Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Eliminating scrubs from expert games

Diaz said:
A scrub is a player who approaches games with a mentality that hinders them from winning. A noob is a new player who isn't good yet (might not end up as one).
Click to expand...

The definition of Scrub in my mind didn't jive with that. Again, I saw this article before, and I do understand the point of people keeping themselves from winning by playing according to their own rules that others don't feel constrained with (which is a very true concept). But the word SCRUB isn't correct. Don't know what word it is, but let's not pollute the word Scrub.

Per the Urban Dictionary!

Definitions:
1,4,&6 all go about the same on the of someone who thinks they are better than they are: A dude who act like a playa or like he sumthin but really got nothin. A broke guy with no job, no car, no girl..etc

The more applicable definitions:

2. A scrub is a now generalized term used as a synonym for a "noob" or "newb," which is someone who is bad at a video game or activity in general.

3. Someone who is below your level.

5. Scrub, an otherwise inferior person in some what way. Most often refers to social standings, i.e. anyone who isn't The Big Jock or similar. Also refers to people who failed to make it onto whatever team/club/board/group, and also, in online gaming circles, refers to somebody who is not inexperienced but not very good at it. Also used in Magic the Gathering, as a derogatory term for a player who is inferior to you.

Thus a term for people who's mindset, not their abilities, keep them from winning needs to be coined. (example, I won't every play a BDIF) The word SCRUB won't be allowed, because that phrase SCRUB was already coined with different meaning. Chris Fulop had written on this subject before also.
 
Last edited:
Would the winnings be the same for each group? Cause I would totally lose all my games up until the big tournament just so I could march into the Beginners group with a Meta deck and destroy all the starter deck players! >:)
 
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...

If you'd like me to tiptoe around your perceived etiquette guidelines, I'd rather not, but I'm willing to for the sake of discussion. From now on in this thread, I'll make every effort to substitute "bad player," "scrub," etc. with "LEP" for "less experienced player."

I understand your concerns with LEPs playing expert games with the desire to improve, but that's why there's a novice option. If they're interested in finding out what the meta decks are, a simple Google search could lead them to the 'Gym, SixPrizes, PokéBeach, and more, provided they're not a complete idiot. Otherwise, let's be honest; getting destroyed/scooped to by actual good decks game after game isn't going to do anything for them.

Playing basicyellow.dec against CMT which is OHKOing your guys from T2 out will just frustrate you and potentially make you quit. It will teach you nothing about strategy because it will give you no options to DO anything, or make any important decisions whatsoever. You won't set up, you probably won't take a single prize, and you'll lose over and over. It won't be fun or productive for either player, and it's a waste of time. I have no gripe with those playing rogue decks, but I do have a gripe with those playing bad decks. There is a difference.

If you don't have the money for codes or whatever, you can still totally play. Just do it in the novice game room. You'll save actual good players time and irritation, and you won't be missing out on anything.
 
This is basically how I respond to this kind of debate. I think "scrub" is a more extreme version of "noob" from said comic.
 
bullados said:
This is basically how I respond to this kind of debate. I think "scrub" is a more extreme version of "noob" from said comic.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true, and playing in expert games while not knowing what you're doing is failing to admit that one is, in fact, a newb. Thus making them a noob/scrub.
 
SLOW DECK said:
The definition of Scrub in my mind didn't jive with that. Again, I saw this article before, and I do understand the point of people keeping themselves from winning by playing according to their own rules that others don't feel constrained with (which is a very true concept). But the word SCRUB isn't correct. Don't know what word it is, but let's not pollute the word Scrub.

Per the Urban Dictionary!

Definitions:
1,4,&6 all go about the same on the of someone who thinks they are better than they are: A dude who act like a playa or like he sumthin but really got nothin. A broke guy with no job, no car, no girl..etc

The more applicable definitions:

2. A scrub is a now generalized term used as a synonym for a "noob" or "newb," which is someone who is bad at a video game or activity in general.

3. Someone who is below your level.

5. Scrub, an otherwise inferior person in some what way. Most often refers to social standings, i.e. anyone who isn't The Big Jock or similar. Also refers to people who failed to make it onto whatever team/club/board/group, and also, in online gaming circles, refers to somebody who is not inexperienced but not very good at it. Also used in Magic the Gathering, as a derogatory term for a player who is inferior to you.

Thus a term for people who's mindset, not their abilities, keep them from winning needs to be coined. (example, I won't every play a BDIF) The word SCRUB won't be allowed, because that phrase SCRUB was already coined with different meaning. Chris Fulop had written on this subject before also.
Click to expand...


^That!

I am not opposed to the concept of an arbitrary ranking system, or a 'deck identifier', or some way to more effectively connect players who have a common intention. I'm merely saying that you pollute the concept and subsequent debate by utilizing derogatory language.

It has nothing to do with 'tiptoeing around etiquette'. It's like this, what do you think would happen if you were to publicly call someone that at a sanctioned event? If the TO/judging staff has any sense of personal accountability(and I have yet to meet one that doesn't), the answer is most likely at the very least an unsportsmanlike penalty. So what then makes it ok to come onto a website and speak like that?
Posted with Mobile style...
 
Because I'm referring to a particular demographic as opposed to a particular person. Thus, the derogatory-ness of it is diminished by the context. If we must use "scrub" to mean "an inferior player," that's actually fine, because the people who I don't want to play against are inferior at TCGO. Not necessarily because they lack the skills; I have no way to tell, because they don't have the cards. So yeah, inferior. Not a judgment, just a fact.

I'd rather stick with Rob's #2 definition, though, which is much more applicable and which I originally intended.
 
Inferior is a statement of opinion, not fact. You may arrive at that opinion in part by observing facts. Yet you have still interjected a large amount of personal bias in coming to the conclusion. Why is someone inferior if they have limited access to cards? Or maybe they don't know the concepts behind advanced deck building? And it's not as if the information on the Pokemon site, as it relates to cardgame strategies, is of any real substance. So 'LEP's as you so eloquently sidestepped(which if you would have used to begin with, would have been acceptable), who tend to overwhelmingly be young kids, need to be taught, not sidestepped.

Also, your explanation above isn't logical. The effect of your words is diminished because you are addressing a whole group of people, and not just one? Seems to me that would be like saying it's less impactful cause it's class discrimination, not bullying.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
ogremarauder said:
Inferior is a statement of opinion, not fact. You may arrive at that opinion in part by observing facts. Yet you have still interjected a large amount of personal bias in coming to the conclusion. Why is someone inferior if they have limited access to cards? Or maybe they don't know the concepts behind advanced deck building? And it's not as if the information on the Pokemon site, as it relates to cardgame strategies, is of any real substance. So 'LEP's as you so eloquently sidestepped(which if you would have used to begin with, would have been acceptable), who tend to overwhelmingly be young kids, need to be taught, not sidestepped.

Also, your explanation above isn't logical. The effect of your words is diminished because you are addressing a whole group of people, and not just one? Seems to me that would be like saying it's less impactful cause it's class discrimination, not bullying.
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

Sure, they need to be taught. But they need to be taught somewhere other than the expert game room, which is for experts. Hence the NAME. Are you also opposed to the newly-imposed rule to keep those with under a certain number of Play! Points out of Nationals? Because that's the exact same concept, just IRL.
 
I am not opposed to the concept of creating a system for more controls over whom one is matched with on ptcgo. Like a history being available or something like that. I do also think that new players should gain experience in more casual a setting before venturing to the "expert" level gametable. I also think there is no EASY method to arbitrarily implement such a plan as this thread proposed. And the play points requirement has nothing to do with 'skill level'. Only shows that you PARTICIPATE in OP.

The thing I objected to, if you read my posts, is the (IMHO) arrogant, snide manner in which you title the thread. Your concept (valid), is mired by the poor choice of words. It implies arrogance, which I find intolerable and will call out and expose anytime. As I said earlier, Less experienced player (LEP), would not have had the connotation of the wording you originally chose. And when you sidestepped it and tried to introduce' LEP'; in the same post you still did so with a casual dismissal and just expressed the same condescension in another way.

I'll say once again, I feel as if some history info, such as played games total, or maybe a win/loss tally, maybe even a pop-up with "currently playing X" would make the interface more practical for people seeking to playtest vs random players. These types of solutions would achieve the same goals without promoting an elitist environment.

Again, only my 2¢
Posted with Mobile style...
 
I don't feel 100 wins is no where near enough.

You have to factor in the fact that some people that aren't good at this game play PTCGO atleast 20-30 games, easily. Of those games there could be the lucky donk for the win. Plus random connection errors that give you wins. So out of 30 games, the "scrub" player could have managed 7-8 wins. There is also the fact that in Kettler's system there is the sad flaw of Novice vs Novice. A terrible player beating a terrible player would be REALLY terrible if said terrible player does it 100 times.

Simply put, ELO system is in order. Also I feel once tournaments are going on ptcgo, winning a tournament or 2 gets you in for a "3 Month" period. Something of that nature seems to be the best methog imo.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
It's funny because you guys went totally off-topic because of the word choice in the thread title.

Otherwise, yeah, there should probably be a requirement to playing expert games, like a certain number of wins or an elo rating system as people have said.
 
I don't believe it should be a 'requirement'. They shouldn't even have it set up like that. It should just be a clickable option to view an online history. If the whatever stats aren't to your liking, you can choose another player before starting a game. The goal would be to create an open setting, kinda like a MEGA league. You get to screen possible opponents at leagues. Why not on the PTCGO?
Posted with Mobile style...
 
PokeMedic said:
>implying you're an expert.

Come on now, It's Pokemon -not the applicant review board of an Ivy league university.
Click to expand...

No, but there should be something differentiating "Beginner" games and "Expert" games, other than the Token. Other than that, there is currently zero difference between the two. Actually, I'd expect to see MORE competitive decks in the Beginner rooms than the Expert rooms, as the Beginners are going to go into the Expert rooms as sort of a "prove-it" exercise.

There should be a barrier of some sort before getting into the Expert room. Whether it's completing the single-player experience, building a deck with non-PCD cards, or some winning percentage (even 25% winning should be enough). Just something to make the Expert mode actually, y'know, MEAN something.
 
PokeMedic said:
>implying you're an expert.

Come on now, It's Pokemon -not the applicant review board of an Ivy league university.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. So I guess anyone can win chess or read a bluff.

Strategy is strategy, expert players use it, scrubs don't.
No offense to scrub players, we were all their when we started.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
Vegeta ss4 said:
I don't feel 100 wins is no where near enough.

You have to factor in the fact that some people that aren't good at this game play PTCGO atleast 20-30 games, easily. Of those games there could be the lucky donk for the win. Plus random connection errors that give you wins. So out of 30 games, the "scrub" player could have managed 7-8 wins. There is also the fact that in Kettler's system there is the sad flaw of Novice vs Novice. A terrible player beating a terrible player would be REALLY terrible if said terrible player does it 100 times.

Simply put, ELO system is in order. Also I feel once tournaments are going on ptcgo, winning a tournament or 2 gets you in for a "3 Month" period. Something of that nature seems to be the best methog imo.
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you want to stick more literally to the term "expert," but the purpose isn't to design something to segregate the experts from everyone else; it's to distinguish more serious players from less-serious ones.

The key behind the idea I suggested is to further reward the dedicated players for their hard work; not to make a subjective judgment about skill, which you've done.

P.S. What you consider a "sad flaw" is actually in there by design: if a player is actually willing to play and win that many times, the no matter who the opponent, this player is at least dedicated enough.
 
So someone's an expert because they play a lot of games in a daily period?

so...The Kansas City Royals are experts in the terms of baseball because they play a lot of games, but never win? Or even close to the idea of what we call success?

I had no idea that being an expert on the game had such little criteria.
My bad?

My theory is definitly all about seperation. It's by no means disrespect to said players of non skill. It just means it gives them something to look forward to. Nothing should be handed to you for free, ever. It shouldn't be, "I log in and play 30 games a day, I'm an expert" situation. I feel we should all start out as novice, have tournaments, elo systems. That can judge us based on numbers who's an expert and who's not. Dedication is great, major props and thx to those dedicated to the game. Doesn't mean I'm going to say they deserve to play in expert games. X amount of wins a week rewards you with X amount of prizes a week. That's how you reward them...

Perhaps I'm the only one with this mindset, perhaps I'm speaking for many people. Either way I'm standing by what I said, with no doubts.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top