Nats Sour Grapes
- Thread starter BigChuck01
- Start date
SomethingElse
Active Member
So I won a regionals, got 2nd at a states, won a Battle road and got 2nd at a few, went 7-2 at nats, shouldn't I deserve a trip by that way?
Moss Factor
New Member
The problem isn't the ratings system, but the lack of trips. You shouldn't look at it from the perspective of that Ross "got" to avoid playing Nationals and win his trip, but that he had to. There were a ton of 11-14 and 10- players who also skipped playing at Nats to secure their trips. This is where the injustice lies.
It is a terrible system when multiple players independently realize that it is in their best interests to skip the biggest and (arguably) most fun Pokemon tournament of the year. People shouldn't have to choose between Nats (and a bunch of other tournies) and Worlds.
The solution?
Increase the number of trips! I heard Nintendo spent $18k on those inflatable things Pram tried to fight for some beer money. That was enough for at least 50 more trips to worlds. If you do the system based on rating, but have it include a HUGE number of people, you avoid players skipping/dropping from tournaments just to make it to another. People should always have it in their best interests to play in as many pokemon tournaments as they want.
If you increase the invites back to 50 (or ****, 100!), you make it so everyone plays again. Why? The top players won't drop enough points to fall off the map, so they don't mind playing. Furthermore, the lower-ranked players can't risk not playing lest they get passed, so they play as well. In the end, you have people actually showing up to tournaments again. That's what PUI should be supporting.
Going to worlds shouldn't be dependent on which tournies you drop or which side of the Nats bracket you're on; it should be the best players. Furthermore, the system for determining the best players shouldn't punish them by making it in their best interests to not play the game they're the best at.
It just makes sense.
It is a terrible system when multiple players independently realize that it is in their best interests to skip the biggest and (arguably) most fun Pokemon tournament of the year. People shouldn't have to choose between Nats (and a bunch of other tournies) and Worlds.
The solution?
Increase the number of trips! I heard Nintendo spent $18k on those inflatable things Pram tried to fight for some beer money. That was enough for at least 50 more trips to worlds. If you do the system based on rating, but have it include a HUGE number of people, you avoid players skipping/dropping from tournaments just to make it to another. People should always have it in their best interests to play in as many pokemon tournaments as they want.
If you increase the invites back to 50 (or ****, 100!), you make it so everyone plays again. Why? The top players won't drop enough points to fall off the map, so they don't mind playing. Furthermore, the lower-ranked players can't risk not playing lest they get passed, so they play as well. In the end, you have people actually showing up to tournaments again. That's what PUI should be supporting.
Going to worlds shouldn't be dependent on which tournies you drop or which side of the Nats bracket you're on; it should be the best players. Furthermore, the system for determining the best players shouldn't punish them by making it in their best interests to not play the game they're the best at.
It just makes sense.
NoPoke
Active Member
Rainbowgym, yes POP could make nationals an event without any points. But that would not change my statement that it is always possible for a few players to have a play to the first loss strategy in the last rated tournament of the season.
It is a property of the rating system as currently applied that late season wins and loses have a bigger impact on your final rating than early season performance. This has nothing to do with K value and everything to do with the non-linearity in the logistic equation used by ELO. The non-linear behaviour is very important, without it whoever could accumulate the most wins in a season would most likely get an invite. The late season emphasis can be addressed in a variety of ways but no matter how the system is changed someone somewhere will be disadvantaged by the change.
It is wrong to say that the points that you can earn at nationals will never lead to an invite. nationals is zero-sum exactly like every other tournament: All entrants put their points in a 'bin' if they get to take out more points than they put in is down to how well they do in the tournament against all the entrants they play against. Some finish near the top but many more don't. The number of points in the T32 is fixed at the begining of the T32. But with each round an increasing quantity of points remains to be shared out as the knocked out players always leave some of their points behind. Losing players always leave their stake at the tables.
It is a property of the rating system as currently applied that late season wins and loses have a bigger impact on your final rating than early season performance. This has nothing to do with K value and everything to do with the non-linearity in the logistic equation used by ELO. The non-linear behaviour is very important, without it whoever could accumulate the most wins in a season would most likely get an invite. The late season emphasis can be addressed in a variety of ways but no matter how the system is changed someone somewhere will be disadvantaged by the change.
It is wrong to say that the points that you can earn at nationals will never lead to an invite. nationals is zero-sum exactly like every other tournament: All entrants put their points in a 'bin' if they get to take out more points than they put in is down to how well they do in the tournament against all the entrants they play against. Some finish near the top but many more don't. The number of points in the T32 is fixed at the begining of the T32. But with each round an increasing quantity of points remains to be shared out as the knocked out players always leave some of their points behind. Losing players always leave their stake at the tables.
Last edited:
Burninating_Torchic
New Member
Moss has probably made the best and most agreeable post in this thread so far, even though I personally think that the ratings system should be scrapped altogether.
I liked it MUCH better back when you could get trips from smaller tournaments as well as nats. You had plenty of chances, so you couldn't say "I just had a bad tournament", and there were no situations where players could get an invite by sitting out of events.
Like Moss said, more invites, less giant inflatables that accomplish almost no purpose. =/
I liked it MUCH better back when you could get trips from smaller tournaments as well as nats. You had plenty of chances, so you couldn't say "I just had a bad tournament", and there were no situations where players could get an invite by sitting out of events.
Like Moss said, more invites, less giant inflatables that accomplish almost no purpose. =/
Rainbowgym
Active Member
NoPoke - the discussion was about that getting second at a Nationals (at least in Europe) might give you an invite because you earn points.
Even worse if you have to play for 3/4th place and loose that one too, you are dropping down so much you can count on not getting an invite.
I tend to think that 1 loss in finals is more likely going to cost you an invite.
And yes there will always be a possible way to play untill the first loss, agreed on that.
But I still find it sour that people don't play their Nationals because they can loose to much.
POP should know by now that going to Worlds is for most decent players the ultime goal.
Even worse if you have to play for 3/4th place and loose that one too, you are dropping down so much you can count on not getting an invite.
I tend to think that 1 loss in finals is more likely going to cost you an invite.
And yes there will always be a possible way to play untill the first loss, agreed on that.
But I still find it sour that people don't play their Nationals because they can loose to much.
POP should know by now that going to Worlds is for most decent players the ultime goal.
NoPoke
Active Member
Agreed on the 3/4th playoff issue. USA is fortunate to have T4 invites.
The compressive effect means that players potential loses get less with each round they win. I do think that POP intended that some of the second place finishers at EU nationals woud get ratings invites. That has happened too, though not in quite the way I would have wished.
$18,000 for the inflatables is a lot.. but.. equivalent to what? six invites for player and guardian. Not the 50 that are alledged. Nationals is not just for the winners.
[By the way, I'm completely neutral on Nationals being a rated event or not. Its POP's decision]
The compressive effect means that players potential loses get less with each round they win. I do think that POP intended that some of the second place finishers at EU nationals woud get ratings invites. That has happened too, though not in quite the way I would have wished.
$18,000 for the inflatables is a lot.. but.. equivalent to what? six invites for player and guardian. Not the 50 that are alledged. Nationals is not just for the winners.
[By the way, I'm completely neutral on Nationals being a rated event or not. Its POP's decision]
Last edited:
Rainbowgym
Active Member
Maybe we don't need another discussion about the rating system, but I prefer that above personal attacks towards people who just "worked the system".
ZAKtheGeek
New Member
Proposition: blind ratings. You can't sit out if you don't know where you stand.
Which results in the blaming of the flawed system......
It all ties in.
I don't think Chuck or anyone in hear is trying to attack the individuals who won the trips, but we're attacking the system of how someone has the option and a high chance of not playing in the largest and very enjoyable tournaments in history. And most players who chose to sit out did capitalize on it and you can't blame them for playing the system fairly. There is no limit to how many BR's/Cities/S-P-Ts/Regionals you can go to.
It all ties in.
I don't think Chuck or anyone in hear is trying to attack the individuals who won the trips, but we're attacking the system of how someone has the option and a high chance of not playing in the largest and very enjoyable tournaments in history. And most players who chose to sit out did capitalize on it and you can't blame them for playing the system fairly. There is no limit to how many BR's/Cities/S-P-Ts/Regionals you can go to.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
If you had blind ratings, you'd basically be trusting POP 100% to get things right. Seeing as how it's virtually guaranteed for one tournament to have a "weird" uploading, the odds of incorrect point totals would skyrocket.
Moss hit the nail on the head: I think the giant Pikachu did more than what the six inflatables would ever do, so why throw money at that??? If the 15+ just had even EQUAL numbers to the other age groups as far as ranking invites go, you would've had far more people playing in nearly every event.
Moss hit the nail on the head: I think the giant Pikachu did more than what the six inflatables would ever do, so why throw money at that??? If the 15+ just had even EQUAL numbers to the other age groups as far as ranking invites go, you would've had far more people playing in nearly every event.
This post is a cry out to PUI to rethink the ranking system. Its not a bash on anyone player or two how they got their trip, but that it was viable to do it the way they did it. (Sorry if you are the person that played the system, but its the only way to point out the facts.) As in the system is flawed, like others are saying.
Again, I state my PRO POINT option would prevent this. The rankings would only be a small percent of what points you would need to get a invite. The rest would actually come from placing in big events as state, regionals and nationals.
Again, I state my PRO POINT option would prevent this. The rankings would only be a small percent of what points you would need to get a invite. The rest would actually come from placing in big events as state, regionals and nationals.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
I hope the HUGE attendance of Masters at the USA Nationals would make POP rethink the invite structure and the people they are "serving" with OP.
Showing up with over 400 players in an agegroup, you made a statement which cannot be ignored.
Showing up with over 400 players in an agegroup, you made a statement which cannot be ignored.
NoPoke
Active Member
It is impossible to prevent sitting (Or more appropriately a play to the first loss strategy) whilst also trying to reward consistent performance through the rest of the season. It certainly does seem like sour grapes though to complain about players who have managed through effort to get to a position where they are able to skip a tournament and get an invite. That is the very definition of rewarding consistant high standards of play.
The only system that prevents sitting is one where the only invites are available through nationals or other major events. Which is the same as abandoning the rating invites in their entirety.
Of course none of that addresses Moss's complaint that there aren't enough invites.
The only system that prevents sitting is one where the only invites are available through nationals or other major events. Which is the same as abandoning the rating invites in their entirety.
Of course none of that addresses Moss's complaint that there aren't enough invites.
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
6 out of 6 1sts at BRs,
3 out of 3 1sts at STPs
4x 1st, 1x2nd, 1x3rd at CCs. (out of 6)
double donk from flariados at nats in the swiss rounds = no invite.
55 wins 6 loses within age group for the whole season.
If anyone should have sour grapes then its us. But we don't because we knew what the system was before we played. It wasn't a surprise that was sprung on us at the last minute. If you have a sufficiently high rating that you can play at nationals with a play to first loss strategy then all praise to you for getting to that position.
3 out of 3 1sts at STPs
4x 1st, 1x2nd, 1x3rd at CCs. (out of 6)
double donk from flariados at nats in the swiss rounds = no invite.
55 wins 6 loses within age group for the whole season.
If anyone should have sour grapes then its us. But we don't because we knew what the system was before we played. It wasn't a surprise that was sprung on us at the last minute. If you have a sufficiently high rating that you can play at nationals with a play to first loss strategy then all praise to you for getting to that position.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
Thanks Alex! See you at worlds! :thumb:
On a serious note, I don't think the system is right either, but in the end I did what I thought was the smart decision. (Turns out I could have easily played til I got a loss or maybe even two). Moss is right, there certainly is an element of punishment of being in my situation in it not being smart to play nats. I'm sure Kettler, Jordan Hill and I would all have loved to play nats only going for 1st place, but there was a great risk to take if we did that. Same with the multiple younger division kids who sat out or dropped. I also agree that the main problem is just that there are just so few trips for too big/good a player base.
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
I agree with Moss for the most part. I think it was more to a "lack" of Rating Invites or Invites in general more than the system. I believe the POP is looking at this and are making changes for the next year.
We will just have to wait and see what they have in store for us.
Drew
We will just have to wait and see what they have in store for us.
Drew