Jump to content
Fumu

DX Season 1 Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

Youtube Thumbnail.png

Hi everyone!

This is a thread intended for feedback on the Pokken Arena DX Season 1 rankings!

We want to hear EVERYTHING.  What you liked, what you didn't like, general thoughts on the rankings, all of it.

We are in the works for the system changes for DX Season 2, but we want to make sure that we hear feedback

on the rankings that just released to consider any sort of potential improvements to the system.

 

Please note!  If you provide us something that you didn't like, make sure to give you suggestion on how to make it better!

 


For reference, you can find the rankings and rule explanation here: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presentation, video, production of the ranking was top notch. However, my only real concerns are the criteria for qualifying and how the honorable mentions were determined. Since it's easier for me to use myself as an example:

Winter Brawl 12 / 17th out of 75 / ThankSwallot & Kino
Burnside Brawl / 9th out of 41 / Jin & Oreo
Battle of Castiel from Supernatural / 17th out of 31 / ShibaRoll & Brett
EVO 2018 / 17th out of 52 / Allister & Skynerd

How would this have ranked vs X, Y, Z players? How come if there were so many possible honorable mentions why not make it to top 50? What exactly merited the honorable mentions? X player beat Y player in Z bracket?

Keep in mind this isn't me going "How come I didn't rank" as I'm 100% uninterested in Pokkén at a competitive level to be striving for top ranking, but this was more of a curiosity on the requirements. I'm sure in our scene there are definite leveled up players that might've felt their hard work was not noticed, I.E. Alolan Durgs comes to mind. Think about a top 50 next season where only the pageantry is reserved for the top 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SuperTiso said:

The presentation, video, production of the ranking was top notch. However, my only real concerns are the criteria for qualifying and how the honorable mentions were determined. Since it's easier for me to use myself as an example:

Winter Brawl 12 / 17th out of 75 / ThankSwallot & Kino
Burnside Brawl / 9th out of 41 / Jin & Oreo
Battle of Castiel from Supernatural / 17th out of 31 / ShibaRoll & Brett
EVO 2018 / 17th out of 52 / Allister & Skynerd

How would this have ranked vs X, Y, Z players? How come if there were so many possible honorable mentions why not make it to top 50? What exactly merited the honorable mentions? X player beat Y player in Z bracket?

Keep in mind this isn't me going "How come I didn't rank" as I'm 100% uninterested in Pokkén at a competitive level to be striving for top ranking, but this was more of a curiosity on the requirements. I'm sure in our scene there are definite leveled up players that might've felt their hard work was not noticed, I.E. Alolan Durgs comes to mind. Think about a top 50 next season where only the pageantry is reserved for the top 25.

The rules for the system were briefly given on the thread for the rankings, but also explained more at the midseason presentation. A quick overview: Head to head represents 45%, placement represents 35%, and the hitlist represents 20%.

 

We almost did a top 50 for this season, but the number of players who attended the minimum numbers of events (3) was really low, and thus the accuracy of the rankings would have mainly been in question.

 

Trust me, I really really wanted to do a top 50, because I really enjoy having that, but we needed more active players at majors to do it, and we unfortunately just did not make it to that number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the presentation was absolutely phenomenal. You, @Burnside, @H2_, and @McDareth all did fantastic on the reveal/discussion stream, and @FangShaymin did INCREDIBLE on the video. From one video editor to another, I seriously can't express to Serena how fantastic the video was. And also as someone who posts Tournament Results to the front page every week, I have a massive amount of respect for the work @IcySoapy has been doing with the statistics all season. I reference those statistics whenever we're writing up Player Profiles and obviously they were hugely instrumental in the creation of these rankings. All in all, the entire team credited in the video did an absolutely incredible job with the presentation, reveal, and discussion, and I definitely appreciate the hard work you all put in over the past year. Thank you!

really feel we need Season 2 to fairly and evenly rank all regions, but I really don't know what to recommend in order to do this. I think the ideal scenario would be a ranking of the top 50 players (maybe top 100, though I think 50 would probably be enough) based on worldwide events. I understand this would be much harder, and I understand that currently EU and JP players can be in the rankings, but I don't think the current rankings are accurate of the world's skill level. For example, in Season 2 there could be a single EU player in the top 25 because he/she attended enough North American majors. That does not mean they are the best in Europe, but to an outsider (and honestly, probably to a lot of community members as well), it seems like the rankings are suggesting he/she is the best in Europe. I personally feel that one of two options needs to happen:

  1. Find a way to fairly and evenly rank all regions based on all majors worldwide. Extend the number of players to top 50 or top 100 to compensate for all regions being represented.
  2. Only include North American players in the rankings, and make it clear that the rankings are only for North America.

Currently, I feel the rankings are in a weird state where they're basically the North American rankings, but technically anyone can rank! ...even though they need to attend North American events specifically to do so. To an outsider, I think the current rankings give a false representation of the top 25 players in the world, and as a North American writing up news posts and whatnot I honestly felt embarrassed seeing people like @Sabrewoif or @Gintrax talking about the rankings, because I knew their region didn't really have the same opportunity to rank as NA.

I also know that at least some of the players in other regions feel the same way. In Sabre's first draft of this post, there were plenty of points where he specified "the North American Season 1 rankings", "these results are based on North American events", etc. And, in this tweet by Elm today, he specified "the North American rankings for Pokkén Tournament DX".

Again, I think it's okay if you want to keep the rankings similar to how they are now, but in that case I think that only North Americans should qualify for the rankings, and I think it needs to be much clearer in the wording of both the ranking team and Pokkén Arena's writers that the rankings are specifically for North America. I feel that right now it's clear to most of the world that these rankings favor North Americans, but the wording doesn't suggest this clearly enough. I worry this could create a bit of resentment towards NA from other regions, and I really don't want that for this community, because I love how I'm able to interact with European and Japanese players right now.

 

Okay, after all that, go ahead and re-read my first paragraph! I went on a bit of a rant but again, I really feel you guys did great using the given ranking system. The ranking system needs to change for next time in my opinion, but the presentation was fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might just say who i'm referencing since the quotations can lead to lengthy posts, lol

Jetsplit, one of the ideas shot around was to actually expand the rankings to three separate regions that we would manage. So for DX Season 2, should there be enough events for each region, there would actually be a DX Season 2 ranking for JP, NA, and EU.  Figuring out how this would all work is the struggle, but it's an idea that has been tossed around for sure.  I did try to remind folks about the fact this is North American ranks only, and the fact that OOR players can qualify on there should they attend enough events, but it only works so much.  There definitely needs to be a way to recognize those OOR players who travel to NA events to compete and place well enough to be recognized for those, but we totally understand it is a financially costly thing to fly overseas sometimes.

 

Things in the works on that for sure, but we are totally open to expanding into JP and EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things, first constructive:
1) No honorable mentions. Cut it at top 25. I know they're all up there because you wanted to do top 50 and was talked out of it, make those guys strive for the placings they want. Char put in the work, but he's getting shit because he's above names in the honorable mentions. Horrible. You need to stress the prestige of making top 25, and honorable mentions take away from that.
2a) what determined an A tier over an S tier or B tier? This should always be mentioned every time the rankings are presented, even if you sound redundant between post to post, because someone like me can't determine why say Winter Brawl is an A tier event and Thalia Beach is a B tier event.
2b) communication communication communication. Cant stress this enough. The reason the rankings receive negative feedback is BECAUSE there is inadequate communication somewhere. There's 6 names listed at the end, Fumu, Icysoapy, Burnside, H2, Mcdareth, Raikel. Of those 6, I can only recall Fumu would tweet out what tier an event was, and it would get a few retweets. Not an ideal situation, needs to be improved.
3) Consider allowing players to view their general standings during the season quarterly. Perhaps to do this, consider displaying only points based on tournament placing, and not on head to head or "hitlist" (whatever that is)
4) consider allowing players to vote on an X factor rating, which would showcase how other, well informed players feel their peers rank. This could be as simple as an excel sheet, have a panel of ~30-50 people *(shouldn't include anyone previously ranked)* rank players based on where they feel they should be ranked, and taking the averages of each player. This ranking does not have to be factored into their final placement, but would give viewers an idea of where the community thinks they belong compared to where they actually placed. would be another fun thing to display, and gets more people involved and excited for the rankings than the 6 fully involved. I can provide more details on how I think this should be done if this is something people are interested in.
5) No Japanese players? Just curious why Japanese events are not considered

And of course, just positive:
1) presentation looks very professional, must've been one hell of a commission ? Seriously, thank you everyone who paid to put that together looks phenominal
2) Similar to above, I like how it was kept concise with top 25 over top 50. As you mentioned in your comments, if players do not meet the minimum tournament requirement they are left out of the rankings, and this will in turn cause miscellaneous players to jump on the rankings with low placements (~25th at several A & B tiers is probably more than sufficient to place). 
3) Great job creating that "impossible to create" algorithm from the Wii U rankings. I remember complaining about how there was a severe lack in factors influencing placements, and so during the first rankings there was a feeling you guys had the intention (whether you publicly declared it or not) of showcasing equal representation from every region. Very glad this was addressed and a solution was determined.

Take what feedback you want, discard what you don't want but consider everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation Fumu! Even though I personally would like to see all regions accurately represented in a single global ranking, I think that what you described is a really solid option for now while the ranking system is still being adjusted/worked on. I like it!

 

Side note, @madluk I agree with what you were saying about communication, and I think that the PA writers can definitely help with that as well. Like you said, I only really saw Fumu ever talking about event tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe show (in percentages) how much a player used a certain character?

 

When I see a player using more than one Pokémon I wanna know how much those Pokémon were used. (Is it too hard to implement maybe?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The #1 thing that made me nervous was "the next season is gonna be a lot shorter." This could make things more exciting, but it also drills a hole into competitors trying to meet the 3 bracket requirement. That puts several players in top 25 at risk, depending on when their 3 or 4 events occurred. Also, anyone at 5 events would fall off the ranking half of the year if 3 were required each ranking, possibly being replaced by people who were just blasting through as many events as they could to make the requirements, like madluk mentioned. I also feel like there's a busy season and a dead season in terms of majors available, so that could make half of the year somewhat awkward.

 

That all being said, I don't think it was ever specified how long the new seasons were planned for nor did anyone say what the event requirements would be. I can't really see more than 2 seasons happening in a year unless the rules were changed like crazy (and maybe that's part of the plan).

 

I was initially against downgrading top 50 to top 25 but I think we wound up featuring the strongest of players; 25 seemed like a good number in the end. Which why it'd make me kinda sad if some of these players vanished if they had to attend 6 events to be ranked all year. Heck, if you wanted to make shorter seasons you could have shorter rankings; however I found the top players to a certain point kind of predictable in part because they were attending so many events; just featuring those players over and over would be kind of repetitive. I like that the others in top 25 were given the spotlight for their efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a few things to discuss more along the lines of the production and information side of the PR.

 

Firstly, I think the placement information was a bit awkward. You look at a player cards and you see the rankings but it's hard to tell at a very quick glance what tier those tournaments are. Because you displayed tiers on playercards in chronological order rather than by tier order, it means you miss some valuable information like how some player may not perform at S tiers but always places godlike at A and B tiers or something like that. Grouping tournaments in the graphics by tiers rather than chronology may be extremely helpful.

 

Secondly, I saw mentioned in a previous post that H2H had a higher weighting to Placements, but the video focused on nothing but the placements with the H2H information left to the side of the screen. I think maybe you may want to give a bit more attention to that, like who people have winning records on or a seperate setcount vs top 10 and vs top 25. Also while you showed sets of the top 10 playing each other, having the H2H within the top 10 (without saying who is what placing if you want the placings to be a surprised) would be useful. Because once you've gotten to the top 10 there shouldn't be much surprise on which players are in there, have a slide after the placements showing their Win Loss vs everyone else in the top 10.

 

Finally, there were definitely too many HMs, it was clear that you really didn't want to do top 25 and wanted to do more and having 15 or so HMs felt a bit groggy to see. Maybe cut it down to 5 at most.

 

I think it was a good start, it was a pretty good presentation and I think the ranking is pretty good, and your graphics were pretty clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 1:05 PM, madluk said:

A couple things, first constructive:
1) No honorable mentions. Cut it at top 25. I know they're all up there because you wanted to do top 50 and was talked out of it, make those guys strive for the placings they want. Char put in the work, but he's getting shit because he's above names in the honorable mentions. Horrible. You need to stress the prestige of making top 25, and honorable mentions take away from that.
2a) what determined an A tier over an S tier or B tier? This should always be mentioned every time the rankings are presented, even if you sound redundant between post to post, because someone like me can't determine why say Winter Brawl is an A tier event and Thalia Beach is a B tier event.
2b) communication communication communication. Cant stress this enough. The reason the rankings receive negative feedback is BECAUSE there is inadequate communication somewhere. There's 6 names listed at the end, Fumu, Icysoapy, Burnside, H2, Mcdareth, Raikel. Of those 6, I can only recall Fumu would tweet out what tier an event was, and it would get a few retweets. Not an ideal situation, needs to be improved.
3) Consider allowing players to view their general standings during the season quarterly. Perhaps to do this, consider displaying only points based on tournament placing, and not on head to head or "hitlist" (whatever that is)
4) consider allowing players to vote on an X factor rating, which would showcase how other, well informed players feel their peers rank. This could be as simple as an excel sheet, have a panel of ~30-50 people *(shouldn't include anyone previously ranked)* rank players based on where they feel they should be ranked, and taking the averages of each player. This ranking does not have to be factored into their final placement, but would give viewers an idea of where the community thinks they belong compared to where they actually placed. would be another fun thing to display, and gets more people involved and excited for the rankings than the 6 fully involved. I can provide more details on how I think this should be done if this is something people are interested in.
5) No Japanese players? Just curious why Japanese events are not considered

And of course, just positive:
1) presentation looks very professional, must've been one hell of a commission ? Seriously, thank you everyone who paid to put that together looks phenominal
2) Similar to above, I like how it was kept concise with top 25 over top 50. As you mentioned in your comments, if players do not meet the minimum tournament requirement they are left out of the rankings, and this will in turn cause miscellaneous players to jump on the rankings with low placements (~25th at several A & B tiers is probably more than sufficient to place). 
3) Great job creating that "impossible to create" algorithm from the Wii U rankings. I remember complaining about how there was a severe lack in factors influencing placements, and so during the first rankings there was a feeling you guys had the intention (whether you publicly declared it or not) of showcasing equal representation from every region. Very glad this was addressed and a solution was determined.

Take what feedback you want, discard what you don't want but consider everything. 

I appreciate your feedback on this, Madluk.  I'll try to comment on everything presented.
1) I can agree with the HMs being a bit iffy, and causing some issues for those who landed in HMs compared to #25.
2a) The method of determining the rank of an event looks at the context of the players.  It's a formula that takes ((Total number of Players)+(Total Number of Ranked in last Period players)+(Total Number of International Players)) to determine a score.
2b) We can certainly work on the communication, and we did push for our usual sharing methods, but it all takes participation.  I hope this improves in the future as well, not only by our team, but also from the other members in the community.
3) One of the proposed changes was to actually have shorter periods in the season, potentially 4 month periods, and then the results of the 3 periods totaled up for a 'end of the season' final ranking for DX Season 2.  The minimum event rule would obviously need to be waived for the periods, and we would have to look at the event minimum in regards to the end of season ranking.  Another proposed idea by a player who has spoken to me in the past is regarding a leaderboard, where the ranking order would just always be available.  The downside to this is we have a tough time hyping up a presentation or reveal of the ranking via this method, so it would take some tinkering.  Need some player opinions on if that is desired by a lot of players or not, as some might worry too much about the "race" if it is live time, and could be seen as a de-motivator.  Or the exact opposite, who knows?

4) We discussed heavily in regards to an X-factor for DX season 1, but ultimately decided that the timing of when we were talking about it (July/August iirc), it was entirely too late in the season to add in.  We were exploring this for potentially DX Season 2, and have a method to that in the works.

5) While Azazel and ELM did show up on the midseason, by the end of the season, they both only had 2 events in the US.  These are the US rankings currently, but we'll be looking into potentially doing JP and EU events as well, and maybe somehow doing global rankings.  That part gets a bit tricky with international matchups are increasingly rare outside of particular events, but we'll be exploring this option and have discussed with the team previously.

On your note regarding the formula for the rankings, I have to definitely thank Burnside for the assistance in developing the weighted formula method, as the season 1.3 formula was definitely a tester and had some unintentional mis-balancing of the weight between head-to-head vs placement, and stuff like that.  Regarding Season 1.3 rankings, we definitely had to pull together what we could based on review of what counted as a regional, so I imagine some events were placed in question for sure for that.  We learn from each of these rankings, and hope to improve as we go based on review and feedback from the players.

 

Again, I really do appreciate your thoughts and feedback on the DX Season 1 rankings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 1:44 PM, xzx said:

Maybe show (in percentages) how much a player used a certain character?

 

When I see a player using more than one Pokémon I wanna know how much those Pokémon were used. (Is it too hard to implement maybe?)

It's definitely possible to do this, but it requires two things:
1) All brackets have to be ran on smash.gg instead of challonge due to the character reporting not being supported by challonge at this time.

2) The TOs actually have to report this data.

 

Some events do get this data, and it's fantastic when we have that information available.  However, some of the third-party groups who TO a bracket for us do not report this data, usually seeing it as a nuisance to the process.  Sadly, this is a "all or nothing" effort, and getting it to that "all" point is extra difficult.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 2:05 PM, PaperSak said:

The #1 thing that made me nervous was "the next season is gonna be a lot shorter." This could make things more exciting, but it also drills a hole into competitors trying to meet the 3 bracket requirement. That puts several players in top 25 at risk, depending on when their 3 or 4 events occurred. Also, anyone at 5 events would fall off the ranking half of the year if 3 were required each ranking, possibly being replaced by people who were just blasting through as many events as they could to make the requirements, like madluk mentioned. I also feel like there's a busy season and a dead season in terms of majors available, so that could make half of the year somewhat awkward.

 

That all being said, I don't think it was ever specified how long the new seasons were planned for nor did anyone say what the event requirements would be. I can't really see more than 2 seasons happening in a year unless the rules were changed like crazy (and maybe that's part of the plan).

 

I was initially against downgrading top 50 to top 25 but I think we wound up featuring the strongest of players; 25 seemed like a good number in the end. Which why it'd make me kinda sad if some of these players vanished if they had to attend 6 events to be ranked all year. Heck, if you wanted to make shorter seasons you could have shorter rankings; however I found the top players to a certain point kind of predictable in part because they were attending so many events; just featuring those players over and over would be kind of repetitive. I like that the others in top 25 were given the spotlight for their efforts.

If we do a shorter period, we would likely remove the event minimum for the periods specifically. So, for example, if we did a DX Season 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.0, the .1, .2, and .3 rankings would be the 4 month period, with the 2.0 being the entire year added up.  The event minimum is in place to ensure we have at least a certain amount of data to help make rankings a tad more accurate, and likely would still be in place for the yearly rank, but not the 4 month periods.

 

However, if folks feel like 3 periods is too much, and the two periods that we had for DX Season 1 was sufficient, then we'd like to hear if that was preferable.  Mid-season did not have the event minimum in place, but the final rankings did.  We also offered up a reminder prior to the summer season for those who haven't hit the minimum yet and had a chance to rank.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 12:06 AM, Techless said:

I had a few things to discuss more along the lines of the production and information side of the PR.

 

Firstly, I think the placement information was a bit awkward. You look at a player cards and you see the rankings but it's hard to tell at a very quick glance what tier those tournaments are. Because you displayed tiers on playercards in chronological order rather than by tier order, it means you miss some valuable information like how some player may not perform at S tiers but always places godlike at A and B tiers or something like that. Grouping tournaments in the graphics by tiers rather than chronology may be extremely helpful.

 

Secondly, I saw mentioned in a previous post that H2H had a higher weighting to Placements, but the video focused on nothing but the placements with the H2H information left to the side of the screen. I think maybe you may want to give a bit more attention to that, like who people have winning records on or a seperate setcount vs top 10 and vs top 25. Also while you showed sets of the top 10 playing each other, having the H2H within the top 10 (without saying who is what placing if you want the placings to be a surprised) would be useful. Because once you've gotten to the top 10 there shouldn't be much surprise on which players are in there, have a slide after the placements showing their Win Loss vs everyone else in the top 10.

 

Finally, there were definitely too many HMs, it was clear that you really didn't want to do top 25 and wanted to do more and having 15 or so HMs felt a bit groggy to see. Maybe cut it down to 5 at most.

 

I think it was a good start, it was a pretty good presentation and I think the ranking is pretty good, and your graphics were pretty clean.

1) We were actually debating about the order of the tournament placements on the card, so we'll definitely note that there was a bit of preference for the tier order instead of the chronological order.

 

2) We did have IcySoapy provide the W/L totals of just their records vs the others in top 25.  IcySoapy actually did release this information separately from the presentation, and the idea of the player cards in the presentation was what would be easiest for the players to share their results with.  We can explore this more for DX Season 2 if there is additioanl interest in included this information in the presentation as well.

 

3) We will make note on the HMs for the future.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×