Premier Ratings/Rankings changes!
- Thread starter SD PokeMom
- Start date
- Status
I can understand how the extra pressure can make the younger players feel nervous (and how if they lose, they need to be consoled). But I don't think the competitiveness of cities is necessarily a bad thing - my understanding of the way the season is structured is that there are more important tournaments coming up.
For those people who have lost, I think it is better to accept defeat gracefully and let others get on with playing - by the sound things, people are quite tense already!
I can understand better not wanting ALL others wanting to lose points then letting a SELECT FEW win them (but think that the game will ultimately be healthier if everyone plays their best)
Oops, maybe these people not with the "in-group" should have won their matches? Maybe then it would have been more fun? I don't see how condeding is a big deal. Sure, they are not legitimate wins, but the only person it hurts is the person that chooses to concede the match. That is a benefit of knowing other good players, and its something that is bound to happen once in a while. It isn't like Pokemon is a televised event that will have ratings go down if people see a player concede to another.
With that said I would like to add, in defense of the possibly accused, that in the 6 or 7 City Championships I've been to this year, there have been a lot of "Lafonte v Lafonte" matchups, and a lot of them taking place in important matches. No one ever conceded to another. Everyone is too competitive and I think that is what makes this game fun. So while I don't see how conceding to a friend is so terrible, I will say that I would never accept someone conceding to me, because ultimately we are here to play the game. Conceding would just take the point out of it.
You are exactly right. It is a luxury. Would you like to complain about the people who have million dollar homes too? I realize that it may not sit right with some people, but thats the way it is and there is technically nothing wrong with it.
Conceding does NOTHING to hurt or manipulate other people's chances. When you play your matches, its completely in YOUR hands. Simply win and there will be no problem. The problem is when people dont win and they see what looks like "shady" business, they want to use that as an excuse for possibly a poor performance. Conceding usually happens in finals, so just don't let two friends make it to the finals and there won't be an issue :tongue:
Rulemaster
New Member
have fun wearing an undeserved medal around your neck LOL. thats like someone beating you, but then you saying here, wear this medal around your neck to remember how i just GAVE it you, you didn't win.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Wow, this post is still going on and yet people do not get the connection. I'll lay out five reasons why cc's not being competitive would fail to hurt the players as a whole (ie no vicious collusion between patriarch and drrty byl 
):
-With less on the line, the more competitive players who invest more time in Pokemon will keep on investing the same amount of cash in cards...but not in gas mileage. With a few big players that usually sweep events out of the picture, more of the less competitive players will appear out of the woodwork, and ultimately, the odds of one of the up-and-coming members of this game winning increase.
-There are some people who will forfeit to anyone in the finals of a cc, or just play swiss and drop if the circumstances were different. However, they aren't, so why sacrifice dem ranking points, ehhhh?
-The top players are more likely to mess around with ideas at each tournament, and are therefore more likely to lose, making the winners' list considerably more diverse.
I've already outlined three scenarios where you'd instantly have at least fifty different cc winners in the United States, without any real collusion involved, but because of the system, that's just now how we do it. I think it's fair and perfectly within SotG to have more people winning tournaments, no?
Also 'Mom, you say that the posters are putting words into your mouth, and that this is being made into a Lafonte topic, even though I clearly say "if that's what you think," giving you the opportunity to say "no I don't mean Lafonte!" But because you never actually said what you thought of as the in-crowd (very broad statement), I only had to go with what you've always defined the in-crowd as: Neo, Lafonte, meanstreet, etcetcetc.
If you don't want it to be about that other board, then just say "this isn't about that." We'll understand. :smile:
):-With less on the line, the more competitive players who invest more time in Pokemon will keep on investing the same amount of cash in cards...but not in gas mileage. With a few big players that usually sweep events out of the picture, more of the less competitive players will appear out of the woodwork, and ultimately, the odds of one of the up-and-coming members of this game winning increase.
-There are some people who will forfeit to anyone in the finals of a cc, or just play swiss and drop if the circumstances were different. However, they aren't, so why sacrifice dem ranking points, ehhhh?
-The top players are more likely to mess around with ideas at each tournament, and are therefore more likely to lose, making the winners' list considerably more diverse.
I've already outlined three scenarios where you'd instantly have at least fifty different cc winners in the United States, without any real collusion involved, but because of the system, that's just now how we do it. I think it's fair and perfectly within SotG to have more people winning tournaments, no?
Also 'Mom, you say that the posters are putting words into your mouth, and that this is being made into a Lafonte topic, even though I clearly say "if that's what you think," giving you the opportunity to say "no I don't mean Lafonte!" But because you never actually said what you thought of as the in-crowd (very broad statement), I only had to go with what you've always defined the in-crowd as: Neo, Lafonte, meanstreet, etcetcetc.
If you don't want it to be about that other board, then just say "this isn't about that." We'll understand. :smile:
Ummm, had I _meant_ to reference any particular group or 'other board', rest assured I _would_ have; when have I ever been shy about stating exactly what I think? :wink: :tongue: :lol:
The 'in-crowd' I referenced was that at _any_ particular tourney where a group of players were going to drop, ID or help 'clear the way' for those in that group.
'mom
:wink: :tongue: :lol: The 'in-crowd' I referenced was that at _any_ particular tourney where a group of players were going to drop, ID or help 'clear the way' for those in that group.
'mom
ShawofMordor
New Member
I have to say this is one of the worst posts I've ever seen. I don't know if anyone commented on it already, but, come on here. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that in the Masters vs Seniors games, some luck could have SIGNIFICANTLY changed the the 70% wins that masters had? I bet if you had lost those games you'd have been complaining that its not fair to play people out of your age group. I don't even really know how to aruge against this, its so stupid.
Yes, OK, sometimes your matches vs Seniors will be difficult, but if you think for a second and look at the general population, a 19 year old has a more developed brain than an 11 year old, and will thus have a large advantage over the 11 year old. Add on to that the fact that Seniors are more used to play younger, inexperienced players than Masters are, plus, they don't have to prep for the decks the Masters use, plus, it is just plain intimidating to play someone who could be 10 years your senior!
COME ON.
Last edited:
maatalvis: A million dollar house is a luxury. A system that a team of people have set up to let each other concede is not a luxury. It is collusion, as I think you've said yourself.
I still haven't seen anyone convincing me that collusion is justifiable. Just because Pokemon is a game, doesn't make it any more right to do so.
I still haven't seen anyone convincing me that collusion is justifiable. Just because Pokemon is a game, doesn't make it any more right to do so.
You are confused, I never said anything about letting someone else win.
What's the point of entering a tournament if not to win? I could grab plenty of my league kids who don't care if they win or not, they play for the fun. If they win, they are happy; if they lose, they try to learn something from it.
As far as instilling skill and determanation into young people, I'll leave that to trained professionals. I'll try to help them relax and have fun, as best I can.
Putting pressure on kids to win trips to Hawaii is good for them in what way?
Rick
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Ummm, had I _meant_ to reference any particular group or 'other board', rest assured I _would_ have; when have I ever been shy about stating exactly what I think?
The 'in-crowd' I referenced was that at _any_ particular tourney where a group of players were going to drop, ID or help 'clear the way' for those in that group.
'mom
Kkk well that's cool now
Hot Mustid
New Member
I think this belongs in the sour grapes forums guys
Moss Factor
New Member
Jason, a very close friend of mine who has a trip to worlds already, has beaten me in the finals of two CCs this year. Collusion? I don't see it.
ShawofMordor
New Member
One example can't speak for everyone.
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
ROTF:lol:
This coming from someone who has lost a few games to Seniors this season... :lol:
Drew
ShawofMordor
New Member
I didn't even get to attack that game, it really doesn't count.
- Status