The UK Rankings

[grayfox]

The clear innacuracies of it that have been brought up several times over. Even yourself BB should be higher then your placing shows, you must be aware of it.

It does not take into account good players missing tourneys, having a bad run in a bracket or players who have vastly improved between the most recent tourney and the one previously (yourself, frostbyte and although it is his first, davemans).

 

[craiigg]

Ryan for god tier O: !

 

[craiigg]

zomg, me for god tier O: !

 

[Bullet Bill]

This irritates me to hear that when I make a point it is pretty much ignored, but when Jam posts the same arguement, everyone says 'thats a good point'.

I agree completely with bb. A panel will always be biased. The rankings as they are are fair. If you don't think you should be that low on the rankings, then get your *** over to the tournaments and proove it.

 

[grayfox]

Bill, the rankings as they are aren't fair lol

 

[BloodBowler]

It was how you worded the point B. Bill, your interpretation was kinda vague. No offence intended.

Ryan: If I should be higher, I would be higher. It could be that AR2 was a fluke bracket for me, it's the first time I've placed above 9th, add the fact I drowned in pools at Edster. I think it's the right place. I think it was a fluke anyways, since Geek28 placed 9th, I placed 7th and he beat me in pools at that same tourney. If indeed I am worthy of a higher placement, I'll get it at the next tournament, and my position on the rankings will improve.

The rankings were never designed to incorporate those points (Although they are good points, whilst a panel system would include these, a panel would be impossible I reckon). The rankings were designed to reward players with great skill who consistently take the time to turn up to tournaments and place well.

This is why we see players like myself and Davemans not so high, because we;ve missed tournaments or not placed so well previously. And players like Ed and Darvor who've dropped off, because they used to place amazingly, but just stopped turning up. The rankings have always been more of an average between tourney placings and tournament turnouts.

 

[grayfox]

It was how you worded the point B. Bill, your interpretation was kinda vague. No offence intended.

Ryan: If I should be higher, I would be higher. It could be that AR2 was a fluke bracket for me, it's the first time I've placed above 9th, add the fact I drowned in pools at Edster. I think it's the right place. I think it was a fluke anyways, since Geek28 placed 9th, I placed 7th and he beat me in pools at that same tourney. If indeed I am worthy of a higher placement, I'll get it at the next tournament, and my position on the rankings will improve.

The rankings were never designed to incorporate those points (Although they are good points, whilst a panel system would include these, a panel would be impossible I reckon). The rankings were designed to reward players with great skill who consistently take the time to turn up to tournaments and place well.

This is why we see players like myself and Davemans not so high, because we;ve missed tournaments or not placed so well previously. And players like Ed and Darvor who've dropped off, because they used to place amazingly, but just stopped turning up. The rankings have always been more of an average between tourney placings and tournament turnouts.

Yes, this is what the system does, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it is inaccurate. A ranking system that shows players ranked in places they clearly shouldn't be in, either too high or too low, is inaccurate.

You can say that with time it'll even out or that if players showed up to all tourneys or whatever else but at the end of the day it does not make the rankings accurate. It makes them statistically correct to the system, but incorrect to the skill level of the UK - thus making them void and pointless.

 

[ÖwnÄ]

Lol who cares about this man! It just seems like this argument is goin around in a complete square (YES SQUARE NOT CIRCLE)! There seems to be no universal agreement on one particular method of ranking, tho it seems that everyone is in agreement that a ranking is needed. It also seems that most people feel the current method is the best out of a bad bunch so y dont u just keep that and let it b!

In regards to the Daveman argument, yea we have all heard he is a great player and some of us have seen it with our own eyes but if he has only been 2 one tourney, then honestly, how could he possibly be placed higher than he already is on the rankings. I understand that he cant be at EVERY tournament as most ppl do have lives other than smash but at the same tym he cant be catered for if he isnt at the tourney. Its a ***** but thats how it goes. And as jam said it should be more of an incentive for him to come to the next tourney smash a few heads and show ppl the error in making him 16th! Its all gravy like Bisto!

You can say that with time it'll even out or that if players showed up to all tourneys or whatever else but at the end of the day it does not make the rankings accurate. It makes them statistically correct to the system, but incorrect to the skill level of the UK - thus making them void and pointless.

The only other option i can think of would be to have 2 rankings: 1 for the system (which is this one) and 1 to analyse power rankings (or skill level)! That would have everyone happy as one would cater for those that showed up to tourneys and one would cater for those who are plainly more skilled! Though i have no clue how the second one will be done! it would keep folks happy however!

 

[grayfox]

XDXD all gravy like bisto has destroyed my incentive to retort = O

Aye w/e with the rankings really, aslong as people don't pay attention to them all that much should be cool beans

 

[Davemans]

these rankings arent an incentive for me and i dont really care about them cos they are pretty pointless

 

[craiigg]

these rankings are about as useful and informative as my sig

.. which ruls btw

 

[ÖwnÄ]

XDXD all gravy like bisto has destroyed my incentive to retort = O

Aye w/e with the rankings really, aslong as people don't pay attention to them all that much should be cool beans

True true man! Personally I've never paid attention to them if im honest (or maybe im just sour coz im not ranked in the top 16 LOL) but really i kno who's good, who's ok and who's bad so im not too fussed! For example i kno jammy boi is the best falco in the UK scene so far, i kno fuzz, is the best jiggs in the uk scene so far, zepps is the best falcon in the uk scene so far and from what ive heard frm ur mm results ur the best samus! I dont really care where they are ranked coz i kno that they can tear apart a vast amount of the UK scene! For example if Zeppo was ranked 13th due to a lack of tournaments appearances, we may not be able to argue coz thats the official stats but seriously, would anyone really consider that he is actually 13th? Im sure he wouldnt give a D&MN coz he would kno better! And im sure thats how daveman probably feels too!

EDIT:

these rankings arent an incentive for me and i dont really care about them cos they are pretty pointless

Lol c well there ya go i was right! PS Totally off subject but who do u main bro? Tho that may be a silly Q as DK is in ur pic...

 

[Davemans]

Lol c well there ya go i was right! PS Totally off subject but who do u main bro?

lol all fox in tourney oh and roy, cos roy is amazing imo

 

[Reacher]

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

They probably won't though because not all the top players will show up to the next tournament. Has there actually been a tournament yet with all the best players there? I don't think there has but my memory's not the most reliable.

I agree completely with bb. A panel will always be biased. The rankings as they are are fair. If you don't think you should be that low on the rankings, then get your *** over to the tournaments and proove it.

That's exactly what Davemans has done though, he came to a tournament and placed top eight like everyone who'd played him said he would, and then he's been ranked 16th. I know that Davemans doesn't really care about his position but it seems pointless to keep these rankings going when they're really innacurate.

(Btw sorry Davemans for dragging you into this yet again )

Oh and just for the record I also think the rankings should be scrapped, the panel idea would be the way to do it, except most of us just don't care enough to keep up the discussions after every tournament.

 

[ÖwnÄ]

Lol c well there ya go i was right! PS Totally off subject but who do u main bro?

lol all fox in tourney oh and roy, cos roy is amazing imo

Dam straight Roy is frigging amazing! Anyone who masters that counter of his is a force that is gonna do some damage lol! I defo wanna play my Yosh against your Fox and Roy nex tourney dude, im hearing sum good stuff about ya man!

 

[ÖwnÄ]

Accidental double post! My bad!

 

[FrostByte]

Pikachu>Roy. Pikachu is like Jesus, just without the power to turn water into wine.

 

[Mr P]

Joe think of the panel version as being like the quantum physics of your "logical" physics way of rankings players.

I still say scrap the rankings, but some of you have misinterpreted the way a panel would work. Not everyone on the panel would have to agree on a sngle list, each would give his own list of the top 16 players and they would all be averaged out to create a ranking. still though SCRAP THEM

 

[BloodBowler]

And who would decide on this average? How would you work out an average. However you look at this you have two ways of the rankings going when it gets to fine details:

1. It can be decided by a person, in which case, it will be biased.
2. It can be decided by system, in which case it could end up flawed.

 

[Mr P]

And who would decide on this average? How would you work out an average. However you look at this you have two ways of the rankings going when it gets to fine details:

1. It can be decided by a person, in which case, it will be biased.
2. It can be decided by system, in which case it could end up flawed.

If you are averaging out a vote among 5 or so people how can it be biased ?

lets say i make a list of 1-16 i would give 16 points for the player ranked first and 1 for the player ranked 16th etc all he way down. Each person on the panel would do this and we'd tally the points to get a placing, but BB listen to this the most important bit "SCRAP EMMM"

 

[Bullet Bill]

If Davemans doesn't care then whats the ****ing point. Keep the rankings

Owna = yoshi ownage I'm gonna have to get some friendlies with you next tournament. I am trying to play yoshi btw. And I use the word 'trying' appropriately.

 

[Bullet Bill]

If you are averaging out a vote among 5 or so people how can it be biased ?

lets say i make a list of 1-16 i would give 16 points for the player ranked first and 1 for the player ranked 16th etc all he way down. Each person on the panel would do this and we'd tally the points to get a placing, but BB listen to this the most important bit "SCRAP EMMM"

Theres still plenty of bias if your talking about having 5 people decide. If you really wanted a fair system you'd need more people than 5

 

[ÖwnÄ]

Owna = yoshi ownage I'm gonna have to get some friendlies with you next tournament.

Lol thanx dude! Yea i defo want some more matches man! The last tym i played your yoshi it had improved soooooo much man and only after like a month of playing him! Its been a good few months since then so im actually worried that u may beat me this tym round lol!

 

[BloodBowler]

I'd put a cap on the panel members at 8.

 

[monty06]

scrap the whole system now and after the next tourney results just do a new list and include evry smash player that way everyone knows how far they are of top 16 so gives more incentive. this way every godd player will be laced where they should be placed.

 

[Bullet Bill]

scrap the whole system now and after the next tourney results just do a new list and include evry smash player that way everyone knows how far they are of top 16 so gives more incentive. this way every godd player will be laced where they should be placed.

good idea_______

 

[BloodBowler]

Y'know guys. I spent at least half an hour on making the smashwiki page for the UK rankings look as professional as possible and the fact that so few of you actually go and read it pisses me off.

Each and every person that passed pools is on the smashwiki list, just beow the table for top 16.

The rankings will be restarted after SmashGT anyway as the 06-07 season comes to a close.

 

[Mr P]

good idea_______[/QUOTE

How is it a good idea ? It doesn't solve any problems, after the tournie im sure there would be flakers at the next one so we have exactly the same problem all over again.

 

[Bullet Bill]

hmmmmmmm. you know, it might be possible to change the points system to tak into account the number of tournaments played. how?- I don't know yet. but theoretically it should be able to solve the problem of flakers.

 

[ac_anon]

hmmmmmmm. you know, it might be possible to change the points system to tak into account the number of tournaments played. how?- I don't know yet. but theoretically it should be able to solve the problem of flakers.

communism worked in theory

iv always wanted to say that

 

[grayfox]

rankings are bad times. If you think you are good put your money where your mouth is, i dare you = O

 

[BloodBowler]

If you want to take tournament attendance out of the equation, the answer is pretty easy. Either A: Use every point, ever earned by any player ever and take out the diminishment factor, or B: Use the last five tournaments played by each player, keeping the dimishment as it is. This each player would earn points from the last 5 tourney's they've been to, not just the last 5 tournaments hosted.

Here's a thought, has anyone considered or got anything to say and how much further these rankings will be mutilated when and if we get internationals coming to our tourneys?

 

[Fuzzyness]

I dont have anything against internationals coming, Good practise so no johns

 

[monty06]

i always thought that a international tourney wouldnt be included in the season calender so wouldnt efect the rankings.

there isnt a way of doing the rankings cos theres always gonna be summit wrong with each system.

 

[BloodBowler]

Fuzz: You are the last person who can use that phrase given some of the escapades you've had, so pipe down. I was referring to them messing up the rankings because they'd be taking point earning slots that would otherwise go to UK smashers. I'm not saying they'd detrimental to the scene, they wouldn't.

 

[Aiko]

well you could have a playoff for the last position(s) for every international player who makes it past pools.

 

[J03]

or you could take out the internationals and budge everyone else up, this would mean say only 13 people getting points rather then 16, depending on how mant internationals get through pools obv

 

[Aiko]

thats basically what i said.

 

[Mr P]

9. Mr P
9. GEEK28
9. Ac Anon
9. SepirothKen

13. Bullet bill
13. Aiko
13. Jo3
13. Monty

Who goes upto 9th ?

The options we have are to either

1. continue with the system we have and not count tournies that have foreigners at them
2. Use a panel system
3. Scrap the list

Any other ideas ? Or choose one of those.

 

[BloodBowler]

It'd have to be number 1.

We have the complete list of everyone that has ever passed pools and earned points, but it would be impossible to tell who really deserves to move up. For this reason, euro tourney's shouldn't count to the rankings.