Ranking Battles feedback thread

Doctor DooM

Ideas and feedback for the meet ups go here. Thanks.

A-Trak

For the casuals I'd be for ranking battles in a league format.
Gives that extra incentive to get that bit better for each one and would help with seedings for the tournies.

Owwmykneecap

If we do ranking battles a season of 5 or 6 sessions and their dates need to be decided on first.

As in an RB every 2 weeks starting from Aug 1st.
Or something along those lines. So that everyone can have a clear idea of the length and the dates they need to commit to well in advance.

And then any casuals outside that are exactly that; just pure casuals and no confusion.

Azza

Problem with have rankings for the casuals is that not all the tournament players will be attending. I can imagine the guys from up north would prefer to just attend the tournaments as they have there own scene up north.

I'd prefer to use tournament results for seeding the top 16 and then randomly draw the the remaining.

As it stand they would look like this.

1.Simon Guilfoyle
2.Mike Guilfoyle
3.Bush
4.Sagat06
5.Kirby/Blag
7.Dan/Richard
9.Azza/Leprekaun/Amir/The Witch
13. SDoom/Dark Talent/Xinkai/Andy

It would be ideal if the players who are in joint position's got to play each other either online or at the casuals to determine the order.

Basically seed 1 and seed 16 would be the same group and the rest would be a random unseeded players drawn from a hat.
Then seed 2 would have seed 15 and the rest of the group are random unseeded players and so on and so fourth.

Owwmykneecap

Azza wrote: »

Problem with have rankings for the casuals is that not all the tournament players will be attending. I can imagine the guys from up north would prefer to just attend the tournaments as they have there own scene up north.

Well exactly, ranking battles and proper tournaments are separate things entirely.

As for seeding in tournaments etc the guys who do well in the tournaments should be seeded fair enough, but for the local guys, you could decide whether to use results from RB's or not.
If you are consistently coming out well in RB's you must be good either way..

but its at the organisers discretion.

Xinkai

I'd be happy to take over organisation...

But realistically if we wanted multiple games we'd have to start early like 11am or so?
Games i think that would hit are SF4,3s,ST, (Maybe) GGXX & Blazblue for those that have it.

Sabre0001

For seedings, it should be the official tournaments only. Casuals can be left at just that and people can use it to try out new matchups, meet and hang out and experiment a bit. Is there a difference between a 'Ranking Battle' and a tournament?

Also, on the subject of multiple games I still refer to my previous post. You don't have to do it all in 2 tournaments. Let it grow gradually and you will get a scene. Do too much too soon and it can generate confusion, a lot of work and individual game tournaments will be very much on and off. Also remember, that currently the organisers are making no money so you are just generating work...and hassle with no reward for them. Eventually they will tire of it.

And you will need a lot more time...

Azza's post about seeding I agree with (although being certain that seed 1 gets seed 16 will require quite a few groups). Also, owmykneecap's post regarding a structured season is exactly what is needed. Structure, stability and certainty - all things that I am fond of. And if it strikes ye, ye can have a grand finals featuring top 8 seeds or so

Slow and steady wins the race

Doctor DooM

Sabre0001 wrote: »

For seedings, it should be the official tournaments only. Casuals can be left at just that and people can use it to try out new matchups, meet and hang out and experiment a bit. Is there a difference between a 'Ranking Battle' and a tournament?

Also, on the subject of multiple games I still refer to my previous post. You don't have to do it all in 2 tournaments. Let it grow gradually and you will get a scene. Do too much too soon and it can generate confusion, a lot of work and individual game tournaments will be very much on and off. Also remember, that currently the organisers are making no money so you are just generating work...and hassle with no reward for them. Eventually they will tire of it.

And you will need a lot more time...

Azza's post about seeding I agree with (although being certain that seed 1 gets seed 16 will require quite a few groups). Also, owmykneecap's post regarding a structured season is exactly what is needed. Structure, stability and certainty - all things that I am fond of. And if it strikes ye, ye can have a grand finals featuring top 8 seeds or so

Slow and steady wins the race

Great post.

I'm wary of doing too much, too quick.

Leprekaun

I think as omkc's (owwmykneecap) ideas are best. Have tournaments, ranking battles and casuals separate.

My own personal thoughts on the ranking battles is that I think each player should fight against everyone else and base the seedings on win ratios of each player. That way, there can't be any speculation towards who is the best or if there are disputes as to certain rankings due to certain players not meeting during a tournament matchup.

I mean, I think my ranking based on the last tournament is based way too high because I didn't fight against some of the well known pros like blag or bush. I mean, a sure example of this is my brother who was knocked out before me even though he's a better player than I am.

Ofcourse, it could be said that certain players may be having a bad day for the ranking battles but there is no other way but to let the results speak for themselves.

I think to give a fair amount of notification, ranking battles should be held between once a month/2 months and have casuals in between (2 weeks/1 month) and then have a tournament once every 3/4 months.

These are just some ideas I have.

Sabre0001

Leprekaun wrote: »

I think as omkc's (owwmykneecap) ideas are best. Have tournaments, ranking battles and casuals separate.

My own personal thoughts on the ranking battles is that I think each player should fight against everyone else and base the seedings on win ratios of each player. That way, there can't be any speculation towards who is the best or if there are disputes as to certain rankings due to certain players not meeting during a tournament matchup.

I mean, I think my ranking based on the last tournament is based way too high because I didn't fight against some of the well known pros like blag or bush. I mean, a sure example of this is my brother who was knocked out before me even though he's a better player than I am.

Ofcourse, it could be said that certain players may be having a bad day for the ranking battles but there is no other way but to let the results speak for themselves.

I think to give a fair amount of notification, ranking battles should be held between once a month/2 months and have casuals in between (2 weeks/1 month) and then have a tournament once every 3/4 months.

These are just some ideas I have.

Rankings and seedings settle over time however. So it would develop that you wouldn't just be using one tournament...And if it gets to a certain point, you can start a Heineken Cup-esque seeding system that takes results from last 2 seasons (or something ).

Initially, there may be flaws in the seeding; that is to be expected. But if you're good enough, you are capable of beating anyone on the day. I, for one, wouldn't like to have to do calculations regarding Ranking Battles

mr_kyle

What exactly do you guys mean by separating the tournaments and the ranking battles? A ranking battle is a sequential number of tournaments. Bit confused here

Leprekaun

Its not really hard from a calculations point of view, just write down how many matches each player has won and divide that by the total number of matches played. It would be just like the groups stage at the tournament but just longer.

Say if there are 20 players, 1 player each can stay at 4 consoles while another 4 jump from console to console around those 4 players and then after 12 matches at each console (48 matches combined), which may sound a lot but remember there would be 4 matches running simultaneously, the 4 players at the consoles get up and another 4 take their place and just repeat the process minus the the matches already played so it would look something like this:

P1 / P2 / P3 / P4

P5 | P6 | P7 | P8

P6 | P5 | P8 | P7

P7 | P8 | P5 | P6

P8 | P7 | P6 | P5

P9 | P10 | P11 | P12

P10 | P9 | P12 | P11

P11 | P12 | P9 | P10

P12 | P11 | P10 | P9

Etc.

Or alternatively, have it so that you start with one player passing around until 4 have been entered and then just remove one player every 4 of their matches and bring in a new one which I suppose is the same as the first system but just longer and simpler:

P1 / P2 / P3 / P4

P5
P6 | P5
P7 | P6 | P5
P8 | P7 | P6 | P5
P9 | P8 | P7 | P6
P10 | P9 | P8 | P7
P11 | P10 | P9 | P8
P12 | P11 | P10 | P9


May seem a little complicated but it should be fine if matches are being closely monitored.

Azza

Yeah what I'm think off would not be classed as a Ranbant. Hence my relunctance to use the word in the name of the meet ups.

I think a system of 2 casual events followed by a competitive event is what we should go for now.

We can do competitions at the casuals with no prize money or entry fee (just the cost of hiring consoles) and use them to determine the seeding of players that where not seeded in the main tournament.

Seeding priority goes to the tournaments to decide the top 16 seed.

Kirby

:eek:

Maybe its just me, but all those numbers made my brain melt.

Guys, simplicity is where its at. Something you can explain in five seconds and that new players will understand.

Our current format is a good one, alternating casuals and tourneys. I was under the impression that the name of Ranking battles was just something to call the tourneys on a permanent basis? Lets not over complicate things.

Leprekaun

I'm sorry for my technical approach. I just thought the fairest way to determine seeds is to have everyone play against everyone and thats the best system I could think of.

mr_kyle

Everyone playing against everyone is the fairest, but not the most practical. This is why seeded groups of four are used; for speed. You guys seem to be undertaking a league by the sounds of it.

Kirby

We don't need a league. It gets messy. Casuals and tourney's guys, casual and tourney's. Simple, and less paper work. Plus, you get the rush in a tourney. You feel pressure in leagues. Ive been at the top of the fifa league for months and every time I play I get the "Oh, I cant afford to drop points here or Joe will win the league" kinda thing.

Pressure is off in tourneys until u get to the final. Its the nothing to lose attitude.

Owwmykneecap

Ranking battles: a mini league of mini tournaments. the place you finish = your pts.
pts add up over a set number of tournys (season) eg 4. and a winner is picked from getting most points. and maybe a small prize for it overall. (maybe...lol)

Easily fitted in to a regular meet up

Tournaments: Entry Fee and Proper prize money, seeding likely more competitors and more time, double elimination Cash prise for top 3/4 players on the day.

The ranking battle idea is just to spice up the casual meet ups a bit, i.e. no one from the north would be expected to head down..
They wouldn't take long to do, you could get it done on one machine in an hour or so.

Basically it just gives you an little objective for when your at the place. the main point is still to come and play casuals..

I'll organise something for the next one if people want,

Dreddybajs

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Ranking battles: a mini league of mini tournaments. the place you finish = your pts.
pts add up over a set number of tournys (season) eg 4. and a winner is picked from getting most points. and maybe a small prize for it overall. (maybe...lol)

Easily fitted in to a regular meet up

Tournaments: Entry Fee and Proper prize money, seeding likely more competitors and more time, double elimination Cash prise for top 3/4 players on the day.

The ranking battle idea is just to spice up the casual meet ups a bit, i.e. no one from the north would be expected to head down..
They wouldn't take long to do, you could get it done on one machine in an hour or so.

Basically it just gives you an little objective for when your at the place. the main point is still to come and play casuals..

I'll organise something for the next one if people want,

Agree with this post

mr_kyle

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Ranking battles: a mini league of mini tournaments. the place you finish = your pts.
pts add up over a set number of tournys (season) eg 4. and a winner is picked from getting most points. and maybe a small prize for it overall. (maybe...lol)

Easily fitted in to a regular meet up

Tournaments: Entry Fee and Proper prize money, seeding likely more competitors and more time, double elimination Cash prise for top 3/4 players on the day.

The ranking battle idea is just to spice up the casual meet ups a bit, i.e. no one from the north would be expected to head down..
They wouldn't take long to do, you could get it done on one machine in an hour or so.

Basically it just gives you an little objective for when your at the place. the main point is still to come and play casuals..

I'll organise something for the next one if people want,

Ranking battles are not mini tournaments, but a series proper tournaments. Did you make that definition up?

The previous Saturdays tournament at XGC was run similar to the way the RBs are done in the North. They had seeding in the group stages and there was a double elimination bracket. My issue here is that you do not explain how you intend to run the RBs without seeding or double elimination. I do not think if you ran them fairly you could get them done on one hour on one machine. That expectation seems unrealistic to be blunt. Have you ever ran a gaming tournament before even?

The way in which you desribe tournament to me is how each stage of a ranking battle should be run imo.

Dreddybajs

I thought he just meant no entry fee etc. per Ranking Battle, whoops

mr_kyle

Dreddybajs wrote: »

I thought he just meant no entry fee etc. per Ranking Battle, whoops

Well chap the Dragonslayers RBs have no entry fee on them. But at the end of the season all the prizes come out of my own pocket. Although thats unlikey to happen for the next season.

In many ways I suppose I sound a bit like an ass in my last post. There are so many ways RBs can be run. I just dont think that set of ideas are good ones.

Owwmykneecap

Dreddybajs wrote: »

I thought he just meant no entry fee etc. per Ranking Battle, whoops

thats pretty much what i meant.

We're going to be having these casual meet ups anyway, so my reasoning is why not add a little competitive edge in there as a an extra reason to come/train to get good.

I'm saying it wouldn't be a big deal like the tournament the other day, just an almost informal thing to spice it up a bit.


as for the format of it, that would have to be decided by everyone who was taking part, as a group, it's not up to me to make up rules.
But I think the general idea of simplicity is best.

it would just be something to keep interest levels up in-between bigger tournies with prize money etc. should people fancy it.
If they don't they don't.