Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

A problem that must be corrected.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phazon Elite said:
I remember one pre-release I attended a while back. I got third with a 5-1 record and my friend got first with a 5-1 record. The catch? His only loss was to me. In addition, the guy I lost to went 5-1 and snagged fourth. Something's not right with that.
Click to expand...
How is that not right?
 
Absoltrainer said:
Well you can't

example

At UF pre release I had to leave early cause my parents where going to do something and would not be able to pick me up later
Click to expand...
Those kind of circumstances are IMO o.k. and its not an event that really counts for anything like nats. But family emergancy are ok, to leave.
 
ninetales you are missing what phazon elite is saying. He won the head-to-head but was ranked lower. This can occur when your opponent gets a bye. Playing a byed opponent really hurts your op win%

As to how dropping opponents are handled the software is taking the view that when a player drops that player has decided that they will most probably loose all their subsequent matches. A not unreasonable assumption. To avoid the worst excesses of a zero opwin% all dropping players are credited with a minimum of one win..

I do think that the credit should be a minimum opwin% rather than a minimum of one win but its a small difference. I suspect that there is a better way of handling dropping players than using either a min one win or min opwin%. But I haven't worked out all the details, in addition the approach may not lend itself to a simple manual implementation and may be a blind alley too.
 
Last edited:
I guess you shouldnt be forced to finish a tourney but some other system should be used for droppers. For example, if someone wants to "drop", let them do so but leave their names in the tourney as they were playing and give the win to whoever they were sopposed to play against. It would affect resistance of rivals too but not as bad.
 
Matias said:
I guess you shouldnt be forced to finish a tourney but some other system should be used for droppers. For example, if someone wants to "drop", let them do so but leave their names in the tourney as they were playing and give the win to whoever they were sopposed to play against. It would affect resistance of rivals too but not as bad.
Click to expand...

No offence, but thats just stupid. With a huge tourney like US Nats, you could easily have 20+ players dropping which would result in 20 BYEs each round.

Not to mention that if a player 0-3 drop this year, according to your system he would receive losses for 6 more rounds (15+) resulting in even lower resistence for those who played against him.
 
Surprisingly, NONE of my opponents dropped. Instead, I had a really high resistance for a 5-4 because my 2nd and 5th round opponent made the cut with 7-2. My bro however was also 5-4, but he had one of the WORST resistances because 3 of his opponents had dropped. I hope something is done for next year's Nats and Worlds next month. Other than that, the event was awesome.
 
Blastoise-shellshocker you need to list the win loss record that both you and your brother achieved...

eg WWLWLWLWL (round1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)

early losses also significantly affect your final opwin%


[You are right that if three of your opponents drop then your resistance is going to be poor, its just not the only factor. Three drops is bad tho I feel for your brother.]
 
yoshi1001 said:
I should have been more specific-what level in the process is this used?

Also, these tiebreakers can be very close in any tourament.
Click to expand...
but in a nation-wide tournament, withover 300 people, the tiebreakers are gonna be so close everywhere, that ratings of players can show how strong the games one played compared to the fact of who the opponent has played so far, he could've played 3 no-shows, 2 drop outs, etc.
 
Thanks,

Your record is better than your brothers. but not massively better. You do seem to have a prima face case for the dropping players having a significant impact.
 
SomethingElse said:
but in a nation-wide tournament, withover 300 people, the tiebreakers are gonna be so close everywhere, that ratings of players can show how strong the games one played compared to the fact of who the opponent has played so far, he could've played 3 no-shows, 2 drop outs, etc.
Click to expand...

That really doesn't answer the comment I made. How does this differ from other tournemnts? A smaller number of players still leaves things open for nasty tiebreakers.
 
yoshi1001 said:
That really doesn't answer the comment I made. How does this differ from other tournemnts? A smaller number of players still leaves things open for nasty tiebreakers.
Click to expand...
this differs from other tournaments because they have time to extend to another round if needed for tiebreakers, where as for nationals we don't have the time, along with the fact that small tournaments usually have small rounds, where an extra round can easily be tacked on
 
SomethingElse said:
this differs from other tournaments because they have time to extend to another round if needed for tiebreakers, where as for nationals we don't have the time, along with the fact that small tournaments usually have small rounds, where an extra round can easily be tacked on
Click to expand...

Tell that to people who don't have personal transportation. Besides, adding a round when supposendly final rounds have been completed never looks good.
 
you have to make it so people can drop from tournaments.
things happen people die, people get sick, whatever.
yes you can die during a pokemon tournament, this would totally be freeky though.
 
homeofmew said:
you have to make it so people can drop from tournaments.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't even have to talk about drops if we had a tiebreaker which cannot be affected by drops. They exist, and perhaps POP should look into them.
 
If your opponent is 3-3 and drops, who's to say that he won't finish with a 3-6 record if he doesn't drop, thus hurting your resistance by NOT dropping?

We can do away with resistance altogether and just pick the top cut randomly from the cutoff group. For example, for 15+ US Nats, all 7-2 and higher players were above the 32-player topcut, leaving four 6-3 players. There were over forty 6-3 players. Just randomly select four players so that resistance is meaningless. This allows for early-round loss players to have hope. Otherwise, if you go 6-0 and lose your last 3, chances are good you make the cut, unlike in real life competitive sports where last-season loses (like college football and basketball) will absolutely kill your chances for post-season play. Just an idea.
 
Isn't dropping @ 3-3 = to finishing 3-6?????????? If you drop you get a loss for the rest of the Rounds. At least that is my understanding.
 
From what I've read Nationals had a lot of players dropping: 30???? (approx 10%???)

I'll have to think about how likely this makes the occurrence of players having more than one of their opponents dropping. I don't have a feel for how the dropping players opponents will be distributed.

With 9 rounds the minimum win credit of 1 round is worse than it would be in a more typical 6 round tournament.

I quite like SteveP's suggestion that a random selection of the tied players is used to fill the cut. However I suspect that such a change would cause an outcry.

Tacc you are right 3-3 then drop = 3-4 =3-5 = 3-6 = 3-7 = 3-8 etc
 
TacC said:
Isn't dropping @ 3-3 = to finishing 3-6?????????? If you drop you get a loss for the rest of the Rounds. At least that is my understanding.
Click to expand...
If one of your opponents drops with a record of 3-3, your opponents' win percentage gets a 0.500 credit for that opponent. If that opponent doesn't drop and finishes with a 3-6 record, your opponents' win percentage gets a 0.333 credit for that opponent, which lowers your overall opponents' win percentage.

It's wrong to assume that if one of your opponents drops, it hurts your resistance. If you say it hurts your resistance, then you're hypothetically assuming (hey, that's double redundant) your opponent would win more games than he'd lose after he would've dropped.

I believe the DNP list for TOM ranks players based on:

1st - number of rounds played
2nd - record

However, I highly doubt the Opponents' Win Percentage takes into accound how many rounds your opponent plays, but only their W-L record. If anyone knows differently for sure, I'd love to hear from them.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

So, does TOM really calculate the Opp-win-% for dropped players by giving them losses for the rounds they missed? If so, that's a wrong calculation, bizzarre. DCI Reporter certainly doesn't do it that way, as I recall. Your resistance should NOT include such a bizzarre penalty. The opponent's OP rating/ranking does NOT penalize him for dropping. Why should your resistance be penalized for him dropping? Weird, if that's the way TOM does it.
 
Last edited:
SteveP said:
So, does TOM really calculate the Opp-win-% for dropped players by giving them losses for the rounds they missed?
Click to expand...

yes

================
TOM differs from Reporter in several ways in the calculation of win percentage. So for a 9 round tournament:-

0-3 then drop : TOM WIN%=11.1% TOM gives you a minimum single win and losses for all missed rounds.
1-3 then drop : TOM WIN%=11.1%
1-1 then drop :TOM WIN%=11.1%
0-9: TOM WIN% = 0.0%

In all cases Reporter gives a WIN% of 33.3%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top