It's called irony.
And yes, there is a point to the topic.
My point is that overblown rhetoric weakens that point.
Stick to the point and make your case instead of comparing P!P to something massively horrible.
Re: Pete. (aka. Gaming the system-- who's to blame?)
- Thread starter Flaming_Spinach
- Start date
- Status
It's called irony.
And yes, there is a point to the topic.
My point is that overblown rhetoric weakens that point.
Stick to the point and make your case instead of comparing P!P to something massively horrible.
Isn't Pete's point really that PUI is giving people money (the stipend) to attend and play in Nationals?
PUI isn't giving people money (the stipend) to go to Indy so they can skip the event and just hang out with friends.
I would think that PUI would implement a rule that if you get the stipend and drop/don't play, you (a) have to repay the stipend and (b) are given a loss in each round that you don't play (every round, assuming that you don't play at all).
If you're not going to play it out, don't take the money. Right?
(Economic collapse, kabuki theater, Hitler. Man, this thread has it ALL!)
PUI isn't giving people money (the stipend) to go to Indy so they can skip the event and just hang out with friends.
I would think that PUI would implement a rule that if you get the stipend and drop/don't play, you (a) have to repay the stipend and (b) are given a loss in each round that you don't play (every round, assuming that you don't play at all).
If you're not going to play it out, don't take the money. Right?
(Economic collapse, kabuki theater, Hitler. Man, this thread has it ALL!)
NoPoke
Active Member
The rating system can't be fixed "once and for all".
Abandoning it does not fix it either: it just introduces a different set of problems.
The presence of luck does not break elo but it does place it under pressure. reducing the number of games considered does not break elo but once more puts it under pressure. Reducing K values distorts elo but again does not break it, it changes the number of games needed before the non-linear aspect of elo shows up. Changes the point at which the elo system shifts from rewarding play to exposing relative skill.
Elo is a risk-reward system. Pure reward systems have just as many problems, if not more.
=======
Pete refers to two issues. First issue: players registering to play and then dropping before they actually play.
Second issue: players not using the travel award as intended.
---------- Post added 07/04/2011 at 03:20 PM ----------
Abandoning it does not fix it either: it just introduces a different set of problems.
The presence of luck does not break elo but it does place it under pressure. reducing the number of games considered does not break elo but once more puts it under pressure. Reducing K values distorts elo but again does not break it, it changes the number of games needed before the non-linear aspect of elo shows up. Changes the point at which the elo system shifts from rewarding play to exposing relative skill.
Elo is a risk-reward system. Pure reward systems have just as many problems, if not more.
=======
Pete refers to two issues. First issue: players registering to play and then dropping before they actually play.
When you register you are declaring that you are in the tournament. There are very few ways of getting out from your declared intent to play at least one round by registering.
Second issue: players not using the travel award as intended.
Pete then goes on to say that currently this is not a problem but it will be re-examined if behaviour that P!P do not wish to support becomes prevalent.
---------- Post added 07/04/2011 at 03:20 PM ----------
from what Pete has said that is not P!P's current position. However if lots of players take that approach then P!P may change position.
That is correct.
It sounds like P!P will simply stop giving stipends entirely.
That would be unfortunate.
I've always been a big fan of making those who are guilty pay the cost, rather than everyone else.
I'm sorry....explain to me again how its NOT Margret's fault? She took a loan she knew she couldn't pay back, then didn't pay it back and blamed it on the bank...and you defend her and act like its not her fault...then try to use that as a justification for P!P's woes?
Cause, what I get from that is that if Pete says you have to play or they will take away the stipend and you don't play and lose the stipend, it appears pretty straight forward that YOU cost yourself the stipend. And, if Margret has any common sense, she knows how to do basic math. So, when she takes the loan and knows she can't pay it, when the note comes due and she can't pay it....
On a different note:
I think this has some merit. The idea is right but the values are wrong. The values need to be lowered. The two biggest problems are that cities are worth too much and states and regionals are worth too much. The need to be stair stepped more to where it is almost require (I said almost) to attend Nationals and play. I think the values need to be more like this:
BRs 4k
Cities 8k
States 16k
Regionals 24k
Nationals 32k
Cause, what I get from that is that if Pete says you have to play or they will take away the stipend and you don't play and lose the stipend, it appears pretty straight forward that YOU cost yourself the stipend. And, if Margret has any common sense, she knows how to do basic math. So, when she takes the loan and knows she can't pay it, when the note comes due and she can't pay it....
On a different note:
I think this has some merit. The idea is right but the values are wrong. The values need to be lowered. The two biggest problems are that cities are worth too much and states and regionals are worth too much. The need to be stair stepped more to where it is almost require (I said almost) to attend Nationals and play. I think the values need to be more like this:
BRs 4k
Cities 8k
States 16k
Regionals 24k
Nationals 32k
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Axe, that was tried before (though with slightly different numbers). It was an awful experience at Nationals.
I do agree that the current points system is off. I don't agree that such a severe scale is necessary at the highest levels. I was thinking something more along the lines of...
BR Autumn: 8k (just to get to the Exponential portion of ELO faster)
Cities: 16k
States: 20k
Regionals: 24k
BR Spring: 4k (so they have SOME but not ALL effect)
Nationals: 28k
I also want to see NoPoke's Bayesian Modifier to ELO implemented. We can argue all day how much luck is present in Pokemon, but I think that we can all agree that there is more than Zero luck involved. If there was a 10-20% Luck modifications to ELO, IMO it would make for a better system.
I do agree that the current points system is off. I don't agree that such a severe scale is necessary at the highest levels. I was thinking something more along the lines of...
BR Autumn: 8k (just to get to the Exponential portion of ELO faster)
Cities: 16k
States: 20k
Regionals: 24k
BR Spring: 4k (so they have SOME but not ALL effect)
Nationals: 28k
I also want to see NoPoke's Bayesian Modifier to ELO implemented. We can argue all day how much luck is present in Pokemon, but I think that we can all agree that there is more than Zero luck involved. If there was a 10-20% Luck modifications to ELO, IMO it would make for a better system.
PokeMedic
New Member
I know that chess uses the Elo system -practically invented for it. Thankfully chess doesn't rotate every year. Chess leagues have dealt with the same type of problem when it comes to people playing or dropping to protect their rating. I suppose you could say that the system is gamed no matter what game is being played. Maybe adjusting metrics would help, but I can't pretend to understand the problem since I focus more on non-ranked events.
Reina Sierpe
Member
The travel stipend isn't a "prize" for you to do anything you want with. It's meant as an acknowledgement that you are a skilled player who would be valued at that event, and to encourage you get there. It should go without saying that, if Pokemon is going to give you money to get to their event, they expect you to actually PLAY at that event. If they award you the stipend and you show up, register, then drop the tournament after your byes are up, don't be surprised if they start thinking that the stipend is being taken advantage of. If any company sponsored you to go to a tournament and you dropped out to preserve your own score, what do you think they would do? Obviously they'd cut off their support to you, because you didn't fulfill the expectation that you would play the event.
I still support the notion that the ratings system isn't at the place it should be. Travel stipends aside, the system does encourage you to play as few matches as possible to avoid losing points. Yoshi's post is the perfect example of a system where the rating does not reflect the calibre of the player, because the consequences of losing to low-ranking players in high-level events are so severe.
I still support the notion that the ratings system isn't at the place it should be. Travel stipends aside, the system does encourage you to play as few matches as possible to avoid losing points. Yoshi's post is the perfect example of a system where the rating does not reflect the calibre of the player, because the consequences of losing to low-ranking players in high-level events are so severe.
Banks didn't collapse directly due to CDS's. Banks collapsed because they didn't understand the risks inherent in even the top tranches of CDO's. The liquidity crunch (i.e. increasing spreads on CDS's so that the wholesale market seized up because noone would lend to each other) came later.
If we're going to discuss the crisis lets do it properly :wink:
That's not the fault of P!P, that's just the way travel works between Latin America and the US
So P!P shouldn't hold the tournaments where there are the most people, who by definition are most likely to be able to afford the luxury of playing Pokémon competitively?
____
Guys, by all means hate the policy but be a little sensible about what P!P can and can't do!
The issue here is that there is a lot of luck involved in who wins States/Regionals. Those who place high but don't win may not be able to afford to go to Nationals. And with this rating system they almost definitely wouldn't have a spot in worlds. So while it would get the State/Regionals winners into Nationals it would ultimately result in some very talented players not getting to play in worlds.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Thank you, Yoshi. This is one of the most illustrative posts I have ever read on this forum. Play at Nats, get a little bad luck, and lose an invite because you played it out instead of drop?
The major problem here is that any system where players are penalized for playing the game is inherently flawed.
"Oh, I could make it to the most prestigious tournament in the world! The only way to guarantee my spot is to not play anymore!"
How does that make any sense at all?
Case(s) in point:
-Last time I played a Regionals, I placed 3rd and my rating went up by 10 points. The guy I beat in the 3rd/4th match lost points. For getting 4th at Regionals!
-Next month, I won a Battle Road. My rating went up 10 points. Apparently winning a BR is equal to getting third at Regionals. (That's back when the K for everything was 32.)
-Later, during Battle Roads, I had a 8-2 streak at one point and lost 5 points. So when your rating gets top-heavy, even an 80% winning average is not good enough to maintain your score.
-Shortly after, I was talking with a friend who swore he won a tournament and lost points.
I could go on and on!
The simple fact is ELO is a system that punishes bad luck and is open to abuse. It is NOT the best rating system for this game.
Last edited:
Is there a ratings system that only adds points for wins, but doesn't take them away for losses?
Would such a system solve the problem, or only create a new problem to be gamed differently?
I'm a huge fan of Pokemon, don't complain, or tread intemperately into needlessly controversial threads; but I do see a problem, it has existed for a while, and it isn't good for the game.
I had a good player, convinced he had enough points for a World's invite, drop after swiss at Regionals. Players good enough to top cut a Regionals should not be dropping because dropping is the smartest thing they can do.
Players who win States or Regionals should not have to be put in the position where dropping before Nats starts, or after just one or two games won - or lost, is the smart choice. Yoshi described well feeling somewhat raw for not having dropped after top cutting Nats.
I completely understand and support Pete's, TPCi's, desire to see people with travel support show up to play their tournaments. Heck, if I were them, I would expect it...except the system doesn't reward, but can actually punish our top players that do play in the Nats they have won travel support to attend.
Again, I would like to see a system that awards, but doesn't subtract points, so drops are eliminated. I am probably missing something obvious, or else this would already be in place, because it seems to me that not losing points would mean players play all the rounds they could.
Anyway, I hope you all figure this out to the satisfaction of both the tournament travel support givers and the players who travel to those events.
Would such a system solve the problem, or only create a new problem to be gamed differently?
I'm a huge fan of Pokemon, don't complain, or tread intemperately into needlessly controversial threads; but I do see a problem, it has existed for a while, and it isn't good for the game.
I had a good player, convinced he had enough points for a World's invite, drop after swiss at Regionals. Players good enough to top cut a Regionals should not be dropping because dropping is the smartest thing they can do.
Players who win States or Regionals should not have to be put in the position where dropping before Nats starts, or after just one or two games won - or lost, is the smart choice. Yoshi described well feeling somewhat raw for not having dropped after top cutting Nats.
I completely understand and support Pete's, TPCi's, desire to see people with travel support show up to play their tournaments. Heck, if I were them, I would expect it...except the system doesn't reward, but can actually punish our top players that do play in the Nats they have won travel support to attend.
Again, I would like to see a system that awards, but doesn't subtract points, so drops are eliminated. I am probably missing something obvious, or else this would already be in place, because it seems to me that not losing points would mean players play all the rounds they could.
Anyway, I hope you all figure this out to the satisfaction of both the tournament travel support givers and the players who travel to those events.
The only thing I can compare this to is something like the NFL. While there are certain teams that are obviously better than others, a team with a 10-5 record who is scheduled against a 4-11 game week 17 and needs to win to make the playoffs can't just say "Oh, we don't feel like risking injury to any of our key players this game, but we don't want to forfeit and take a loss, either. Can't we just automatically get the win?" You have to play the game. You have to risk injury and defeat (in the case of Pokemon, a loss and a lower player rating).
And yes I know that this isn't an exact comparison, but the system is sort of exploitable in order for people to just 'get to a number' and then not have to compete any more so they get an automatic invite.
I guess from my point of view, just using what you are awarded to get to nationals just to get a shirt and a card and then duck out of the tournament because you're too scared of ruining your rating is a low move. At the same time, yes there are issues with the gameplay. So there are many things that need to be addressed, but nothing is perfect.
I say just play the game. It is a game after all, right?
And yes I know that this isn't an exact comparison, but the system is sort of exploitable in order for people to just 'get to a number' and then not have to compete any more so they get an automatic invite.
I guess from my point of view, just using what you are awarded to get to nationals just to get a shirt and a card and then duck out of the tournament because you're too scared of ruining your rating is a low move. At the same time, yes there are issues with the gameplay. So there are many things that need to be addressed, but nothing is perfect.
I say just play the game. It is a game after all, right?
czech59, your NFL analogy is faulty. You posit a team that is not yet in the playoffs needing a win to make it into the playoffs. That is more like a player at Nats that has a good, but not great ranking, on the bubble, playing for the wins to get the Worlds invite.
An NFL team that is 14-1, already having secured home field advantage throughout the playoffs, going into their last regular season game against a scrub 3-12 team, while having to play the game, is likely to rest their starters, not even play them, so as not to lose them to injury in a meaningless game. This is far more analogous to sitting out a Nats, or dropping early.
An NFL team that is 14-1, already having secured home field advantage throughout the playoffs, going into their last regular season game against a scrub 3-12 team, while having to play the game, is likely to rest their starters, not even play them, so as not to lose them to injury in a meaningless game. This is far more analogous to sitting out a Nats, or dropping early.
I don't think that that would be a better analogy, because the Pokemon player at Nats with a good rating doesn't play the game for fear of lowering the rating and losing the automatic qualification, correct?
This is why I revised it to a team trying to make the playoffs, with playoffs analogous to Worlds, because the player has a good rating but doesn't want to risk a loss to a bad person just to get a card and a t-shirt.
The loss would drop the team out of playoffs (mess up the player's rating and potentially knock the player out of auto-Worlds qualification), which is the fear that a player already having a good enough rating possesses when they consider dropping Nats.
This is why I revised it to a team trying to make the playoffs, with playoffs analogous to Worlds, because the player has a good rating but doesn't want to risk a loss to a bad person just to get a card and a t-shirt.
The loss would drop the team out of playoffs (mess up the player's rating and potentially knock the player out of auto-Worlds qualification), which is the fear that a player already having a good enough rating possesses when they consider dropping Nats.
I'll chime in. At first I was pretty sure that the prize was a travel award to PLAY in Nats. So I went to go grab a line from the official site, BUT no where on the prize listing does it say you are to play at Nats. Now we can talk intentions here, and I don't think anyone would argue that paying these guys money to come out is to have them play, but why MUST they play? If TPCi wants to look at why people show up then not play I think they have options:
1. Dictate that the player must play if they claim their travel allowance. That where there is no confusion as to what is expected to be done with your travel allotment. You don't want to play you opt to drop during your regional top cut or what have you. This doesn't get to the issue of why penalize playing?
2. Make there a "If you get here you're invited" for ratings. I mean most people know to shoot for 1850ish to qualify, so why not make 1850 the minimum points to attend worlds? The thing I find appealing here is that these ranking invites don't have paid travel allowance so the company doesn't lose anything. Before it comes up knock out the LCQ or create an even more limited amount of entrants from LCQ. The thing is if a player feels they are good they will find a way to go to Worlds by their ranking alone and not bank on a travel stipend. If a player gets the ranking, but can't find the means to go that's their fault. (Before it derails on this point I'm a firm believer that if a Junior/Senior wanted to make money to attend Worlds they could. I'm sure if a neighborhood kid wanted to make money for something they believed in a neighborhood could find once a month odd jobs for the kid.) On the other hand if you don't feel you can raise the money here's your incentive to play Nats, to get your travel allowance to play in worlds.
3. You don't want to play, but you want to chill? OK, but you'll have Minor Errand running to do for some portion of your time there. Judging, League Monitoring, Giving a 30 minute intro to deck building panel. It's there. If you look at Anime conventions they do this with their guests all the time. They may fly the guest to the convention and put them in a hotel, but the guest does have obligations for accepting the flight/room.
I think the problem here is Red Maging. You know the rule is you show up and get money. You know the intention is you show up and play. No one really cares for a rules lawyer even though it's fun.
1. Dictate that the player must play if they claim their travel allowance. That where there is no confusion as to what is expected to be done with your travel allotment. You don't want to play you opt to drop during your regional top cut or what have you. This doesn't get to the issue of why penalize playing?
2. Make there a "If you get here you're invited" for ratings. I mean most people know to shoot for 1850ish to qualify, so why not make 1850 the minimum points to attend worlds? The thing I find appealing here is that these ranking invites don't have paid travel allowance so the company doesn't lose anything. Before it comes up knock out the LCQ or create an even more limited amount of entrants from LCQ. The thing is if a player feels they are good they will find a way to go to Worlds by their ranking alone and not bank on a travel stipend. If a player gets the ranking, but can't find the means to go that's their fault. (Before it derails on this point I'm a firm believer that if a Junior/Senior wanted to make money to attend Worlds they could. I'm sure if a neighborhood kid wanted to make money for something they believed in a neighborhood could find once a month odd jobs for the kid.) On the other hand if you don't feel you can raise the money here's your incentive to play Nats, to get your travel allowance to play in worlds.
3. You don't want to play, but you want to chill? OK, but you'll have Minor Errand running to do for some portion of your time there. Judging, League Monitoring, Giving a 30 minute intro to deck building panel. It's there. If you look at Anime conventions they do this with their guests all the time. They may fly the guest to the convention and put them in a hotel, but the guest does have obligations for accepting the flight/room.
I think the problem here is Red Maging. You know the rule is you show up and get money. You know the intention is you show up and play. No one really cares for a rules lawyer even though it's fun.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
"Once and for all" may be improper to say since the system should always be revisited and improved, but my point still stands. ELO in Pokemon isn't merely just imperfect; it's fundamentally flawed to have players choose between "keeping" their otherwise-clinched invite, and attempt to play for Nationals.
That's why anyone with byes/travel wards would even consider USING them, only to not play: because they stand to lose their whole season. And my proposed solution is just for P!P to finally fix its flawed system before they even start to think about reducing prize support. Please approach this from a different perspective.
That's why anyone with byes/travel wards would even consider USING them, only to not play: because they stand to lose their whole season. And my proposed solution is just for P!P to finally fix its flawed system before they even start to think about reducing prize support. Please approach this from a different perspective.
Swordfish1989
New Member
What about having a point-based invite? Give a certain number of points for top cutting in events, and allow players who, say, total to 10 points, to be allowed to play in Worlds. For example, getting top 8 in cities would have 1st place earning 5 points, 2nd place earning 3 points, 3rd-4th earning 2 points, and 5th-8th earning 1 point. The point values could go up based on the event - states/regionals would have 1st place automatically getting 10 points for example. This would always encourage players to play at an event since they can't lose points, only gain them. They could adjust the number of points needed for worlds based on the number of events in the year and how many people they want attending. I'm sure there's some formula that can be used to predict the number of players that qualify based on the # of points given away, the number of events, and their location.
- Status