Open Qualifier Overall Standings

[par73]

I will post the current standings of the qualifiers here, and all reported results below the standings. The standings will help determine your seeding for the Round Robin Group Stage prior to the Double Elimination Finale. When there are enough participants entered into the qualifiers, I will divide the players by division.

Completed Matches Standings:
Code: [position]. [name] - [Wins]-[Losses]-[Ties] - [MatchWins]-[MatchLosses]-[MatchTies] - [Match Total] [*=Qualified]
1. SlatE - 33-16 - 8-0-1 - 9*
2. Par73 - 38-29 - 7-4-2 - 13*
3. HMP - 32-24 6-3-1 10*
4. Jahral - 31-29 - 5-5-2 - 12*
5. Gabba - 10-6 3-1 - 4*
6. LSO - 6-7 - 2-2 - 4*
7. Funk - 13-20 - 2-5 - 7*
8. Phos - 11-16 - 1-3-1 - 5*
9. Alfi - 8-25 - 0-7-1 - 8*
10. Garnish - 1-12- 0-4 - 4*
11. Ratking - 7-2 - 2-0 - 2
12. Dantski - 3-0 - 1-0 - 1
13. Vasazel - 4-5 1-1-1 3
14. Yolo - 3-0 - 1-0 - 1
15. Mechanic - 3-3 - 0-0-1 1
16. Ether - 4-10 0-3 - 3
17. Thor6t9 - 0-3 - 0-1 - 1

Qualified Standings:
1. SlatE - 33-16 - 8-0-1 - 9*
2. Par73 - 38-29 - 7-4-2 - 13*
3. HMP - 32-24 6-3-1 10*
4. Jahral - 31-29 - 5-5-2 - 12*
5. Gabba - 10-6 3-1 - 4*
6. LSO - 6-7 - 2-2 - 4*
7. Funk - 13-20 - 2-5 - 7*
8. Phos - 11-16 - 1-3-1 - 5*
9. Alfi - 8-25 - 0-7-1 - 8*
10. Garnish - 1-12- 0-4 - 4*


Inactive Participants: invite them to a match!
samuel
Diablo
akira

Results:
Alfi vs Jahral, 1-3
Alfi vs Par73, 0-3
Jahral vs SlatE, 1-3
Alfi vs Funk, 0-3
Jahral vs Funk, 5-7
Par73 vs Jahral, 2-4
Alfi vs SlatE, 1-3
Par73 vs SlatE, 1-3
Jahral vs Par73 II, 1-3
Par73 vs SlatE II, 2-4
Par73 vs SlatE III, 0-3
HMP vs Par73, 1-3
Jahral vs Ratking, 2-4
Funk vs Par73, 1-3
Funk vs Par73 II, 0-3
Funk vs SlatE, 1-3
Ether vs SlatE, 1-3
Ether vs Jahral, 1-3
Jahral vs HMP, 1-3
Vasazel vs Jahral, 0-3
Thor6t9 vs Jahral, 0-3
Phos vs Par73, 2-4
Gabba vs HMP, 0-3
Alfi vs Ratking, 0-3
Alfi vs Phos, 1-3
Alfi vs Vasazel, 1-3
Ether vs HMP, 2-4
Phos vs HMP, 0-3
Funk vs HMP, 1-3
HMP vs SlatE, 5-7
Funk vs Dantski, 0-3
LSO vs Par, 0-3
Garnish vs YOLO, 0-3
Garnish vs LSO, 1-3
Garnish vs HMP, 0-3
Garnish vs Gabba, 1-3
LSO vs Gabba, 0-3
HMP vs LSO, 0-3
Phos vs Gabba, 2-4

Tied Matches:
The following matches were unfinished during the group stage, and will be scored as a tie.
Jahral vs Vasazel II 1-1
Jahral vs Mechanic 3-3
SlatE vs Par IV 3-4
HMP vs Par II 7-7
Alfi vs Phos 4-4

[jahral]

so playing more matches does hurt as it can give you more losses

[par73]

so playing more matches does hurt as it can give you more losses

Perhaps at first glance it appears this way, but let me explain the scoring system a bit more. You might think otherwise.

First and foremost, in the qualifiers no one is eliminated. Everyone who participates in the 4 match minimal will be sent to the future rounds of the tournament. One way to look at it is, if you don't play enough matches to begin with, you lose.

The qualifier is open, and after a player qualifies they have spot reserved for the future round robin and double elimination rounds which will wrap up the event during May. They can simply withdraw from the tournament if they please.

During this time the results of the players are compared and contrasted in order to create different "weight-classes". I may throw out the different weight classes all together if not enough players qualify for the main event, which would mean everyone who qualified would be put in the same round-robin against each other, as well as a double elimination.

Playing more matches is going to give the open qualifier ranking system more RAW data, resulting in more accurate placement of individuals who will be distributed to different weight classes. If anything, playing less matches means a less reliable QR result which could send a player to a really tough, or really easy, round robin and DE event.

So I hope you see, playing less matches will actually hurt the player; from not qualifying to be put into a "weight-class" where they are outmatched or slice like hot knife through butter. As it states in the rules, players aren't going to be rewarded for beating the same players over and over again who have fallen low in the ladder, and getting beaten by higher ranked players isn't going to cause a significant drop in rating if you lose every game. It doesn't matter how many more losses you have, just who they are against.



At the moment, I don't think a 1v1 tournament with a round robin and double elim would be very appealing without separate groups based on initial results or player perception when there can be such a vast difference in levels of skill (i.e. an open qualifier like MFC13, or the 7pr 1v1 tournament in 2005 required all 48 participants to rank each other prior to the tournament). But if the player pool remains small it may end up proceeding this route regardless.

[jahral]

I still think the next round should still be open to everyone. I just feel it could be more inclusive yet at this stage. One way I thought would be good would be to rate all 4 game qualifiers by there best four games only. And as many of had at least one where we won say three to one and other where we did well. This ranking would put a scarce few at the top and glom the rest of us together. I think you should give all of us a fighting chance at number one still how ever long the odds. The finals could also be more of a first person fights the eighth, second the seventh, third fights the tenth sixth etc.. which sets up 4 winners who play and leave 2 people for the finals.... which would be like slate and someone or is that how this stage will be. just curious.........

[par73]

hey jah

The next round is open to everyone who plays at least 4 matches during the 3-4 week open QR. as of right now, that is only 6 participants. If the QR ended today, I would not likely split up the groups as intended.
Everyone's fighting chance at number one is during the open qualifiers. The tournament is as inclusive as it gets. Further more, with at least 8 participants I will separate the groups into weight class. I'm really hoping for 10 or 12 for the Group-Stage/Elimination finale; 8 is kind of soft and I'd even reconsider two pools of four for one pool of 8. At this point I'm considering having the bracket following the group stage round robin to be Single Elimination, which in my opinion gives an underdog player a better chance at achieving upset victories as one awful match would signify elimination. Then again, this is why I'm using double elimination, because anyone can have a shitty match that is an outlier compared to the rest of their performances.

Right now SlatE is undefeated, someone could join the tournament, beat SlatE, beat 3 more players (or beat slate twice, and lose the other matches), and arguably they would take 1st place. Idk how to even rate "all 4 game qualifiers by [the participants] best four games only". A lot of that is based on perception, I think a lot of players best games are close and well fought, not 100% wins where their opponent literally didn't know what to do. Anyway, right now there are two different finals set. This goes along with your 'more inclusive' attitude: even if you qualified but performed the worst, without some deep intrinsic motivation to play I feel many would rather drop out of the tournament than be scheduled to play a David vs Goliath match. With the two groups, this keeps the middle of the pack competitive to achieve a more competitive grand finals experience in the tournament, i.e. #1-4 play each other for bracket seeding. Meanwhile players who did not perform as consistently as others, and did not compete to overcome their 'cutoff' opponents (or failed in doing so), will be playing against each other; #5-8 play each other for bracket seeding. The group stage reseeds the players for their own appropriate bracket and grand finale.