|
Some of you may know that we released a website a couple of weeks ago with a progamer ranking as well as several statistic subpages about balance, prizemoney distribution etc. (SC2Charts.net).
In the post that I created on TL about it the question was raised whether top tournaments like MGL and GSL should be awarded with more ranking points if a player is able to perform well in them. There have been a couple of pros and cons but as the topic itself doesnt really adress the issue I wanted to have these ideas in a separate thread as I'd love more opinions on the matter.
Poll: Should matchwins in major tournaments be given more points?? Yes, there should be an emphasize on major tournaments in the ranking (218) 81% No, one should treat all matches the same for the ranking (50) 19% 268 total votes Your vote: Should matchwins in major tournaments be given more points?? (Vote): Yes, there should be an emphasize on major tournaments in the ranking
(Vote): No, one should treat all matches the same for the ranking
Here are two of the posts mentioned:
Primadog:- There lacks existing, community agreed upon definition of major/minor tournaments. The closest of which is the BIG EVENT calender on TL. Frankly, even that is rather a crap-shoot.
- I been keeping an eye on the TLPD Elos closely for the past few months, and noticed that the Elo values have tendency to precede reputation and major tournament wins, especially in the EU arena, where weekly cups are much more prolific. I suspect the same pattern can be observed even more clearly with this improved algorithm.
The discrepency between korean and foreigner rating are as much result of regional isolation as the simple lack of recorded games in the Korean side. There's still only 2 major tournaments (GSTL or GSL) for a korean player to participate in, so if they're knocked out early, that's it for datapoints for a month.
- No amount of weighting will resolve this clear lack of data from the Korean side. Giving greater weight to GSTL and GSL will not give a cleaner rating, but instead magnify the variance that is already fairly terrible, nature intrinsic to the Korean arena. This is a mathematical limitation inherent to any ordering problem, as we learned information theory 101.
Redemption:
Well, the only reason I brought that up is that I assumed the larger, more prestigious tournaments have more money on the line and more publicity (huge audiences watching you play live), and as a result, there is more pressure on the player to perform. I feel that the players that do perform well under this type of environment should be rewarded more for their victory than someone that wins a small $100 online tournament from the comfort of his bedroom while wearing nothing but his underwear and munching on a bag of Doritos.
To go back to my tennis analogy, there's no reason to think players are not playing as hard in the smaller Masters Tours compared to the Grand Slams. They play their heart out every match. But everyone recognizes the huge size, prestige, and monetary compensation associated with the Grand Slams, and so they are weighted more.
I would love if we could gather some additional opinions on that topic. In general it should be no problem to adjust the algorythm so that for example tournaments with a certain amount of prize money (10.000?) would be weighted higher than others. The main question is would that make sense to you and be preferable to the current solution?
Kind regards, Khaldor
|
Hey Khlador! I'm that guy who responded to you on Twitter on like the first day SC2Charts was released! Back then I seriously questioned its accuracy, but looking at it now it seems to be more realistic.
Primadog's a genius when it comes to stats, so I'd really value whatever he says. The only serious advice I could offer, is based on what the Charts are like now.
The Top 6 seem very accurate, if not for their order. I was surprised to see NesTea come in at No 6, especially since anecdotally at least people always claim he's probably the best player in the world.
Not sure what MarineKing is doing up so high. How long of a memory does SC2Charts have? If this was like three months ago then MarineKing would certainly be in the Top 10, but at the moment he's still in Code A.
From all this, I dunno: my only suggestion would be to look at how long the Charts "remember" games. How much is, say, a GSL win from May worth compared to a GSL win in July?
|
Well, the games that are taken into consideration are all the games in our database (which is quite a lot and dates back to the beta). Players lose points over time if they dont play, very slowly though in order to keep a fair balance.
If you want to see why Marineking has so many points right now just click on his name and you can check his latest results. If you are interested you can even list all the results of all the games hes ever played in tournaments/events that are in our database. Nestea has won a lot of games but most of them were again supposedly "weaker" players than for example the opponents Puma and DRG hat to face lately. That's why he's not #1.
Nonetheless I hope we can focus on the topic I adressed in the opening post. I can clearly seen why people would want to emphasize big tournaments by weighting them over smaller ones but I'm still undecided in whether it'd be a good thing to do or not. Any additional input is more then welcome.
|
I'd say that as long as you're weighting the value of a win by the opponent, then it doesn't really matter what the context is. For example, beating Bomber in some little tournament seems (to me) as valuable as beating Bomber in a big tournament.
Winning a big tournament is more valuable that winning a small tournament, but that will already be reflected in the quality of the individual opponents. So, as long as tournament finishes aren't a separated category for the rankings (which my small understanding of the system says is not the case), I'd say you should not weight games by the tournaments in which they take place.
|
Absolutely GSL, MLG, etc should be weighed more heavily than small online weekly cups. There's a reason why we call SC2 an e-sport, and it's not just vanity or hype. Being able to win games in the comfort of your own bedroom is not the same thing as winning tournaments in a foreign country where hardly anyone speaks your language, big money on the line, jet-lagged 8 times zones, with opponents guaranteed to be using their best strategies, several cameras in your face and hundreds of fans watching in the same building. I could care less if you can beat Nestea on ladder 7 times out of 10 or win $100 dollar cups that nobody watches, your status as a progamer depends on whether you can do it when it counts.
|
On September 04 2011 14:47 red4ce wrote:
Absolutely GSL, MLG, etc should be weighed more heavily than small online weekly cups. There's a reason why we call SC2 an e-sport, and it's not just vanity or hype. Being able to win games in the comfort of your own bedroom is not the same thing as winning tournaments in a foreign country where hardly anyone speaks your language, big money on the line, jet-lagged 8 times zones, with opponents guaranteed to be using their best strategies, several cameras in your face and hundreds of fans watching in the same building. I could care less if you can beat Nestea on ladder 7 times out of 10 or win $100 dollar cups that nobody watches, your status as a progamer depends on whether you can do it when it counts.
All well and good, but I don't think the assumptions of this post are correct. Ladder games don't go into rankings, and players like NesTea don't populate the little tournaments.
|
Winning the GSL is much harder than winning anything else, and this is already taken in account in the algorythm. Not the GSL itself, but you won't find the same level nor quantity of super strong players anywhere else, so, not directly, but I believe this factor is already being considered. In short, if you win a weakly cup by defeafing the same players that Nestea does on the GSL, it SHOULD grant you the same points. And btw there is the money factor, which is already considered on the money ranking, plus the Live TV factor, which I have no idea how to consider; perhaps a 0.8 to 1.2 corrective factor with 1.2 being a GSL live event and 0.8 being an offline unknown tourney.
|
On September 04 2011 14:38 Wren wrote:
I'd say that as long as you're weighting the value of a win by the opponent, then it doesn't really matter what the context is. For example, beating Bomber in some little tournament seems (to me) as valuable as beating Bomber in a big tournament.
Winning a big tournament is more valuable that winning a small tournament, but that will already be reflected in the quality of the individual opponents. So, as long as tournament finishes aren't a separated category for the rankings (which my small understanding of the system says is not the case), I'd say you should not weight games by the tournaments in which they take place.
I don't agree. Just for example, Bomber on Friday played Lucky, and clearly screwed around a lot of the game and didn't really care as the game meant nothing to them. They had already qualified for the playoffs. Are you telling me that win, where Bomber clearly wasn't playing his best in an unimportant match, should be worth as much as beating Bomber in a GSL Final?
|
You should weight the points according to the general level of the participating players.
E.g. if there are a lot of good players in a tournament, a win should count higher.
|
You need to define major tournaments by prize pool if you do this. MLG circuit tournaments should NOT count as a "major tournament". Though this year's championship should.
|
My suggestion is as follows:
I think if you weight anything more... you should weight in person matches a bit more.
For example, maybe a game is worth 100% weight when played. But, if the game is played in person (DreamHack, NASL Championship, MLG, GSL, HomeStoryCup, and so on) then the game is worth 110% of normal weight.
The reason I say this is because there is relatively little lag factor and is more of a judge of skill.
Edit: And for major tournaments. I would consider the following as Major:
GSL Code S
GSL Code A
Blizzcon
TSL
NASL
MLG Events and Grand Finals
DreamHack
IEMs
HomeStoryCup
IPL
|
Yes, big tournaments should be weighted stronger than other tournaments.
The ones directly coming to my mind is the following which always have fantastic competition is the following: IPL, MLG, NASL, DreamHack, Assembly, Blizzcon, IEM, HSC, GSTL, GSL and TSL.
Regarding prize money I think you should manually decide tournaments based on competition+prize money. If you only look at prize money MLG Pro Circuit may not be included but as we know the competition there are one of the best in the world.
|
I have a question, is there a way to define a "major" tournament by the number and quality of participants? Like if the tournament reaches a minimum threshold of participants, and the combined or average ELO of the players was above a certain value, than maybe it should be considered major.
For example, the HD World Tournament players probably have a high ELO average, but the tournament doesn't have enough participants to be considered major.
|
I think a quick and easy definition of a "major tournament" would be that it satisfies two of these three requirements:
1. The prize pool is above $20.000
2. The tournament contains at least 3 players from NA, 3 players from EU and 3 players from KOR.
3. The tournament is played "offline", i.e. at a lan, arena or similar location.
That definition would make it include every event that I would consider major. The GSL is included even though there might not be American or European participants every season. TSL is included even though it isn't an offline tournament. MLG is included even though the prize money is lower than other major tournaments.
|
Yeah, I agree in having "majors" because then we can create the idea of a "grand slam" like in golf or tennis and I think that those should be weighted with a little more points just because the level of competition will be greater, but you must define those terms first. I don't know how we can create those definitions without some sort of league or governing body though, as in tennis.
Without that body, the idea of the "major" is too subjective and subject to change.
|
Do it like they do with FIFA ranking for international soccer, you get a certain amount of points based on who you beat, although there are too many players and games that it would be next to impossible to rank and record every single player. A player who gets X amount of points for winning a european tournament while another gets the same X amount of points for winning a korean tournament is obviously imbalanced. Although europe is good, winning something in korea is obviously much more difficult and therefore should give more points. Same goes with winning in MLG, when only 10 koreans show up and you only play 2 koreans to win, it just isn't the same as someone beating 6 koreans to win the GSL. If you wanted to do it for those who play in the GSL and GSTL and only those who make it into code A get points recorded that is somewhere to start.
To the point of those in GSL/GSTL not getting that many points because if they lose in Ro32 they will fall drastically behind, isn't that the point? Obviously from the korean point of view, beating a foreigner is much less of an accomplishment than another korean because of the skill level difference at the moment. I just don't see it being able to be measured on any scale that matters because you can have a player stay in NA and win literally everything with no koreans in it have a very high rating because he never loses. Not playing against the best don't deserve the same points.
To the exact point of more points for the prize pool, it kinda goes back to the same thing. The Dota 2 tournament had a 1 million dollar prize pool, if this ever happened for StarCraft is the player that wins that the #1 forever? If it is a tournament for 50$ but it has every good korean playing in it, it deserves more points than a stupid little NA only tournament for 10,000$.
Sorry for vomit thoughts on page, just seems too difficult to create a fair ranking system in the current scheme of things as it is such a wide spread game.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
I agree with Primadog. I think that a ranking that highly rates major tournaments wouldn't be useful, because it would largely parrot what the community thinks about various players. Because more people watch the bigger tournaments, the results from these tournaments have a huge impression on who the community believes are the best players. But this does not usually reflect reality.
I think he's is right to point out that the TLPD ELO's often predict up-and-coming players before the community becomes aware of them. Any good ranking should have this same effect. Before a player becomes commonly regarded as among the elite, they are first noticed by the statistics and people who are closer to the scene. A ranking that doesn't do much but reflect what the community at large thinks isn't too helpful.
EDIT: To the poster below me:
On September 04 2011 17:48 J.E.G. wrote:
bigger tourny's bring better players. If you are beating better players, you should get more points.
This isn''t really the case though. Some European online tournaments have insanely strong pools, and even low money weekly events generally have at least a couple elite EU players.
|
bigger tourny's bring better players. If you are beating better players, you should get more points.
|
Weigh the average skill level of the tournament participants when determining rank value. You could rank every tournament individually or separate them into tiers based on participant skill level. All things being equal, bigger tournaments will tend to have higher skill level participants. It follows then that these tournaments should matter more for ranking.
|
If Machine beats Artosis in a major tournament such as the NASL, should he be awarded more points than DIMAGA beating Socke in a minor EU cup?
From the responses it seems by "major tournament" you mean GSL only. There is really no need to do this, if in the future there is more interaction between koreans and foreigners, and the koreans are much better than the foreingers, the ranking system will reflect this without artificial inflations. If the korean scene gets more and more isolated then there is no point in a combined rating system.
|
The only thing that should matter is your win loss and the win loss of your opponent. Where you play, and for how much money shouldn't matter.
If some no name suddenly started winning every online tournament against the world's top players, but couldn't go to GSL qualifier or any major tourney's i'd be fine with him being ranked highly in ELO, as long as he was consistently winning his matches.
However, I do believe that a bo7 should be weighted more than 7 single games, since it takes more skill to beat the same player using different builds on multiple maps etc. not to mention fatigue and metagaming in such instances.
|
Can't you make it so you get like a bonus to your ranking if you win an event?
Say you win a KOTH. You get a +.00005 bonus to your ranking.
If you win a MLG. You get a +.001 bonus to your ranking.
If you win GSL Code S. You get a +.05 bonus to your ranking.
Or something like that. Give set bonus points to winning certain events... determine which events should give which points. Then the points gained via the tournament wins would go into the rating used to determine your final ranking.
Such as... (Base Ranking + modifier points)*Rank Adjustment. (not sure on the exact formula you use already).
Thus, you get the normal rating differences for winning versus certain people, but you also get those bonuses also. So if you have generally the same W/L ratio as a similar player but you are a 3 time GSL Code S champion and they never have won one... you would eek ahead based upon GSL championships.
|
On September 04 2011 17:57 Fishgle wrote:
The only thing that should matter is your win loss and the win loss of your opponent. Where you play, and for how much money shouldn't matter.
If some no name suddenly started winning every online tournament against the world's top players, but couldn't go to GSL qualifier or any major tourney's i'd be fine with him being ranked highly in ELO, as long as he was consistently winning his matches.
However, I do believe that a bo7 should be weighted more than 7 single games, since it takes more skill to beat the same player using different builds on multiple maps etc. not to mention fatigue and metagaming in such instances.
Is it the same beating someone in some random online weekly vs in a GSL finals? The situation does matter to a certain degree.
|
On September 04 2011 17:48 J.E.G. wrote:
bigger tourny's bring better players. If you are beating better players, you should get more points.
Yes, the system already gives you more points for beating a better player. What he is asking is if player X beats player Y in a big tourney, should he get more points than if the exact same games were played on some random online tourney?
|
I think it goes without saying that bigger tournaments should be weighed more heavily compared to smaller tournaments.
I'd go even further than that and weigh offline tourneys much more heavily than any online tournament.
|
I would classify majors as such:
North America:
MLG
IPL
NASL
(TSL is certainly a huge foreigner event, but they are just so seldom that I don't think they can be included in something like this)
EU:
IEM
Dreamhack
Korea:
GSL Code S
GSL Code A
But I truly believe there needs to be a separation between Korea and the West in terms of rankings. Right now, while a few foreign players are close to "Korea level" nobody outside of Korea is realistically capable of taking down a top Korean in a best of X.
Maybe its unfair, maybe its bias, but there's a huge gap between top foreigners and top Koreans, and a much, much larger gap between your generic "high level" foreigner and "high level" Koreans.
edit:
And to be clear, I think rating players like this is fucking brilliant. Incredible initiative and I hope more people pay attention to it.
|
On September 04 2011 18:01 theBizness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2011 17:57 Fishgle wrote:
The only thing that should matter is your win loss and the win loss of your opponent. Where you play, and for how much money shouldn't matter.
If some no name suddenly started winning every online tournament against the world's top players, but couldn't go to GSL qualifier or any major tourney's i'd be fine with him being ranked highly in ELO, as long as he was consistently winning his matches.
However, I do believe that a bo7 should be weighted more than 7 single games, since it takes more skill to beat the same player using different builds on multiple maps etc. not to mention fatigue and metagaming in such instances. Is it the same beating someone in some random online weekly vs in a GSL finals? The situation does matter to a certain degree.
I think it shouldn't, as a player should be trying his hardest in any tournament he/she signs up for. This would give players more incentive to play in small weekly cups, and at the same time give the cups more legitimacy since they'll be worth more.
Yes, it may seem like GSL is more important, but if MVP beats Nestea in every bo7 they play, and then in the one televised bo7 they play, Nestea wins, who should be considered the better player?
In my eyes, the one that is consistent. (MVP, in my hypothetical example)
|
On September 04 2011 18:07 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2011 18:01 theBizness wrote:On September 04 2011 17:57 Fishgle wrote:
The only thing that should matter is your win loss and the win loss of your opponent. Where you play, and for how much money shouldn't matter.
If some no name suddenly started winning every online tournament against the world's top players, but couldn't go to GSL qualifier or any major tourney's i'd be fine with him being ranked highly in ELO, as long as he was consistently winning his matches.
However, I do believe that a bo7 should be weighted more than 7 single games, since it takes more skill to beat the same player using different builds on multiple maps etc. not to mention fatigue and metagaming in such instances. Is it the same beating someone in some random online weekly vs in a GSL finals? The situation does matter to a certain degree. I think it shouldn't, as a player should be trying his hardest in any tournament he/she signs up for. This would give players more incentive to play in small weekly cups, and at the same time give the cups more legitimacy since they'll be worth more. Yes, it may seem like GSL is more important, but if MVP beats Nestea in every bo7 they play, and then in the one televised bo7 they play, Nestea wins, who should be considered the better player? In my eyes, the one that is consistent. (MVP, in my hypothetical example)
People respond differently to pressure, and the pressure of a random weekly is not nearly the same as a GSL. If someone wins all the small ones but chokes on the big stage, that should count against him to a certain degree. Losing on the big stage doesn't invalidate his other wins but it is arguably a bigger deal.
|
i am against cause win vs someone in a final not rly need more skill then beat him in semifinal etc
|
you have to keep in mind, that people who only win small tournaments will most certainly only play agains medium skilled players and therefore have a hard time to accumulate ranking points. The ranking already takes the skilllevels of the players into consideration which is why a player winning MLG for example will already gain a lot of points in the process as he has to defeat a lot of high skilled players.
The question is rather if tournaments like MGL and GSL should give the participating players and additional bonus if they are able to perform well. One could for example say that this would only apply to the final grid (excluding the group stage) and only regard tournaments that have at least xx.xxx prizemoney.
|
On September 05 2011 01:39 Khaldor wrote:
you have to keep in mind, that people who only win small tournaments will most certainly only play agains medium skilled players and therefore have a hard time to accumulate ranking points. The ranking already takes the skilllevels of the players into consideration which is why a player winning MLG for example will already gain a lot of points in the process as he has to defeat a lot of high skilled players.
The question is rather if tournaments like MGL and GSL should give the participating players and additional bonus if they are able to perform well. One could for example say that this would only apply to the final grid (excluding the group stage) and only regard tournaments that have at least xx.xxx prizemoney.
They should give bonus points, mainly because some players take certain tournaments more seriously then others. Are there players out there that will take a $100 tournament as seriously as a $100,000 tournament? Maybe, but I doubt the majority of players feel that way.
I used a Bomber example earlier, but another one is Idra and the TL Open yesterday. Do you really think he would have done that same thing in a GSL or NASL Semifinals?
|
On September 05 2011 01:39 Khaldor wrote:
you have to keep in mind, that people who only win small tournaments will most certainly only play agains medium skilled players and therefore have a hard time to accumulate ranking points. The ranking already takes the skilllevels of the players into consideration which is why a player winning MLG for example will already gain a lot of points in the process as he has to defeat a lot of high skilled players.
I think that this is why you can't add adjustments for tournament names. Opponent defeated is a vastly greater indication of skill than tournament finish.
For example, tournaments like MLG have gigantic disparities in difficulty in the route to the finals, so a player who finishes 10th may have actually been a lot more impressive than somebody who beat a bunch of lesser players to be top 4. Not weighting finishes would be the right solution in such a case.
|
I don't know, I've always thought some players are better in LAN environments, some are better preparing for matches and such. Removing this distinction in a ranking system is somewhat arbitrary and makes it lose predictive value. I would probably value placing well in major tournaments a little bit higher, simply because there is more incentive to play your best, so the results should more genuinely reflect real skill.
|
I've never been a fan of adding unneeded subjectivity to systems that work the best on objectivity because people's gut feelings don't like the results.
|
You need to use objective model for tournament ranking, just like you do with players. That can be done with two iterations. First, you assign player ranking within each tournament, like TLPD does. Then you compare the players lists and their rankings across tournaments to form a ranking for each tournament.
When a player does well in tournament A, but not so well in tournament B, it increases the ranking of tournament B, and decreases the ranking of tournament A, and so on.
As an example, Nestea plays mostly in the GSL, but he kind of wins a lot there, and beats people who win other big tournaments. This can contribute to the ranking of the GSL tournament as being higher than other big tournaments. If on the other hand, people who performed poorly in other tournaments were owning the GSL, that would mean the GSL is getting easier than those other tournaments... but so far this scenario doesn't happen much. :}
|
I think if we're going to rank one tournament as 'more important' than another, we need some sort of objective measure of 'importance'. One way to do this, as was previously mentioned in this thread I believe, is average ELO of the players in the tournament.
The problem with this, then, is that tournaments like MLG with hundreds of players will have very few players with insane ELOs, and therefore by this model a win at MLG would be worth less than a win in a small, high-level invitational. A workaround to this is to use the number of players as another measure of the quality of a tournament. With two measures, each of which says something about the importance of winning a given matchup, we can define 'importance' a little more thoroughly.
This way, a large tournament with many great players, like GSL Code S, will have a very high ranking, a tournament like the MLG open bracket with many decent players and some really good players will have a decent ranking, as will a small super-high-level invitational, and we'll judge the 'importance' of the little European cups by who's playing, as well as the size of the tournament. By plugging these variables into the right formula, we can probably get a model with results that everyone can agree on.
I personally think that we should use only the data from specific matchups to determine player skill: if a player beats all the best players in the world, he's probably the best player in the world. However, I admit that this model is based on the assumption that it is just as easy to beat NesTea on the ladder as it is to beat him in the Code S Finals. Someone should ask Day[9] about it.
|
GSL Code S and Code A should be weighed more heavily than other major tournaments such as MLG or Dreamhack. Code S/A showcases players prepared against their opponent, analysed and practiced against the styles of their opponents. These matches should be more valuable than MLG games.
|
well, you could always just have two separate rankings..
|
Definitely, for example in Tennis ranking points are based off tournaments rather than elo points.
Only problem is how to you determine the weight of each tournament objectively?
|
Amount of prizemoney? Would be the easiest way.
|
A more objective way is to combine measures: use prizemoney, ELO of other players, and size of tournament to determine tournament weight. Getting this working could be complicated, though...
|
I think we're approaching tournament prestige in the wrong direction. I'll write more about this later, but here's what I mentioned previously
On September 03 2011 17:43 Primadog wrote:
Re: prestige
In my attempts to find a proper projection algorithm for SC2, I have experimented with several methods to account for tournament prestige. What I learned from these experience is that while certain types of players will play better in different tournament types (large or small, group or elimination, online or offline), these factors do not have a strong effect of the actual player skill rating. They are simply an added variance around the skill curve.
In other word, I find projections becomes more accurate if we disregard tournament type while making a rating calculation, then use that rating and account for for tournament type during the projection phase.
|
I would grant a "bonus" for tournament wins.
How?
Take the avg. ELO of the RO32 and give "bonuspoints" depending on this number. Smaller tournaments with qualifiers could also be judged that way (just take into account the qualifiers).
+ some Bonus for LAN-Events.
Positive:
Even "small but hard" online tournaments would actually be worth much while weak ones wouldn't.
Negative:
You would have to do the math for nearly every tournament.
I would actually completely disregard KOTH's and Showmachtes with low prices as they are prone to become "fungames".
The main problem for me seem to be the different "server cultures"... EU is riddled with small tournaments with very low NA participation, NA seems to have not many small tournaments but a few very big leagues like IPL/NASL (in which Euros are participating)...
BTW: Not taking into account tournaments would be kinda "bad". If your possibly the best player in the world but never win a big tournament and/or do not even place good you obviously shouldn't count as the best player there is...
|
Weighting matches based on the prize money is not a good idea, in my opinion, because there are invitationals with high prize money and invites being send on the basis of popularity, while there are small cups with low prize money but making it to the top there takes a buttload of skill.
(i.e say player a beats player c in an invitational will get more points than player b beating player c in the finals of a small weekly cup)
|
Giving more points to the people in big tourneys would create a false divide between their skill level and the skill level of those who couldn't participate in the tournament. It cement the current GSL players at the top of the ranking, and make it difficult for any player to gain comparable points due to the needless bonus points given. The ranking would become something akin to the MLG brackets, in that for the people already at the top it changes nothing, but it makes it difficult for people to get to their level.
If player X has the same record as Y (same opponents, win/loss, etc) Why should one player have more points just because the other got cheesed out in Code B? The perfect measurement of skill, (your opponents), is already there, and that's what we're judging.
I don't care if our next president is afraid of speaking in public as long as he can do good behind the scenes. Likewise I don't care that MMA chokes under pressure, when we all know that he's a top player in his comfort zone. Starcraft is a competition, and it isn't the player's fault that a crowd is watching and judging their every move, nor is that what they should be judged on.
besides,
The best player will be at the top of the ranking regardless of whether we give extra points to large tournaments or not, since he'll be playing the best players at the big tourneys anyway.
|
I personally like the 'swiss' format for tournaments.
But if they stick to elim then they can award something like:
+3 points for a match win in a Bo3
+1 point if you win a game in a Bo3 (the person that went 1-2 would receive 1 point for winning a game for example)
For Bo5's, that is generally very high, if not the finals, of a tournament so points wouldnt matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
