Jump to content

Best of 2017


Recommended Posts

Updated stat sheets in OP & reserves with March officials + OU qualifiers played so far

 

March:

Who is the King? [Monotype Tournament] Bracket ~ 1st Place LKrenz (+2) - 2nd Place Pinklabel (+0.5) [PVP]

Are you ready to Rock? [UU] Bracket ~ 1st Place EpicVerde (+2) - 2nd Place yosoyarca (+0.5) [PVP]

Dusclop's Haunted Mansion [OU] ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place Esttefi (+2.3) - 2nd Place xSparkie (+0.7) [PVP]

NU Rumble #2 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place LifeStyle (+2) - 2nd Place Forfiter (+0.5) [PVP]

Friday Night Throwdown [UU] Bracket ~ 1st Place EpicVerde (+2) - 2nd Place Wiriketchup (+0.5) [PVP]

Will UU go to the Prom with me? [Tag Team] ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place LeJovi & NikhilR (+1.6) - 2nd Place Raptori & BlueBreath (+0.4) [PVP]

Pass through the Spider Web [LC] ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place OrangeManiac (+1.75) - 2nd Place EpicVerde (+0.35) [PVP]

Steelix's Gold Mine [UU] Bracket ~ 1st Place Mlhawk (+2) - 2nd Place aftershocker (+0.5) [PVP]

Krabby's Celebration Fiesta [NU] Bracket ~ 1st Place LifeStyle (+2) - 2nd Place Schuchty (+0.5) [PVP]

Little Cup League #7 Bracket ~ 1st Place TheDrakeHope (+2) - 2nd Place Lifestyle (+0.5) [PVP]

Oceanic 2017 #3 [Doubles] Bracket ~ 1st Place DoctorPBJ (+2) - 2nd Place NataliaHeart (+0.5) [PVP]

Spheal's Big Suprise [NU] Bracket ~ 1st Place Frags (+2.3) - 2nd Place SoyHector (+0.7) [PVP]

The Forbidden Types [OU] Bracket ~ 1st Place OrangeManiac (+1) - 2nd Place Elcoolio (+0.5) [PVP]

Quite an Oddish Plant [UU] ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place Sebat (+2) - 2nd Place yosoyarca (+0.5) [PVP]

NU Rumble #3 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place Axellgor (+2) - 2nd Place DoubleJ (+0.5) [PVP]

NU Leaderboard Tournament #1 Bracket ~ 1st Place Frags (+2) - 2nd Place Axellgor (+1) [PVP]

Meditite's Meditation Training ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place enchanteur (+2.3) - 2nd Place Frags (+0.7) [PVP]

 

The Legend of the Steel Bird Qualifiers:

Qualifier #5 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place LucasCisneros (+1) - 2nd Place CarlosBreak (+0.5)

Qualifier #4 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place Wiriketchup (+1) - 2nd Place Yaritan (+0.5)

Qualifier #3 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place JhowCrazy (+1) - 2nd Place enchanteur (+0.5)

Qualifier #2 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place LKrenz (+1) - 2nd Place BurntZebra (+0.5)

Qualifier #1 ~ Bracket ~ 1st Place ZDFire (+1) - 2nd Place yosoyarca (+0.5)

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 03/04/2017 at 7:31 PM, LifeStyle said:

Is it weird if I brag about myself while being this thread's OP? Fuck it I'll do it anyways.

Only player to have played official finals in every tier in 2017 so far, flex.

shame about that finals win/lose ratio though xdddd

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Wasn't this thread like 8 pages long?

 

Also, there must be some weird glitch with the forum, as I will not get notified if I am tagged or quoted in this thread (but it works for others)

 

Anyways... GJ on the list @LifeStyle looking forward to you adding me to it...

 

Also, any list will have its inherent flaws... for example: I suspect that frags is getting less points than he actually should have for the OU bracket, he has won a lot of ou officials despite often times having the shiney prize being mailed to an account other than his.... Or at least this is how it appears from the outside looking in...

 

And in all seriousness, I do find the complete disregard that many of the forum posters here have for the ranked match making format a bit odd...

 

It is true that there are many players ranked in the top 50 who couldn't win a tournament to save their lives... but the converse could be said for some of these "Top players" in regards to ranked match making.  As in... there are players out there that some how manage to win tournaments, but couldn't for the life of them get a decent rank...

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Murcielago said:

Wasn't this thread like 8 pages long?

 

Also, there must be some weird glitch with the forum, as I will not get notified if I am tagged or quoted in this thread (but it works for others)

 

Anyways... GJ on the list @LifeStyle looking forward to you adding me to it...

 

Also, any list will have its inherent flaws... for example: I suspect that frags is getting less points than he actually should have for the OU bracket, he has won a lot of ou officials despite often times having the shiney prize being mailed to an account other than his.... Or at least this is how it appears from the outside looking in...

 

And in all seriousness, I do find the complete disregard that many of the forum posters here have for the ranked match making format a bit odd...

 

It is true that there are many players ranked in the top 50 who couldn't win a tournament to save their lives... but the converse could be said for some of these "Top players" in regards to ranked match making.  As in... there are players out there that some how manage to win tournaments, but couldn't for the life of them get a decent rank...

 

 

 

 

Most of the thread got cleaned up by mods because it just turned into personal attacks. 

 

Ranked used to be held in high regard when it was initially introduced because during then all the good players had been playing it. Now that most of the players don't play it, it is no longer considered as an accurate representation of a player's skill. There are a lot of factors that could be added to give ranked MM some form of importance, like adding something as GXE in showdown (it's a % of how likely you are to beat an opponent). And of course giving players an incentive to play ranked other than obtaining BP. 

Link to comment

In @Murcielagos defense I do think part of the reason tournaments are generally considered superior boils down to tradition. Matchmaking is still pretty new but for the "old guard" tourneys have been the indicator of comp success for years and years and it's really hard to change that perception. This is probably part of the reason more top players don't play matchmaking too, it's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by upping the incentive to play matchmaking imo 

Link to comment

@gbwead Should the OU Reserve Tourney have any mention in this? iirc it was an 8 man bracket with a 1M 1st prize, idk if you included any Reserve brackets in your rankings last year.

 

Edit: Actually, since it appears in Hall of Fame Thread I guess I'll add it, just not sure how many points I should give

Edited by LifeStyle
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

In @Murcielagos defense I do think part of the reason tournaments are generally considered superior boils down to tradition. Matchmaking is still pretty new but for the "old guard" tourneys have been the indicator of comp success for years and years and it's really hard to change that perception. This is probably part of the reason more top players don't play matchmaking too, it's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by upping the incentive to play matchmaking imo 

 

I actually need some incentive to play officials lol.

Everytime I enter I have to wait like 10 hour in semifinals to see those players with 8 walls struggling each other.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, pachima said:

I actually need some incentive to play officials lol.

Everytime I enter I have to wait like 10 hour in semifinals to see those players with 8 walls struggling each other.

Haha yeah I think murci brought that up in another post too and he's not wrong, prizes for official tourneys are pretty bad and often not worth the time it takes to even play in one. However, the main incentive for playing in tournaments is still the prestige and glory that comes from being an official tournament winner, which plays back into my last post. Ranked matchmaking doesn't have the same prestige that goes along with it to overshadow the lack of a good prize

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gunthug said:

In @Murcielagos defense I do think part of the reason tournaments are generally considered superior boils down to tradition. Matchmaking is still pretty new but for the "old guard" tourneys have been the indicator of comp success for years and years and it's really hard to change that perception. This is probably part of the reason more top players don't play matchmaking too, it's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by upping the incentive to play matchmaking imo 

Matchmaking is always seen as the inferior form of competitive play, even on smogon. Nearly all top level competitive players either don't play on the ladder or they just see it where they can beat on random noobs to test out teams. Matchmaking is somewhat inherently less competitive as you're not able to anticipate who you're playing, what kind of team will they play, the skill of the player, etc, that all play a role in determining optimal plays. Matchmaking is a good way to test out teams vs a nice sampling of different people and teams, but beyond that, skills in matchmaking don't always matchup to skills in tournament play. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gunthug said:

In @Murcielagos defense I do think part of the reason tournaments are generally considered superior boils down to tradition. Matchmaking is still pretty new but for the "old guard" tourneys have been the indicator of comp success for years and years and it's really hard to change that perception. This is probably part of the reason more top players don't play matchmaking too, it's a vicious cycle that can only be broken by upping the incentive to play matchmaking imo 

This is very true but drawing any kind of rankings from ranked ladder is so hard. First of all win % is very unreliable way to rank people because the win % counts from the lower ranks of ladder and the higher ranks of ladder. In addition, all the top players rank somewhere among 60-65% winrate and in a RNG based game it's kinda hard to draw any conclusions with a few percentage difference in win rates. Meanwhile if you wanna reach the high ELO, you just have to be above 50 % win rate and if you do infinite amount of battles you will be on the top. Does that make you the best player? Hardly.


It's much easier to draw power rankings from "Oh, this and this player won an official therefor they're the hot names in this game right now". Even though it would mean winning just 6 matches in a row but still, it gives some exciting basis on the rankings than "wowzy, player x improved their ELO ladder by 50 points and win rate upped by 4%!"

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Haha yeah I think murci brought that up in another post too and he's not wrong, prizes for official tourneys are pretty bad and often not worth the time it takes to even play in one. However, the main incentive for playing in tournaments is still the prestige and glory that comes from being an official tournament winner, which plays back into my last post. Ranked matchmaking doesn't have the same prestige that goes along with it to overshadow the lack of a good prize

 

honestly, with all the coach in officials, glory earned is kinda meh.

We know we have nothing to prevent this but...

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LifeStyle said:

@gbwead Should the OU Reserve Tourney have any mention in this? iirc it was an 8 man bracket with a 1M 1st prize, idk if you included any Reserve brackets in your rankings last year.

 

Edit: Actually, since it appears in Hall of Fame Thread I guess I'll add it, just not sure how many points I should give

I don't think it makes sense to include them; only 8 players are allowed to participate and these players got there because they lost. I hate the idea of basically rewarding the "best losers". However, this is the first time staff puts a reserve tournament in the hall of fame and this is also your thread afterall, so you are obviously free to do as you please. Something to keep in mind is that the reward for winning a reserve tournament is the same as winning a qualifier and yet the difficulty level for these two tournaments is completly different. If you do include reserve tournaments in the rankings, I would rethink the entire ranking system, so that it remains coherent and fair.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I don't think it makes sense to include them; only 8 players are allowed to participate and these players got there because they lost. I hate the idea of basically rewarding the "best losers". However, this is the first time staff puts a reserve tournament in the hall of fame and this is also your thread afterall, so you are obviously free to do as you please. Something to keep in mind is that the reward for winning a reserve tournament is the same as winning a qualifier and yet the difficulty level for these two tournaments is completly different. If you do include reserve tournaments in the rankings, I would rethink the entire ranking system, so that it remains coherent and fair.

I think they allow up to 16, but in this case only 8 people showed up from the reserves list. I'd disregard them myself.

 

@LifeStyle

Link to comment
On 3/3/2017 at 9:13 PM, LifeStyle said:

Everytime a player's name is written in the Hall of Fame for a PvP tournament, this player will recieve points based on the prize won.

  • Winning a shiny awards 1 pt regardless of the shiny's artificial value.
  • Winning 1 PokeYen awards 0.000001 pt.
    For instance, if a player wins 2,000,000 PokeYens, this player would win 2 pts. If a second place finisher wins 500,000 PokeYens, this player would win 0.5 pt.

I've come to the conclusion that since this OU Reserves Tourney was included in HoF thread, it deserves to be in rankings.

1st Place will get +1 and 2nd Place will get +0.5

24 minutes ago, gbwead said:

only 8 players are allowed to participate and these players got there because they lost.

The max number of participants allowed was 16 (Same as Leaderboard Tourneys), however only 8 showed up.

26 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Something to keep in mind is that the reward for winning a reserve tournament is the same as winning a qualifier and yet the difficulty level for these two tournaments is completly different. If you do include reserve tournaments in the rankings, I would rethink the entire ranking system, so that it remains coherent and fair.

I don't completely agree with this statement. The person who wins one of the 8 invitationals had to beat 6 people in the bracket to get the 1M, while the person who won the Reserve bracket had to beat 4 people in a qualifier to place semis and then had to beat 3 people in reserves bracket to win the 1M. So essentially that person actually played more matches to win the same amount of money, yes I agree that winning an actual invite is harder, but I wouldn't say the difficulty level for both is "completely different".

 

Changing how the ranking system works ain't for me, you do it nerd. Screw the rules I'm Seto Kaiba.

Spoiler

jk, thanks for your input xd

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, LifeStyle said:

I don't completely agree with this statement. The person who wins one of the 8 invitationals had to beat 6 people in the bracket to get the 1M, while the person who won the Reserve bracket had to beat 4 people in a qualifier to place semis and then had to beat 3 people in reserves bracket to win the 1M. So essentially that person actually played more matches to win the same amount of money, yes I agree that winning an actual invite is harder, but I wouldn't say the difficulty level for both is "completely different".

When you put it like that, I must agree. Winning a reserve tournament (7-1) could be seen as similar to winning a qualifier (6-0), especially since the 3 opponents that the reserve tournament winner will face are arguably much better than the first round players from qualifiers.

Link to comment

Personally, I am of the beliefe if you want to be good at anything, you need to push yourself in that realm as hard and far as possible.  In terms of Pokemon this means playing in the most competitive formats you can, as often as you can.  So if you want to get good, you need to play as many tournaments as you can, and also play as much ranked match making as you can. The amount of OU tournaments is very limited... and we all know that more players are "knocked out" of officials by the sign up screen than anything else.

 

So for an upcoming player... every week they may have access to lets say at most... 2 OU officials... thats... at most... 12 comp matchs... assuming they win both... but could be as low as 2 matches....  on the converse... ranked you can do 68 competitive matches... every week.  For anyone aspiring to be good, it should be clear that ranked is the only real way forward.  Also the better you get... the better your opponents get.

 

 

5 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

This is very true but drawing any kind of rankings from ranked ladder is so hard. First of all win % is very unreliable way to rank people because the win % counts from the lower ranks of ladder and the higher ranks of ladder. In addition, all the top players rank somewhere among 60-65% winrate and in a RNG based game it's kinda hard to draw any conclusions with a few percentage difference in win rates. Meanwhile if you wanna reach the high ELO, you just have to be above 50 % win rate and if you do infinite

 

amount of battles you will be on the top. Does that make you the best player? Hardly.


It's much easier to draw power rankings from "Oh, this and this player won an official therefor they're the hot names in this game right now". Even though it would mean winning just 6 matches in a row but still, it gives some exciting basis on the rankings than "wowzy, player x improved their ELO ladder by 50 points and win rate upped by 4%!"

 

 

So many issues with this, like... orange... you are just flat out wrong about stuff in this post.  Thing such as "does ranked matter" is subjectvie... but you are missing some very objective points here and are flat out wrong many times.

 

First off, stop obsessing over win%... this is a lifetime recorded stat... I have addressed this before, btw... the only thing that this represents often times, is that the low win % player isnt a wussy afraid to do ranked and wants to get better at the game.  For you to assume a player is bad because thier win rate is low is simply ignorant.  IMO many of the best players have sub 60% win rates.  AinhoaJL for example... has a ~53% win rate but is easily one of the top 20, at very least, ou players in the game that plays ranked.

 

The whole belief of "Just play a lot and win more than 50% and you will be top player" is completely wrong.  flat out wrong.  This will work to get into the top 100, perhaps even top 50... but top 10.... no way.  once ur elo is high 1 win =+3 elo... 1 loss = -5 elo... you really need to maintain more or less a 60% win rate bare minimum to stay within the top 20.

 

 

If anyone needs more education about how and why ranked is important, I can teach this lesson most effectively as I play vs. you in a tournament. 

Edited by Murcielago
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.