LEFFEN#0Verifizierter Account

What I don't like is that the events are tiered based on attendance numbers, mostly because it would be wrong to base it on attendee skill so early in the game So then a player shows up, beats the field to 17th (Lef at G6) 1/2

then we turn around and say he didn't beat top 50, when top 50 didn't exist yet, and the event couldn't even be tiered based on skill of attendees because we lacked knowledge. Why tier events if placement won't be valued when those events can't be tiered on skill?

1. Tiering for attendance is a proxy of tiering for skill. Would you prefer if Genesis was worth the same as a regional? Leffen's WaDi win is worth *more* because of where it occurred.

2. Regardless of how it happened, Leffen had one notable win at Genesis. Top 50 "didn't exist yet" but that's why the algorithm works retroactively and calculates the season all at once; a win on WaDi in February is worth the same as one in June at the same size event.

Just calculating wins that are ranked on the PGR becomes incredibly silly when you do this. How am I supposed to control that other people get upsetted? That ZD dropped off later but when I won vs him he was seeded high? Placements + bad losses should be >>>>> wins early IMO

If meru goes and gets 2nd at every EU tournament ever, but only Gluttonny goes to the US and gets PGRd, he retroactively has 0 wins of note? It's such a bad fucking system.

you can only beat the people in front of you, and if anyone gets upsetted, the other player who then beats the one who upset a higher seed, shouldnt be punished harshly for it. Yeah if you live in america you can roll the dice more times and eventually get a high PGR bracket.

1. I specifically said top-50 wins for a reason. Our list of "notable" players actually includes *190* people; among those are your wins on Kofi, LingLing, and, yes, ZD. Beating someone outside the top 50 is still valuable and it would be a huge oversight if that wasn't.