Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Ratings - Not Rewarding Good Play

Status
Not open for further replies.
See, resetting rankings is a VERY good thing about POP's current structure, as it most certainly rewards the player base. As a person who stands to benefit almost more than anyone from the carrying over of points, it would be an absurdly unfair advantage for my play last season to determine my worlds eligibility for this season. So good job, POP!
 
Cyrus said:
See, resetting rankings is a VERY good thing about POP's current structure, as it most certainly rewards the player base. As a person who stands to benefit almost more than anyone from the carrying over of points, it would be an absurdly unfair advantage for my play last season to determine my worlds eligibility for this season. So good job, POP!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. They should do away with giving return trips to last year's Top4 to this year's Worlds. :rolleyes::tongue:
 
SteveP said:
With a year-end reset, yes that's true. I'm talking in the context of no reset, and periodic aging.
Click to expand...

No, the dynamics and non-linearity combine to make older results really less significant than current results. If you have a spreadsheet set up to calculate your rating then just zero out all but the last 60 results and you will see that the elo rating doesn't change much from the exclusion of potentially vast numbers of games.

The year end reset really is a good thing, with very little negative impact on rating. With carry over we would be bound to experience some degree of sitting out and many players would feel discouraged by carrying forward a negative performance. You are quite correct that a negative carry forward is very quickly worked off by the same non-linearity that makes old results less significant, but I'm not convinced that all the players would understand this and may feel that they are being, for want of a better term, "punished" :wink:.
 
Last edited:
The reset is a good thing. Some players can have solid success one year, and then when the cards they are used to using cycle out, that may have a harder time adjusting to the new metagame. So the rankings reset is important as it levels the playing field each you so no one has a leg up on anyone else ratings wise. So please keep resetting the rankings to 1600 after worlds, that is the correct thing to do.
 
Last edited:
NoPoke said:
No, the dynamics and non-linearity combine to make older results really less significant than current results. If you have a spreadsheet set up to calculate your rating then just zero out all but the last 60 results and you will see that the elo rating doesn't change much from the exclusion of potentially vast numbers of games.

The year end reset really is a good thing, with very little negative impact on rating. With carry over we would be bound to experience some degree of sitting out and many players would feel discouraged by carrying forward a negative performance. You are quite correct that a negative carry forward is very quickly worked off by the same non-linearity that makes old results less significant, but I'm not convinced that all the players would understand this and may feel that they are being, for want of a better term, "punished" :wink:.
Click to expand...
Your assumption is that players are continually playing. In that context, yes, I concede and recognize your point.

We have players come and go all the time, good players even. At the 2001 Tropical Mega Battle that my kid went to, 3 US kids were invited that year. My kid was the only active player. The other two hadn't played in about a year, yet because their ratings didn't age (or reset), they got to go to Hawaii.

I'm not advocating an elimination of the reset. I just think it has a bad side-effect in that expectations to win at the beginning of the season aren't realistic. It would be nice to use a system where expectations are consistent year-round. A no-reset-with-aging system would be that answer.
 
Hey... be thankful that you guys actually get a 'decent' rankings system...
Fyi, even if we go UNDEFEATED in all of our premier events, we won't get in through rankings... Aus/MLY have too many events for us to compete against, the only way is if we flew like to another country to gain some points ;/
 
davidy321 said:
Hey... be thankful that you guys actually get a 'decent' rankings system...
Fyi, even if we go UNDEFEATED in all of our premier events, we won't get in through rankings... Aus/MLY have too many events for us to compete against, the only way is if we flew like to another country to gain some points ;/
Click to expand...

I... Kinda hate to be a jerk, but it seems more like it's a tournament organization problem then a rankings problem. What's flawed? The unequal amount of events, or the ranking system? Hm...

Perhaps if the Ranking System had a scale factor for how many events a player could go to (IE: Countries with an abmornally low amount of battle roads would have their scores multiplied by a larger scaling factor then say the US, to make up for lower tournament opportunities. Heck, the US could do that too, so if a player's in a state with low amounts of city tournaments, their scores are adjusted to be more similar to a player who lives in an area with 2 tournaments every weekend as long as the winning percentage is about the same)
 
That's fine, no offence taken.

I didn'y by any means intend it as a complaint.
Yeah it is an organizational thing, which will be fixed by next season.
 
2 BRs this weekend for me, up to 35-6 this year, 85% win. If someone other than Paul has that sort of a percentage I'd like to see it. And I still won't even be close to T25. It has to be unheard of someone missing an invite two consecutive years winning nearly 85% of their games in any TCG.
 
I tanked today I went 1-4 with the same deck that I went 5-2 in swiss with at Regionals, and I lost to a theme decks.... sheesh!! On he plus side one of our League members finished 2nd place on Saturday, and my Wife went T4 on Sunday only loosing twice to a water deck.
 
JandPDS said:
I tanked today I went 1-4 with the same deck that I went 5-2 in swiss with at Regionals, and I lost to a theme decks.... sheesh!! On he plus side one of our League members finished 2nd place on Saturday, and my Wife went T4 on Sunday only loosing twice to a water deck.
Click to expand...

LOL... and I also look at your sig as you say that..
 
i stop reading page 2.


i don't see the point in this post.

Elo System and ranking was the same last year and 100% of the people find it wrong, still PUI will not do anything to change it.

let me explain the thing to all of you.

ELO SYSTEM WAS MADE FOR CHESS.

TCG are not chess.
In Chess good players has a REAL edge against bad ones.
NO WAY a professional player could lose to a newbie. NO WAY.

in this game you have 2 "order" of luck factor: MATCHUPS/PAIRINGS and DRAWs

the best player in the world can lose anytime to a guy with a theme deck that T3 his lone starter. Don't even Try to argue that this thing never happens if you have a consistant deck... i've been T2 by Hurricane and i was playing GG (GG ALWAYS beats Hurricane in a legitimate game) lone ralts for 3 turns and i ha 11 basic in the deck, 4 roseane, 4 celio, 2 bebe.... a candy was enought to evolve the ralts....

when you lose even a single game to lower ranked player you lose 5-10 TIMES what you earned from a victory...

the reason "you shoul always win" is pure jank in TCG game and ELO SYSTEM was studied for CHESS (i repeat since is a very important thing).

If you have to blame someone blame the person who decided to use a system made for Chess in a TCG...

Btw the same system is used in magic....

if you don't like it quit watching the ranking.
if you accept it take it easy and hope to always have luck

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

Scizor said:
2 BRs this weekend for me, up to 35-6 this year, 85% win. If someone other than Paul has that sort of a percentage I'd like to see it. And I still won't even be close to T25. It has to be unheard of someone missing an invite two consecutive years winning nearly 85% of their games in any TCG.
Click to expand...

85% wins means nothing.

K value is important.

10-0 to a STP or Regional gives you 100+ points.
5-0 at BR gives you 8-9 points.

also, a positive record in the end of the season is more important that games won /lost at the begining of the season...

if you won 35 games in a row, go up to 1900, and lost 6 straight match at K 32/44 you'll go down to 1750...
if you lose 6 games in BR and go to 1580 and then win 36 straight round you'll go up to 1900 in a moment
 
Last edited:
As Gatsu stated, TCG is not Chess. However, whether you distribute invites via tournaments or via ELO. the luck factor stays. What ELO does do, is reward CONSISTENT good play. Yes, you can lose points due to bad starts, but good players still end up high in the rankings. Just look at the top 50 USA or top 20 Europe, there are by no means bad players in that list.

PUI could stop the ELO system and start GCs again (which I wouldnt mind either btw), but the player who gets donked in Top 8/T4/T2 every GC still misses out on an invite despite proving himself worthy of one.
With ELO, its likely this player does get his invite due to consistently performing well.

Besides, rankings bring a little extra excitement to the game.. for me at least. In my country, we have had 12+ City Championships with maybe 50 different players. The title of City Champion means nothing here, as you share it with every other player who actually makes the top cut once in a while. Your place on the rankings here means that much more when it comes to determining who is best.

So I hope ELO stays, maybe they could improve the system for people like Scizor. But I like the system the way it is.
 
You guys also don't live in the USA. I don't think you realize how hard it is. How can you POSSIBLY say 85% wins doesn't matter? That's over the course of BRs, CCs, States and Regionals and he hasn't lost more than 2 games in any event. If that isn't "consistent play" I don't know what is!
 
Gatsu wasn't saying that 85% wasn't a good record. What he was saying by the examples he gave later in the post is that when the losses occur and the K value matter lots. You can have an 85% record with a high rating or a much lower rating as a consequence of when and where the losses occur. An 85% record would be reasonably expected to give you a rating between 1850 and 1900, but it might not.
 
Nopoke explained my point post and the TRUTH.

85% means nothing for ELO system.
System is designed for a 0% luck game so if you lose to a bad player you lose a lot of points....

we know how easy is to lose on T2 even with a consistent deck.

ELO system + K values means that not all tournaments are equal. SO not all victory are the same.
I did 20-0 at Battle roads (Yeah, really) and earned 35 points.
I did 7-1 at Regional and earned 70 points.

so 86% is better than 100% for ELO system if K value is higher and Rating of opponents is higher.


Let me explain it for you:

I have 80% win this season in 91 games (18 loss, 73 victory)

i had 4 loses in 8 match in 2 early BRS and was at 1602.
if i didn't play those BR i would have been at 1600...
so you can take away those 8 match and my 18-73 (80%) would become 14-69 (83%)

So 83% GIVES THE SAME POINTS as 80%....

So percentuals wins means NOTHING? with LEO system, YEP!

if you still consider that number relevant you didn't understand ELO system.....

better not to talk about things you don't know.


TOYurUSkids: ELO system don't care if you live in Florida, in USA, in HOnolulu, in Jamiaca, in Europe, in Japan ecc.
It only cares K value and Rating of your opponent....

Win against 1500 opponent at K8 and you'll earn less then playing against 1900 in K32.

If Scizor (char Harris i guess) has 85% ans is still 20-30th in NA that means his won are against low ranked players in small K values event.

Low ranked players doesn't mean that his opponent were bad.
Low K valuen doesn't mean the tournament were not important.

also, being X-2 at all tournament makes you consistent.

but to be in top 20 in NA you need more than that you need X-0 and X-1 in all FINAL events and in High-K-Value events.....

Hope those mechanics are now clear; we all know how good are USA players and how higher their level of competition is compared to the rest of the World...
 
Last edited:
So what exactly is your point? That the system is good? It's not. You act as if it's my fault that my area has lower rated players. You're also very wrong that I beat up on low K-Value events. I go into the hotbeds of our state and don't back down to people. I also went X-2 twice, in a State and Regional. I guess that's horrible.

Once again, show me people with a higher win percentage than me besides Paul Johnston in North America. Let's be realistic here: People like him are not only higher than me because of a ridiculous Regional record, but there are a number of players significantly ahead of me in the T35 or so that are there because they went to multiple City Championships. Again, completely out of my control and a flaw in the system.

For the record, my stats:

City Championship - 6-1, 1st Place
OR State Championship - 5-2, 11th Place
CA State Championship - 10-0, 1st Place
Sierra Nevada Regionals - 6-2, T8
Battle Road - 6-1, 1st Place
Battle Road - 2-0, Drop

35-6 overall

So, I've gone to 6 events so far and won half of them. I have a cumulative record of 30-4 in California events, dominated my State championship and will have over a 30 point lead on the next ranked player here when the BRs are input. This is by a decent margin the largest state by attendance and the larger level events are bigger than most countries Nationals, Regionals, States, Cities, Battle Roads, everything. I was even 38-9 last year, winning 4 out of 7 events I played in. Seriously, do I have to go 41-0?

I'm honestly taking pride in the fact that I'm perhaps California's only hope this year, because it will be beyond an absolute shame if one of the largest playing areas in the world sends 0 Masters players to Worlds for the second consecutive year.
 
Scizor, Gatsu is saying that win% isn't the most significant determinant of rating. He is not saying that skill is the most significant determinant either. He is saying that who you play against, where you play, how often you can play, and when you lose are more important than win%. From the posts Gatsu makes I can't tell if he is broadly in favour of the current system or broadly against.


Currently to get a high rating, even if you very rarely lose, you have to play against players with ratings that are not too far removed from yours. By way of example my son's record this year is currently 51-3 and his rating is 1832. (two second places and the other nine all firsts) He is currently the only UK Senior with a rating high enough to be in with a chance of a ratings invite for the whole of Europe at the end of the season. It is really hard to compare his 1832 with a player of similar rating on the mainland of Europe: both the 51-3 and the 1832 probably tell more about the local players and the state of UK OP than his core skill at card games.
 
Last edited:
Scizor: to me ELO SYSTEM plain SUCKS.

it was designed for CHESS and implemented in a card game.... that makes NO SENSE.
The points are determined around chance to win or lose.. in chess! I fail to see how Elo considered T2 donkage in Chess.....

To me is such a bad system that ranking means nothing to me....

Sad enough invites are determined with it...

i was very upset with ELO system in TCG last year and this year my opiniono doesn't change....

Ranking means nothing and still it determines who's playing at worlds...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top