The Splat 25 ~ Splatoon Team Ranking Boards

[Fightersword]

I think this should aim to be subjective. Ultimately nobody is going to accept "The Splat 25" as anything more than a few people's opinions. Trying to be objective won't work because there isn't anywhere near enough data. The rankings are going to be wrong either way. If it's someone's active opinion/belief then it can start a discussion. If it's some sort of calculated system with insufficient data then there's nothing to say about it aside from the fact that it's wrong because of that exact reason.

That's why I'm not saying that this is a terrible idea. It's basically just one group's opinion and if everyone acknowledges that it could be something to talk about.

This would probably accomplish the same thing but it would be nice to have something on Squidboards with feedback from the community rather than a few people talking about things they are under-informed about.

Ok, but if it's everyone's opinion, they shouldn't aim to rank teams. Don't try to make this into a ranking setup when it shouldn't be.

You're also wrong. there are plenty of ways to objectively rank people. Yes, it will require they play in a few matches, whether those be in tournaments or in official matches with other players they set up, but after that you can safely say the information is objective. It favors no one and ranks people by their team's skill using good ol' math. And the system presented here is not capable of doing that. There are plenty of systems in existence that are objective and do do just that, and for this to be a ranking system of note, it needs to work like that.

Again, they can talk about good teams, bad teams, etc. and give their opinions on how things stack up, that's all great and will be wonderful for the community, but they cannot claim to effectively rank them unless they make use of an objective ranking system.

 

[Power]

Well either way, we don't really have much to base it off of, other than ink or sink and tournies such as Salty Splatoon. Soon, we may have to have "Official" tournaments brought to us by (SCL I guess) and start off rankings based on that. They may be pretty shaky at the start, but as time goes on we will have a better perception on at least the stronger teams in splatoon.

 

[GameGalaxy64]

Well either way, we don't really have much to base it off of, other than ink or sink and tournies such as Salty Splatoon. Soon, we may have to have "Official" tournaments brought to us by (SCL I guess) and start off rankings based on that. They may be pretty shaky at the start, but as time goes on we will have a better perception on at least the stronger teams in splatoon.

As if now, SCL is solely focused on running the league. Feel free to use some of its information for your list. There are no plans for tournaments as of yet, but they are not out of the question. Good luck with Splat 25!

 

[Box]

Ok, but if it's everyone's opinion, they shouldn't aim to rank teams. Don't try to make this into a ranking setup when it shouldn't be.

You're also wrong. there are plenty of ways to objectively rank people. Yes, it will require they play in a few matches, whether those be in tournaments or in official matches with other players they set up, but after that you can safely say the information is objective. It favors no one and ranks people by their team's skill using good ol' math. And the system presented here is not capable of doing that. There are plenty of systems in existence that are objective and do do just that, and for this to be a ranking system of note, it needs to work like that.

Again, they can talk about good teams, bad teams, etc. and give their opinions on how things stack up, that's all great and will be wonderful for the community, but they cannot claim to effectively rank them unless they make use of an objective ranking system.

The margin of error on calculation-derived rankings would be so large that it would be essentially meaningless. There's no way to tell signal from noise with so few data points. One group's opinion is equally as uninformative but at least it's defensible on some basis.

I think we're coming at this from different angles. I don't think this should be a ranking system of note. I think it should be a failure that generates discussion.

 

[CutestFish]

http://squidboards.com/threads/the-salty-splatoon-1-final-results.6823/#post-79916

 

[Fightersword]

Well either way, we don't really have much to base it off of, other than ink or sink and tournies such as Salty Splatoon. Soon, we may have to have "Official" tournaments brought to us by (SCL I guess) and start off rankings based on that. They may be pretty shaky at the start, but as time goes on we will have a better perception on at least the stronger teams in splatoon.

well yeah, we at SCL are trying to gather teams together to do tourneys and just play against each other in official skirmishes outside, and we do have a tried and tested ranking system in place. I really do think a lot can come out of a little show about splatoon teams for sure, and I'd love to watch it.

The margin of error on calculation-derived rankings would be so large that it would be essentially meaningless. There's
no way to tell signal from noise with so few data points. One group's opinion is equally as uninformative but at least it's defensible on some basis.

I think we're coming at this from different angles. I don't think this should be a ranking system of note. I think it should be a failure that generates discussion.

the more teams that play, the more data we get. Teams play to do well. the objective ranking system is set up to say "of these teams of these rankings this player has played, he's won games against X Y Z and lost games against A and B. Depending on the rankings of the opponents he faced, his rating is affected differently from the wins and losses." Of course at first everyone's around the base rating so no one gets far ahead for a little while, but that's just the nature of these things. This is the sort of ranking system chess uses, and new players with few matches are ranked just as well by it as old ones.

These numbers work off of their proven results against other teams with proven results and calculates how noteworthy the wins and losses are. That's why its effective. You can say a team is better or worse than their rating, that's fine, but the numbers are what the team's record has proven about their skill, which is what should be taken to actually rank teams. A fresh team will not have many numbers to prove their skill or lack thereof, but the data that they do have on them that does affect their rank is good for their proven skill level.

The system we uses ranks players according to their proven skill: if they keep playing, they will level out at their skill level and only go up or down if they get better or worse.

Again, if you don't want it to be a ranking system of note, why rank them? Just say a team is good or a team is better than X team(s), or bad or the best team or whatever. that's fine to talk about, and that would be awesome. just don't push it as more than an opinion by calling it a ranking system.

 

[Box]

the more teams that play, the more data we get. Teams play to do well. the objective ranking system is set up to say "of these teams of these rankings this player has played, he's won games against X Y Z and lost games against A and B. Depending on the rankings of the opponents he faced, his rating is affected differently from the wins and losses." Of course at first everyone's around the base rating so no one gets far ahead for a little while, but that's just the nature of these things. This is the sort of ranking system chess uses, and new players with few matches are ranked just as well by it as old ones.

These numbers work off of their proven results against other teams with proven results and calculates how noteworthy the wins and losses are. That's why its effective. You can say a team is better or worse than their rating, that's fine, but the numbers are what the team's record has proven about their skill, which is what should be taken to actually rank teams. A fresh team will not have many numbers to prove their skill or lack thereof, but the data that they do have on them that does affect their rank is good for their proven skill level.

The system we uses ranks players according to their proven skill: if they keep playing, they will level out at their skill level and only go up or down if they get better or worse.

Again, if you don't want it to be a ranking system of note, why rank them? Just say a team is good or a team is better than X team(s), or bad or the best team or whatever. that's fine to talk about, and that would be awesome. just don't push it as more than an opinion by calling it a ranking system.

Elo isn't even a great way to handle something like this. You've got people moving around between teams, teams that are improving very quickly, and the fact that on any one match a team might not be fielding their best members. But even if all that were controlled, there still wouldn't be enough data for a while in order to create an Elo ranking without huge margins of error. You also lose all of the intrigue of a subjective assessment. Elo just spits back at you what you already know in a summarized form. It's not interesting to talk about and it doesn't generate hype.

I don't really care what these guys come up with, but I am a little curious about how people think the teams stack up. And if there are teams that I haven't heard about that other people think are good, I'm interested in playing them. An Elo at this stage isn't going to reveal any new information. It's just Elo, and you could probably guess what the rankings would be just by glancing over the input data.

 

[StarForce]

I think it seems good but It still not enough data for rankings. This sounds more like a TV channel to hear peoples opinions solely on hteir *fave teams* For example 30 people say Bluelittle Bunny hop is the best team but High and low pillar tower won battles and are firts in points than Bluelittle Bunny hop. No matter the 30 people, High and low pillar wins as best because the numbers say so. On thing is fact while the other is opinion. It seems youguys are a bit hasty but with some good organization you can get it working. You'll need to start slim thou then add features. Don't want to run like those indiegogo games that start big then fall appart in the end because they lack to add or do what they want. Also you need to start with something solid with good veracity. Multiple things add up for a better result. It's best if it does rank you guys need much more evidence to do so. This why Nintendo has had many testfire demo sessions and they didn't take just the first for feedback. You'll need more than just IoS to rank. Many don't do good on the first time or ttry. That I got bad score on it doesn't mean i can't be the best later on. But I wish you guys good. Just a little more organization.

 

[N-Strike]

UPDATE: Due to feedback, I made this strawpoll. http://strawpoll.me/5303160

 

[Kbot]

No because the rankings will continue to be adjusted throughout the game's lifespan. It's good to get an early feel for who you're getting beat by.

 

[jamesrcade]

If people enter the correct names and all tournaments use Challonge, is there not a way to extract data from it automatically to make a ranking?

Because "How close are your matches, Strengh of Schedule ect. We also might interview players, consult the leader council, do leader polls, and MAYBE community polls" sounds like the worst idea ever for a ranking system.

 

[jason1637]

After reading the comments here i think this is a great idea, but can you explain in more detail how teams would be ranked because of an example 2 tournaments end and these tournaments have different teams on top. How would you decide that?

 

[N-Strike]

After reading the comments here i think this is a great idea, but can you explain in more detail how teams would be ranked because of an example 2 tournaments end and these tournaments have different teams on top. How would you decide that?

Which ever has more teams in it.

 

[StarForce]

Which ever has more teams in it.

That's not ranking. You can't take one result and ignore the other. You need to add them all and make a ranking based on their end points. There's also the fact that a team got the crown iin a tournament but got bested pretty bad by another not yet won team? So are they good or not? How will that be reflected?

 

[Power]

Yeah there is definitely a lot to work on with this ranking system. I personally have not contributed much to the system, so I think the idea should be put on hold for now.

 

[iVortex]

Ok so I am a TO of this. I really haven't committed much to this because if been busy with my own tournament and all but here is my own take at this. Splat 25 should wait a bit after the main tournaments end, which they are winding down. We will actually probably all vote the same thing based of how the teams do in tournaments. That's why I think we should do a League on this. I'm proposing a sort of ranking system with different divisions and they will be rank based off of that. Aka, Div. 1 1st place or something like that, because we can't get a super accurate re representation just based off of tournaments, I also agree we need to get more known people to spread this because this will not last long with people that are just in a team and just friends. We are still farely new in this competitive scene in Splatoon. Also I would like to know how to be a moderator, because I'm farely active and all. It might not be open and I'm ok with that just a suggestion. This is also just my look at it, if they are any questions feel free to ask.

-Vortex

 

[StarForce]

There's more logic there. It will take dedication and some really factual system to rate. This set of opinions I hear is not really the way to rank, again more like the top 20 based on votes. Of course that can be done but it cannot be called ranking, it must be two different things. On the moderator side, you mean here at Squidboards? or within the Splat 25 group? For the site, I believe all positions are taken as there was a staff voting a while back like two months ago to determine the positions but I think you could apply. You must ask directly an administrator so they can take your resume and keep it in file for the future in the new round of selections or taking candidate from the pool for those already active but that wish to retire or are retired for any negative actions or if new areas appear withing the site who need a guardian. If it's for the group then that's up to The Splat 25's Main leader, N-strike.

 

[iVortex]

There's more logic there. It will take dedication and some really factual system to rate. This set of opinions I hear is not really the way to rank, again more like the top 20 based on votes. Of course that can be done but it cannot be called ranking, it must be two different things. On the moderator side, you mean here at Squidboards? or within the Splat 25 group? For the site, I believe all positions are taken as there was a staff voting a while back like two months ago to determine the positions but I think you could apply. You must ask directly an administrator so they can take your resume and keep it in file for the future in the new round of selections or taking candidate from the pool for those already active but that wish to retire or are retired for any negative actions or if new areas appear withing the site who need a guardian. If it's for the group then that's up to The Splat 25's Main leader, N-strike.

Yea I was talking about squidboards, thanks for the advice ;)

 

[Batboo]

If you ask me this is too early. We should wait longer until we see if any teams get a drastic skill growth or drop and then we should see

 

[iVortex]

If you ask me this is too early. We should wait longer until we see if any teams get a drastic skill growth or drop and then we should see

It wouldn't be a drastic skill growth. Practice takes time, the teams that are alrady on top will stay on top for quite a while, they will keep improving like everybody else.