How to make it fair for the West Coast and everyone else next year
- Thread starter Scizor
- Start date
- Status
EternalFire
New Member
I just love how some people think that if it's not "fair", it must be fixed right away.
My opinions should be taken into account then:
- It's not fair that people who live in on the west coast live so close to Japan that they could take a shorter, cheaper trip than I could ever hope to pay for. :frown:
- It's not fair that the Yankees have more World Series wins than other teams do.
- It's not fair that Worlds has only touched the east coast once, while the west coast has them for 4 years now. I count Hawaii as <---that-a-way. :tongue: ('02 worlds included in that #)
It's not fair... it's not fair... it's not fair.
I could go on (seriously, I could
) but it must stop here. 4 days is the least that can be done. I sure would spit fire if there was no NY states because the one weekend that was chosen by POP was taken over by some Yu-gi-oh regionals or 2 days of prereleases. (<-- yes this can and does happen) Like I said before, balance out the other parts of the issue (Regionals, BR's, Cities and ranking invites) and the States dates and location "problem" won't seem like much of a big deal anymore.
On to the post above, the second suggestion of larger K values based on attendance. It will never happen.
POP cannot waste valueable resources (main one of them being time) micromanaging each event to determine what State is "more worthy" of higher point gains/losses. If anything, it already exists with places that have large attendance getting extra rounds for top cut.
I'm very happy to see by the lack of 200 more posts like in previous "unfair" threads, that these "I dislike the way the east coast always gets more than us" posts are not the way to convince POP of change. True change can only occur by e-mailing POP with your opinions directly. I only hope I'm right and don't see another 100 posts before this thread dies out and the next one is created in about 6 months time.
My opinions should be taken into account then:
- It's not fair that people who live in on the west coast live so close to Japan that they could take a shorter, cheaper trip than I could ever hope to pay for. :frown:
- It's not fair that the Yankees have more World Series wins than other teams do.
- It's not fair that Worlds has only touched the east coast once, while the west coast has them for 4 years now. I count Hawaii as <---that-a-way. :tongue: ('02 worlds included in that #)
It's not fair... it's not fair... it's not fair.
I could go on (seriously, I could
) but it must stop here. 4 days is the least that can be done. I sure would spit fire if there was no NY states because the one weekend that was chosen by POP was taken over by some Yu-gi-oh regionals or 2 days of prereleases. (<-- yes this can and does happen) Like I said before, balance out the other parts of the issue (Regionals, BR's, Cities and ranking invites) and the States dates and location "problem" won't seem like much of a big deal anymore.On to the post above, the second suggestion of larger K values based on attendance. It will never happen.
POP cannot waste valueable resources (main one of them being time) micromanaging each event to determine what State is "more worthy" of higher point gains/losses. If anything, it already exists with places that have large attendance getting extra rounds for top cut.
I'm very happy to see by the lack of 200 more posts like in previous "unfair" threads, that these "I dislike the way the east coast always gets more than us" posts are not the way to convince POP of change. True change can only occur by e-mailing POP with your opinions directly. I only hope I'm right and don't see another 100 posts before this thread dies out and the next one is created in about 6 months time.
Last edited:
EternalFire
New Member
^ That won't work either. Players that already won a states is reasonable and has been done before. Excluding many players from attending an event will displease some PTO's/store owners as they would view it as hurting possible sales to people who would otherwise not visit ther store. As we all know POP makes it very clear that they want to keep store owners happy and have continued sales/support.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Might as well do the same thing with Texas...
How to make it fair/RATINGS
Hello everyone
There are several things that many of you are missing. First of all larger tournaments ARE already worth more points than smaller ones as you play more rounds of swiss BEFORE cutting to top whatever. It is really important that PUI keeps the rating values for all tourneys consistent. A regional is a regional, and a state needs to be a state no matter where played.
Just because a player gets more chances to play in a tournament doesn't necessarily mean that they will benefit from it. They still have to ACTUALLY win. A player that wins one state going 6-1 on the day and then plays in a second state the next day and goes 0-2 drop is worse off than the guy on the west coast who goes 9-1 on the day and wins their larger state tourney. Perhaps the West Coast players could get their stores and PTO's to get together and run more battle roads, and more city's.
I can tell you that while Pokemon is growing it has not grown to the point that we need to be telling players that they can not play in more than one state or one regional. Pokemon needs some of their events to be HUGE. HUGE tourneys help create excitement. This excitement helps the game grow. Pokemon doesn't have the HUGE pre releases like Magic or Yu-Gh-Io. Our big events ARE states and regionals. Part of getting this game to grow is to help the community be just that a community. Not the West Coast Community or the East Coast Community.
There are many players on the East Coast who did not make it to worlds too! We need to tweek the ratings system not overhaul it. For those of you who want to change how things work so that you could have qualified for worlds just keep in mind that making changes doesn't guarantee you the invite next year. Our game is enjoying an exciting rebirth. We need to grow the community not divide it.
Think about it
Tom Shea
PTO New England
Hello everyone
There are several things that many of you are missing. First of all larger tournaments ARE already worth more points than smaller ones as you play more rounds of swiss BEFORE cutting to top whatever. It is really important that PUI keeps the rating values for all tourneys consistent. A regional is a regional, and a state needs to be a state no matter where played.
Just because a player gets more chances to play in a tournament doesn't necessarily mean that they will benefit from it. They still have to ACTUALLY win. A player that wins one state going 6-1 on the day and then plays in a second state the next day and goes 0-2 drop is worse off than the guy on the west coast who goes 9-1 on the day and wins their larger state tourney. Perhaps the West Coast players could get their stores and PTO's to get together and run more battle roads, and more city's.
I can tell you that while Pokemon is growing it has not grown to the point that we need to be telling players that they can not play in more than one state or one regional. Pokemon needs some of their events to be HUGE. HUGE tourneys help create excitement. This excitement helps the game grow. Pokemon doesn't have the HUGE pre releases like Magic or Yu-Gh-Io. Our big events ARE states and regionals. Part of getting this game to grow is to help the community be just that a community. Not the West Coast Community or the East Coast Community.
There are many players on the East Coast who did not make it to worlds too! We need to tweek the ratings system not overhaul it. For those of you who want to change how things work so that you could have qualified for worlds just keep in mind that making changes doesn't guarantee you the invite next year. Our game is enjoying an exciting rebirth. We need to grow the community not divide it.
Think about it
Tom Shea
PTO New England
GinoLombardi21
New Member
With worlds being so exclusive I think they should do alot more huge events. BR doesnt cut it. They should bring back an STS type or another Regionals type. With the TFG coming out theirs alot more u can do at pokemon events. TCG, DS game, TFG, etc. So now the little events have more options but imagine the options at bigger events!
HYPER EEVEE
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
mad props. agree 100%
attendance and geography should really be a bigger factor in this system
attendance and geography should really be a bigger factor in this system
lol. 2x3x50 = 300 invites. Unless you're counting District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and our armed forces living abroad.
And that means people like:
Would be getting paid trips to worlds for attending two, maybe three events?
HurricaneWarty
New Member
Instead of more events, putting more stress on staff and even players since so many of our weekends are already committed to tournaments, why not make the already big events "bigger." First off, have the K values for cities/BRs further offset from states and regionals. Something along the lines of 8-10k for BRs and 16-20k for cities, and then have states be like 28-30k and regionals 38-40k. Then for events like states and regionals, have the K value "flex" once you hit the top cut. For instance, once you hit top 8 or top 16, then k value for your matches raises 6 or 8 points from the swiss value, or just simply award a flat amount of points for getting to the top 8, and make them higher the deeper you go (similar to pro points system that alot of people have been pushing.) I think awarding a set number of points works better, since raising the K values would be great if you won, but if you lose in the first round of the top cut, you basically end up being punished for making the cut.
meganium45
Active Member
Prime, prime, prime....
One thing has been proven...higher numbers do not mean more difficult fields...
You know that...shame on you.
Vince
My suggestion for K values, and it really seems to work in the checking I have done...
Battle Roads 10K
Cities 15K
States 25K
Regionals 35K
Nationals 50K
You want to play in the big event, you have to show up at the big events and do well!
Also would allow the Spring Battle Roads to be less of a sit-out event, and more of a Nats tuneup!
It would work...it would.
Also, can we add the luck factor into the ELO, so as to not CRIPPLE the top players every time they lose (15% luck factor)
Vince
One thing has been proven...higher numbers do not mean more difficult fields...
You know that...shame on you.
Vince
My suggestion for K values, and it really seems to work in the checking I have done...
Battle Roads 10K
Cities 15K
States 25K
Regionals 35K
Nationals 50K
You want to play in the big event, you have to show up at the big events and do well!
Also would allow the Spring Battle Roads to be less of a sit-out event, and more of a Nats tuneup!
It would work...it would.
Also, can we add the luck factor into the ELO, so as to not CRIPPLE the top players every time they lose (15% luck factor)
Vince
NoPoke
Active Member
Vince with such a big range of K values you might as well drop Battle Roads as rated tournaments altogether. Much the same for Cities.
Just for fun I deleted the first third of my son's tournaments I wiped out a +120 gain. and it reduced his eventual rating by no more than 30 points. This with most of the UK tournaments being K 32 and K 36 (no regionals over here) A big spread in K values makes the early season tournaments even less relevant. No biggie. However high K values make the ratings system highly unstable. Instability caused by high K values placing much more weight on the just completed game than on any of the previous matches. Your history doesn't count for much at a high k event. You need to be lucky to do well in a rating system that has high K values late season. That doesn't seem like an improvement, much better to just scrap the ratings invites rather than make them into a lottery.
Finishing fourth at regionals would be a ratings disaster. Fourth place always ends a big tournament with two loses. A couple of fourth place finishes and say goodbye to any chance at the ratings invite.
Without the actual database that POP or the LD has access too I can only base the above upon my own analysis, investigation, and understanding of rating systems in general.
I'm glad you like the idea of explicitly accounting for a fixed amount of Luck in determining the points at stake. Its surprising just how much difference it makes.
Just for fun I deleted the first third of my son's tournaments I wiped out a +120 gain. and it reduced his eventual rating by no more than 30 points. This with most of the UK tournaments being K 32 and K 36 (no regionals over here) A big spread in K values makes the early season tournaments even less relevant. No biggie. However high K values make the ratings system highly unstable. Instability caused by high K values placing much more weight on the just completed game than on any of the previous matches. Your history doesn't count for much at a high k event. You need to be lucky to do well in a rating system that has high K values late season. That doesn't seem like an improvement, much better to just scrap the ratings invites rather than make them into a lottery.
Finishing fourth at regionals would be a ratings disaster. Fourth place always ends a big tournament with two loses. A couple of fourth place finishes and say goodbye to any chance at the ratings invite.
Without the actual database that POP or the LD has access too I can only base the above upon my own analysis, investigation, and understanding of rating systems in general.
I'm glad you like the idea of explicitly accounting for a fixed amount of Luck in determining the points at stake. Its surprising just how much difference it makes.
pat460
New Member
excuse me? California had a bad season? WHAT? NV had a much worse season than California. The only good thing we got this season was 2 battle roads and not many Californians winning our tournements. Which they seem to do a lot.
HYPER EEVEE
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
haha sorry but here are some numbers
NV Registered OP Players: 32
CA Registered OP Players: 376 (a little over 11x NV) only 3 of which got invites to worlds
and NONE of the
201 Registered Master Players got invites, in comparison to the measly 15 NV players that had a "worse" season
might want to think about that one
Ratings system
Vince and I are not too far off on this one. I would recomend the following ratings values:
Battle Roads: 8K
Cities : 16K
States: 32K
Regionals: 40 K
Nationals: 48 K
I like factors of 8 K seems better when computing ratings that States is twice as important than a city.
Another factor to remember on Regionals is that someone who goes 7/2 at regionals is probably gaining tons of points that might help them qualify on rating. We can't expect Pokemon USA to pay for a ton of trips. In a perfect world I am sure that ALL of us would like a trip to Hawaii for worlds. Bigger tournaments simply give the opportunity to earn more points as there are more rounds of swiss. Size doesn't have any bearing of how competitive the field is.
We don't want to eliminate Battle Roads or Cities as these are great tournies to get newer players involved. With a lower k value and rules enforcement level it becomes possible to teach our players who to play in tournies. It also gives the real hard core players something to do.
We are on the right track now working on this as a community.
Tom Shea
PTO New England
Vince and I are not too far off on this one. I would recomend the following ratings values:
Battle Roads: 8K
Cities : 16K
States: 32K
Regionals: 40 K
Nationals: 48 K
I like factors of 8 K seems better when computing ratings that States is twice as important than a city.
Another factor to remember on Regionals is that someone who goes 7/2 at regionals is probably gaining tons of points that might help them qualify on rating. We can't expect Pokemon USA to pay for a ton of trips. In a perfect world I am sure that ALL of us would like a trip to Hawaii for worlds. Bigger tournaments simply give the opportunity to earn more points as there are more rounds of swiss. Size doesn't have any bearing of how competitive the field is.
We don't want to eliminate Battle Roads or Cities as these are great tournies to get newer players involved. With a lower k value and rules enforcement level it becomes possible to teach our players who to play in tournies. It also gives the real hard core players something to do.
We are on the right track now working on this as a community.
Tom Shea
PTO New England
NoPoke
Active Member
Such a big ratio of K values. It honestly makes no sense to me whatsoever. No sense if we are under any kind of illusion that the purpose is to determine player skill that is. High K values are associated with instabiliy and a big ratio makes the small K values irrelevant when they take place at the begining of the season. Remember that we have a season reset back to 1600 for all. The kind of K growth that you propose deemphasises skill and season performance. The system is massively skewed towards late season reward. With only a few tournaments effectively counting you had better be lucky at those: because without that luck your season is going to go up in flames. And don't under any circumstances place fourth. No IDs to help out the third/fourth players.
- Status