Awesome work man. Love this. But I think the weightings are way too simple. I think most organizations follows where there is most money + them having the highest probability of winning the money (meaning less teams are in the event maybe?). I also think the most important event are based on how many viewers there are for the events (general popularity of each event). In short, the weighting should in my opinion be based on the money in the event, likelyhood of each org winning, the viewership of the event (likely correlated with the money of the event). I want to hear more of your thoughts on this. I am critical to to your weightings because they are such a central part of your rating-system, so if the weightings are not correct, then the whole system does likely not work as good as it could be. Anyway, awesome work, this really falls into my interest.
thanks so much for this feedback! you're absolutely right, the weightings are crucial here, and given this is my first year working on this ranking i wanted to start with something simple and modular to keep things transparent for the videos. your suggestions are super interesting and could add a ton of depth (especially given prize money is going to be crucial in Valve's regional rankings starting in 2025) thanks again for your thoughts - this is exactly the type of discussion i was hoping to have in response to this series
Very interesting. Nertz was one just of my eyetest that i rated around 20th so i dont immediatly disagree with the premise and mathematical analysis is always convenient for generating objective opinions. I think for the integrity of a system like this its important that dm isnt too high, but honestly i would rather have it too high than too low. Cause certain players like XertioN are very important to team succes and someone like JKS, less so. So I think experiementing in a summary document with different dm rating formulas that can be created could be interesting. I get that its a "arbitrary/subjective" number, but I think creating a rating system, could be a more objective way to do it. Maybe incorportating Prize Money and how unforgiving a format is (a factor how second chances in a tournament, For example overqualifying in a 2-2 game at the RMR compared to a 0-0 game at the RMR.) So it would effectively be a weighted multiplier of a bunch of different stats. But thats a f-load of work, so understandable if you dont wanna do it. For this purpose I would say the eye test is fine. Excited to see the results.
Very nice initiative!
Can't wait to see your final ranking!
thanks for checking it out!
very Interesting!
Awesome work man. Love this. But I think the weightings are way too simple. I think most organizations follows where there is most money + them having the highest probability of winning the money (meaning less teams are in the event maybe?). I also think the most important event are based on how many viewers there are for the events (general popularity of each event).
In short, the weighting should in my opinion be based on the money in the event, likelyhood of each org winning, the viewership of the event (likely correlated with the money of the event). I want to hear more of your thoughts on this. I am critical to to your weightings because they are such a central part of your rating-system, so if the weightings are not correct, then the whole system does likely not work as good as it could be.
Anyway, awesome work, this really falls into my interest.
thanks so much for this feedback! you're absolutely right, the weightings are crucial here, and given this is my first year working on this ranking i wanted to start with something simple and modular to keep things transparent for the videos. your suggestions are super interesting and could add a ton of depth (especially given prize money is going to be crucial in Valve's regional rankings starting in 2025)
thanks again for your thoughts - this is exactly the type of discussion i was hoping to have in response to this series
@@bo0m_cs Thanks for reply! I'd love to see more content like this! =)
absolutely, thanks for taking the time to check out the vid!
Very interesting. Nertz was one just of my eyetest that i rated around 20th so i dont immediatly disagree with the premise and mathematical analysis is always convenient for generating objective opinions. I think for the integrity of a system like this its important that dm isnt too high, but honestly i would rather have it too high than too low. Cause certain players like XertioN are very important to team succes and someone like JKS, less so. So I think experiementing in a summary document with different dm rating formulas that can be created could be interesting. I get that its a "arbitrary/subjective" number, but I think creating a rating system, could be a more objective way to do it. Maybe incorportating Prize Money and how unforgiving a format is (a factor how second chances in a tournament, For example overqualifying in a 2-2 game at the RMR compared to a 0-0 game at the RMR.)
So it would effectively be a weighted multiplier of a bunch of different stats. But thats a f-load of work, so understandable if you dont wanna do it. For this purpose I would say the eye test is fine.
Excited to see the results.