Injustice: The True Top 10 Characters based off of tournament results by P2W (NA edition)

[KDZ]

It's proven to work... In either a scheduled match environment (aka nearly every sport), or a random matchup environment.

It does NOT work for a tournament, elimination style environment.
Never has.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

godlessmode

But now we're getting on the topic of someone getting a better score because he got a bunch of upsets and got 9th, vs someone who, due to those upsets, was the favorite to win, stays in winners and wins the major.

That seems suboptimal.

The reason this doesn't happen, is that someone who had to win the whole major has to win more in order to do so. Think of the 'upsets' as a rating adjustment; if you are 'upsetting' many good players over and over, then either 1) those players aren't as dominant as they were thought to be or 2) you are much better than you were thought to be.

You can't 'fake' a low rating for long -- because if you are beating top players and not losing much, by the end of a tournament your rating will have already increased significantly.

There are so many factors that go into a decent real-world representation of player skill.

 

[godlessmode]

It's proven to work... In either a scheduled match environment (aka nearly every sport), or a random matchup environment.

It does NOT work for a tournament, elimination style environment.
Never has.

I disagree with this assessment. ELO is used in all sorts of tournament settings. Including Chess where it originated.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

godlessmode

But now we're getting on the topic of someone getting a better score because he got a bunch of upsets and got 9th, vs someone who, due to those upsets, was the favorite to win, stays in winners and wins the major.

That seems suboptimal.

"I enjoy spending time with you "

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Let me just say.. That the factors behind ranking discussions are complex, and it's impossible to have this discussion with people that haven't delved deeply to see the total picture.

godlessmode I have the data The hard part isn't just collecting the info (which is tricky in itself). It's figuring out what makes sense in order to arrive at a semi-balanced result.

 

[godlessmode]

Let me just say.. That the factors behind ranking discussions are complex, and it's impossible to have this discussion with people that haven't delved deeply to see the total picture.

godlessmode I have the data The hard part isn't just collecting the info (which is tricky in itself). It's figuring out what makes sense in order to arrive at a semi-balanced result.

Tuning the formula requires the data however. And unless you use regression/other analysis processes the tuning is subjective, which means it's no longer an objective result set.

Also, gimme the data please?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Tuning the formula requires the data however.

It's been in progress for a while. If you want to hop into TYM chat I'll explain more.

 

[KDZ]

All I'm saying is that this is going to cause some people who create a lot of upsets but choke in the end, to be rated higher than some tournament winning players.

And chess is round Robin, sometimes Swiss.
That's why it works.

It's not my call in the end, so do what you will.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

NOTE: This post is in response to the "definitive character tier list" portion of the OP.

Tl/Dr: Skewed data sampling is too inconclusive to properly claim a "definitive character tier list".

Not to get super nerdy but you can't correctly quanitfy the validity of your hypothesis (which is presumably that you can deduce a definitive tier list based solely on major tournament results) without adequate representation of all variables (in this case ALL of the characters of Injustice being played an EQUAL amount of time). It's for this reason that your data sample is biased and not objectively measured.

Basically...just because a character is played often in a tournament does not directly correlate to "character B is low-mid tier because they aren't used often/more often". All your data reinforces is the popularity and use of certain characters. That in and of itself is not adequate enough information to quantify something like a "tier list". Still though impressive work, especially with trying to calculate player rankings. Not trying to be a total downer.

your speaking my language but this is a representation of the players/characters who have had the most success thus far in major events. there are multiple variables here. they data your describing is not obtainable in this community.

i deduced my sample to ONLY the characters in top 8 and ONLY the players who have had top 8's in majors.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

All I'm saying is that this is going to cause some people who create a lot of upsets but choke in the end, to be rated higher than some tournament winning players.

And chess is round Robin, sometimes Swiss.
That's why it works.

It's not my call in the end, so do what you will.

and this is why i did it the way i did... its based solely on results (not the probability of the results)

 

[godlessmode]

All I'm saying is that this is going to cause some people who create a lot of upsets but choke in the end, to be rated higher than some tournament winning players.

And chess is round Robin, sometimes Swiss.
That's why it works.

It's not my call in the end, so do what you will.

I posted it up for input, and I value the input so far. Because the system supports weighting of events, and matches, at some point it will be very simply to reflect weighted performance based on how far into the tournament you made it. But again, making that adjustment needs to be determined either via regression or it makes the model subjective instead of objective.

 

[Saboteur-6]

your speaking my language but this is a representation of the players/characters who have had the most success thus far in major events. there are multiple variables here. they data your describing is not obtainable in this community.

i deduced my sample to ONLY the characters in top 8 and ONLY the players who have had top 8's in majors.

You're absolutely right. I misunderstood the opening in that you're more reporting interesting data results than trying to solidify a "definitive character tier list.".

 

[Big Pampering]

these rankings are never objective. just because one tournament has more entrants doesnt necessarily mean the competition is higher. I don't see how anyone could be placed above KDZ right now since he won evo and he did it convincingly, the game is still new and it is too early to even call someone ''consistent''. But the Tym community is the best at downplaying evo as just another major, some people say east is better than west and vice versa, number of entrants<top players etc.

 

[Metzos]

DD should have been there. The character has won most tournaments than any other character and has placed top 4 a lot as well. Imo its still too soon for this kind of list but whatever. You guys are doing the same mistake with MK9.

Also quality>quantity.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Also quality>quantity.

This is at the heart of the issue. It's both the quality and quantity together that add up to Value.

 

[Metzos]

This is at the heart of the issue. It's both the quality and quantity together that add up to Value.

I prefer attending a tourney with 30 people who know what they are doing, than attending a tourney with 200 people who are just spamming buttons. Numbers in a tourney dont mean that much (with some exceptions ofc, see SFIV).

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

these rankings are never objective. just because one tournament has more entrants doesnt necessarily mean the competition is higher. I don't see how anyone could be placed above KDZ right now since he won evo and he did it convincingly, the game is still new and it is too early to even call someone ''consistent''. But the Tym community is the best at downplaying evo as just another major, some people say east is better than west and vice versa, number of entrants<top players etc.

its just an objective list. how can you say it is not. those are pure facts based on results.

i am convinced there are very few people in this thread who understand what objective/subjective mean

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

DD should have been there. The character has won most tournaments than any other character and has placed top 4 a lot as well. Imo its still too soon for this kind of list but whatever. You guys are doing the same mistake with MK9.

Also quality>quantity.

quality is subjective. it has no place in my thread... that was not the purpose.

 

[Eddy Wang]

Haha.. Green Arrow.

I gotta smoke what he is smoking

 

[CrimsonShadow]

quality is subjective. it has no place in my thread... that was not the purpose.

It's not subjective if you have an objective measure to base it on. That's the point of many PvP ranking systems

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

It's not subjective if you have an objective measure to base it on. That's the point of many PvP ranking systems

so what are you basing your subjective quality measurement on? i was unaware the community had extensive data bases for you to support the quality of a tournament.

its extremely funny to me see how many people are butt hurt over this thread. these are simply stats/results that will evolve with the game.

 

[Big Pampering]

its just an objective list. how can you say it is not. those are pure facts based on results.

i am convinced there are very few people in this thread who understand what objective/subjective mean

every person seems to have their own definition of what a major is, that already makes it not objective. You can call it objective by purely basing it on tournaments with high entrants but that just ignores more than 70% of how rankings should be. Factors like top players, players from different regions, which players they had to beat etc. all get ignored.

 

[PLAYING TO WIN]

every person seems to have their own definition of what a major is, that already makes it not objective. You can call it objective by purely basing it on tournaments with high entrants but that just ignores more than 70% of how rankings should be. Factors like top players, players from different regions, which players they had to beat etc. all get ignored.

those events i listed have all the factors u just described. if i had the cut off at 50 people i would be including regionals that likely do not meet your criteria. saying nominal data is not objective is not correct man.

 

[Metzos]

quality is subjective. it has no place in my thread... that was not the purpose.

It has a place when you clearly stated that tourneys that have more than 100 people should be considered. Or am i wrong?


my definition of a major is simple... >100 entrants. Your words, or am i wrong?

All in all, quality in tourneys just means "more people" in general.

 

[godlessmode]

It has a place when you clearly stated that tourneys that have more than 100 people should be considered. Or am i wrong?


my definition of a major is simple... >100 entrants. Your words, or am i wrong?

All in all, quality in tourneys just means "more people" in general.

Would you rate a tournament with 100 nobodies the same as a tournament with 40 of the top players in the world?