TYM Rankings

[CptXecution]

Okay here goes nothing....

One of the widely discussed topics in the MK community and I actually like it BUT I don't feel it's done properly.

Problems I find...

Simple Math: The NFG has a random set of points and has no consistency to how and why the points are distributed. Plus he takes the max amount of points and doesn't distribute them like he should.
EX: 1st 600pts (600/1)
2nd 300pts (600/2)
3rd 200pts (600/3)
4th 150pts (600/4)
5th 120pts (600/5)
7th 87.71428...(600/7)
Where he goes wrong is 5th and 7th place he should be dividing by the total number of players at that point which for 5th place is 6 and 7th place is 8 so it should be...
5th 100pts
7th 75pts.

Standards too High for MK: We've all come to terms that not every EVO qualifier is going to be a "major" and we're going to have low turnouts with the lack of sponsored players and our scene is still fairly new. For MK9 tournaments like Arcade Kombat and Flawless Victory should be included but they aren't because they're seen as "regionals" and not tournaments but for OUR scene they need to be included.

WC and Top Players Not Getting Enough Respect: Players like Tyrant, DJT, Noobe and (yes) Tom Brady all place well at EVERY tournament they go to but don't always make Top 8, Attend "non ranked" tournaments even though there's high competition, etc.

Where I'm getting at is I put together my own point system and I want everyone's opinion...be harsh if you want but I don't want to hear....
-DanCock already started this (No he wants a ranking system to rank everyone I want to fix what the NFG does and fit it to our scene)
-No one cares about the NFG (Bull, it's the most talked about topic in the MK community)

Here's my breakdown and what tournaments are included...
*EVO QUALIFIERS AUTOMATICALLY COUNTED
32-47 Entrants TOP 4 (200 Points)
APEX, Revolution X, Frosty Faustings, NoCal, Texas Showdown, Power Up, Civil War, EGP Redemption, EGP Arcade Kombat
1st 200
2nd 100
3rd 67
4th 50
48-63 Entrants TOP 8 (600 Points)
Flawless Victory, SoCal
1st 600
2nd 300
3rd 200
4th 150
5th (2) 100
7th (2) 75
64-79 Entrants Top 12 (1200 Points)
Winter Brawl
1st 1200
2nd 600
3rd 400
4th 300
5th (2) 200
7th (2) 150
9th (4) 100
80-99 Entrants Top 16 (2000 Points)
MLG, NEC
1st 2000
2nd 1000
3rd 667
4th 500
5th (2) 333
7th (2) 250
9th (4) 167
13th (4) 125
100+ Entrants Top 16 (2400 Points)
Final Round
1st 2400
2nd 1200
3rd 800
4th 600
5th (2) 400
7th (2) 300
9th (4) 200
13th (4) 150

-Every 16 Entrants (Starting at 32) 4 players get ranked.
-Last ranked player for each tournament (Starting at 50) get 25 more points.
-Amount of points awarded are lowest awarded points multiplied by the number of ranked players.

And this is what I came up with RESULTS ALONE...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqHVOKx8Bb8odHlvSHM3X1RpTFhTN05CUHJURUdCbnc#gid=0

Idea I want to add starting after EVO...
-Bonus points for players beating higher ranked players.
-Bonus event points for a certain amount of ranked players attending.

If the thread gets out of hand I will request it be closed but until then...let the flood gates open.

 

[EGP Wonder_Chef]

I think I love you.

 

[CptXecution]

I think I love you.

Explain lol

 

[Tolkeen]

I'm not sure how you fixed the NFG "MATH" problem. You're still using a block structure, which means 48 people get ranked the same as 63 people. Why not just create a lower limit, and then decide how many points you will add for each person that enters the tournament. And when do points fall off?

Also, no Seasons Beatings? Shame on you!

 

[CptXecution]

I'm not sure how you fixed the NFG "MATH" problem. You're still using a block structure, which means 48 people get ranked the same as 63 people. Why not just create a lower limit, and then decide how many points you will add for each person that enters the tournament. And when do points fall off?

Also, no Seasons Beatings? Shame on you!

I posted to link because I was too lazy to type out the top 25 lol and I'm actually waiting on On the Edge II results...I heard they broke 30 but I'm not sure if it's 32 or higher and I will add SB:SS.

And my math is...every 16 entrants entered into a tournament 4 people get ranked all the way until the Top 16. 9th place finishers deserve credit in big tournaments as well as 13th place in high level big tournaments like Final Round and MLG.

 

[CptXecution]

After adding results from Season's Beatings: Summer Slam, Toryuken and UFGT8 the rankings have shifted a bit...even the Top 3.

Pre-SB:SS...
1st vVv/NOS CD jr
2nd vVv REO
3rd KN DetroitBalln313
4th VSM Maxter
5th Pig of the Hut
6th KN Crazy Dominican
7th 16 Bit
8th VSM Riu48
9th WNBA Death
10th FC ChrisG
11th IGL DJT
12th EGP Krayzie Bone
T13th CURBOLICOUS
T13th Morty Seinfeld
15th VSM KT Smith
16th DRS/MCZ KevoDaMan
T17th iKizzLE
T17th EMP Tom Brady
T17th Noobe
T17th Big D
21st GGA Dizzy
22nd EMP Perfect Legend
23rd EGP Tyrant
24th TS Sabin
25th IGL MIT

Post UFGT8...
1st vVv/NOS CD jr
2nd vVv REO
3rd VSM Maxter
4th KN DetroitBalln313
5th Pig of the Hut
6th KN Crazy Dominican
7th KevoDaMan +9
8th GGA 16 Bit
9th VSM Riu48
10th WNBA Death
11th GGA Dizzy +10
12th FC ChrisG
13th IGL DJT
14th EGP Krayzie Bone
T15th MortySeinfeld
T15th CURBOLICOUS
T15th iKizzLE
18th VSM KT Smith
T19th Noobe
T19th EMP Tom Brady
T19th Big D
22nd EMP Perfect Legend
23rd m2Dave
24th EGP Tyrant
25th TS Sabin

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqHVOKx8Bb8odHlvSHM3X1RpTFhTN05CUHJURUdCbnc

Players dropped out of Top 25...
IGL MIT

Players entered Top 25...
m2Dave

Biggest jump in rankings...
GGA Dizzy +10 ranks

On the Edge II only got 29 entrants so it wasn't counted.

Osu 16 Bit
Pig Of The Hut
Tom Brady
You 3 are probably the most out spoken on this topic and want your honest input on how well this list has been constructed for MK9 standards. I worked really hard and hope it shows, any questions feel free to ask.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

I kinda dig it

 

[AC1984]

Why is Big D there but SwifTomHanks is not???

 

[SonicKaballs]

Personally, these never have a chance of working. You cannot rank a tournament based off of how many people are there because there could be like 3-4 tourney players and the rest could be whoever. So getting Top 8 (in said situation) in this ranking system, compare to getting Top 8 at MLG Columbus. Points may be distributed more to one tournament but the system still remains flawed. As well, when there are people like CDjr, REO, Maxter, Pig, and Detroit consistently placing Top 8 in all of their respective tournaments, having them absent from a tourney makes point distribution and ranking much harder as again the competition is definitely not the same especially when the majority of points go to the Top 8 finishes.

 

[Zoidberg747]

I actually like it, seems to be the most accurate lis so far



Props

 

[DanCock]

Nice. Glad you took over this. I have a full time job and this was becoming work to add everyone.


Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Enigma642]

Looks good to me. Now it just needs to be made official and have its own dedicated page on TYM.

 

[rev0lver]

9th at flawless victory getting no love

edit: there is one problem though, which is one of the issues discussed with the NFG. when a tournament only has a few people above or below the mark. for example, i think Winter Brawl was JUST under 80 people

 

[mutantmagnet]

Personally, these never have a chance of working. You cannot rank a tournament based off of how many people are there because there could be like 3-4 tourney players and the rest could be whoever. So getting Top 8 (in said situation) in this ranking system, compare to getting Top 8 at MLG Columbus. Points may be distributed more to one tournament but the system still remains flawed. As well, when there are people like CDjr, REO, Maxter, Pig, and Detroit consistently placing Top 8 in all of their respective tournaments, having them absent from a tourney makes point distribution and ranking much harder as again the competition is definitely not the same especially when the majority of points go to the Top 8 finishes.

Then do it how global tournaments do it.

FIFA Global Rankings formula
P = M x I x T x C

M: Points for match result
Teams gain 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat. In a penalty shoot-out, the winning team gains 2 points and the losing team gains 1 point.
I: Importance of match
Friendly match (including small competitions): I = 1.0
FIFA World Cup™ qualifier or confederation-level qualifier: I = 2.5
Confederation-level final competition or FIFA Confederations Cup: I = 3.0
FIFA World Cup™ final competition: I = 4.0
T: Strength of opposing team
The strength of the opponents is based on the formula: 200 – the ranking position of the opponents
As an exception to this formula, the team at the top of the ranking is always assigned the value 200 and the teams ranked 150th and below are assigned a minimum value of 50. The ranking position is taken from the opponents’ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking.
C: Strength of confederation
When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used. The strength of a confederation is calculated on the basis of the number of victories by that confederation at the last three FIFA World Cup™ competitions (see following page). Their values are as follows:
UEFA/CONMEBOL 1.00 CONCACAF 0.88
AFC/CAF 0.86 OFC 0.85

While I don't agree with this method because IMO the quality of entrants shouldn't matter because:
A) The level at which the top tier can travel dwarfs everyone else allowing them to get more points if points wasn't arbitrarily limited to top 4-16
B) These tournaments with lower talent pools have less entrants so if a ranking system actually accounted for number of participants instead of using discrete blocks the scrub factor would already have been accounted for (I have a better solution I posted in Pig's OP on this topic)
C) Players compete to win and should be recognized for winning instead of being marginalized for not being a major just because someone says their event wasn't a major (which is a term that hasn't been explicitly defined by anyone except for Pig whenever this topic comes up)

 

[CptXecution]

AC1984 becuase Big D placed 5th at the biggest tournament since EVO and STH only placed in 2 events (Civil War & FV) doesn't mean he's a bad player. I'm just trying to bring the NFG idea to MK9 standards.

mutantmagnet thank you for your input...
A) Top 4-16 is not because limited because there has to be a cut off some where. The way my system works is for EVERY 16 people in a tournament (starting at 32) 4 more people get ranked but if you go further than 16 then you're ranking 24 players because there's 8 people who tie for 17th.
B) Lower talents pools is something you can't help but AFTER EVO, like I posted in my OP I want to keep track of this by awarding bonus points for the number of ranked players in the tournament OR award bonus points to individuals who beat higher ranked players giving credit where it's due, but doing that would require SO MUCH work and SO MANY videos to watch to find out who beat who and where each person would rank at that time etc etc. I do work 3 jobs so it's easier to do this based on RESULTS ALONE like I posted in my OP.
C)I'm not understanding you statement here? If you're talking about how the tournaments are judged by entrants...there has to be a system to rank each event and # of entrants is the best way with other side factors.

rev0lver I hear ya but there's a point to my system (every 16 players starting at 32, 4 players get ranked) but like they stated on the KTP "there has to be a cut off somewhere" :/ that's just the way it has to be...at least I based mine on simple math.

DanCock I liked your idea to use for TO's to set brackets properly but like you said it's another job lol I just wanted to bring the NFG idea to MK9 standards considering we're not breaking 70, 80 or 100 people each tournament.

RM_xBigKaballs I posted in my OP that this list was based on RESULT ALONE for now and explained what I wanted to do after EVO to make this even more solid. My ideas would require beyond more work than I can do with the little free time that I have now it would just be easier to start it after EVO but bonus points will be awarded for higher level competition, I have addressed this.

Thank you all for your input I want to hear peoples ideas and I will take it into account. None of these are ever going to be perfect but I want to make this as legit as possible.

 

[AC1984]

got ya, good stuff then!

 

[SonicKaballs]

AC1984 becuase Big D placed 5th at the biggest tournament since EVO and STH only placed in 2 events (Civil War & FV) doesn't mean he's a bad player. I'm just trying to bring the NFG idea to MK9 standards.

mutantmagnet thank you for your input...
A) Top 4-16 is not because limited because there has to be a cut off some where. The way my system works is for EVERY 16 people in a tournament (starting at 32) 4 more people get ranked but if you go further than 16 then you're ranking 24 players because there's 8 people who tie for 17th.
B) Lower talents pools is something you can't help but AFTER EVO, like I posted in my OP I want to keep track of this by awarding bonus points for the number of ranked players in the tournament OR award bonus points to individuals who beat higher ranked players giving credit where it's due, but doing that would require SO MUCH work and SO MANY videos to watch to find out who beat who and where each person would rank at that time etc etc. I do work 3 jobs so it's easier to do this based on RESULTS ALONE like I posted in my OP.
C)I'm not understanding you statement here? If you're talking about how the tournaments are judged by entrants...there has to be a system to rank each event and # of entrants is the best way with other side factors.

rev0lver I hear ya but there's a point to my system (every 16 players starting at 32, 4 players get ranked) but like they stated on the KTP "there has to be a cut off somewhere" :/ that's just the way it has to be...at least I based mine on simple math.

DanCock I liked your idea to use for TO's to set brackets properly but like you said it's another job lol I just wanted to bring the NFG idea to MK9 standards considering we're not breaking 70, 80 or 100 people each tournament.

RM_xBigKaballs I posted in my OP that this list was based on RESULT ALONE for now and explained what I wanted to do after EVO to make this even more solid. My ideas would require beyond more work than I can do with the little free time that I have now it would just be easier to start it after EVO but bonus points will be awarded for higher level competition, I have addressed this.

Thank you all for your input I want to hear peoples ideas and I will take it into account. None of these are ever going to be perfect but I want to make this as legit as possible.

This is a great post no doubt and it is very impressive how much you've had to calculate and you came with a pretty good system. I just dont see it working unless someone such as mutantmagnet can create or use a system that would make it more accurate and fair. Which he is doing pretty well..

 

[STB Shujinkydink]

Personally, these never have a chance of working. You cannot rank a tournament based off of how many people are there because there could be like 3-4 tourney players and the rest could be whoever. So getting Top 8 (in said situation) in this ranking system, compare to getting Top 8 at MLG Columbus. Points may be distributed more to one tournament but the system still remains flawed. As well, when there are people like CDjr, REO, Maxter, Pig, and Detroit consistently placing Top 8 in all of their respective tournaments, having them absent from a tourney makes point distribution and ranking much harder as again the competition is definitely not the same especially when the majority of points go to the Top 8 finishes.

well thats the thing, this would reward ppl who consistently make it out. if top players arnt there, thats their fault

 

[Swifteh94]

Seems like a good system. People need to realize that the number of entrants is the only fair way to distribute the points. Distributing the points by the level of good players at the tournament will never work as "good" is an operational variable and you cannot consistency know who is defined as "good".

Obviously the system has flaws, but every system does.

 

[mutantmagnet]

AC1984 C)I'm not understanding you statement here? If you're talking about how the tournaments are judged by entrants...there has to be a system to rank each event and # of entrants is the best way with other side factors.

I agree with that it should be influenced by number of entrants but people categorize majors based on the assumed quality of the players present or something even more arbitrary which I was railing against.

A) Top 4-16 is not because limited because there has to be a cut off some where. The way my system works is for EVERY 16 people in a tournament (starting at 32) 4 more people get ranked but if you go further than 16 then you're ranking 24 players because there's 8 people who tie for 17th.

Personally I don't agree with this because allocating points should be based on participation as well. People at the bottom of the food chain should get points so they can differentiate from themselves. In the end in any ranking system a bottom tier player will never accumulate enough points to be comparable to higher tier players. The only people who shouldn't get points are those who lose to the first two opponents in their pools.

This is a great post no doubt and it is very impressive how much you've had to calculate and you came with a pretty good system. I just dont see it working unless someone such as mutantmagnet can create or use a system that would make it more accurate and fair. Which he is doing pretty well..

This is what I actually came up with last time in Dancock's thread. (My bad I thought Pig was the OP)