One HUGE problem with Regional Classifications

[ETC AdmiralAugustus]

Who cares? It's just another stupid list. If you can recollect and categorize your own personal achievements that's all that really matters.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

It's ridiculous to keep saying that the FGC has decided to use this system.

I know that at least 90% of the SoCal fighting game players wouldn't consider themselves the same region as NorCal, and every NorCal MK player that I've met would say the same thing.

I don't know where you got the idea that somehow the entire FGC decided on this.

The FGC hasn't decided.. Some people were satisfied with CEO being an 'East Coast' major, while to other people CEO is a southern tournament and has little to do with the concept of the east coast. Likewise some people complain about both NCR and SCR both being on the road to EVO when they're in the same state, while to other people they're as seperate as UFGT and NEC.

People are far from decided; but 1 person alone cannot resolve those questions, and it's something that has to be worked out as a community. Many people do not agree.

I'm still not sure why this is hard to comprehend.

 

[EGP Wonder_Chef]

The FGC hasn't decided.. Some people were satisfied with CEO being an 'East Coast' major, while to other people CEO is a southern tournament and has little to do with the concept of the east coast. Likewise some people complain about both NCR and SCR both being on the road to EVO when they're in the same state, while to other people they're as seperate as UFGT and NEC.

People are far from decided; but 1 person alone cannot resolve those questions, and it's something that has to be worked out as a community. Many people do not agree.

I'm still not sure why this is hard to comprehend.

So if the "region" system isn't something that's widely accepted by the community, then why are you using it?

Why not use an objective system like one based on distance?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

So if the "region" system isn't something that's widely accepted by the community, then why are you using it?

Why not use an objective system like one based on distance?

Why are you asking me? Until we can have two tournaments in Texas that are considered to be in seperate areas of the country, then to unilaterally declare that regions are meaningless, doesn't make sense. It may be your personal opinon (El Paso and Dallas are over 550 miles apart), but it doesn't line up with how people are dividing FGC players; which means that it's a broader issue that needs to be discussed as a community before you completely do away with the norm.

As of now FGC players are dividing themselves into regions in a way that's not strictly mathematical. It's a broader argument that goes beyond one system.

 

[4x4lo8o]

CrimsonShadow, can explain exactly how the system works in regards to how location and players travelling to the event affect the tournaments status? Did Wonder Chef characterize it accurately in the first post?

 

[EGP Wonder_Chef]

Why are you asking me? Until we can have two tournaments in Texas that are considered to be in seperate areas of the country, then to unilaterally declare that regions are meaningless, doesn't make sense. It may be your personally opinon, but it doesn't line up with how people are dividing FGC players; which means that it's a broader issue that needs to be discussed as a community before you completely do away with the norm.

See again, why do you think that this system is "the norm"?

Nobody that I know uses for anything technical, it's just a very vague way of saying where things are.


Like I said, no TO's seed players from the same "region" apart. There's no way in hell that I would get seeded away from NorCal or Vegas (even if I wish I was.)

 

[CrimsonShadow]

See again, why do you think that this system is "the norm"?

Nobody that I know uses for anything technical, it's just a very vague way of saying where things are.


Like I said, no TO's seed players from the same "region" apart. There's no way in hell that I would get seeded away from NorCal or Vegas (even if I wish I was.)

I'm not sure where I stated that players are seeded that way; if you can find it, let me know. However, with regard to tournaments themselves, it's pretty clear that people classify tournaments as being in regions based on their rough locations, and the recent EVO drama is proof of that.

It's fine to disagree; but it's an issue that needs to be taken up with the broader community. If you didn't have a problem with Cali having SCR and NCR on the road to EVO while Florida was cited as east coast representation, because to you NCR and SCR is no different than UFGT and SCR, a lot of people would disagree. So again; it's a broader topic about the way people view tournaments and regions, and it needs to be approached that way.

 

[SatsuiYesHadou]

First thing chef made clear is this isn't a flaming and first thing that is responded is its a personal attack? Ooookaaaay.

 

[McNasty]

that map that Tolkeen posted seems legit.

Chef its 8 hours from washington roughly to norcal as well. Were in the same region. Deal with it. This is like me wanting a few eastern washington players to be seeded seperately just cause they drove 5 hours accross the state.

 

[4x4lo8o]

that map that Tolkeen posted seems legit.

Chef its 8 hours from washington roughly to norcal as well. Were in the same region. Deal with it. This is like me wanting a few eastern washington players to be seeded seperately just cause they drove 5 hours accross the state.

It's not like that. That doesn't even make sense, being 5 hours away from you is an argument against being seeded separately.

The way the system's set up now a tournament in Northern California that had players come from Washington, SoCal, Vegas, and Arizona could potentially be considered to not be a major because everyone who attended was from the same 'region', even though most of the players there are from completely separate scenes and would consider themselves to have travelled.

 

[McNasty]

It's not like that. That doesn't even make sense, being 5 hours away from you is an argument against being seeded separately.

The way the system's set up now a tournament in Northern California that had players come from Washington, SoCal, Vegas, and Arizona could potentially be considered to not be a major because everyone who attended was from the same 'region', even though most of the players there are from completely separate scenes and would consider themselves to have travelled.

Oh well shit then in that case nothing but evo will be a major lol.

 

[ETC AdmiralAugustus]

According to that map I'm not associated with North and South Dakota.

fuckyes.gif

I would still consider MT to be part of the NW FGC, though.

 

[Sultani]

I'm really, really disappointed in this Chef.. This is 100% untrue and making this a personal attack is unnecessary and unfounded.

If you personally believe that NYC and Florida are East Cost rather than Florida being in the South that's up to you -- but don't make it seem like it's my opinion or something I conjured up yesterday.

Thank you for making a personal attack at me when this community's had it's idea of regions for years. I did not invent 'East Coast', 'West Coast', 'South', 'Midwest', etc.

If you feel that NYC players were wrong for wanting an 'East Coast EVO Qualifier' even though there's one in Florida, you need to take that up with them and the rest of the community -- not me.

I want a MN Evo qualifier even though there's one in.. well, I don't even know where. Chicago? Why doesn't that ever happen? Apparently it's not wrong to want that.

I think his point is that events are used for rankings that supposedly aren't supposed to feature specifically players from one region, when that's obviously happening.

 

[Dramatica]

First thing chef made clear is this isn't a flaming and first thing that is responded is its a personal attack? Ooookaaaay.

So in order to judge the true tone of a message we should only pay attention to the disclaimer in the first line and not the actual words in the body? Sorry but no

 

[EGP Wonder_Chef]

So in order to judge the true tone of a message we should only pay attention to the disclaimer in the first line and not the actual words in the body? Sorry but no

Please explain to me which part of my post was flaming or drama.

It's all a legitimate concern.

 

[Sultani]

The region classification would be less of an issue regarding travel distance if they actually had regional qualifiers at different locations. So someone in MT is considered west region.. So if they drive all the way to socal for a regional qualifier, that qualifier can't be used in the MKI rankings because it features only players from the same region? I'm sorry, but chef is right. That makes no sense at all. If there's a regional classification that is being used that is separate from the US census bureau, then it's made up. If it's made up, I want a north region.

Just have regional qualifiers that aren't always in the same spot so that the seedings and any related system isn't only inclusive of the people who live close enough to go to one. There are entire states assed out of everything because the locations chosen are 8 - 12 hours away at the closest, and that never, ever changes.

There are two separate problems here... The MKI regional classifications are arbitrary, and the static lack of variance in regional qualifier location selection is infuriatingly biased.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The region classification would be less of an issue regarding travel distance if they actually had regional qualifiers at different locations. So someone in MT is considered west region.. So if they drive all the way to socal for a regional qualifier, that qualifier can't be used in the MKI rankings because it features only players from the same region? I'm sorry, but chef is right. That makes no sense at all. If there's a regional classification that is being used that is separate from the US census bureau, then it's made up.

Just have regional qualifiers that aren't always in the same spot so that the seedings and any related system isn't only inclusive of the people who live close enough to go to one. There are entire states assed out of everything because the locations chosen are 8 - 12 hours away at the closest, and that never, ever changes.

Please read this carefully:

I think you may be confused. You wouldn't be excluded from being rated for SCR because you drove from another state. Every region has fairly big tournaments that are in striking distance.

But for a player in the situation you described, the problem arises when you have other players that are able to go to a LOT of tournaments in a particular area. The acutal majors are pretty well orgainized; but with locals, the situation is a problem. For example; if Red Bank Rumble generally has a player driving from another state or coming down from Canada, now East Coast players can gain points from 20 tournaments a year because it's not possible to classify RBR as local if someone random traveled from a couple states to get there.

So what that ends up doing, is skewing things toward the east. That's why it's necessary to have more stringent classifications -- because if each state is its own region, or 4-5 driving hours must be considered a totally seperate region, then a Dallas tournament with only other players from El Paso is 'regional' and the region or state with the most local tournaments is able to pass their players and teams ahead by a marginal amount. In addition, you get tournaments that advertise as majors but end up featuring almost exclusively one team, who ends up occupying 5 out of the top 8 and racking up small wins due to the lack of competition.

Ranking systems are complex and there's a bunch of math involved, so I'm oversimplifying a bit. But know that the overall goal is to keep things as balanced as possible, and that opening the floodgates would actually hurt more people than it would benefit.

So, that's why I said: this is a community issue, and needs to be worked out as a community. And people need to totally consider the implications of each decision.

 

[Dramatica]

I feel like very few understand what the rating system is. I don't want to be too much of a dick, but this thread is nearing Special Education status. If you think that Chef has actually brought up some new, interesting point here, then you are a fool. Yes, it's true not all tournaments have had / will have their results included in the rankings. So????? You think we didn't know this?

Yes, CrimsonShadow is responsible for what ratings *actually appear on the website*. But tournament results are public and available to all, not just Crim. Furthermore, the RATINGS THEMSELVES do not BELONG to Crimson, i.e. anyone else can take the same tournament results and determine ratings that are 100% equivalent. Crim was just the one who chose to grow a sack and put in the work.

The rating system is completely robust. You can add more tournament match results any time you want, new or old. The question just becomes WHETHER OR NOT results will be added based on the characteristics of the tournament.

The OP has NOTHING to do with the Elo ratings. There is no "HUGE problem" with the system. In fact there will NEVER be a problem with the system, because the SYSTEM doesn't give a shit where two people played each other, it only cares about who won.

 

[Dramatica]

And with regards to "PlayerX drove 8 hours to a smallish local and beat a couple dudes but can't get rated for it because it was a local." Sorry, but what do you REALLY expect to be done?

 

[Sultani]

Well, the statement as I understood it was that tournaments that "feature primarily players from the same region" are excluded. If that's not really what it means, and it's more that "locals" are excluded, then that's fine. Because the original statement (which, by the way, was taken here and not from you) suggests that ever travelling across states would have the potential of the tournament being excluded. So I guess I was just misinformed about that.

I care less about MKI than I do about seedings and qualifiers always being in the same spots. I'd like to see a list of where qualifying events are held compared to a list of where each of the top ranked players is from. I can't say for certain, but I would definitely hypothesize that every single one of the top ranked players lives less than a couple hours away from a venue that's seen multiple big events. If that is actually true, then my point stands about the location selection of big regionals. There hs never been a qualifying event within 9 hours of where I live. That doesn't automatically mean I suck at the game.

I guarantee there are ridiculously good players that no one ever heard of because there simply aren't majors ever held close enough to where they live. "Within Striking distance" is subjective. 9 hours isn't close enough, when other people have the opportunity to travel like 2 hours or less for mutliple events in the same year.

I know that's not your fault or problem, but I'd just thought I'd mention it.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I care less about MKI than I do about seedings and qualifiers always being in the same spots. I'd like to see a list of where qualifying events are held compared to a list of where each of the top ranked players is from. I can't say for certain, but I would definitely hypothesize that every single one of the top ranked players lives less than a couple hours away from a venue that's seen multiple big events. If that is actually true, then my point stands about the location selection of big regionals. There hs never been a qualifying event within 9 hours of where I live. That doesn't automatically mean I suck at the game.

I hear you, but that's not what actually happens. In practice, the top players are more likely to travel. So while a normal person may attend a couple of tournaments a year, and generally go to things closer to where they live, these guys will attend more than just events in their area. So by lowering the qualifications, instead of you being able to get closer to them, they actually end up farther away from you because they went to a bunch of (now ranked) decent sized local tournaments, that mainly featured one team's players as the top X, in addition to the multiple majors they fly out to every year.

Think of how many RBR and BnB-style events are held each yeah, and other team-ish tournaments that attract a few people from other states.

So what you're suggesting actually makes the gap to players in less common areas bigger, rather than smaller.

 

[miloPKL]

the only problem with the rankings is people taking it seriously

 

[Sultani]

I hear you, but that's not what actually happens. In practice, the top players are more likely to travel. So while a normal person may attend a couple of tournaments a year, and generally go to things closer to where they live, these guys will attend more than just events in their area. So by lowering the qualifications, instead of you being able to get closer to them, they actually end up farther away from you because they went to a bunch of (now ranked) decent sized local tournaments, that mainly featured one team's players as the top X, in addition to the multiple majors they fly out to every year.

Think of how many RBR and BnB-style events are held each yeah, and other team-ish tournaments that attract a few people from other states.

So what you're suggesting actually makes the gap to players in less common areas bigger, rather than smaller.

Yes, they will attend more than just events in their area. That's aside from the fact that first there are events in their area where there are not events in other areas. I've inferred from this that what you mean by getting closer to them is in terms of points towards a seeding or rankings, not related to travel distance. In that case, sure I can see how previously unqualified events would further the gap because those localized events they attend would now count due to the lowering of the standards. I get that, but that's not what I'm saying. Sorry if that's not what you were implying; the point was more that events held in the midwest, which require no lowering of standards (like any event held in Chicago or FF), to which they'd likely travel anyway had it been held somewhere else for once, are in a static location that always excludes players. I'm just saying that it wouldn't have any impact on the gap whatsoever to hold one of these events in a different state. Like if FF were in MN for example instead of Detroit (I think that's where it was).

Lowering the standards of qualifying events isn't the same thing as having dynamic locations for events that were qualified anyway, the latter being what I think makes the most sense. I guess reading between the lines reveals a shameless lobbying for a major in MN instead of always having it at the some spot - an idea that doesn't have to be exclusive to the region. I'm not lobbying to have our little local scene count towards seeding points. I'm just saying that events that already do count don't HAVE to be in the same spot every single year.

Now, in terms of "lowering the qualifications," what exactly are the qualifications? Apparently it's not participant travel from outside of the state in which it's held, nor is it who is actually participating. So, why does an event on the east coast with a few players travelling in from other states sometimes qualify, but other times it's considered a local event where counting it towards seedings would be considered a "lowered qualification?" It seems to me that there is no real basis for determining the qualifications other than prior knowledge that a particular event is in fact a qualifier. So what would the impact be to having a pre-scheduled, determined qualifying event, announced at a location that is different than the last 724723 times? Aside from continually choosing to exclude the same areas, the answer is nothing. The only reason "less common" areas are less common is because of the static venues. I think I've stated this enough times to have made my point.

Relating what I'm saying to what actually happens isn't really possible, since static locations are the reality. Consequently, there's no basis for assuming that in practice, altering locations for yearly pre-scheduled events would have any impact on the "gap." There would obviously be backlash from people who live near the static venues who would say things like, "that's dumb this is the only time I get to play in a major blah blah blah." Stating such things in complete ignorance of the fact that there are entire states of players who have never gotten to. The power gaming elite and the areas of people who live near major event venues aren't the only ones who play video games.

x5iVE_STAR - rankings don't matter. Events that accumulate seeding points do.

 

[SatsuiYesHadou]

So in order to judge the true tone of a message we should only pay attention to the disclaimer in the first line and not the actual words in the body? Sorry but no

I'm a teenager trust me I know how to judge a message. Sorry but sonya voice yaaaaa