Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Eliminating scrubs from expert games

P

Politoed666

New Member
After playing against several starter decks today, which is nothing new, a miraculous idea that's probably never been suggested before occurred to me: why don't they make some requirement for playing in expert games?

Like... actually being an expert?!

The requirements don't need to be *too* stringent, but I think having over 50 wins and/or over 500 cards makes sense.
 
Beginner: anyone can play

Intermediate: 10 or more wins; decks coming within five cards of any of the "starter" lists are banned

Expert: 100 or more wins; decks coming within five cards of any of the "starter" lists are banned
 
This would make playtesting so much worse in all honesty. I'm all for supporting this idea but I could easily see it backfiring on you when all of these "experts" are trying to test before large tournaments. Maybe it's just my input, though.
 
Cyrus said:
Beginner: anyone can play

Intermediate: 10 or more wins; decks coming within five cards of any of the "starter" lists are banned

Expert: 100 or more wins; decks coming within five cards of any of the "starter" lists are banned
Click to expand...

Perhaps that could be a requirement but, maybe some past requirements outside of the online too. I really don't plan on playing 100 games of PTCGO anytime soon and haven't played a single game of it yet. I would not play if I only battled theme decks for the first hundred (10?) games
 
smacktack15 said:
Perhaps that could be a requirement but, maybe some past requirements outside of the online too. I really don't plan on playing 100 games of PTCGO anytime soon and haven't played a single game of it yet. I would not play if I only battled theme decks for the first hundred (10?) games
Click to expand...

only 10 starter deck games =p


implementing outside achievements would be pretty much impossible. also wouldn't stop people from having no cards and a starter deck.

I like Kettler's idea.
 
It seems fairly condescending to think ANY requirement is needed. If you feel your opponent isn't giving you the challenge you want, concede and move on. Don't you think newer players deserve a peek at all your ''expert" lists? If only even to see how it 'should' be done? Quit with the elitism already. Even labeling a certain class of player 'scrub' is tantamount to bullying, and as much as it occurs on the other forum I would think it shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged here. :nonono:
Posted with Mobile style...
 
ogremarauder said:
It seems fairly condescending to think ANY requirement is needed. If you feel your opponent isn't giving you the challenge you want, concede and move on. Don't you think newer players deserve a peek at all your ''expert" lists? If only even to see how it 'should' be done? Quit with the elitism already. Even labeling a certain class of player 'scrub' is tantamount to bullying, and as much as it occurs on the other forum I would think it shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged here. :nonono:
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the wording wasn't chosen with care, but the principal is sound.

Players are trying to get practice in for tournaments, and want to test against good decks. Playing starter decks after starter decks is incredibly annoying, and extremely dull. I'd imagine playing with a started deck and getting destroyed game after game would be frustrating, and demoralizing, even unfair.

Players should be ranked, and play against players within their skill range. Win-Loss, Elo....anything really could work for this.
 
sdrawkcab said:
Players should be ranked, and play against players within their skill range. Win-Loss, Elo....anything really could work for this.
Click to expand...

This is the key, I think. What we really just need is a ranking system and a matchmaking system that tries to pair up people of similar skill levels.
 
Yeah... I kinda gave up on using PTCGO as a testing tool for my competitive decks due to the massive amount of starter decks I run into. Timestallers and all the glitches don't help either.
 
sdrawkcab said:
Perhaps the wording wasn't chosen with care, but the principal is sound.

Players are trying to get practice in for tournaments, and want to test against good decks. Playing starter decks after starter decks is incredibly annoying, and extremely dull. I'd imagine playing with a started deck and getting destroyed game after game would be frustrating, and demoralizing, even unfair.

Players should be ranked, and play against players within their skill range. Win-Loss, Elo....anything really could work for this.
Click to expand...

That would completely negate a newer players ability to gain exposure to 'advanced' strategies. If a 'noob' can only play against other 'noobs', where does the learning occur? It just seems like poor SOTG to limit players access to one another based on experience. How about a 'league style' innovation. Something along the lines of "tournament playtesting" as a clickable option. Pokemon online is like a worldwide league, without promo handouts. If you want nothing but serious, hardcore playtesting, stick with redshark. Do you snub ur nose at all the little noobie kids at league? No. It's bad form. But you don't invite them over when your group are doing a pre tourney playtest session.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
I would like them to do a free gaming lobby like in "Urban Rivals".

There you have a list of all players who are in a gaming room. You can either click on a button "Random pairing" or click on a player in order to challenge him. He can then accept or decline your challenge.
Information in this gaming lobby could be win-loss ratio in the last 30 days, number of cards, disconnection rate etc. so that you can pick an opponent of your liking based on what you are searching for.
 
ogremarauder said:
That would completely negate a newer players ability to gain exposure to 'advanced' strategies. If a 'noob' can only play against other 'noobs', where does the learning occur? It just seems like poor SOTG to limit players access to one another based on experience. How about a 'league style' innovation. Something along the lines of "tournament playtesting" as a clickable option. Pokemon online is like a worldwide league, without promo handouts. If you want nothing but serious, hardcore playtesting, stick with redshark. Do you snub ur nose at all the little noobie kids at league? No. It's bad form. But you don't invite them over when your group are doing a pre tourney playtest session.
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

When bad players face each other, one of them gets to win, as they climb the ranks they'll face better and better decks. It should be a moderate learning curve, not just facing CMT or Eelektrik right out the gate.

Getting obliterated game after game doesn't teach you anything aside from that you're really bad.

A rating system not only helps by slowly introducing better decks, shows measurable improvement, and be actually enjoyable for less skilled and skillful players alike.

Perhaps what would be best is an ELO raiting system where when you go to search for your match you can enter the maximum difference you want between you and your opponent.

If I'm at an elo of 1800 and only want to face players with similar rank, i'd choose a 50 point spread. to find an opponent.

If I'm at an elo of 1500 and want to play some one good I'd change the point spread to 500. And hopefully someone at 2000 also selected a 500 point difference.
 
And that is MILES away from calling a new player a scrub and acting as if playing against them is an unconscionable waste of life. I agree, there should be a way to help select an opponent, but not the smug, holier than thou, type of way that some of the posters here have alluded to. I'm mostly just PO'd at the general tone of superiority. As I've said before, this game belongs primarily to CHILDREN. The,"I'm better than you and therefore I don't wish to interact with you" mindset is exactly what should be avoided, at all costs.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
ogremarauder said:
And that is MILES away from calling a new player a scrub and acting as if playing against them is an unconscionable waste of life. I agree, there should be a way to help select an opponent, but not the smug, holier than thou, type of way that some of the posters here have alluded to. I'm mostly just PO'd at the general tone of superiority. As I've said before, this game belongs primarily to CHILDREN. The,"I'm better than you and therefore I don't wish to interact with you" mindset is exactly what should be avoided, at all costs.
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

After re-reading every post in this thread, YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON calling anybody a "scrub" or "noob".

No one here has portrayed an elitist mindset. I feel as though you've taken a request for ranked matches as a personal attack on those who aren't experts. Which simply isn't the case.

I'm speaking behalf of those in favor of some sort of ranking system here, it's not that we want to avoid bad players, we mostly just want to avoid players with only starter decks.
 
I'd literally make it so that the only one who can play in Expert Games (with age groups) are people who have earned Championship Points.

Drew
 
sdrawkcab said:
hmmm I guess I missed that, my apologies.

Still, he's the only one saying it within the thread :redface:
Click to expand...


First off, using the term 'noob' is lightyears from calling someone a scrub. Everyone who has ever started the game has been a noob. Noob IMHO implies being green and inexperienced. No person played like a world champion their first couple games. New players need the exposure to top level decks and strategy moreso than anyone. Saying that someone is a scrub is derogatory and implies something about their character in general. And I'm the only one apparently using the word because the others just took it as acceptable and didn't make any thought of objecting to the term.

My 2¢
Posted with Mobile style...
 
It's flatly untrue to say that we didn't give it any thought; in fact, "scrub" is a technically inaccurate term, so of course we would. However, we're more interested in discussing the main point - not what OP feels about the less experienced players on PTCGO.

Nothing matters more than the main point, and his main point, for whatever lack of political correctness there may be, is:

"Why don't they make some requirement for playing in expert games?"

And I'd agree with it! It's wrong to say that having "some requirements" would negate a new player's ability to experience advanced strategies, because you're assuming what those requirements would be.

With the idea I outlined in my first post, the only thing would actually keep a hard-working newer player from reaching expert level is sticking strictly to Basic Green, Yellow, etc. Is that really too high of a threshold? With a system like that, newer players would certainly get the chance to fight their way up the ladder, and then feel a lot of pride and empowerment when they finally get to that 100th win. And last time I checked, empowering new players was one of the last things that would hide them from exposure...

P.S. "Concede and move on" adds up over time, and becomes more than just a small nuisance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top