Seems like people are a little unclear on challenge rules. This is how it was done before. I’m open to suggestions for changes or additions
-You may only challenge the nearest valid player above you.
-Players are invalid if:
They have already played a match that night for the game in question
They aren’t present at that particular hook up
They are in some way in attendance but unable to play. (Shitface wasted, asleep, etc)
-You may not challenge the same person twice in one night (no salty runbacks)
-If a player is challenged and defeated, the challenger takes the defender’s spot and the defending player drops one spot.
-If you are not on the list, you may challenge anyone for their spot. If you win, you gain their spot. Losing puts you on the very bottom of the list.
-All matches with be ft5s
hookup this thursday!!! my place- 7oclock GO TO THE BACK FUKKEN BASEMENT DOOR. IF THIS IS NOT FOLLOWED THIS WILL BE THE LAST HOOKUP AT MY PLACE. the wife has spoken.
I think you should learn stick for all your games Sam.
We can talk more in detail next time I see you for games, but basically, you play a pretty execution heavy character in SSF4. If you played stick, you would have access to to techniques you would not have on pad (or at least are too weird/difficult to bother with it). Sakura’s tatsu loops use c.lk, right? You can actually plink c.lk to make it significantly easier. Blanka is reliant on one frame c.lk links for most of his damage so I use plinking a lot. When you have it down it gives you another frame in your input window, so it’s almost like insurance.
Thanks for the rule update, Nick. I appreciate it (though it wasn’t just directed at me).
Chris, the only thing I cannot do on pad is double-tap. I can plink, but I prefer not to. Also, her tatsu loops usually use c.mk, or some version of hp (cr. or close).
Similar to Ant’s post…if anyone on the list is going to be there thursday, I’m getting on the SF and MvC3 lists. Also Tekken, but I doubt anyone will be there for that. :S
Someone explain exactly how rankings are being figured other than tournament results? Are ya’ll doing rankings for the month or off of consistency? I mean it kinda defeats the purpose to do all these Ft5s to rank up when you can just wait until next Maxout and place higher. That would make the ranking inconsistent for the most part since there are a few factors that play out during tournament. Brackets, nerves, not being present or just having a bad day could all play a part on that specific day.
For EXAMPLE (Dont need to get in your feelings anybody), lets say John plays Boxy in his 1st match and loses. Then he faces Samson in losers and ends up going 0-2 for the tournament. He probably just had a bad day out. Aight now by the current way the rankings are being calculated he would be near or at the bottom. Ok so now he has to battle his way back up to that 1 spot, which in alot of cases is just fine. But going by the Ft5 rules Nick1time just posted, John would most likely only be able to do 1-2 ft5s a week because of other challenges or circumstances. So he may only be able to move up only a few slots by the time next maxout comes around. Thing is though the way it is now the rankings just go off tournament standings which reset the past ranking list anyway. So whats stopping John from skipping the ft5s to rank up when he can just bounce back at the next MO and reclaim number 1? Nothing…There would be no motivation to rank up when you could just wait and do better at the next MO. Now i agree tournament play should play a huge part in standings. But we all know shit happens in tournament. Its proven that Player A is better than Player B. Player B was just better on that particular day and now hes number 1 when in fact he shouldn’t be. That alone could result throwing one of the best players to the bottom knowing hes not supposed to be down there. See the inconsistency?
Which leads to my suggestion. Why not add some kind of simple point system. Its been thrown out there a few times by different people but never implemented. It would make the rankings more accurate according to skill and consistency. That would make your ranking that more meaningful and force you to keep getting better. The way it is now you could be ranked 30th one month, 7th the next and 14th the one after that just because of your tournament performance. Now IF that were the only thing KC put emphasis on then there would be no point on having a ranking system in the 1st place since you can just prove yourself at the tournament. That all sounds good, but in all truth we dont do that shit. Cats can do well in tournament and still have that other cat say “I still dont respect him since he didnt beat me or anybody notable.” Hence the reason for the rankings. Someone always has to prove something to someone else. Thats just how it is around here.
Wouldn’t it make sense to make a system that actually shows your true rank and not just base it of one event? Now it pretty much comes down to if yall would want to keep up with all this. Its definitely more work than just copying names from MO standings. I just feel something like a point system could incorporate everything from tournaments, round robins and Ft5s. That way KC would be less of an ego trip and more of a battle ground. Which would probably result in more challenges since you have to earn it, instead of just doing well in tournaments and tanking in anything else. (or the other way around)
TL: DR - Rankings are pointless if they dont show your true skill.
Yeah, I agree. This style of rankings has always been more effective though just due to the simplicity. Having a fair points system would be all good but what’s a fair points system? Whenever people have tried to attribute points in the past, it basically equated to people pulling numbers out of their ass and assigning them to ranks. Then when two people play there’s some arbitrary arithmetic that goes on and points are exchanged. If someone actually came up with a points system that made sense and was easy to implement then that would be solid. We’ve been unable to do that.
The current system is just there because it’s easy, it emphasizes tournaments, and it gives people something to shoot for and/or salty runback. If someone wants to make a points system, then I say go for it. I think what you’re describing is a ladder system so I’ll do a little research and see what’s up
It doesn’t have to necessarily have to be a specific type of system, just something different than what we’ve always been using. It almost always gets shutdown after awhile then were always back at square one. So really its only effective short term. Im willing to help find something better, we’ll brainstorm at the next hookup.
I was being a sarcastic asshole with that post, but in reality, if a point system exists it needs to reward players for taking a risk and challenging someone high above them. Likewise, high ranking players should not be able to earn a lot of points beating players ranked much lower then them. I still think SSF4 BP system is bad but it does it right in that regard.
The issue has always been the implementation of a system to works the way you suggest. I personally agree with the inconsistency in the rankings. It’s ridiculous.
Boxy is 17th? Spire Fan is 4th?
Funny, sure. But let’s get real here…
I’ll join in this brainstorming. I agree we need to get something solid in place, because as it is, it’s way too random.
A ladder system is definitely the way to go imo. We’re basically halfway there now. We just aren’t keeping points. The details are what need to be ironed out. How many spots can a player challenge up the ladder? How many points does the lower player steal from the higher player? Visa Versa? How do we incorporate local tournaments and weight them vs RRs, MMs, and FT5s. I think the best thing to do is to research other ladders and get down to the how and why different values are assigned.
Well in regards to our ranking dilemma, I have an idea for a point system.
After each tournament, take the current ranks as a base and assigns points according rank by inverting the number of players listed. Then add points based on tournament placing after inverting the number of entrants. The ranks are then given out based on the total.
For example:
Samson is ranked #1 out of 20 people. Axiom is #2 and Chachi is #3 J Spot is #4. Then Maxout rolls by. There’s 30 entries.
Samson will start with 20 points, Axiom starts with 19, Chachi with 18, and J Spot with 17. Let’s say Axiom gets 1st, Chachi gets 2nd, and Samson gets 3rd. J Spot misses the tournament for whatever reason (like the TO forgot to put him in the brackets). So Axiom is assigned 30 points while Chachi gets 29, and Samson gets 28. J Spot gets none (profound sadness :crybaby:)
Total is Samson with 48 points, Axiom with 49, Chachi with 47, and J Spot with 17.
New ranks:
Axiom
Samson
Chachi
J Spot ends up ranked wherever the points land him.
Between tournaments, anybody can make a rank challenge according to the current rules. The only exceptions will be that ranked players that miss a tournament can challenge anybody within 3 ranks of their previous rank up or down. They get 3 chances to find a spot in the general area, but there’s no runbacks and the person in question can’t challenge someone higher than whoever they’ve lost too (so don’t challenge the weakest available comp then lose or your stuck). If they blow their 3 chances or lose to the new person ranked 3 places lower, then they’re stuck with their new rank and must work up from there.
So if J Spot ends up in 12th place, he can challenge anywhere within 1st and 7th place. If he loses 3 times or challenges #7 and loses, then he’s stuck at 12th and must work his way back up.