At long last, the region ranking project LibraRank is here! Just in time for Christmas! For Day 1, we’ll introduce the concept, provide a basic methodology, and reveal the 41st region.

Table of Contents

1AA: Introduction – What is LibraRank?

1BB: Methodology

1CC: #41st Region

1AA: Introduction – What is LibraRank?

LibraRank is an extensive region ranking project designed to answer the question “Which regions are the best?”, an ever evolving subject of debate. Here, I use player data and placements to select and compile a number of scores that ultimately determine a region’s ranking.

I picked out 41 regions.

UNITED STATES

New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine)

Tristate (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey)

MD/VA (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware)

Coastal Southeast (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina)

Florida

Inland & Gulf Southeast (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas)

Texas

Oklahoma

Midwest (Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky)

Southwest (Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah)

Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming, British Columbia)

Southern California

Northern California

Hawaii

Alaska

CANADA

Ontario

Quebec

West Canada (Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba)

Atlantic Canada (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick)

See Above, British Columbia is considered part of the Pacific Northwest per various points made my active BC community members

THE AMERICAS

Mexico

Caribbean (Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico)

Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala)

South America (Brazil, Venezuela, Chile)

EUROPE

United Kingdom

Germany

France

Netherlands

Spain

Italy

Switzerland

Austria

Norden (Finland, Sweden, Noway, Denmark, Iceland)

JAPAN

Kanto

Kansai

Chubu

Kyushu

Chugoku

Tohoku

Hokkaido

MIDDLE EAST

Middle East (Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Saudi Arabia)

AUSTRALIA

Australia

As referenced in my lead-up posts on reddit, I picked out a large selection of players:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j7sHdrnGwAkdyS3lhjidFjtPuJYBlyHWWqknKH9cr10/edit?usp=sharing

The approach was to gather 7-12 players per region based on international and in-region attendance, meaning that PRs were a guiding factor, as well as how much a player traveled out of region. Since this is an international comparison, knowing how a player does in a larger environment – like U.S. majors – is very helpful, and can help gauge a region’s strength.

1BB: METHODOLOGY

Similar to OrionRank’s grading system, the methodology for scoring largely involves the use of player placements in brackets in order to create average scores. Doing this indiscriminately with no points of separation would be a bad idea, so tournaments are categorized between 1 and 6, where 1 represents local or tiny regional events and 6 represents the largest events.

Because I’m at the mercy of the numbers, certain things inherently bias regions towards low scores that aren’t consistent with international results. Hence, I introduce a variety of ways to offset oddball scoring, mostly in the form of point heightening penalties that;

Account for SuperMajor attendance and attendance in general. Account for regional differences.

The system is as follows:

A player’s average placements are put in up to 6 different tournament categories and added together using mean average. E.g a 1st and a 4th = 2.5.

Using this, I then take categorization into account to adjust those individual placements.

Category 6 = 25% decrease in total (e.g. average category 6 placement of 33 = 24.75)

Category 5 = No change in total

Category 4 = 25% increase in total (e.g. average category 4 placement of 15 = 18.75)

Category 3 = 50% increase in total (e.g. average category 3 placement of 10 = 15)

Category 2 = 75% increase in total (e.g. average category 2 placement of 4 = 7)

Category 1 = 100% increase in total (e.g average category 1 placement of 2.6 = 5.2)

This ascribes value to each category and provides structure to how players are scored. This is the base of how players are scored. After this, adjustments will be made based on certain factors, such as attendance. If a player did not attend a Category 6 tournament (GENESIS, EVO, Civil War) they will have their final score increased by 10%. If they didn’t attend a Category 5 tournament, that final 10% increased score will then be increased by an additional 20%, and so on.

In certain cases where international attendance was barren or USA data was too lacking or the player number just trended too low due to insulation, that penalty is doubled from 10 > 20 > 30% to 20 > 40 > 60%. This was done at my own discretion. I hope to release the full documentation for review at a later date for the sake of transparency in my decisions.

At the end of this, the top 7 players (a number decided by the breadth of talent in the top 2 regions so as to set a proper baseline) are then averaged together. Regions may incur further penalties if no player from a region attended a supermajor, or if a region lacks 7 players.

20% cumulative penalty for each missing player.

10% to final score if no player attended a supermajor in a given region.

Despite my initial skepticism in creating a ranking system based around what could have been a very error-prone and unstable method, I believe the ranking largely turned out well, with the biggest cause for concern being in the meshing of EU and US, due to me considering BEAST 7 and Syndicate 2017 category 4 events, meaning they qualified as majors for Europe. I will discuss this in detail at a later date.

I also have included a “Potential Rating”, a subjective rating based on my two years of data work and interpretation of regions over those 2 years as a data collector. It will be graded from A+ to F.

1CC: #41st Region

#41 – ALASKA

Final score: 103.190

Highest scored player: Agni (61.4166)

Lowest scored player: Buckstrom (138.0833)

Players used in final ranking: Agni, Cibitz, AzteKKz, Orbit, Slow Hand, Jerd, Buckstrom.

Best placement: 193rd, EVO 2017 (Agni & Jerd)

Potential Rating: F

Relegated to an isolated part of the world, Alaska hits the very bottom of the list by a small margin.

Due to a lack of major population centers comparable to those seen in the Midwest, East Coast, & West Coast, it makes it hard for the region to flourish in any real capacity. The additional barrier of potentially poor connections limits the region’s potential to make impact as Wifi warriors, something that may be reflected in Buckstrom’s relatively poor online performances.

The region was fortunate enough to attend a few international events, where it promptly failed – notably at both Port Priority events and EVO, with chunks of separate players attending those events.

As is the case with this ranking, placements dipping into the 100s can irreparably damage a score due to the sheer mathematical weight involved. Owing to this, 193 is the peak SuperMajor placement in a region where all used players attended a SuperMajor, where 6/7 attended EVO and Buckstrom attended GENESIS 4 (where he placed 385th.)

#41-#31 will be posted tomorrow!