Injustice bracket/pool seeding

[Riyo]

Okay. I'm not gonna look through if there was an earlier thread about this cause I'm typing this on my phone. If there was then I wouldn't want to necro it.

I used to be an active Injustice player till work set in but I've still been following the scene since. After Final Round, The whole pool merging bracket and 15+16 thing blahblahblah stuff was pretty messy. I feel that the only way to solve this problem is to have a ranking system.

I know everyone is going to have their own opinion but this is what a forum is for: discussion. I'm sure some people agree that we should start looking at the weekly locals that happen for Injustice closer (IE: Break, WNF, GGA, AK and others). We should use these tournaments and have them be worth points towards seeding for the upcoming major, which is Civil War I believe. Of course, points from locals wouldn't be worth as high as you would get in majors.

This way, regardless of pre registering or not, we'll have the seeding points as a basis to set top players in different pools. Yeah the argument would be that oh I don't attend locals, this isn't fair. Well life isn't fair. To me, I feel that this is the best way to go to seed players accordingly so we won't have problems with brackets/pools in the future.

So I'll use this as an example.

Locals (Known/Recognized tournaments only eligible)
1st - 10
2nd - 8
3rd - 5
More than 8 entrants
4th - 2
5th - 2
7th - 1

Majors
1st - 50
2nd - 25
3rd - 15
5th - 10
7th - 5

POINT VALUE/PLACING ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON COMMUNITY VOTE!

So tell me what you think. Please discuss.

 

[Gesture Required Ahead]

Locals shouldn't count. There are many top players with no local scene

 

[STB Shujinkydink]

Locals shouldn't count. There are many top players with no local scene

They'll just have to perform better at majors to make up the points.

I like this system

 

[Riyo]

Locals shouldn't count. There are many top players with no local scene

This is why majors are worth more than locals.

 

[Riyo]

The beginning stages of a ranking system would have little effect in seeding until the next major happens.

 

[Gesture Required Ahead]

This is why majors are worth more than locals.

The gap would have to be a little bigger than in your system. Because that would mean a guy who's always placing Top 3 in a local would be better seeded than a guy with no local making 7th at a major

 

[Riyo]

The gap would have to be a little bigger than in your system. Because that would mean a guy who's always placing Top 3 in a local would be better seeded than a guy with no local making 7th at a major

Point values are subject to change.

 

[Fred Marvel]

shouldnt top 16 at a major be worth something if top 8 at a local is?

 

[Zoidberg747]

What makes a local eligible to be scored?

I could see this getting pretty messy tbh. I wish people stopped worrying so much about seeding(other than by region) and just played the game.

 

[Riyo]

shouldnt top 16 at a major be worth something if top 8 at a local is?

I just threw out an example. It's nothing to be taken as concrete. We as a community should at least vote on whether if we should have seeding points or not.

 

[Fred Marvel]

I just threw out an example. It's nothing to be taken as concrete. We as a community should at least vote on whether if we should have seeding points or not.

ahhh okay got it well i think you definitely are on the right track. hopefully others agree

 

[Riyo]

What makes a local eligible to be scored?

I could see this getting pretty messy tbh. I wish people stopped worrying so much about seeding(other than by region) and just played the game.

We already have established weekly locals, such as the ones I mentioned on top. I'm sure I'm missing a few so let me know. We should compile a list.

 

[roosTakk]

Pay me $35/hour and ill seed it for you =)

 

[Gesture Required Ahead]

What makes a local eligible to be scored?

This too.

 

[Icy Black Deep]

I think the fundamental problem you'll run into is either too small a player population or too few tournaments.
I'm partial to an Elo system myself. Scores are relative and it's not particularly biased towards players who go to more competitions. But I don't think there are enough people playing the game to make it work.
A point system like the one Riyo mentions is a little biased towards people with strong local scenes and people who can attend more majors, but if you don't include locals it's based on only a couple of tournaments.

HOWEVER, I think that any system is better than none. It seems every tournament someone's griping about the brackets. Seeding by a public, transparent system would eliminate a lot of the drama even if you don't love the way the ranking system works.

 

[Riyo]

Seeding by a public, transparent system would eliminate a lot of the drama even if you don't love the way the ranking system works.

This.

I'll update the thread with Known/Recognized weekly locals so that people are aware. Please help compile a list in case I miss any.

 

[SEV]

Just my opinion but if you're going to be giving seeding on locals probably only the winner of them should get any points and it should only be probably 1 point; they're way too frequent, not everyone has locals scenes, and even though there are quality players at locals as well, they generally have the same people placing within the top 8 with jumbled placements so you'd be feeding points to the same players. For the biweeklies have 2 points for 1st and 1 point for 2nd, monthlies 4 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for both 3 and 4th(something equivalent to take note how often the local takes place). And then majors should probably give points out all the way to top 32; individual values for 1-8, then 9th placers get the same value and 17ths, 25ths(different values for each echelon). Need to have values for these placing because it is unrealistic for good players to always place top 8 with all the quality competition and then they should reach all the way to top 32 because for many people this is there only opportunity to get points otherwise the people placing in weeklies would have an unfair advantage and also the lowest value for majors should be around 5 points for the lowest echelon to try and counter act the frequency of locals compared to majors.

 

[Riyo]

Just my opinion but if you're going to be giving seeding on locals probably only the winner of them should get any points and it should only be probably 1 point; they're way too frequent, not everyone has locals scenes, and even though there are quality players at locals as well, they generally have the same people placing within the top 8 with jumbled placements so you'd be feeding points to the same players. For the biweeklies have 2 points for 1st and 1 point for 2nd, monthlies 4 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, and 1 for both 3 and 4th(something equivalent to take note how often the local takes place). And then majors should probably give points out all the way to top 32; individual values for 1-8, then 9th placers get the same value and 17ths, 25ths(different values for each echelon). Need to have values for these placing because it is unrealistic for good players to always place top 8 with all the quality competition and then they should reach all the way to top 32 because for many people this is there only opportunity to get points otherwise the people placing in weeklies would have an unfair advantage and also the lowest value for majors should be around 5 points for the lowest echelon to try and counter act the frequency of locals compared to majors.

I agree with a lower scale point system to counteract the frequency of locals compared to majors. Can we get a list of when each major is happening? I'm sure we can calculate an estimate number of points to award per local to major.