If you listened to the latest
Live On Three radio show featuring djWHEAT, Slasher and SirScoots, they briefly talked about the need for a ranking system for Street Fighter IV tournaments. This was brought on because of all the concerns that came from
Devastation.
While I applaud what happened at Devastation (and I will briefly talk about this during Friday's podcast), I don't mind what happened with the brackets. I'm sure there will be a load of people that will agree with me, and there are even more people that will disagree.
But regardless of where you stand on what happened at Devastation, there seemed to be a hidden message among it all; people believe a ranking system needs to be in place to help tournament organizers place some players among the bracket. It doesn't have to be a be-all, end-all ranking system; it should be strong enough that it gets the tournament organizer thinking about using it.
And thus the ultimate question comes in ...
"How do you do a national ranking system?"If you think it's easy, you're kidding yourself. Name someone out there right now that knows all of the players that compete -- locally and nationally -- who can pull off a top-eight, 16, 24 or 32 ranking right now. We all have an idea, but nobody can do it.
Most of this is all up to discussion; there will be plenty of different ways to do a ranking system of, say, the top 16 players currently going right now. Some people will base their rankings solely on opinion. Others will look only a results. Then there will be others that take a mix of both and come up with some formula.
I took on this situation two years ago. The Super Smash Bros. Melee rankings for Southern California were slanted badly despite being updated. Everyone was playing for No. 2, nobody was ever going to be No. 1 because that belonged to SepirothKen, who barely played. And aside from that big goof, there were many inactive players that were only on the ranking because they were popular 2 or 3 years ago. So my goal was to come up with a performance-based system that measured players based on how well they did at that moment. It rewarded players that were hot at that time.
In doing this ranking, I realized that any form of ranking has to involve a mix of opinion and results. It can't be one way, and it can't be the other. It doesn't have to be an even mix of opinion and results, just as long as both are taken into account.
I like John Hollinger's way of implementing math and coming up with
a ranking system for the NBA. But if you look at who is third on the list, Portland, they got peaced out in the FIRST round of the playoffs as a No. 4 seed!
There are some ranking systems that are based solely on results. Take into account the KeSPA ranking, which I just learned about a month ago and am utterly amazed by it (and by the way,
here are the latest rankings). It takes into account players' performances of recent note. Also, if you sit on one result, it soon gets eliminated. I took that into account when I did my Melee rankings; only the past five weeks worth of tournaments were ever counted. It's funny how some players asked me when their time was up, so they could go to a tournament and stay within my ranking system.
There's also the ELO chess rating, which takes into account who you have played. The goal is to always play someone with a strong ELO rating, because with a win, that bumps up your own. I wanted to do that with my Melee rankings. There are two players that finish fifth. Who was the better fifth-place finisher? There are four players that finish ninth; who was the best among them?
And those last two questions are why this ranking system is so important. It's not really about the top one or two players, but rather the six or seven that follow after that. Look at the Street Fighter IV community. Almost everyone will say that Justin Wong should get top seed at any national tournament. But your thought of the next three players might be different than someone else's thoughts.
With all of that in mind, I came up with this formula:
Factor 1: Community Power RankingsThis is the only category that is opinion based. It also carries most of the weight. Points are awarded starting with 10 for first, then dropping a half point for every spot down the list.
1. 10.00 points
2. 9.50 points
3. 9.00 points
4. 8.50 points
... and so on
Therefore, just getting on the opinionated ratings puts you in a good position. If you're not on the opinionated rankings, then you have a lot more work to do. That means getting to more tournaments.
Factor 2: Your base tournament resultThis is how you finished in a tournament. I set a scale based on 32-person tournaments. It is:
Winner: 1.00 points
Second: .90 points
Third: .80 points
Fourth: .70 points
Fifth: .50 points
Seventh: .25 points
Ninth: .125 points
13th: .10 points
17th: .05 points
25th: .025 points
Anyone 33rd and worst gets 0 points. With several tournaments taking place in a week, there's a chance someone could win two or three tournaments, thus getting more than 1.00 point. This Factor encouraged not only placing high, but competing in as many tournaments as possible.
Factor 3: Record in a tournamentThe formula is wins divided by total matches. Obviously you don't want to lose. And if you win the first semifinals, don't lose the title match. Think of a 16-person tournament. There's a big difference from going 5-0 and winning (2.00 points) than going 5-1 and winning (1.83 points).
Factor 4: Strength of scheduleThis is probably the second-most important part of the tournament. This isn't so much for the players that win tournaments, rather the players that don't.
This takes into account the win-loss records of everyone a person competes against in a tournament. If you faced a collective field that boasted a .550 record, that's good. Anything at .650 and above is really good. If someone reaches .700 territory, then they probably faced a finalist.
So ... if you go 0-2, then you better hope the two people you lost to are the two finalists. You don't want to go 0-2 and the two people you faced go 1-2.
Factor 5: Beating a ranked playerIf a player beat someone in the rankings, that person earned 1.00 points. Losing to someone in the rankings didn't take away points. If a player beat the same person twice, that was 2.00 points. This encouraged going to tournaments that had ranked players, instead of destroying everyone in a noob tournament.
Going 5-2 in a tournament, beating one ranked player, and finishing third (0.714 + 1.000 + 0.800 = 2.514) is stronger than going 10-0 in a noob tournament with no ranked players and winning (2.000)
= = =
All five factors were formed to create my power ranking system. Being known by your peers weighed the most. And if you felt differently, then you could change that by beating them and winning tournaments.
The one thing I'm wondering from you all is, what factor am I missing? What should be included in a power rankings and what should not?
And what two factors should weigh the most? Should it be the opinions of your peers and who you beat in a tournament? Or, should it be tournament results and something else?
It's a lot to consume, but by starting to think about it, a ranking system can be formed.
Labels: Commentary
Continue reading 'The need for a ranking system for Street Fighter IV'
