Community Solution?

[PLAYING TO WIN]

One of the most challenging things, when developing a comprehensive system to progress the organization and professionalism of our tournament community, is to keep it purely objective.

There are a set of parameters in place (that I will not disclose to prevent molding) though I am curios to see what the collective minds of our very own, TYM, can come up with.

My question:
Explain a way to take subjectivity out of the equation and to list a set of parameters to define the value of a tournament when considered for ranking points. (IE capcom cup Tiers, golfing majors, our donned terms of local regional or major).

- think out side of the box
- consider a tournaments history and if it is a first year event
- be objective (without personal opinion) and factual

The reason I ask, there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes... even before then 500 ranking threads popped up on TYM. I, and a few others, will be watching this closely and will not be leading any conversations. Go.

 

[Tony at Home]

A large amount of accuracy isn't really needed.

For the purpose of seeding, the margin of error is actually quite high- and as long as the list is somewhat reasonable, it won't make a huge difference.

Basically, the list only has to be accurate enough to not stack too many top players in a pool at any major.

So, let's say a tournament has 8 or so pools, with around 16 players each.

If they're seeding well, the top 8 of any seeding chart should generally each be in a separate pool. You don't start stacking multiple of the top players until you've gone at least 8 players down the list in that case.

In this sense, it's more about identifying who the top players are, rather than a "top ten", basically it's like a character tier list vs a character top 5 list. A top 5 list is useless because you can have 7 characters that are equally as good, and you'll inevitably be ranking 2 lower than they should.

A real problem would happen if you have the best top 8 players, with 4 not-so-great in between. That's when you get pools with multiple top 8 players, and others without any top players at all.

The margin of error is further brought down, because only a fraction of the top players in a list will be at most regional majors.

So if a list has something like this:

1) Top west coast player
2) Top east coast player
3) Top central states player
4) Top south-east player
5) second best south-east player
6) second-best east coast player
7) second-best central states player
8) second-best west coast player

And let's say the ranking list made a mistake, and the "top" west coast player is actually only "second-best"- That's a massive difference of placement, given one is the top, and the other is 7 spaces down.

But you won't often get east coast players going to west coast regionals. You'll get the west coast guys, and the central state guys at most. So eliminate east and south-east, and the seeding difference now becomes a difference of a mere 3 or so spots, instead of 7 or more.

And this perpetuates itself, as the 1st-placer of a west coast regional, will be closer to the 1st placer of an east coast regional than it is to the 2nd-placer of a west coast regional. The margin of error is CONSTANTLY larger, because the players in-between each other are generally going to be from different coasts.

Most importantly though, this highlights how dangerous it is to discount a regional major because it doesn't have many players. It skews up the padding and will actually harm players who win massively-attended tournaments by grouping them together in pools more often. You could feasibly get the best east coast player in the same pool as the best west coast player.