The UK Rankings

[BloodBowler]

The only reason you're saying to scrap the rankings Charles is because you're not on top after missing AR2. I truly believe that if you were number one you'd defend it to the hill.

Team Toast kinda fell apart after V3X?, SpkzZ and Darvor quit turning up to tourneys.

 

[FrostByte]

+ johns

I bet you put that there so nobody would say "No johns". Well, No Johns, Jones', Jonah's or Janettes.

Son.

 

[Fuzzyness]

i never liked the ranking BB =P team toast fell apart cause we couldnt be arsed

 

[Wireframe]

I love the Ranking System

 

[spKz]

The only reason you're saying to scrap the rankings Charles is because you're not on top after missing AR2. I truly believe that if you were number one you'd defend it to the hill.

Team Toast kinda fell apart after V3X?, SpkzZ and Darvor quit turning up to tourneys.

too true, maybe team toast revive? :O ill talk to v3x ^___^

 

[J03]

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnjjjjjjjjjjjj

 

[Reacher]

Unsurprisingly I agree with Euan.

Davemans at 16th is a joke, he's top 8, and Frostbyte at 5th is nonsense aswell, he should be 1st.

People who're saying NJ the rankings even themselves out in the end, they clearly don't or we wouldn't be arguing about it now. Maybe if everybody always made it to tournaments then they would, but that just doesn't happen. Even then people can still get lucky/unlucky barckets. At Edmas I got a bracket where I only had to beat 2 Peaches and a Samus to get 3rd above Euan, Jam, Craig and Dan, which tbh is disgraceful because there was no way that I was 3rd best in the UK. If there was a panel of some sort then they could use a bit of common sense to compensate for missed tournaments/****ty brackets.

Come on guys. The rankings aren't perfect but tournament results are a lot better to go on than opinions. Euan claims Davemans is higher than 16th which I also agree on, but hes only been to one tournament so 16th he is. Zeppo, the luck of the draw can be good or bad but it's unavoidable. If we just be patient and let the rankings be, more and more tournament results will be added to it making them more accurate.

Davemans really should come to more tourneys. He's a **** good player and he needs to show it

If we're going to do this right then we need a mixture of tournament results and opinions, neither is sufficient on its own. Yes Davemans has only been to 1 tournament, but he placed 7th, so how can he be ranked 16th? Also in the 5 tournaments taken into account Euan hasn't finished below 5th, and yet he's ranked 7th?

Also the rankings won't even themselves out over time because they only take into account the 5 most recent tournaments, and the way players only get a certain percentage of their points from earlier tournaments means that the rankings are based heavily off the most recent 2 or 3.

Really this ranking should be changed so that it uses a panel, or scrapped altogether, the way it's done now is so innacurate that we can't even really use it for seeds. Seems like the only thing it's good for is causing arguments.

 

[SGT Stevie]

Jam is number 1 in the UK so get over it!

Everyone is just jealous!

Why is Zeppo ranked higher than me when he has never beaten me?

 

[BloodBowler]

Phil makes a very long point. It's good but who would you pick for the panel? You need players that know what they're talking about, are as neutral as they can be and can be approved by the majority to be panel members. This means no major bias, so you'd want at least one person from each major region/crew. This already waters down your choices. But I agree, the brackets in a tournament can be inaccurate, the ranking is more of an evolution. Whilst it was a good idea, it looks like it's become more of a further inaccuracy.

I'd say let's put this to the vote, but it'd be impossible to get the majority of the scene to vote. So how would we go about making such a panel? Would we find one that can function as a major panel? How would the panel decide the rankings? What would happen if there's a disagreement in the panel? How many should be on this panel?

Discuss.

BTW, Euan did place at least 5th in every tournament he's been to, however the rankings go off the latest 5 tournaments, two of which Euan didn't attend, so he only has three scores contributing to his placing.

 

[Bullet Bill]

Unsurprisingly I agree with Euan.

Davemans at 16th is a joke, he's top 8, and Frostbyte at 5th is nonsense aswell, he should be 1st.

People who're saying NJ the rankings even themselves out in the end, they clearly don't or we wouldn't be arguing about it now. Maybe if everybody always made it to tournaments then they would, but that just doesn't happen. Even then people can still get lucky/unlucky barckets. At Edmas I got a bracket where I only had to beat 2 Peaches and a Samus to get 3rd above Euan, Jam, Craig and Dan, which tbh is disgraceful because there was no way that I was 3rd best in the UK. If there was a panel of some sort then they could use a bit of common sense to compensate for missed tournaments/****ty brackets.





If we're going to do this right then we need a mixture of tournament results and opinions, neither is sufficient on its own. Yes Davemans has only been to 1 tournament, but he placed 7th, so how can he be ranked 16th? Also in the 5 tournaments taken into account Euan hasn't finished below 5th, and yet he's ranked 7th?

Also the rankings won't even themselves out over time because they only take into account the 5 most recent tournaments, and the way players only get a certain percentage of their points from earlier tournaments means that the rankings are based heavily off the most recent 2 or 3.

Really this ranking should be changed so that it uses a panel, or scrapped altogether, the way it's done now is so innacurate that we can't even really use it for seeds. Seems like the only thing it's good for is causing arguments.

why is it only going to use only the 5 most recent tournaments? Is it just me that thinks this doesn't make sense? The rankings should be cummulative and take into account every tournament. Theres hardly any results that are being used in the rankings as they are. Why doesn't someone dig up more tournaments before edmas and add those? The more results the more accuracy (now I really sound like a biology student ). I strongly disagree that the rankings should include opinions. Otherwise it would be a list of the most respected players in the UK and not rankings at all. These rankings should be left and added to bit by bit. It would look a lot better then.

Reacher- IMO the rankings are giving the regular's what they deserve. Players Like Jam and all of you lot (minus davemans) have been making an effort to go to tournaments and generally making it a better time for everyone. The more people, the better the tournament IMO. But if X never bothers with going to tournaments but gets dumped in the top 5 of the rankings because Y rekons he's that good, then I don't thinks it's fair at all.

 

[Mr P]

BTW, Euan did place at least 5th in every tournament he's been to, however the rankings go off the latest 5 tournaments, two of which Euan didn't attend, so he only has three scores contributing to his placing.

Yes and do you not see the flaw in that ? My skill level is clearly higher than to be ranked 7th even if i missed two tournies. An even more extreme case is Davemans who has only attended one tournament where he placed 7th but is ranked 16th. We've been doing these rankings for roughly a year and evidently they have not averaged themselves out very well have they ? I wouldn't expect the results to be more accurate in 6 months time either.

IMO the rankings should be scrapped, i didn't really want them in the first place and like Phil said they've served no real purpose, we cant even use them for seeding. EVERY other region that ive seen has had a panel that vote on the rankings and their results have come out a lot more accurate than this, so how is it actually more logical ? I've already explained the flaw and all of you have to say is "no johns go to all the tournies" it's not a real arguement. Can you not accept that people don't go to tournies on occasion and that its not detremental to their skill as a player. What if Charles didn't go to the next tournie either for example ? Should he be ranked the 5th most skilled player in the UK, NO thats ********.

And BTW to say that i would be basing the ranking on my own "feelings" is the most stupid thing i've ever heard, the finlaised rankings would be based on a logical solution of tournament results and common sense. But to be honest i dont care, id rather not have the hassle of trying to figure out a panel and all that crap, they should be scrapped altogether... Trust the UK the worst smash scene in Europe, maybe the world ??? To have the worst ranking system in the world.

 

[J03]

blates what Phildelphia mengz is trying to say is that theres prolly always gonna be a few people here and there who miss a tourney and mess up the rankings. sooo hes proposing we choose the rankings using common sense, skill, and tournament scores.

its a good idea imo...

but,

bias- who is the panel going to be, is it going to be the best players who decide? if so the mafia should have a stronger presence and therefore may favour other mafia members. personally i dont think davemans is top 5, i dont think hes experienced enough to handle certain things, but if he gets 5th+ next tourney he clearly is and im clearly wrong.
Also more importantly if it is the best players who are going to pick the best players then surely the entire idea is purely messes up.

but thats not the point. the fact is the the only fair panel would be one containing equal members from every group. the only noticable difference between people is what 'crew' there in so should be take one or two members from every crew?then again there are people who arent in a crew so how are they going to be considered?
also i dont think people who nessecarily WANT to be on the panel SHOULD be on the panel. mainly because people who have strong opinons tend to be very stubborn, and impose there views on others untill they conform to there ideas.

i know ive raised a few bull**** problems but ive also raised a few important issues that NEED to be addressed for any sort of 'panel' to be assembled.

discuss obv

and due to BB already mentioning most of them, sigh*, i personally think the ranking should be scrapped, and we only talk about the top 5 >_0

 

[J03]

euan: you are the most emotional person ive ever met, how could you ever not use your emotions in any (even mild) predicament is utterly beyond the realm of physics that the rest of the world has come to understand.

=/_\=

 

[BloodBowler]

Euan, your post gave the impression that you attacked my statement made there, when the entire post before that quote was agreeing and iterating everything you said and re-iterating what Phil said. I was just explaining how things came about.

The panel system usually uses only 4 or 5 members. Before we start trying to work out who's the best for the job, we need to decide wether or not we actually WANT a ranking system. There seems to be a lot of hostility surrounding the idea.

 

[J03]

naw mengz, there just alot of hostility surrounding euan

 

[ac_anon]

why is it only going to use only the 5 most recent tournaments? Is it just me that thinks this doesn't make sense? The rankings should be cummulative and take into account every tournament. Theres hardly any results that are being used in the rankings as they are. Why doesn't someone dig up more tournaments before edmas and add those? The more results the more accuracy (now I really sound like a biology student ). I strongly disagree that the rankings should include opinions. Otherwise it would be a list of the most respected players in the UK and not rankings at all. These rankings should be left and added to bit by bit. It would look a lot better then.

Reacher- IMO the rankings are giving the regular's what they deserve. Players Like Jam and all of you lot (minus davemans) have been making an effort to go to tournaments and generally making it a better time for everyone. The more people, the better the tournament IMO. But if X never bothers with going to tournaments but gets dumped in the top 5 of the rankings because Y rekons he's that good, then I don't thinks it's fair at all.

god smashboards isnt letting me reply today...

anyway in response to what you said about using older tournaments im teh perfect example of why you cant do that. if that were the case i would be a good bit higher in rankings as iv been to more tournaments than a lot of better players, granted iv neer placed particularly high but those low points add up and would lead to players like me being placed above obviously better players

 

[Mr P]

euan: you are the most emotional person ive ever met, how could you ever not use your emotions in any (even mild) predicament is utterly beyond the realm of physics that the rest of the world has come to understand.

=/_\=

My opinions on the ranking is nothing to do with emotion you idiot, Most of the books i read are about physics If you want to see my opinion on what the UK looks like then ill post my opinion of the ranking, based on the reasons i said in my first post.

 

[J03]

like yourself Bullet bill

euan: you can be a ****ing idiot yourself

 

[Fuzzyness]

most top players would agree the ranking is pants, good players know who the good players are no johns. ranking just causes stupid arguments with them

 

[J03]

omg charles just said something short and fitting 0_o

 

[grayfox]

i say scrap them

 

[BloodBowler]

I say have a panel of Jamtaru, Euan, Frosty boy, El Reacherino and OGRE make the rankings.

 

[Cpt.Zeppo]

I say scrap them.

 

[Aiko]

Why not make a tier system then? Heres an example (i wont mention everyone)

All lists are not in any particular order. This is obviously just my rough idea of the list, its open to discussion/change.

Top:
Jam
Zeppo
Frostbyte
Euan

High:
Reacher
Davemans
Geek
Lord Rust

Middle:
BB
Monty
AC anon
CO3Y

JO3 (low):
JO3

I stopped thinking around low, but the point is, have a panel judge skill levels of players and insert them into appropriate tiers. Theres obviously no limit to how many people can be in each tier, it is only governed by skill. To move up tiers, you must prove yourself to higher tiered players in tournament.

 

[J03]

yass, i get my own tier...entitled low...that must mean im great, getting a tier all to myself >_>

 

[Aiko]

well i just thought it was an appropriate position. your better than most unranked players, but only scraping the ranked players.

edit: low tier is now JO3 tier

 

[J03]

good idea, the J03 tier XDXDXD

 

[Bullet Bill]

looks like the only one that likes the rankings are me and Jam (obv). Looks like it'll have to be a panel then.

 

[ac_anon]

Why not make a tier system then? Heres an example (i wont mention everyone)

All lists are not in any particular order. This is obviously just my rough idea of the list, its open to discussion/change.

Top:
Jam
Zeppo
Frostbyte
Euan

High:
Reacher
Davemans
Geek
Lord Rust

Middle:
BB
Monty
AC anon
CO3Y

JO3 (low):
JO3

I stopped thinking around low, but the point is, have a panel judge skill levels of players and insert them into appropriate tiers. Theres obviously no limit to how many people can be in each tier, it is only governed by skill. To move up tiers, you must prove yourself to higher tiered players in tournament.

haha brilliant im higher in the tier list than charles and ryan

 

[monty06]

the panel is the best idea the rankings are flawed in more then 1 way or another.

he also missed jake (ogre) from the list.


the best way is have rankings from previous tournment results combined with a vote thats the easiest way of having it without it been to biast

 

[Aiko]

except for the fact that i specifically mentioned I wouldn't be including everyone in my EXAMPLE list. Obviously jake and charles would be at the top. grayfox probably in the next tier. Its all subject to discussion by a panel.

 

[ac_anon]

except for the fact that i specifically mentioned I wouldn't be including everyone in my EXAMPLE list. Obviously jake and charles would be at the top. grayfox probably in the next tier. Its all subject to discussion by a panel.

hehe i know it just amused me

 

[DevMBC]

The way I honestly see it:

The rankings system we have is very good, the results we currently have clearly have quite a few flaws. I honestly say, suck it up for god sake an wait till after the next tourny. Davemans has been to one tourny!? Does he honestly care where he's at? If anything, being down where he is should act as a ****ing incentive to come back an show us how good he is.

I can't be bothered with a panel. That would be me yelling at euan that ed still belongs in the top 5 an him yelling whatever he decides to yell. An we'd have to have the same discussion after every tourny..

In short: Shut up, give it time an the results will show everyone how it is.

edit:
1- Charles
2- Frost
3- Zeppo
4- Me
5- Ed
6- Euan
7- Phil

'omgomgomg'

 

[Cpt.Zeppo]

A panel format would still have to be results first and opinions second.Out of boredom I just wrote out the top 16 in the UK,with a mixture of opinions and results,and realised that most of my opinions would easily be interpreted as bias.

Jam just posted his rankings which are a good example of bias,because here is mine;

1 Charles
2 Frost
3 Zeppo
4 Jam
5 Euan
6 Reacher
7 Davemans
8 GEEK

Now since those are blatantly biased() I devised a more logical set;

1 Charles
2 Frostbyte
3 Zeppo
4 Jam5
5 Mr P
6 Ogre
7 Reacher
8 DSD9
9 Davemans
10 GEEK

based mostly on tournament results.Makes alot more sense.

I also had to lay rest the fact that I sandbag Frost and Charles when I meet them in tourney =\

In all honest though,why would we want to rank ourselves?Is there really any good reason?The current format being used is a circuit that was supposed to end with Edoween,signalling a full year.It isnt really a ranking as such,despite it being in the title

 

[BloodBowler]

Jam has a good point though, the rankings were created to make people turn up to tournaments and place high in said tournaments, which would put them higher on the ranking list. The flaws in the rankings, and the drop for certain players is caused by not turning up. Thus being high on the rankings should encourage everyone to turn up and do their best as it's the only way to get high on there.

The problem with the panel idea is that every top player that would make a sufficient panel member is biased. The current ranking system is the only neutral one, because the players have no input on alteration other than to place higher.

 

[Davemans]

Allan | Anon - says (15:15):
its a pity nobody noticed i play with my eyes closed
Allan | Anon - says (15:15):
to give everyone else a chance


this needs to be taken into account when deciding allans position

 

[BloodBowler]

Okay, nobody else updates the rankings, all anyone does is go on about it in here so I feel inclined to say the following. I wanna say here that this post is not designed to attack, contradict or otherwise ridicule or annoy any other person or their beliefs. So here goes:

1. The Panel Idea.

This is NEVER work in the UK. Far too many players in the scene hold too much bias for it to produce an accurate list. It'd just be argument after argument at every tournament. All the panel members would eventually stop putting in the effort because they can't be arsed arguing about the rankings and panel would die.

2. The Tier Idea.

This is the rankings, only it has more seperate groups other than a set order. The idea is okay, grouping together people of similar skill levels. But it'd have no more or less going for it than the current system. The problems do still and would lie within how to place everyone.

3. The Voting Idea.

Impossible. You'd never be able to get everyone to vote on a regular basis, even then you wouldn't be able to get everyone to vote so much.

Let's face it, the current rankings are the best we have. It's neutral, it's impartial, it's unswayed by the players. Whilst it doesn't nessecarily show the exact levels of skill possessed by the ranked players within the community, it's not meant to do just that. The ranking system also takes into account tournament attendance. This fact in itself is something nobody can argue with in that if you don't turn up to tournaments, you don't deserve to be ranked high.

Discuss.

 

[Cpt.Zeppo]

I agree.

tbh

 

[grayfox]

While you are right it is the most impartial and probably the best we have it is still awful. That's why it should just be scrapped. I mean what does it matter lol, doesnt matter where you are, this is the uk we are all awful lol

 

[BloodBowler]

Such confidence in our smash scene, it's touching.

The whole reason we set up this ranking system is so that we'd be encouraged to become better for it. What is it about the ranking system that makes you think it's awful? Why is it awful?