Bank of Perfect Legend: INJ ranking system

[Frantastic23]

The way we have it set up at 8WAYRUN is as follows:

For every ONE player who enters a tournament, that tournament is worth 150 points; so with 10 people at an event, that event is worth 1500 points. However, events are categorized and each category is worth a maximum number of points, no matter how many people who enter it (this helps fight against random locals that randomly get 50 people, even though no one who is "good" is there; it fights against local tournaments running the system).

Majors: 5000 points (max: 33.3)
Monthlies: 4000 (max: 26.6)
Weeklies: 3000 (max: 20)

Points are awarded in the following distrubition:

• 1 - 100% of the point pool (so if an event is worth 5000 points, they get 5000 points)
• 2 - 87.5
• 3 - 75
• 4 - 62.5
• 5 - 50
• 7 - 37.5
• 9 - 25
• 13 - 12.5
• 999 - 1 (everyone who competes gets 1% participation points)

After points are awarded for each individual event, a player's final total score is NOT the combined total of ALL their scores. Its instead the combined total of their TOP 5 scores within the past TWELVE months. This has the advantage of putting more weight on majors, since eventually, if someone attends more events, and does well at majors, their scores at weeklies will get weeded out. It also has the advantage of not artificially promoting people who simply attend more tournaments than everyone else. And of course, it automatically stales out old players who haven't attended an event in 12 months.

All the settings in this ranking system are modular. So if you want to make it more ATP (where certain events are worth a flat amount, instead of being calculated using the number of entrants, you can do that).

 

[Jaxel]

It also supports "sub-leagues"... Which is basically custom leagues made up of events from other main leagues.

For instance, on Smashboards, they have 4 main leagues; one for each game.

We also have a sub-league at the break which ranks only events and players from the break:
http://smashboards.com/rankings/the-break-smash-bi-weekly.5/league
http://smashboards.com/rankings/the-break-smash-bi-weekly.5/league/events
http://smashboards.com/rankings/the-break-smash-bi-weekly.5/league/teams

 

[Mr Aquaman]

My ranking system is based on the ATP Tennis World Ranking system... even though we slightly changed it on 8WAYRUN... though Smashboards uses it more as a pure ATP system.

my bad I didnt know what the 8wr system was, sexy :]

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The problem with this is that it by design favors players who are are closer to events. For example, if someone does well earlier in the year, and then is blown out at multiple tournaments in a row, their ranking is not affected at all. You can't use a system to seed majors where someone who has access to East Coast tournaments can place at a couple majors and a couple locals, and then ride that the rest of the year even though they're not getting out of pools.

It's much easier for someone to "erase" their bad performances on cheap due to accumulated points on the EC. Whereas in the west, by car you are limited to the max of your local + a couple events. Assuming you live near a local.

Let's say you start with the defaults.. So a total of 3000 points for a 20 player weekly. This means anyone with a decent weekly can acumulate a huge number of points per "season". If you manage to win your local 4 times in a year, and it averages 20 players you're already at 12,000 points.. Which is more than winning two max-point majors. So if WNF was averaging 20 people, Godspeed and Aris might still have more points in this year than someone who won CEO and Final Round but had no local to attend. Yes you can tweak the point totals, but there are still more issues:

For example, it doesn't take into account who is there -- so if you win a 20 player weekly in Seattle, you get more points than if you top KDZ, DarthArma, Rico Suave, Zyphox, Jupiter, Grr (maybe 5-6 major and regional winners or Top 8 placers in a 14-man tournament) at the Break.

Re: why NFG was inaccurate:

So if you accept this, and you start using the modular settings to modify things and make arbitrary point totals for events to estimate the difficulty/talent density in the player pool, you instantly take things from the realm of being objective to being subjective. And if you're going to do a subjective ranking system or go ATP-style with point values assigned to events, it becomes another question entirely.

So why does this work in tennis?

The reason ATP works in tennis is that top athletes are bankrolled and have mandatory events. If you are a top tennis player, you have a commitment of events that you have to meet if you agree to play on the tour. This keeps things balanced and allows the results to mean something. It also helps ensure that the quality of mandatory events is consistent enough to lend merit to the point totals they are given. That's what makes it a true "tour" rather than a series of random events. However, it's a bad model for the FGC, and especially so for the Injustice community where a lot of top players aren't sponsored by teams that get them to events.

Our community much more closely resembles USCF, where players go out to tournaments of various sizes as they please and are able to (many of which are 'grassroots' and each player makes a greatly varying amount of events per year). In USCF it is incumbent upon you to go out when you can becuase you need to beat good players to move up in the ratings (rather than just collecting points). But you aren't able to erase your losses -- so each event goes toward determining your overall rating. And you aren't able to stack points by frequenting events where you didn't have to beat formidable competition, regardless of how many people were attending.

The moral of the story is that if you wanted to do a ranking system for a community like IGAU's, you'd need to sit down and carefully design it around the specific variables involved here. Otherwise the points won't mean much, and you certainly won't convince any TO's/bracket makers to take it into account.

 

[RiBBz22]

What is your bank's routing information?

 

[KDZ]

Dude not everyone goes to every event in tennis. Those top players are only guaranteed the grand slams, and even then only 4 players were winning those for the last 7 years.

Their points are then based on "smaller tournaments". They miss hundreds of tournaments throughout the year because you can't reasonably go to them all, "based on their location". They pick and choose what they go to and generally the 4 through 100 seeds are based on those, not majors.

And honestly, @CrimsonShadow, the community ALREADY based certain top players on their weekly or smaller scale performance. Rico Suave, before he won summerjam, only won weeklies, but was still considered a top player and was seeded #1. And then after that he has yet to win a major, but he's still considered a top player based on his weeklies performance.

Your problems with the system are not only hypocritical, but also has misinformation/ignorance on how the ATP works. It's like you're trying to find a way to incorporate favoritism and public opinion / possible fluke performances into build a system.

Also, there's no player that hasn't gone to at least 5 tournaments but has won a major, but I could be wrong. So why use an example that doesn't exist?

Long story short?
#FreeJaxelsRankingSystem

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Dude not everyone goes to every event in tennis. Those top players are only guaranteed the grand slams, and even then only 4 players were winning those for the last 7 years.

Their points are then based on "smaller tournaments". They miss hundreds of tournaments throughout the year because you can't reasonably go to them all, "based on their location". They pick and choose what they go to and generally the 4 through 100 seeds are based on those, not majors.

And honestly, @CrimsonShadow, the community ALREADY based certain top players on their weekly or smaller scale performance. Rico Suave, before he won summerjam, only won weeklies, but was still considered a top player and was seeded #1. And then after that he has yet to win a major, but he's still considered a top player based on his weeklies performance.

Your problems with the system are not only hypocritical, but also has misinformation/ignorance on how the ATP works. It's like you're trying to find a way to incorporate favoritism and public opinion / possible fluke performances into build a system.

Long story short?
#FreeJaxelsRankingSystem

I did not say that players are mandated to go to *every* tennis event. Not did I say that they don't miss events. However no one in IGAU is 'guaranteed' anything, and that means that people of typical means usually only go to whatever they can make.

Factually, if you compare communities, it's apples and oranges. The average player in the EC will go to a lot of events, including regionals, majors, and semi-locals becauase 90% of them are in driving/carpool distance. So whether you are rated by big events or smaller ones, there's a clear and massive disparity here and you can't explain it away to push a system from a friend.

It is far easier for someone in that position to accrue enough points to cover their losses, and that means that you can't use that system to seed pools in this community when most WC players don't have the same opportunity.

Again, our community much more closely resembles USCF than the ATP world tennis tour, and anyone who sits down to do the homework and compare will realize that.

 

[KDZ]

Dude your WC players, all the ones relevantly "winning majors" have either WNF, which guarantees them points of some kind, or have 5 tournaments under their belt. All of which serves to have them correctly places at majors, with strong seeding.

Your starting to sound irrational here.

 

[KDZ]

Jaxel system NATURALLY fights against people who can just go to every tournament.

2 major communities use it, a third sneakily used it after mocking it.

What is your issue with forward progress?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Dude your WC players, all the ones relevantly "winning majors" have either WNF, which guarantees them points of some kind, or have 5 tournaments under their belt. All of which serves to have them correctly places at majors, with strong seeding.

If you want to prioritize the "favorite" players then you're essentially pandering to community feelings. If you step back and take an objective look at things, a lot of the people you'd consider 'relevant' by that statement did not place at SCR.

Of course WNF is in easy reach of SoCal players, but it is not in close reach of NorCal, Arizona, Vegas etc. on a weekly basis.

Since the goal of this is to get people to respect the rankings and start to be more objective, it doesn't make any sense to ignore the disparity just because you're in a location that personally benefits your chances. That's not forward progress, and it won't get you what you're looking for.

Jaxel system NATURALLY fights against people who can just go to every tournament.

Except that the way it works actually does the opposite, by allowing people with easy access to tournaments plenty of chances to superceed their 'bad' tournaments in the ratings.

 

[KDZ]

k

 

[StevoSuprem0]

Doesn't the system that was being discussed normalize for the number of appearances though?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Doesn't the system that was being discussed normalize for the number of appearances though?

Hey Stevo; So with Jaxel's initial setup, it's only true normalization for those players who are able to to make a certain number of events. Think of it this way:

If all you did was carpool to WB, ECT, NEC, SJ, and TFC, you'd have a shot at the maximum total of points alloted (25,000 if you keep the original numbers and attendance is good) without ever hopping on a plane. If you went to regionals (assuming we use the 'monthly' category for that), you'd have a chance at making up for any bad peformance at any of the majors with a possible 4000 points for each (assuming they had at least 26 entrants). So DTN, APEX, Project Injustice, Infinite Crisis, Guts, whatever.

This does not even include locals, since not everyone will be close enough to make a weekly. That's just Majors and Regionals, in driving distance. And it doesn't include all the events you can make in a day's carpool drive, like KiT, FR, and even UFGT/CEO etc.

Then based on your total performance, you'd be 'normalized' down to your best placings, and your 'bad' tournaments wouldn't count.

Now let's compare to someone who is in driving distance of SCR and EVO. That's a 10k point max. There was one solid regional (Vindication) which hasn't been back. So for them, there's no normalization.. They aren't able to make enough events in order to be normalized in a way that only their best events count -- and even if they are fortunate enough to be near a small local like WNF, the nomalization ceiling for them is much lower due to the lack of 'higher point' events. Even if there were randomly 50 people at WNF, it's a 'weekly' so it's capped. Although people may travel out to a couple of additional events a year, they will never have access to the easy ability to make the system work for them that we'd enjoy here in this area.

 

[rev0lver]

There's probably no perfect system. We just have to choose the best one I guess?

I agree with @CrimsonShadow 's point about it being unfairly biased to those with a strong local scene. Like, just because I have access to certain tournaments I know I could be ranked above people I know are better than me. Players doing well locally but not nationally is also a legitimate issue. But then at the same time, with Crimson's MKi system of basing it off players you beat, it also unfairly biases it towards players who are able to attend more major tournaments. In that system, for example, I am rated higher than Insuperable, who is unquestionably a stronger player in my local scene, but was not able to attend as many majors.

 

[StevoSuprem0]

Hey Stevo; So with Jaxel's initial setup, it's only true normalization for those players who are able to to make a certain number of events. Think of it this way:

If all you did was carpool to WB, ECT, NEC, SJ, and TFC, you'd have a shot at the maximum total of points alloted (25,000 if you keep the original numbers and attendance is good) without ever hopping on a plane. If you went to regionals (assuming we use the 'monthly' category for that), you'd have a chance at making up for any bad peformance at any of the majors with a possible 4000 points for each (assuming they had at least 26 entrants). So DTN, APEX, Project Injustice, Infinite Crisis, Guts, whatever.

This does not even include locals, since not everyone will close enough to make a weekly. That's just Majors and Regionals, in driving distance. And it doesn't include all the events you can make in a day's carpool drive, like KiT, FR, and even UFGT/CEO etc.

Then based on your total performance, you'd be 'normalized' down to your best placings, and your 'bad' tournaments wouldn't count.

Now let's compare to someone who is in driving distance of SCR and EVO. That's a 10k point max. There was one solid regional (Vindication) which hasn't been back. So for them, there's no normalization.. They aren't able to make enough events in order to be normalized in a way that only their best events count -- and even if they are fortunate enough to be near a small local like WNF, the nomalization ceiling for them is much lower due to the lack of 'higher point' events. Even if there were randomly 50 people at WNF, it's a 'weekly' so it's capped. Although people may travel out to a couple of additional events a year, they will never have access to the easy ability to make the system work for them that we'd enjoy here in this area.

I'd need to look into these systems more to really provide an informed opinion. Intuitively, it seems like the best solution could be to take Jaxel's system and adjust how the normalization/ceiling/points/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is set, at least in the short term, until players from more regions are able to attend more events, then raise the cap accordingly down the road.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

There's probably no perfect system. We just have to choose the best one I guess?

I agree with @CrimsonShadow 's point about it being unfairly biased to those with a strong local scene. Like, just because I have access to certain tournaments I know I could be ranked above people I know are better than me. Players doing well locally but not nationally is also a legitimate issue. But then at the same time, with Crimson's MKi system of basing it off players you beat, it also unfairly biases it towards players who are able to attend more major tournaments. In that system, for example, I am rated higher than Insuperable, who is unquestionably a stronger player in my local scene, but was not able to attend as many majors.

This is true to an extent -- and for sure, in any system you will at least have to show up to something. Can't rank someone based on 0 or 1 events.

However, in that system it's offset by the fact that losses actually count. So if you go to 20 events in a year, and get blown out at 15 of them, you won't be able to normalize your way up the ladder by removing the other events. It does both things at once; it encourages players to come out, because that's the only way you can rise in the list; but it also enforces consistency. If you try your luck and go, you have a chance to move up or down.

This is not to say that it's perfect, and I don't think it is. But I think it makes more sense to design/tweak a system that makes sense around constraints that our community actually has, rather than one that caters to the schedules of professional/sponsored athletes on bankrolled tours.

 

[rev0lver]

However, in that system it's offset by the fact that losses actually count. So if you go to 20 events in a year, and get blown out at 15 of them, you won't be able to normalize your way up the ladder by removing the other events. It does both things at once; it encourages players to come out, because that's the only way you can rise in the list; but it also enforces consistency. If you take the risk to go, you have a chance to move up or down.

But it doesn't just encourage you to come out, it forces you to. Like, how should we expect a player like Blind Ducky to fly around the country because there's practically nothing in NorCal, compared to those who have regular majors in driving distance?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

But it doesn't just encourage you to come out, it forces you to. Like, how should we expect a player like Blind Ducky to fly around the country because there's practically nothing in NorCal, compared to those who have regular majors in driving distance?

For sure. And again, no matter what the ranking system is, it's hard to rate people based only on a couple events.

But he'd be penalized much more by a system that allows other people to only count their best tournaments. In that situation, what does someone in the NorthEast have to lose?

 

[KDZ]

Hey did you know that if you win 4 najors but get blown out at 4 you should be punished?

Hey did you know that if even though you win those 4 majors if someone who puts you in a horrible matchup can beat you but they can't win majors themselves you should be punished?

Hey did you know this system just looks for "who's the people's champ"?

Because theoretically a player can win every single major and not be #1. Incidentally a player can also lose every major and be considered the best player.

Such interesting.
Many fair.
Much best.
Very player.

 

[KDZ]

To sooth the @CrimsonShadow mewling, a player suggested an east/west conference system.

So those wc players who can't make it to those big ec events have their own ranking system.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Hey did you know that if you win 4 najors but get blown out at 4 you should be punished?

Hey did you know that if even though you win those 4 majors if someone who puts you in a horrible matchup can beat you but they can't win majors themselves you should be punished?

Hey did you know this system just looks for "who's the people's champ"?

Because theoretically a player can win every single major and not be #1. Incidentally a player can also lose every major and be considered the best player.

Such interesting.
Many fair.
Much best.
Very player.

If you won 4 majors and then you get blown out at the next 4 and it affects your rating, that's not 'punishment'.. It's your performance affecting your standing.

As to your second point, you'd also have to say that in the system you advocate, players who play characters who aren't likely to win tournaments are similarly "punished". But character/MU talk an entire conversation in itself if you really want to go down that road.

And, it's also very subjective. Who is to say that what you thought was "a horrible matchup" (or what one person considers a horrible matchup) in March 2014 or Nov. 2013 actually is one, or will be considered one in a couple months? That sounds like "people's champ"-style logic to me.

If someone wins every major and isn't #1, then the system hasn't been set up correctly and isn't taking the right events into account. With any system, if you don't take care in how you set it up and tailor it to the reality of the situation at hand, it's useless -- and that's the point I've been trying to make.

Such contradiction.

 

[187x]

no system would be perfect guys

 

[RapZiLLa54]

My two cents:

Break up everyone by region that holds a significant amount of majors/regionals

Use this for Top 8 placements :

• 1st Place - 10 Points
• 2nd Place - 7 Points
• 3rd Place - 5 Points
• 4th Place - 3 Points
• Tied 5th Place - 2 Points
• Tied 7th Place - 1 Point

Reset the points at the start of the next year, rinse repeat.

I'm doing this with my local events with positive feedback http://testyourmight.com/threads/bpk-monthly-power-rankings.40746/

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

@CrimsonShadow @KDZ

How about you set a limit for locals/regionals that can count within a specific time period?

Also No one is stopping AZ/Vegas/Norcal from starting locals

 

[SonicBoomBrad]

IMO anything pre 1.06 was a different game.