EPTI know its tough to add, but it's too big of an indicator of skill to overlook.
Introducing the SC2 World Ranking - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
I know its tough to add, but it's too big of an indicator of skill to overlook. | ||
|
minilance
Canada500 Posts
| ||
|
TeMiL
Peru545 Posts
| ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On August 07 2012 23:05 Metalteeth wrote: 3) To people complaining about the tournament ratings, some of it is valid, some of it is useless: "I don't like the point values!" Well that is nice, what would you change? It seems most people think GSL should be worth more. But as someone said in here, if it gets too high, the system will overvalue mid-level Koreans who do well in GSL and nothing else. But too low, and GSL success isn't worth the difficulty that is has. What I'm thinking is bump GSL up to 4000 points for winning it. Keep MLG/IPL/Dreamhack/ASUS/IEM WC/etc (the non-GSL Grand Slams) at 2000. Drop IEM tour stops to 1500. Increase last year's Dreamhack 8 person invites to 1500. Keep everything else the same, for now. "Overvaluing" mid-level Koreans isn't possible - if you're in Code S, you're essentially guaranteed to be better than all but one of the players not in the GSL. It's these very same "mid-level Koreans" that dominate foreign events when the top ones don't go. Violet and Puma in the top 10 rather prove that. | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
| ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
On August 07 2012 23:46 NightOfTheDead wrote: GSL should bear double if not triple weight, no offense but Killer(Chille) was never better than Squirtle in a year. That was before regression. Killer (Chile) had last years Latin American BattleNet Invite, some IEM success, then he won WCS Chile and WCS South America. Those last two were 1500 points. | ||
|
Aeceus
United Kingdom1278 Posts
| ||
|
FireFish
Denmark228 Posts
 | ||
|
X3GoldDot
Malaysia3840 Posts
| ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
| ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
1  MC 9860.602  DongRaeGu 9321.963 Stephano 6354.384 MarineKing 5889.535  Mvp 5561.026 MMA 5444.667 TaeJa 4881.378 Violet 4204.429 PuMa 4064.2310 Nerchio 3681.95 | ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
This whole thread is moot anyways. We all know its the TL Power Rank that really matters.  | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
I just feel like the ranking loses any meaning past the top handful of players that can play in GSL and foreign tournaments. Mana is ranked higher than Nestea, even though Mana hasn't competed in gsl and nestea rarely leaves korea. The purpose is to determine who is playing objectively better at that moment, but these come down to your subjective relative weighting. That said, I think a ranking system like this is awesome to have. It'd be really cool to have a #1 ranking that players strive for that actually means something, and tournaments could start using it for a more fair seeding system. It would be cool to see who's really the top foreigner according to the stats, and there could be interesting storylines like Roger Federer at Wimbledon a few weeks ago reclaiming his world #1 ranking. Imagine Mvp winning another GSL to get back on top after a year of struggle with his wrists. Imagine the excitement when some no-name upsets the #1 ranked player in straight sets (a la Bisu over sAviOr). | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
I understand rankings in other sports work similarly in the sense that a player can forgo practice or rest to participate in more competitions in an attempt to bolster ranking. But the situation for SC2 is way more extreme and I believe impossible to solve. | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34495 Posts
| ||
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 08 2012 00:17 Metalteeth wrote: Ok, made some changed. Added a regression (see a previous comment for the formula, go Gaussian statistics!), and changed around some of the tournament values. GSL got a boost, IEM was dropped a little. Please see OP for full everything, but here is a revised Top 10. 1 MC 9860.60 2 DongRaeGu 9321.96 3 Stephano 6354.38 4 MarineKing 5889.53 5 MVP 5561.02 6 MMA 5444.66 7 Taeja 4881.37 8 viOLet 4204.42 9 PuMa 4064.23 10 Nerchio 3681.95 looks a bit better than before! :D | ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
The different tournament formats should also make a difference in the way points are allocated. For example, knockouts are usually thought to be more difficult than group stages, while the presence of a loser's bracket allows second chances (leniency). Going undefeated in a 64-man seeded knockout tournament is harder than a 2-groupstage then knockout tournament, which I think is again more difficult than a tournament with loser's brackets. Of course this is again opinion; there must be a way to determine how these tournament formats make a difference to difficulty. Anyway, as for a better way to determine points... These things should matter: Difficulty of player pool (while this is subjective, giving a difficulty range should be enough to mitigate most opinion) Size of player pool Size of prize pool Estimated viewership numbers (again in a range rather than specific) Subjective Prestige (hard not to consider this) Invite only or Qualifiers (invite only should matter less, imo) Regional Difficulty Quotient (sorry, not all regions are equal) There are probably more. I am typing this in the middle of a hurricane so I am too bothered to try to make it more detailed T_T | ||
|
Freeze967
United States230 Posts
| ||
|
ZXRP
South Africa114 Posts
This makes much more sense than the blanket assignment of weights to a tournament, especially when one considers that the same tournament could differ greatly in the strength of its participants over several seasons. A salient point here is that, if one trusts the ELO enough to assign the tournament value based off of it, then why not simply use the ELO in the first place to determine rankings? I would argue that we should stick to the ELO system, although I believe we should amalgamate the "international" and "korea" list to have one, unambiguous reference for who is the current best player. As a last remark, it could be argued that one should have different ELO "types" based on the type of tournament held. For instance, chess has different rankings for different time controls. The classical time control ELO differs from the rapid and blitz lists - although the intersection is clearly non-zero. The SC2 equivalent of classical time controls might be something like the GSL, where one has no less than one week to prepare for each match. The equivalent of rapid time controls could be something like an MLG, where one has hours (or indeed even minutes) to prepare. tl;dr - The Chess system is a better model for SC2 rankings than the Tennis model. | ||
| ||
