|
On August 07 2012 14:24 Cascade wrote:
This seems like a great way to complement ELO ratings.
As the sc2 scene is moving a lot faster than the tennis scene, I think having flat weights over a full year is a bit too long. We can see a few players quite high up that haven't done anything noteworthy in a long (by sc2 standards) time. You could make the points decay a bit faster as you suggest, but it will make it less transparent. You will have situation where players will slide away from their first place on a random day between events when their points decayed to much.
Then maybe better to remove points from a tournament when the same tournament runs again. So you lose your GSL points at the next GSL, etc. It makes much more sense in term of defending a championship, and it will make sure positions stay the same between championships. It will still coincide with tennis, as all tennis championships are run annually (right?).
I'm starting to think regression would work, but I don't think removing points when a tournament runs again would work. It becomes too dependent on when the tournament runs, or even if it runs. A time deduction makes the most sense, but like you said, it makes things a bit random. But it works better than anything else, over all events. Maybe do something like past 3 months (still long, but not super long in SC2 terms) is 100%, 4-6 months is 75%, 7-9 months is 50%, and 10-12 months is 25%. It regresses, but I feel like it's too simple in a way...
|
If you want something like ATP its not just weights, there is season it starts in beginning of each year, you start with same number of points but you need to defend titles, depending on that is how much you win/lose, if this system was any good MMA and for example HuK wouldnt be even close to top 10.
EDIT: Then dont do tournament depended but for example every quater of year, you recheck tournaments and update ladders ( if you get what i mean ), maybe this year there are more premium tournaments in one quater, so numbers will change more rapidly.
|
This is a cool idea, and I love anything that gives me a ton of numbers to sort through, but I think you definitely need to make sure you include a regression system. Otherwise this will really lose meaning over time...
|
For balancing the points for each tournament, maybe easier to do like in tennis, and group them up? Just as example:
1. Grand slams: GSL, world championship(?)
10000 points pool
2. majors: MLG, IEM, dreamhack, NASL, ...
4000 point pool
3. minor: MLG arena, ...
2000 point pool
4. regional: ESL weekly, ...
500 point pool
Maybe that will be a bit less confusing than having each event have a unique amount of points. So whenever you watch a NASL, MLG or whatever, you know that you are watching a major, and all have the same value.
|
I think this is a good start, but the system could be a lot more refined. I would love to see you incorporate extra points for defeating other highly ranked players like they do in the ATP, but I imagine that it would be pretty hard to do. I also think you could come up with a better way to assign point values to certain tournaments, rather than choosing an arbitrary number based on your opinion. For example, you could use the size of a tournament, whether it's "open" or not, and the overall prize pool as variables for determining the total "points" awarded for the tournament. The WSOP (professional poker) does something similar to this.
In regards to losing points, I don't think this is necessary. If you attend more tournaments, you have the potential to gain more points...but that's how it is with almost any other sport. Tennis, golf, poker...If you're trying to determine an individual world #1, this is a fair way to do it. No need to deduct points for losses. Why should someone get punished for travelling to an MLG and losing in the 1st round vs. someone who just sat at home and did nothing? Doesn't seem very fair...
|
On August 07 2012 14:31 SRBNikola wrote:
If you want something like ATP its not just weights, there is season it starts in beginning of each year, you start with same number of points but you need to defend titles, depending on that is how much you win/lose, if this system was any good MMA and for example HuK wouldnt be even close to top 10.
EDIT: Then dont do tournament depended but for example every quater of year, you recheck tournaments and update ladders ( if you get what i mean ), maybe this year there are more premium tournaments in one quater, so numbers will change more rapidly.
Thing is, ATP has no regression as far as I can tell. It is simply the past 52 weeks of Tennis, all added up. Granted, they have required tournaments, and if you don't compete (without an injury) you are deducted points.
|
Aren't open seasons counted or something? NesTea has 3 GSLs, that alone should give 9000 pts right?
|
To poster above, no NesTea shouldnt have that much points ^^
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 07 2012 14:36 mordk wrote:
Aren't open seasons counted or something? NesTea has 3 GSLs, that alone should give 9000 pts right?
this is only from last year i think?
|
On August 07 2012 14:36 mordk wrote:
Aren't open seasons counted or something? NesTea has 3 GSLs, that alone should give 9000 pts right?
From the first post: This initial ranking goes from the 2011 Latin American Battle.net Invitational, through to WCS Mexico and ASUS ROG. So here you go, the very first SC2WR Top 10.
NesTea hasn't actually.....done much in tournaments in the past year. His success is over a year ago, so it didn't count.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
|
On August 07 2012 14:33 Cascade wrote:
For balancing the points for each tournament, maybe easier to do like in tennis, and group them up? Just as example:
1. Grand slams: GSL, world championship(?)
10000 points pool
2. majors: MLG, IEM, dreamhack, NASL, ...
4000 point pool
3. minor: MLG arena, ...
2000 point pool
4. regional: ESL weekly, ...
500 point pool
Maybe that will be a bit less confusing than having each event have a unique amount of points. So whenever you watch a NASL, MLG or whatever, you know that you are watching a major, and all have the same value.
The point totals are different, but that is pretty much exactly what I did. GSL at 3000, the other grand slam events at 2000, WCS Continentals at 1000, WCS Nationals/most larger one off tournaments at 500, and small one off tournaments at 250.
However, it sounds like a revised ranking might go something like:
GSL: 5000
MLG, Dreamhack, IPL: 3000
ASUS, HSC, IEM WC, NASL - 2500
IEM Tour Stops, MLG Arena - 2000
WCS Continentals - 1000
Large Non-GrandSlam Tournaments (see Red Bull, Arena of Legends, etc) - 750
WCS Nationals - 500
Small Tournaments - 250
Weeklies would have to be seriously nerfed down to low amounts to not allow a mass buildup of winning easier weeklies to equal a large event.
|
Create a formula for exponential decay so that it reaches 50% in one year.
Here, I'll even do it for you:
Points = (Original Point Value) * 0.99810276865159^(# of days that have passed)
|
Winning a GSL should be worth as much as every other tournament combined. Reaching the quarters is about as impressive as winning any other tournament.
|
Very cool idea, although GSL needs to be weighted a lot higher.
|
On August 07 2012 14:33 Cascade wrote:
For balancing the points for each tournament, maybe easier to do like in tennis, and group them up? Just as example:
1. Grand slams: GSL, world championship(?)
10000 points pool
2. majors: MLG, IEM, dreamhack, NASL, ...
4000 point pool
3. minor: MLG arena, ...
2000 point pool
4. regional: ESL weekly, ...
500 point pool
Maybe that will be a bit less confusing than having each event have a unique amount of points. So whenever you watch a NASL, MLG or whatever, you know that you are watching a major, and all have the same value. I like this idea.
OSL should be grand slam as well :D
|
United States97274 Posts
On August 07 2012 14:43 Entirety wrote:
Create a formula for exponential decay so that it reaches 50% in one year.
Here, I'll even do it for you:
Points = (Original Point Value) * 0.99810276865159^(# of days that have passed)
I agree with this post that some sort of decay should be added in. Isn't that what everyone was complaining about with the MLG rankings from last year? These rankings go back a full year and it looks like if you won 2 or 3 tournaments early on a year ago you are still near or in the top 10 even though you may not be as relevant anymore
|
On August 07 2012 14:43 Entirety wrote:
Create a formula for exponential decay so that it reaches 50% in one year.
Here, I'll even do it for you:
Points = (Original Point Value) * 0.99810276865159^(# of days that have passed)
For example, NesTea's Open Season GSL victory was 632 days ago. (http://www.convertunits.com/dates/from)
Plug it into the formula... His original victory (3,000 points) is now worth 903.4 points. I'm sure someone can come up with a more elegant regression formula
|
|
|
GSL really ought to be worth like 6k winning, 2-3k second. It's so much more important than any other tournament
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
