How good of a player is Wafflez or Tom Brady according to NFG? Riu48? Winter warz. Woundcowboy?
I hear you. Here's the point you missed though:
What you're not taking into consideration is that just because the Patriots are only 7-7 over the past few years doesn't mean their rank will become lower when compared to the rest of the NFL teams. A team like Buffalo who hasn't even made the playoffs isn't going to be close to them and all of the other teams who have made the playoffs but lost in the first two rounds will be lower as well. The only teams that are going to be ahead of the Patriots are the teams who are currently performing better in the postseason over the past 5 years such as the Giants. The rankings of individual players on this list will be based on how they've played over the past 5 or so majors and as the players go to more majors they will move up and down accordingly. Michelangelo used to be a great MK player and won a major or two but that doesn't mean he is performing better over the past year than REO just like the Patriots aren't performing as well over the past 5 years as the Giants. Its all based on what you consider to be current. If you are looking at the past year or the past 3 years, their will be a substantial change in each player's ranking on the list.
I hear you, but here's the point you missed:
If that's the standard by which tournaments are seeded than nearly all majors tournaments are unfair. If we use that metric, seeding for EVO is unfair, seeding for MLG was unfair, seeing for FR was unfair, seeding for SCR was unfair. You name a tournament, and if they had to have control over the seeding for all tournaments considered in their rankings to be fair, then they weren't.
If you showed up to Columbus, you were 'at the mercy of the TO'. No way around it.
So... 2 things we can do:
1) Don't seed tournaments, ever. Because seeding in general is an 'unfair' process given that we don't have complete control over every factor that leads to every win/loss of the people we're seeding.
-or-
2) Use the best system we can; put as much *complete* info in it as we can, and continue to make it better over time.
I can tell you which one of those two options makes more sense to me. All I'm saying is, if you use this same criticism and look at how tournaments are beeing seeded on the whole right now.. They all break down in flames a lot worse than MKi
I'm not sure what that sentence even means, but the list isn't 'acting' as anything. It's a list of how people have done vs. each other in tournaments. I included specific ones, explained why those tourneys are included on the website, and will continue to include as many events as I can that fit the qualifications.
I'm sorry that bringing up legitimate issues with a system deserves mockery. Good to know the staff is looking out for the populace.
What's there to look out for? You're putting words into Crimson's mouth, being hypocritical in your arguments, and were very disrespectful to him earlier in this thread. Don't involve the staff in a problem you've got with me personally just because your skin is paper thin.
No, but claiming NFG works better than this system does. There has always been flaws with that(Not to mention it only has a top 20, while this has data for more than 20 players)
It's not that -- it was that you didn't bring up the far more legitimate issues with every other system currently used to seed and rank players. If you apply the same measuring stick to them all, it's hard to argue that they aren't far worse.
If your opinion is that MKI is less accurate than NFG I point you to the following update:
Sounds like *somebody* has a poopy diaper!
Sounds just like when Tom didn't shake *your* hand!
Hey man, that still hurts my feelings. What I wouldn't give to feel the warmth of the Alice's hand... ;_;
