79,957
edits
Panda Global Rankings Ultimate: Difference between revisions
m
→Issues: merging two that should've been merged together
m (→Issues: additional flaw mentioned rather often before, especially after a recent controversy regarding hidden boss points) |
m (→Issues: merging two that should've been merged together) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Issues=== | ===Issues=== | ||
A notable issue with the PGRU was its points system and strict thresholds. As values were either based on entrants count or the number of PGR attendees present, several tournaments were either undervalued or were left unranked, even with the international multipliers. The issue was most prominent in the first season, which based tournament values solely on entrants count. As a result, there were several tournaments that were either left unranked or were undervalued. Notable examples include {{Trn|Collision 2019}} and {{Trn|Suplex City Smash}}, which despite being considered majors were only ranked as a C-tier, and {{Trn|EGS Cup}}, which despite featuring {{Sm|MkLeo}} and several notable Japanese talent did not meet the attendance requirement and was therefore left unranked. Although the issue was addressed in the second season with the addition of PGR attendee points, the issue still remained, albeit on a much smaller scale. A notable example from this season was the superregional {{Trn|DreamHack Winter 2019}} which featured notable talent from all of Europe but was left unranked as it did not meet either requirements: only two PGRU players were present -- {{Sm|Glutonny}} and {{Sm|Mr.R}} -- and the tournament was 2 entrants short of the C-tier threshold. Likely as a result of this, Japan (for the first season) and Europe (for both season) were underrepresented on both the TTS and the rankings. | A notable issue with the PGRU was its points system and strict thresholds. As values were either based on entrants count or the number of PGR attendees present, several tournaments were either undervalued or were left unranked, even with the international multipliers. The issue was most prominent in the first season, which based tournament values solely on entrants count. As a result, there were several tournaments that were either left unranked or were undervalued. Notable examples include {{Trn|Collision 2019}} and {{Trn|Suplex City Smash}}, which despite being considered majors were only ranked as a C-tier, and {{Trn|EGS Cup}}, which despite featuring {{Sm|MkLeo}} and several notable Japanese talent did not meet the attendance requirement and was therefore left unranked. Although the issue was addressed in the second season with the addition of PGR attendee points, the issue still remained, albeit on a much smaller scale. A notable example from this season was the superregional {{Trn|DreamHack Winter 2019}} which featured notable talent from all of Europe but was left unranked as it did not meet either requirements: only two PGRU players were present -- {{Sm|Glutonny}} and {{Sm|Mr.R}} -- and the tournament was 2 entrants short of the C-tier threshold. Likely as a result of this, Japan (for the first season) and Europe (for both season) were underrepresented on both the TTS and the rankings. Conversely, there were rare cases where entrants count was rewarded too much, leading the TTS to tier them higher than their actual talent pool suggests. The most notable example is {{Trn|Syndicate 2019}}, which was ranked as an A-tier due to having 640 entrants and an international multiplier but only had two players ranked in the top 50: Glutonny and Mr.R. | ||
Yet another major issue with the PGRU was its failure to account for players who became a significantly stronger player in the following season. The biggest case was {{Sm|Maister}}, who despite being a top 10 player for the second season contributed no points throughout that season due to being unranked on the first season. This also led to many tournaments to be undervalued in the second season. For example, as a result of many Japanese players contributing no points despite regularly placing well and even ranking well in the season's top 50, there were several cases where Japanese events should have be considered "majors" or "supermajors" due to the number of talent but were not tiered as such on the TTS (eg {{Trn|EGS Cup 2}} and {{Trn|Sumabato SP 6}} for the former and {{Trn|Umebura SP 5}} and {{Trn|Umebura SP 7}} for the latter). | Yet another major issue with the PGRU was its failure to account for players who became a significantly stronger player in the following season. The biggest case was {{Sm|Maister}}, who despite being a top 10 player for the second season contributed no points throughout that season due to being unranked on the first season. This also led to many tournaments to be undervalued in the second season. For example, as a result of many Japanese players contributing no points despite regularly placing well and even ranking well in the season's top 50, there were several cases where Japanese events should have be considered "majors" or "supermajors" due to the number of talent but were not tiered as such on the TTS (eg {{Trn|EGS Cup 2}} and {{Trn|Sumabato SP 6}} for the former and {{Trn|Umebura SP 5}} and {{Trn|Umebura SP 7}} for the latter). | ||
Finally, the PGRU algorithm also gave too much reward for "empty runs", or high placements at large events that had little to no good wins. Although present in both season, the issue was greatly alleviated in the second season. | Finally, the PGRU algorithm also gave too much reward for "empty runs", or high placements at large events that had little to no good wins. Although present in both season, the issue was greatly alleviated in the second season. | ||