Brand new seeding system: I've reworked it after listening to everyone

[Pig Of The Hut]

Establish a system min 40-50 players

Take top 16 off the list in attendance available

Make 8 pools

Pool 1
1/16 seeds

Pool2
2/15 seeds

Pool 3
3/14 seeds

Pool 4
4/13 seeds

Etc

If 1/16 are from same region you swap 15/16 and move forward

Does this make sense?

This is a good idea, but where is the cutoff? If it came down to it, (say you have 9 people who are on the seeded ranking system) would a seed with 6 points receive a top seed in a bracket or would he get mashed up in the pile? If he's mashed up in the pile, there would only be 8 seeded players, and if he's included in the seeds there would be 2 top seeds in one pool.

Then I'd expect to do something like this

Put #1 in pool 1

Then pool 2
2/9

Pool3
3/8

Pool 4
4/7

Etc

I like this, but I still disagree with the number system. I would prefer a decay system. Inactivity shouldn't be rewarded and inability to achieve top 8 should be punished.

Player 1 - 1st at SCR, 9th at NCR (Just using a random west coast major)
vs
Player 2 - 1st at Winter Brawl, 7th at Summer Jam

Why would Player 1 receive a better seeding, while Player 2 is more consistent?

Try this

All majors even points, all exactly equal

*PLACES*: *POINTS RECIEVED*
1 : 8
2 : 7
3 :6
4 : 5
5/5 : 4
7/7 : 3
9/9/9/9 :2
13/13/13/13 : 1


Player 2 would ficticiously have
8 points for WB
3 for SJ
11 points

Player 1
8 points for SJ
2 for NCR
10 points


Player 1 would not receive a better seeding

How's this system sound

Call a major a major regardless
Regionals half points

Regionals
Ff
Vxg
TOTFC (two of them)
Apex
Etc

Majors:
WB
Nec
Scr
FR
CEO
UFGT
SJ
Ect
Kit
Etc

@P2W
@Jaxel
@R.E.O.


@Ninj @MITDJT
@CrimsonShadow
@Insuperable


No locals count at all
Events last a year
Top 16 get seeds
Evo counts double or triple

 

[Smarrgasm]

As long as im higher than @rev0lver, I approve.

 

[Braindead]

That is one long-ass post.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

***waits for jaxel to find 11 things wrong w the above

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

That is one long-ass post.

On mobile

U impressed?

 

[YOMI MITYEAP]

@AK Pig Of The Hut , I am MIT, nd I approve of the system lol . I will gladly take my 3/4 seeding points

 

[kabelfritz]

still liking entrant-based points more.

 

[REO]

Establish a system min 40-50 players

Take top 16 off the list in attendance available

Make 8 pools

Pool 1
1/16 seeds

Pool2
2/15 seeds

Pool 3
3/14 seeds

Pool 4
4/13 seeds

Etc

If 1/16 are from same region you swap 15/16 and move forward

Does this make sense?



Then I'd expect to do something like this

Put #1 in pool 1

Then pool 2
2/9

Pool3
3/8

Pool 4
4/7

Etc



Try this

All majors even points, all exactly equal

*PLACES*: *POINTS RECIEVED*
1 : 8
2 : 7
3 :6
4 : 5
5/5 : 4
7/7 : 3
9/9/9/9 :2
13/13/13/13 : 1


Player 2 would ficticiously have
8 points for WB
3 for SJ
11 points

Player 1
8 points for SJ
2 for NCR
10 points


Player 1 would not receive a better seeding

How's this system sound

Call a major a major regardless
Regionals half points

Regionals
Ff
Vxg
TOTFC (two of them)
Apex
Etc

Majors:
WB
Nec
Scr
FR
CEO
UFGT
SJ
Ect
Kit
Etc

@P2W
@Jaxel
@R.E.O.


@Ninj @MITDJT
@CrimsonShadow
@Insuperable


No locals count at all
Events last a year
Top 16 get seeds
Evo counts double or triple

There's still no system that rewards how heavily stacked a major or regional is. First you would need to determine how much each player is worth that is participating in the tournament. I would assume it would depend on the player's tournament resume that reflects how many points they add to the bonus. I strongly believe if you want things to be as accurate as possible, some form of system gets created that adds a specific value on top of the base of how much a tournament is worth.

Overall, I like this system better than your last one.

I have more input and critique to post, but will do another time as I'm on mobile.

 

[Braindead]

On mobile

U impressed?

Very.

On a serious note though, here are my 2 cents:

*PLACES*: *POINTS RECIEVED*
1 : 8
2 : 7
3 :6
4 : 5
5/5 : 4
7/7 : 3
9/9/9/9 :2
13/13/13/13 : 1

1st position should get higher than 8. Also 2nd position maybe should get a higher score.
Explanation:
On your current system someone who wins a major and gets 5th in another does NOT get a higher score than someone who gets 3rd twice for example. I think they should.
You could also argue that 2nd should be treated the same (grand finals is much better than 3rd/4th in my opinion).
So my suggestions would be either give the 1st 9 points instead of 8, or give the first 10 points and 2nd 7.5 points (not 8, I can explain that later if needed), and keep the rest the same.

Events last a year

Does that mean the seedings are gonna be treated like the Tennis system? That the points of the same major do not accumulate?

 

[Jaxel]

***waits for jaxel to find 11 things wrong w the above

Actually, it looks pretty good... and pretty much exactly the same as my system. Except events are worth flat amounts, instead of being based on number of entrants... which can be done in my system; its how they use it on Smashboards.

Although, I wonder if you are placing limits on the number of events like the Tennis system, or are you doing this as a race system? With a race system, you reward people for attending the most events.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

There's still no system that rewards how heavily stacked a major or regional is. First you would need to determine how much each player is worth that is participating in the tournament. I would assume it would depend on the player's tournament resume that reflects how many points they add to the bonus. I strongly believe if you want things to be as accurate as possible, some form of system gets created that adds a specific value on top of the base of how much a tournament is worth.

Overall, I like this system better than your last one.

I have more input and critique to post, but will do another time as I'm on mobile.

Great point

Let me propose this thought to u

How about since first year of inj closes in a month, use a system like this to make a seed/rank list

Then use that list to determine a players worth and going forward into year 2 apply that to add extra bonuses per tourney depending on which players from the list attend ...?

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

Actually, it looks pretty good... and pretty much exactly the same as my system. Except events are worth flat amounts, instead of being based on number of entrants... which can be done in my system; its how they use it on Smashboards.

Although, I wonder if you are placing limits on the number of events like the Tennis system, or are you doing this as a race system? With a race system, you reward people for attending the most events.

Race vs tennis I'm open to be told what's best.

Also see reo's comments above and my reply please

What do u think of that idea as Well

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

Very.

On a serious note though, here are my 2 cents:



1st position should get higher than 8. Also 2nd position maybe should get a higher score.
Explanation:
On your current system someone who wins a major and gets 5th in another does NOT get a higher score than someone who gets 3rd twice for example. I think they should.
You could also argue that 2nd should be treated the same (grand finals is much better than 3rd/4th in my opinion).
So my suggestions would be either give the 1st 9 points instead of 8, or give the first 10 points and 2nd 7.5 points (not 8, I can explain that later if needed), and keep the rest the same.


Does that mean the seedings are gonna be treated like the Tennis system? That the points of the same major do not accumulate?

Is recommend after CEO '14 u lose CEO '13 points

 

[RM Jonnitti]

what would you do for tournaments like evo that will have more than 8 pools?

 

[Braindead]

Is recommend after CEO '14 u lose CEO '13 points

Yeah that's the Tennis system.

What about my idea for the points though?

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

what would you do for tournaments like evo that will have more than 8 pools?

1/64
2/63
3/62
Etc

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

Yeah that's the Tennis system.

What about my idea for the points though?

The points are arbitrary for now, those we will adjust to look more like what you mentioned

Thanks

 

[Jaxel]

Race vs tennis I'm open to be told what's best.

Also see reo's comments above and my reply please

What do u think of that idea as Well

The standard Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) ranking system calculates based on a player's top X scores in a Y time period. For example, this could be the equivalent of only counting a player's top 10 scores in a 1 year period. There are several advantages to doing it this way. Firstly, it doesn't penalize a player for simply having a "bad day" (provided they compete in at least 10 events in a 1 year period). Secondly, it doesn't give artificial rewards to weaker players who simply attend more events (grinding out their score).

The ATP also has a special ranking system called "Race". This is the equivalent of a simple year-to-date (YTD) sum of all the scores they have accumulated throughout the year.

The problem with a "Race" system is that it artificially rewards people for grinding out their scores. For instance, lets say the best player in the world only goes to 10 events a year, and wins EVERY one of those events (lets also assume all events have the same value, and there are no such thing as grand-slams). Lets say he gets 1,000 points for each event; that puts his ATP and his Race score both at 10,000. However, lets introduce another player, who's not the best in the world, and gets 3rd at every event... but he travels more and attends 20 events, throughout the year. Through the ATP system, which limits to 10 scores, his ATP rank would be 7,000. However, with the Race system, which only calculates a YTD total, his score would be 14,000, putting him above the other player.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

The standard Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) ranking system calculates based on a player's top X scores in a Y time period. For example, this could be the equivalent of only counting a player's top 10 scores in a 1 year period. There are several advantages to doing it this way. Firstly, it doesn't penalize a player for simply having a "bad day" (provided they compete in at least 10 events in a 1 year period). Secondly, it doesn't give artificial rewards to weaker players who simply attend more events (grinding out their score).

The ATP also has a special ranking system called "Race". This is the equivalent of a simple year-to-date (YTD) sum of all the scores they have accumulated throughout the year.

The problem with a "Race" system is that it artificially rewards people for grinding out their scores. For instance, lets say the best player in the world only goes to 10 events a year, and wins EVERY one of those events (lets also assume all events have the same value, and there are no such thing as grand-slams). Lets say he gets 1,000 points for each event; that puts his ATP and his Race score both at 10,000. However, lets introduce another player, who's not the best in the world, and gets 3rd at every event... but he travels more and attends 20 events, throughout the year. Through the ATP system, which limits to 10 scores, his ATP rank would be 7,000. However, with the Race system, which only calculates a YTD total, his score would be 14,000, putting him above the other player.

Ahh ok

Instinctually I like ATP based on your summary and part of me says it's hard to take away any pints earned in that year though

Let me think a little on it, thx

 

[Insuperable]

I have helped a cause

I still think there are few problems, but this is much better than before.
2 quick questions I have, since I'm on mobile:

1) Should the seeding system be affected by how stacked the tournament is? Would it be based on a proxy system like @CrimsonShadow's? (I would prefer it that way). His system was basically:

Player # (Points)
Player 1 (500), Player 2 (500), Player 3 (500)
Player 1 defeats player 2 - Player 1 (750) is above Player 2 (500)
Player 3 defeats player 1 - Player 3 (788) is above player 1 (750)

----This is as far as I remember

2) Should the seeding system be based solely on West vs East (due to lack of international competition)? One seed for West, one seed for East. If so, how would they match up if:

Player East:
1st - ECT
1st - NEC
1st - WB

Player West:
1st - SCR
1st - EVO (View it as a major, not a grand slam for this example)

If they were to enter the same tournament, would Player East receive the higher seed because he has more 1st place finishes (Say there's 7 tournaments, so 1st place 3/7 times, even if he only attended 3), or would Player West receive the higher seed because he has achieved 1st place twice (Say there's only 2 tournaments on the West, so 1st place 2/2 times)

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

I have helped a cause

I still think there are few problems, but this is much better than before.
2 quick questions I have, since I'm on mobile:

1) Should the seeding system be affected by how stacked the tournament is? Would it be based on a proxy system like @CrimsonShadow's? (I would prefer it that way). His system was basically:

Player # (Points)
Player 1 (500), Player 2 (500), Player 3 (500)
Player 1 defeats player 2 - Player 1 (750) is above Player 2 (500)
Player 3 defeats player 1 - Player 3 (788) is above player 1 (750)

----This is as far as I remember

2) Should the seeding system be based solely on West vs East (due to lack of international competition)? One seed for West, one seed for East. If so, how would they match up if:

Player East:
1st - ECT
1st - NEC
1st - WB

Player West:
1st - SCR
1st - EVO (View it as a major, not a grand slam for this example)

If they were to enter the same tournament, would Player East receive the higher seed because he has more 1st place finishes (Say there's 7 tournaments, so 1st place 3/7 times, even if he only attended 3), or would Player West receive the higher seed because he has achieved 1st place twice (Say there's only 2 tournaments on the West, so 1st place 2/2 times)

As for question 1 : does MY answer to Reo above help answer This?

2. I think the general TYM consensus in previous seeding thread was treat every tourney as a whole and not differentiate between the coasts and regions

 

[Insuperable]

As for question 1 : does MY answer to Reo above help answer This?

2. I think the general TYM consensus in previous seeding thread was treat every tourney as a whole and not differentiate between the coasts and regions

1. Sorry was on mobile and only had enough wifi to bare loading the original post hahaha yes it does!!
2. So if you want points, travel. If you don't travel, no seeding to make up for that tournament. That sounds like the way it should be

Pig accomplishing something many tried to do, but no one knew how to actually build. There's a reason you're one of the community leaders!

 

[nuttyAFA]

Why not just start from scratch at this year's Evo? The results from that establish the very first ranking points and seeding for the next tourney. I realize this feels like dismissing the past year, but my response would be:
A) You had no intention of boosting your ranking and future seeding before right now
B) Evo is the one everyone says is the most important, shouldn't it decide everyone's true placement in the entire community?
C) It eliminates debate about versions of the game, which major had which talent and numbers, etc.

I just feel like it's a clean start where everyone walks into the tournament knowing what is at stake, and not retroactively putting value on things done in the past

Is this what we will do when the next game (MK 10 presumably) comes out? Start a new ranking system for it with everyone at zero when it releases?

 

[nuttyAFA]

1. Sorry was on mobile and only had enough wifi to bare loading the original post hahaha yes it does!!
2. So if you want points, travel. If you don't travel, no seeding to make up for that tournament. That sounds like the way it should be

Pig accomplishing something many tried to do, but no one knew how to actually build. There's a reason you're one of the community leaders!

To be fair, others have tried (like jaxel) and given good ideas, but the community wasn't "ready" i guess. This past week has been a whirlwind lol

 

[ColdBoreMK23]

I honestly didn't read the whole thing because I'm at work but can you incorporate a system where if a player beats someone seeded higher than him he loses points and vice versa. Also, if he gets bopped by a "random" or "new comer" to tournies he/should lose a ton of points.

You're putting a lot of work into this Pig. Youre awesome.