| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On August 07 2012 14:28 goswser wrote: HAHAHA Mana is higher than nestea. cool points eh? : P I hear Nestea hasn't won much ^^ Just a GSL or two lol WAIT EDIT! IF GSL is 5000, I don't get it... MVP won 4 GSL's meaning 20,000 pts no? that goes for Nestea for 3 and MC for 2 right? | ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
On August 08 2012 11:33 NeMeSiS3 wrote: cool points eh? : P I hear Nestea hasn't won much ^^ Just a GSL or two lol WAIT EDIT! IF GSL is 5000, I don't get it... MVP won 4 GSL's meaning 20,000 pts no? that goes for Nestea for 3 and MC for 2 right? Nestea hasn't done well in the recent past, which is what this measures more. People wanted a regression (until 1 year past the event, when the event no longer adds in), so events further in the past mean less. Same with MVP (except for his latest one). | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
You also don't have Code A qualifiers which are arguably harder than MLG's. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
| ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
On August 08 2012 12:43 CosmicSpiral wrote: The enormous favor given to GSLs is pretty disgusting considering that this system gives no consideration to tournament format (are preparation-based tournaments necessarily worth more than compressed ones?). The point system should also be explained, as the spread seems incredibly random and pointless right now. What do you mean explained? Do you mean the exact reasoning behind the points, or the points themselves. If the second, check the OP. If the first, well it is subjective. I had an initial spread, but changed things around due to feedback. A lot of people think that GSL should be more important than the other events, so I made it so. Any points ranking system will be subjective. I adapted Tennis style points, added in GSL Rankings, and used the base to make points for other tournaments. I know it won't please everyone, but I feel a majority wants GSL ranked higher than the others, seemed to be a pretty clear majority. | ||
|
Niflheim
United States313 Posts
I think your top 10 has decent weight but extending it out to a top 100 is too much of a stretch .. there just isn't enough cohesion among the two scenes for there to be a truely "good" method to rank foreigners and koreans together in my opinion | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On August 08 2012 12:56 Metalteeth wrote: What do you mean explained? Do you mean the exact reasoning behind the points, or the points themselves. If the second, check the OP. If the first, well it is subjective. I had an initial spread, but changed things around due to feedback. A lot of people think that GSL should be more important than the other events, so I made it so. Any points ranking system will be subjective. I adapted Tennis style points, added in GSL Rankings, and used the base to make points for other tournaments. I know it won't please everyone, but I feel a majority wants GSL ranked higher than the others, seemed to be a pretty clear majority. "I wanted GSL to be the top event, since it is most prestigious of all events" is not sufficient reasoning to rate it higher than other events. Premier events are considered more prestigious than majors, monthlies, weeklies, etc. because it is implied that the best competition attends those events even when it is not the case (IEM San Paulo anyone?). Ideally the system would show that GSL has the best competition in the world and not assume it. I think you should just start from scratch, figure out what you want your system to do, and build it around those goals. Feedback needs to be considered, not necessarily accepted. | ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:18 CosmicSpiral wrote: I think you should just start from scratch, figure out what you want your system to do, and build it around those goals. Feedback needs to be considered, not necessarily accepted. Listen, you can think that it needs a change, but don't put words in my mouth. I wanted to make a ranking system based on Tennis, with fixed points for the events based on prestige, and that is what I did. "figure out what I want my system to do?" I can see myself in the short future trying a different variety using the TLPD ELO ranks to determine strength for tournaments, but don't say that I failed what I wanted to do. | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:31 Metalteeth wrote: Listen, you can think that it needs a change, but don't put words in my mouth. I wanted to make a ranking system based on Tennis, with fixed points for the events based on prestige, and that is what I did. "figure out what I want my system to do?" I can see myself in the short future trying a different variety using the TLPD ELO ranks to determine strength for tournaments, but don't say that I failed what I wanted to do. You are making a ranking system for SC2. Why don't you make a ranking system specifically designed for SC2? The tennis scene is very different so the same principles cannot be applied. It's the same reason why a certain chess-based ranking system has failed to reliably rank SC2 players. I bring up the question because there are so many scenarios and problems that are simply not addressed. - What about showmatches? - What about weekly/monthly tournaments? - What about invitationals that are not premier events? - What about qualifiers? - Should team leagues have a different ranking? Should they be included at all? - How do you account for close set/serieslosses? - How do you account for individual runs against top competition that does not result in a high tournament placing? - How do you account for the overall player strength of an individual tournament? - How do you account for sickness, fatigue, injuries, etc. that result in poor placements? - How do you account for matchup strength? - How do you account for monetary issues that limit attendance at premier tournaments? - How do you account for deviations that the system will interpret incorrectly? - What are the obvious problems that the system will create, and how should they be dealt with? | ||
|
pavement ist rad
United States226 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:31 Metalteeth wrote: Listen, you can think that it needs a change, but don't put words in my mouth. I wanted to make a ranking system based on Tennis, with fixed points for the events based on prestige, and that is what I did. "figure out what I want my system to do?" I can see myself in the short future trying a different variety using the TLPD ELO ranks to determine strength for tournaments, but don't say that I failed what I wanted to do. Mate, he's got a point. In "making a ranking system based on Tennis," you haven't necessarily made a meaningful ranking system for SC2. At best, you can only call it "my list of the best players right now." | ||
|
Metalteeth
United States115 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:50 CosmicSpiral wrote: You are making a ranking system for SC2. Why don't you make a ranking system specifically designed for SC2? The tennis scene is very different so the same principles cannot be applied. It's the same reason why a certain chess-based ranking system has failed to reliably rank SC2 players. I bring up the question because there are so many scenarios and problems that are simply not addressed. - What about showmatches? - What about weekly/monthly tournaments? - What about invitationals that are not premier events? - What about qualifiers? - How do you account for individual runs against top competition that does not result in a high tournament placing? - How do you account for the overall player strength of an individual tournament? - How do you account for sickness, fatigue, injuries, etc. that results in poor placements? - How do you account for matchup strength? - How do you account for monetary issues that limit attendance at premier tournaments? - How do you account for deviations that the system will interpret incorrectly? Before you ask questions, please actually read the OP and the thead, most of these questions are answered already. | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On August 08 2012 14:04 Metalteeth wrote: Before you ask questions, please actually read the OP and the thead, most of these questions are answered already. You haven't addressed them. You've dismissed them because you have not figured out how to incorporate them into your system. You even ignore Code A results because "I didn't want to think about how to work that out." Huge essential parts of the SC2 tournament scene have no meaning in your system. | ||
|
xwoGworwaTsx
United States984 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:50 CosmicSpiral wrote: You are making a ranking system for SC2. Why don't you make a ranking system specifically designed for SC2? The tennis scene is very different so the same principles cannot be applied. It's the same reason why a certain chess-based ranking system has failed to reliably rank SC2 players. I bring up the question because there are so many scenarios and problems that are simply not addressed. - What about showmatches? - What about weekly/monthly tournaments? - What about invitationals that are not premier events? - What about qualifiers? - Should team leagues have a different ranking? Should they be included at all? - How do you account for close set/serieslosses? - How do you account for individual runs against top competition that does not result in a high tournament placing? - How do you account for the overall player strength of an individual tournament? - How do you account for sickness, fatigue, injuries, etc. that result in poor placements? - How do you account for matchup strength? - How do you account for monetary issues that limit attendance at premier tournaments? - How do you account for deviations that the system will interpret incorrectly? - What are the obvious problems that the system will create, and how should they be dealt with? Hmm, I agree with you in general, that the point system has some big flaws and that it probably will not get used widely. But I think you are overdoing it a bit when it comes to shoot him down.  He has made a fair try to convert the tennis point system to starcraft, I think that deserves more than this kind of replies.Of course a completely new system for sc2, that perfectly addresses every little detail you can think of would be really sweet, but it doesn't seem to be that easy to design. Which is why we have many different rankings in parallel, like the ELO from TLPD, ladder rankings, sc2earnings, power rankings etc. Unless you have some great idea to solve this problem, I don't feel it is fair to be too aggressive to people that works on new ways to approach the problem. For the list, you are just doing an as long list as possible for the sake of it... Do you for example really need to take teh argument "you need to decide how many, if any, points to give to all the smaller events." and plit it up into the first four points? Why would you treat a close loss any different? Why would you treat an injured player any different? Why would you treat different matchup differently (do you treat left handed players differently in tennis?)? Anyway, I just feel that you add things to the list to make the list long rather than actually trying to say something.But again, I agree with your general standpoint, and imo, the one big insurmountable problem is your third last point (that you list together with all the random ones...). ie that all the best players don't play in all the top tournaments. Which is the one reason that this point system isn't really going to work that well. The second largest issue is that people would have to agree on how to distribute the points among the tournaments, but I think that could be done decently if it were not for the main problem. (Which would be your point 1 to 4 more or less. )The rest of the details you bring up I think could be sorted out, or ignored. If the main problem was not there. edit: oops, do --> don't >_> | ||
|
SlashSP
13 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On August 08 2012 14:06 CosmicSpiral wrote: You haven't addressed them. You've dismissed them because you have not figured out how to incorporate them into your system. You even ignore Code A results because "I didn't want to think about how to work that out." Huge essential parts of the SC2 tournament scene have no meaning in your system. And if you had read the thread, or even gone through the list of points in the OP, you would know that he now does include code A. (But didn't update the OP properly...) 8 pages isn't too much to read if you are going to criticize this hard imo. You really seem to be here just to shoot him down, rather than objectively trying to evaluate the virtues and problems of his calculations. Again, I agree with your general standpoint though. | ||
|
RyLai
United States477 Posts
This system won't work for several important reasons: -There is no organized SC2 system (ATP) -There is no official ruling body for SC2 (ITF, currently, things are handled by negative backlash where tournaments would single-handedly offer up their own punishment and teams and managers would add to that. There needs to be an official UNIFIED ruling body to do this sort of thing, as well as make a standardized set of rules of conduct for both players and tournaments.) -There is no organized calender for events. This is by far the most important factor. Events often overlap with each other or take place one after another. This makes "dominating" the scene on an international level insanely hard, seeing as if you win an event, you have about a day or two to fly over to another part of the world and immediately jump into it. Events are literally spammed because the different groups of interest (IEM, MLG, and GSL) are all fighting for the audience as well as the attendance of professionals. The fact is, if you want a legitimate ranking system, you'd need to get EVERYONE together and have them hammer things out (which I don't ever see happening, seeing how the GSL-MLG partnership really doesn't mean jack squat at this point and IEM isn't even included in it). OR, you can just go with the current system and have the "international" rankings (derived from all non-Korean events) and the "Korean" rankings (based solely on the few Korean events going on). Although, I do have suggestions for how to almost completely clean up SC2, and I've had them for a good while now... (Hell, the ATP and ITF have more or less had it hammered out for the past 40 years.) 1) KeSpa, GOM-TV, MLG, IEM, and ALL OTHER organizations interested in holding PROFESSIONAL SC2 tournaments as well as the professional players themselves (or at least representatives of the players) need to get together and decide a tournament schedule that would work for everyone involved. Some key points would be to REDUCE TRAVEL TIMES for the players (so that travel problems would be mitigated). January-March: US Circuit (MLG). Tournaments will be held around the US, trying to keep to a West to East setup. (So we'd start off with MLG Anahiem then end off with an MLG on the East coast, say, like in New York? Maybe ending with the NASL in NY with top seeds decided by the performance of the players in MLG, with remaining spots given out based on an open tournament.) MLG might have to reorganize themselves for this. Obviously, MLG can't cram all of it's tournaments of numerous different games into a 3 months span. So perhaps they will create some SC2-only events to fit them in, with their events for the remainder of the year being void of Tier 1 SC2 events and holding Tier 2 SC2 events instead (more on that later). April-August: IPL, IEM, Dreamhack, an ESWC I know IPL is in the US, but I see NASL, IPL, and GSL being the biggest events, and having 2 massive events in one section of the year with another section being completely void of one, I though IPL should just be moved back a bit or be moved to take place in Europe. Of course, we can just fly back to the US for IPL, then fly to Korea from there. September-November: KeSpa tournaments followed by an OSL, then the "official world championship of SC2" being the GSL (hell, it's named the GLOBAL SC2 league, let's have GOM take responsibility for that bit and live up to it since we all DO look to the GSL for the best SC2 in the world). After that, we can have an exhibition-type tournament (like Blizzard Cup) with no (or minimal) point rankings due to the small player pool (or we can treat it like the ATP's Year Ending Championships and give it a large pool of ranking points). December: THE PLAYERS NEED A DAMN BREAK! I'd extend it to 2 months or a month and a half if I could, but with KeSpa coming in and more tournaments just popping up, it's hard to really fit everything in. Players SHOULD be allowed time to spend with their families or at the very least have private, uninterrupted practice where they can attempt to make improvements on their play. I also feel that tournaments should be split up into 4 Tiers. Tier 3: Online tournaments, low level, low points gain, frequent (can be daily or weekly), low prize pool. 32 Draw, 64 Draw, 128 Draw, or 256 Draw. Tier 2: Mix of offline/online tournaments (probably primarily online), medium level (up-and-coming players), slightly more points up for grabs, frequent (daily or weekly), slightly larger prize pool. 32 Draw, 64 Draw (max for offline), or 128 Draw Tier 1: Offline (LAN) tournaments, high level (MLG, IEM, KeSpa), large points gain, bi-weekly? weekly? (that's for the Players and tournaments to agree upon), high prize pool. 32 Draw or 64 Draw (excluding qualifiers) God Tier: NASL, IPL, OSL, GSL. Offline, highest level, highest points gain (even amonst the first 3 with GSL having a little bit more), preferably once a season (but like I said, kind of hard to fit it that way), mouth-watering prize pool. 32 Draw, 64 Draw, or 128 Draw (excluding qualifiers; 32 recommended for double elimination, 64 for single elimination) Tournaments of different tiers MAY overlap with each other EXCEPT for Tier 1 and God Tier. This means you can participate in some Tier 2 events as you participate in Tier 1 events if you don't see yourself going far enough in Tier 1 events or don't plan to participate in God Tier events. Most Tier 2 and Tier 3 events won't be heavily streamed and they are mostly played online so it won't matter too much if they overlap, since viewership and travel distance won't be an issue. Blizzard's WCS can be treated like the Olympics of SC2, held once every 4 years, and tournaments can reschedule themselves slightly to make space for the WCS. Tier 3: 10 Points to 1st, 7 points to finalist (2nd), 5 points to Ro4, 3 points to Ro8, 1 point to Ro16 (if 64 Draw or higher) Tier 2: 100 Points to 1st, 70 points to finalist, 50 points to Ro4, 30 points to Ro8, 10 points to Ro16, 5 points to Ro32, 1 point to Ro64 Tier 1: 500 Points to 1st, 350 points to finalist, 250 points to Ro4, 150 points to Ro8, 50 points to Ro16, 25 points to Ro32, 5 points to Ro64 God Tier: 1000 points to 1st, 700 points to finalist, 500 points to Ro4, 300 points to Ro8, 100 points to Ro16, 50 points to Ro32, 10 points to Ro64 Obviously, these numbers are subject to change to suit the needs of the StarCraft 2 World Tour (or whatever they decide to call themselves). 2) The players (and everyone involved in the teams in general - Managers, coaches, etc) need to get together and decide on rules of conduct during games and at live events (like to what limit is BM actually punishable, the boring, yet somehow necessary video/discussion on why cheating/match-fixing is wrong and should never be committed, etc). Then the TOURNAMENTS need to get together and do the same, except for themselves. This will likely deal with rules of operation and dates of operation as opposed to what tournaments shouldn't do and what is punishable. 3) Two organizations need to be made (or more, depending on how you want the governing body of SC2 to be structured). One will manage and control the tournaments, and the other will look to protect player rights and try (as well as punish) any sort of player or tournament misconduct. Basically a financial/governing body and a judicial body. The reason for this is that there have been reports of both players and tournaments who don't pay up. Points from a tournament will last until the that same tournament from the year after is completed. Meaning points gained from GSL 2013 will last until the COMPLETION of GSL 2014. If a player becomes ill or injured, their points upon report of injury shall be recorded, to be used as a "Provisional Ranking" for admission to tournaments (with minimal rank requirements, such as a Tier 1 or God Tier tournament) upon their return to the tour. This "Provisional Ranking", may be used to entry to tournaments equal to once per month missed (meaning missing 1 month allows you to use your Provisional Ranking on your next tournament, and being gone 3 months allows you to use it for the next 3 tournaments; with a maximum of 6). However, standard point loss shall be applied. (So your ranking will reflect your absence on tour, but will not prevent you from playing tournaments you've worked hard to gain access to.) It'd be nice for something like this to be used (the ATP and ITF made it work), but the Koreans currently hold a monopoly on both the best players and most prestigious tournaments (the GSL and soon the OSL). Why should they give that up? For the players? For the viewers? Eff that! Also, since tournaments should ideally be finished in 1 week for Tier 1 events and a max of 2 weeks for God Tier events, it's sort of hard to cram large draw tournaments into that time span (especially for double elimination) while still not overplaying the players. Normally we see a total of 4 matches a day from the GSL. With 6 or 8 casters (or Tastetosis and 2-3 Wolfs), you can fit 3-4 groups of 4 each day. In a 128 Draw SE (single elimination), you can finish the Ro128 and Ro64 in the first 6 days, get Sunday off, then do the Ro16 on Monday, Ro8 on Wednesday, Ro4 on Friday, and Finals on Sunday. Then, you have the predicted "popular" matches (or at least a majority of them) on the free stream, with the rest on pay streams that viewers can sort of tab through to either find their favorite players or favorite matchups. You can have Tastetosis stay on the free streams (so that people are likely to tune in) or torture the freeloaders (myself included) with bad casters (to attempt to give us an incentive to go to the pay streams; though bad casting can ruin a good match from great players). Even doing the group format that we have (hell, the entire current format), we can probably get through things pretty quickly like that. But I would suggest moving Code A BEFORE Code S. That way, we can root for our players as they qualify for the upcoming GSL Code S that will happen immediately after. There are probably some other things I'm missing, but eh... I don't really care all that much anyway. Realistically, like I said, I don't believe any of this will ever be considered by any of the SC2 tournaments or organizations currently at work. I just felt like venting a bit, throwing out a few ideas. Someone would have to take a stand, and that someone needs to be the players. But they can't really afford to give up what they have right now in hopes of something better. We need another BoxeR to step in and change everything. We don't need to get eSports out to the world anymore. We just need to clean it up so that it runs smoothly and efficiently for everyone involved. Of course, copying the ATP's format would be a bit boring. So if anyone else could come up with another, nice, make-believe schedule it'd be cool to look at. Obviously you would want to take into account the convenience of the players as much as possible, because it is them and their skills we are trying to market here.And yeah, it's a messy read, but there's a TON of things that would need to be done before legitimate Global rankings can even be thought of. | ||
|
RyLai
United States477 Posts
On August 08 2012 13:50 CosmicSpiral wrote: You are making a ranking system for SC2. Why don't you make a ranking system specifically designed for SC2? The tennis scene is very different so the same principles cannot be applied. It's the same reason why a certain chess-based ranking system has failed to reliably rank SC2 players. I bring up the question because there are so many scenarios and problems that are simply not addressed. - What about showmatches? - What about weekly/monthly tournaments? - What about invitationals that are not premier events? - What about qualifiers? - Should team leagues have a different ranking? Should they be included at all? - How do you account for close set/serieslosses? - How do you account for individual runs against top competition that does not result in a high tournament placing? - How do you account for the overall player strength of an individual tournament? - How do you account for sickness, fatigue, injuries, etc. that result in poor placements? - How do you account for matchup strength? - How do you account for monetary issues that limit attendance at premier tournaments? - How do you account for deviations that the system will interpret incorrectly? - What are the obvious problems that the system will create, and how should they be dealt with? All very easy to solve... 1) They're exhibitions. Who gives a damn? They're called SHOWmatches for a reason! They play for a bit of money and have some fun. 2 players did a Bo30 showmatch. Can you REALLY say they were being 100% serious? There were some SERIOUS troll builds in that showmatch and it was purely for entertainment purposes. Whether you're serious or trolling, show matches will be entertaining as long as both players are on the same page. 2) Drop them to a lower tier (less points gained). You can easily participate in these tournaments as they are both frequent and online. As such, they have VERY low prestige and priority ratings, and such shall be reflected by lower point gains. 3) Treat them as exhibitions. Honestly, if there are invitationals without a fair and unbiased entry system, then it would basically be like giving free points to inflate the rankings of undeserved players. If it became that invitations would only be given out to the top 8 ranked (or performing) players that accept the invitation, THEN you can allow those tournaments to give out ranking points. However, by doing that, their status changes from "not premier events" to "premier events". However, they can still be JFF (just for fun) tournaments, and if such designation is given, then they will not be allowed to give out ranking points. 4) Qualifier points should be based on the upper threshold of point gain and the level of tournament they grant access to. For example, if the highest possible amount of points you can gain in a tournament (winning the highest points yielding tournament) is 100 points, and the lowest possible gain in that tournament is 5 points, then qualifiers should not give out points except maybe 1-3 points to the top 8 or top 4. If it was instead 10,000 points and the lowest possible gain was 100 points (just by attending), you could probably give out points to most of the top 32 or even top 64. Obviously, those who qualify cannot "double dip" by gaining both points from the main event and qualifiers. For the most part though, I don't think qualifiers should give points unless the points rating system is extremely high or you give out .1 or .01 points for qualifier events. This is probably why the ATP raised it's points threshold from 1000 to 2000 (to make smaller events more distinguishable in terms of points) 5) Team leagues should not be included. This is how the ITF does it. However, a separate ranking can be made for it, though it would be near 100% pointless since there are not enough team events out there yet to really say much about it. I mean, you can basically do it yourself, assigning point values to each result, giving all tournaments the same maximum point values then write your rankings based on that. 6) A loss is a loss. Is this even a serious question? Double elimination formats even give you a second chance against this, which as a tennis player, I am slightly against. Though as a fan that doesn't want my players to be eliminated, I do support it from a viewer's perspective. Results are what matters. Whoever can consistently bring out the best results on the biggest stages cannot be disputed as the #1 player, regardless of what plays he used to get there (cheese or macro), how close his matches were (be it comebacks of his own merit or throws from his opponents), or how many times he BARELY beat players who are arguable "infinitely better players". That person will simply have had a better past 12 months. He posted consistent results and his peers didn't. You can say his peers are better, but under-performing. That happens all the times. But until they bring results and start winning those close matches, they CANNOT be considered #1 players and should not gain bonus points just for having a close match. That's beyond retarded. How can you objectively state that two players had a close match? What defines a close match? What may seem like a close match to viewers can be a blowout to experts. What seems like a blowout to viewers may have been a close match to experts. It's best to just leave things to the results. If you won, you get the points. If you lost, you don't. Do we give extra prize money to 2nd place because he had a close match? Do we give a SPECIAL Silver medal to 2nd place runners or swimmers in the Olympics because it was a CLOSE race? Because they lost by a tenth of a second? A hundredth of a second? NO. We give them the Silver medal, pat them on the back, and say "better luck next time. Keep training hard and you'll surely win next time." 7) The top competition lost potential points for not performing (or in the double elimination setup, loses one of his two lives). How is this even remotely an issue? The top player wasn't playing at his best. Discussion over. 8) You account for the overall strength of a player in the individual tournament by giving him the appropriate points for whatever place he finished? Like... Seriously bro... The farther I go into this, the more it's like you're just throwing words together to pray for an argument. That or you want some random guy who deserves to be in the top 10, yet not the #1 position to somehow be shoved into the #1 position with a shitty biased ranking system that is nothing more than a popularity contest. There will always be people who will oppose the #1 player in the world being in that position, but more often than not, they deserve that position. 9) They played poorly, someone else played better. Gee... I wonder who's the better player that day... Hmmm... The ranking system is to show who's the best player in the past 365 days. Not who is the best player is they miraculously played at 100% for all 365 days. That's not possible. If that were true in tennis, Federer would not be #1. It would not be Nadal or Djokovic either. It'd be some random player who beats the crap out of the ball and since he's playing at 100% all the time, by sheer luck all his shots land in for winners and he smokes the crap out of every player in the world. Hell, if he did that one day, and we went by your logic, this guy would undisputedly be the #1 player in the world. But... He's not. Why? He doesn't post consistent results. You know who does? Federer does (by some miracle...). Even as a Federer fan, I question his position at #1 in the world. But he's posting more consistent results somehow than the Nadal and Djokovic. So he IS the #1 player in the world right now, and I can't dispute it. I mean, he originally fell out of the #1 position because he had mono. He still stayed at #2 player in the world with it, but he clearly wasn't the best player in the world anymore. Many tennis fans can easily say that if he never got mono, he would've been #1 that entire year as well. But you have to take an objective view on the situation and say that during that time, he was not the #1 player in the world, Nadal was. 10) You can have a stat sheet for that if you want. The best player should be the most well-rounded and consistent player of the tour. It doesn't matter if someone never loses a PvZ. It won't help them unless they get a crazy lucky draw. And that luck won't last the entire year. The guy will have a few good results, and his ranking will reflect it. His ranking won't go up drastically unless he gets better at the other matchups. 11) If you post results at smaller, easier to participate events, and constantly work hard, you WILL get noticed and you WILL get a sponsorship. Player's I've never heard of are getting sponsorships and team support. If you work hard and can get results, you WILL go to premier tournaments eventually. 12) There will NEVER be deviations that the system interprets incorrectly. As long as you create a fair and unbiased system, that can NEVER happen. EVER. WORST CASE SCENARIO: a total unknown comes out and wins the GSL, then never posts any other notable result as he constantly loses in the first round. His ranking will spike up for 1 year, be around mid-level, then drop back down. We get that all the time in tennis. Players randomly get a hot-streak in a major, ride the wave for about a year then fall back off. It is fair to say they don't deserve the ranking they achieved? Not really... They had a good run. If you want to account for these random wins and hot streaks, then look at a player's average ranking over the course of several years. Players like this will never get to he #1 spot anyway. They might break into the top 10 for a while, but what really matters is the top 5, the top 3, the top 1. 13) Well, if there were obvious problems with the system, I'm pretty sure you would've thought of them by now right? I mean... past #5, your concerns really have been nothing but utter bullshit. If you've thrown out 7 non-existent problems, what other "obvious problems" are there? #1-5 were legitimate, though simple to solve concerns. The only real problem with implementing it now is the poor international tournament organization. You can't really account for the fact that if you want to play in the GSL, you really can't spend your time doing much else for the next several months. Fix the current tournament calender setup, and a ranking system will not have ANY problems. Edit: Actually... The biggest (and only) problem will be if tournaments aren't properly scored, meaning a large tournament isn't assigned enough points and is given the point ranking of a lower level tournament. Also, scaling the point values of different tier tournaments to each other (as well as different results such as Ro64 vs Ro32 vs Ro16 vs Ro8 vs Ro4 vs 2nd vs 1st) can only really be done through trial and error to get the proper scaling. Of course, you can just assign points and just say "well, this guy deserves to be #13 because these were the unbiased values we gave to each tournament and each placing of each tournament". | ||
|
Daniel C
Hong Kong1606 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby9234 FrodaN2043 Beastyqt1405 B2W.Neo592 elazer465 Trikslyr83 JuggernautJason66 ZombieGrub63 minikerr15 OptimusSC210 |
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
