified elo for everything and the pr is just the top 10 of that?

whatever.
Lol??
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
chris/MB- I'm not suggesting ELO run aside the PRs. I'm not suggesting ELO at all. Someone brought it up, and I said it looks like what I'm suggesting(JUST IN SEEDING, at a glance)....I have different views on the PRs.

DJ- you're right, limited data in comparison to the data you'd receive from a kind of group stage or RR(or from the panel most of the time, for that matter), everyone playing everyone and there's the data on who v. who, in that aspect. But, what I'm suggesting is good when considering it a work-your-way-up kind of thing, or true competition in tournament play. If you truly follow the type of seeding I'm suggesting, that's how it works, and I like that good aspect of it despite your point. People aren't repeatedly limited opportunity-wise in bracket(whether to place well or meet players that present opportunity to increase your seeding value)... which is what the panel tries to do, or does for the most part, but..... The seeding process can be flawed, and the fact that there can be 2 people with the "same seed" is just...........not right. Don't get me wrong, if you really want to switch raphael and ocean's spots so 2 OOS players won't play each other, or 2 people that always play each other out of the area, then I could sympathize with that, lol. Which would technically make their seeds interchangeable, but still, having peeps with the same seed as a regular occurrence in pools and bracket is just whack, and subjective as hell to whomever is placing these categorized people w/ the same seed.

Anyway, for complete/obvious fairness, DJ has a point with the amount of data for seeding like this.

but as far as true competition goes in tournament play..... what I'm saying is good, if group stages / RRs are out of the question, not to mention my way IS fair.

Just a random note: MM's could be factored into the seeding, how I suggest it, just as easily, since it's who v. who. If anything, this would do a good thing for our state and make MM's more competitive, and more competitive concerning in general playing for your next tournament seed, in any match. Because you KNOW your victory, or loss, will be accounted for...exactly.
 

Lightsyde

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
2,871
Location
The Rocks of Time, NC
I no longer participate in the PR arguments because it's basically Karn explaining for the millionth time that we already used a masked numbering system that is directly related to PR placement.

Placings. Are. Irrelavant.

Look at the example Chris gave about beating Mike or something in winners and then losing immediately and losers giving you 9th or something while beating Stingers and Foxy gives you 5th. No offense meant, but clearly Mike is the better win and more indicative of performance.

The panelists seed the bracket in the sense that they make the bracket according to the PR's. That is the only subjectivity, as Alex has explained in great detail, the system Dave (and Jesse in the past) introduce more subjectivity into the process just because it actually require the panelist to make judgment calls where our current system does not. And again, give our system enough data and it works very well and predicts placings at events pretty damn accurately.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,534
Location
The back country, GA
That's inaccurate at best josh. Lol. The only way the system would have a slow start (it would get very accurate and generate a near perfect list in time, no matter what), would be of we didn't have enough tournaments and thus, not enough data. And in that case, subjectivity is inevitable.

You should probably ask the apex TO's why payouts are going to the people that place the highest. If someone like, say, s2j beats armada in winners, somehow beats mango in losers, he should definitely get $3000 for placing 9th and PP, armada, or whoever wins should receive much less if they didn't also beat those players, right? Lol. You keep mistaking a PR list for a list of our "most skilled" players, but that's simply not the case. It's a list of the players that perform the best in our tournaments, which it's in the mission statement of the PR's. Guess what THE ONLY NON SUBJECTIVE DATA WE HAVE AS EVIDENCE OF TOURNAMENT PERFORMANCE IS? Oh ****, now I remember! Placings! Players who consistently outplace other players in tournament should be ranked higher. By consistently placing well, YOU HAVE NOTABLE WINS. If not, you have poor seeding. This is not hard to fathom.

:phone:
 

Dorsey

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
1,593
Location
the sticky bottom, NC ©Dorsey combo
There's nothing subjective about basing seeding exactly off of who v. who like I suggested. Not only is it objective and fair(NOT in regard to over-all completeness, fair in regard to equal opportunity for those who do well in regard to how they play against their opponents.....which is just the tournament process, people earn their seeds exactly lol...how is this subjective?), but it also avoids the numerous situations in which I've listed where seeding has gone obviously wrong, the result being "irrelevant" placings.

I mean the example that Josh just gave about mike is just horse ****(for nostalgia.. "inui logic"). Obviously it would be a good win in comparison to foxy and stingers, whoopdee ****ing doo, it would be accounted as such with what I suggested.....EXACTLY. These hypothetical 2 losses to give him 9th would be accounted for as well. If they were to people worse than mike, then it's going to hurt him despite his win on mike. If somehow the 2 people are better than mike(****ty seeding or no previous data on this player to have your 1 win and 2 losses in an NC tourney to be of people at this level) then that sucks for his placing just that time, but that's just the tournament process. Losing to example, pp/lozr with a win on $mike(as your total 3 matches in your first tournament experience) will give you a GOOD seed for the next tournament. And if that's the only tournament this guy ever went to, then sorry, beating our best falcon main(1 person that's in the top 5 in our state) does not mean that you should be automatically considered on a ranking which represents NC tournament performance, as the mission statement says. Based on the data, there would be much more people who more so qualify, even if they lost to mike.

Hopefully me explaining that example to you helps you understand it better Josh so you don't have to walk out of a venue with steam coming out of your ears thinking you got robbed all the time in this video game, Lmao. Bright side is at least you've banged 30+ girls 30+ times broski.

I am a Professional Russian..... as always, have nice day.
 
Top Bottom