See my earlier post with a suggestion for putting a limit for points earned per series.
Re: Pete. (aka. Gaming the system-- who's to blame?)
- Thread starter Flaming_Spinach
- Start date
- Status
See my earlier post with a suggestion for putting a limit for points earned per series.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
That's the real issue though you have to play Cities and perhaps States to get where sitting is favored by ELO. As the events get bigger and bigger the number of top ranked players gets lower and lower.
Perhaps that's one possible answer. Move Nats to the middle or even near the start of the season to get more folks to play.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
I think the goal should be to reduce the tools available (and thus, ways to game the system) as much as possible. Yes, there will always be unfairness. But it can certainly be reduced a great deal.
BTW, I am against Intentional Draws as well, for the exact same reason -- they encourage players to not play the game!
I read a tournament report once (can't remember if it was Pokemon, Yugioh, Magic, or something else) where a tournament had 8 swiss rounds. Everyone who went 5-0 took IDs for three consecutive rounds to cruise into the topcut. Everyone with a 5-0-3 record or better made the cut!
Understandably, the TOs and judges were furious.
What about a system that awards a 'tournament score' for each tournament you attend, some sort of points rating x/y, y being the highest possible score, and x being a number formulated by your wins/losses, among whatever else you people think should be put in the factors. This will be re-calculated for each level of tournaments (BR, Cities, States, Nats). So basically, each tournament season you get points (x out of y). You take the average score of your points (if you go to more than one BR, for example, you average the score of the two). Then, your average score at each level is all added up and the top X get the Worlds invites. This ensures people actually have to play at Nats, and will actually play tournaments at all levels.
So, after Nats, you'd have something like, BR: 9 Cities: 9.4 States: 8.7 Nats: 9.1 Total: 36.2
The top X combined averages get the Worlds invites.
Maybe weigh Nats out of 20, or twice the normal score?
Obvioiusly I cannot come up with all the intricacies of the formula, and the rating should be more than just a simple 1-10 scale, there must be a way to include decimals or m
ake each tournament score out of 100 or something. This just ensures that everyone who is serious enough about the game to go to Nats will actually play at Nats. And makes Nats a pretty intense tournament if it is weighted as double.
Just an idea, thoughts on how this could work?
So, after Nats, you'd have something like, BR: 9 Cities: 9.4 States: 8.7 Nats: 9.1 Total: 36.2
The top X combined averages get the Worlds invites.
Maybe weigh Nats out of 20, or twice the normal score?
Obvioiusly I cannot come up with all the intricacies of the formula, and the rating should be more than just a simple 1-10 scale, there must be a way to include decimals or m
ake each tournament score out of 100 or something. This just ensures that everyone who is serious enough about the game to go to Nats will actually play at Nats. And makes Nats a pretty intense tournament if it is weighted as double.
Just an idea, thoughts on how this could work?
NoPoke
Active Member
reward systems issues.
Neither a rating based systems nor a reward based system copes well with groups of players that do not mix with each. Where the players are mixing play-at-risk is superior to pure reward if you can get the risk to be a reasonable and representative value.
No matter what we have someone will be unhappy. Better make that lots of someones.
- those who can attend the most events win.
- caps don't work well as you might expect as they just guarantee team tactics.
- scaling by event size further rewards high population densities.
- incompatible with a general desire for more tournaments.
Neither a rating based systems nor a reward based system copes well with groups of players that do not mix with each. Where the players are mixing play-at-risk is superior to pure reward if you can get the risk to be a reasonable and representative value.
No matter what we have someone will be unhappy. Better make that lots of someones.
NoPoke,
"scaling by event size further rewards high population densities." is often balanced by geography.
Whereas California's tournaments have more rounds than some East Coast tournaments, there is only 1 California State Championship. I am one of the few people with no state Championship being played within 400 miles of my home. There are players on the East Coast who can attend 4 or more State Championships within 400 miles of their home.
I would add geographic inequity of opportunity to your list of reward systems issues.
No system will be perfect, but I am impressed with the positive tone, the thoughtful sharing of ideas, all in an effort to improve the game we all love.
"scaling by event size further rewards high population densities." is often balanced by geography.
Whereas California's tournaments have more rounds than some East Coast tournaments, there is only 1 California State Championship. I am one of the few people with no state Championship being played within 400 miles of my home. There are players on the East Coast who can attend 4 or more State Championships within 400 miles of their home.
I would add geographic inequity of opportunity to your list of reward systems issues.
No system will be perfect, but I am impressed with the positive tone, the thoughtful sharing of ideas, all in an effort to improve the game we all love.
I have changed my position on this over the years.
I think there SHOULD be some reward for attending as many events as possible. You are promoting the game by participation.
THIS is the best idea in the whole thread!
Seriously, think about it. Collectors would profit because there would be more rare promos like in japan (daisuki, players club). The good players would profit, because skill finally is more important than luck. Let's say you attend 3 cities in one season. With the ELO system you could go (5 swiss rounds) 3-2, 5-2 and 6-1 and still make little to no ranking points. With the Play! Points system, you would a couple for winning and a couple for placing 3rd/4th. It would strongly encourage players to attend more events, rather than thinking "my ranking is good, why would I was money on going to these events and gain little to no points". The would be no point in stopping to try to gain points. You can always use them for something, let it be worlds invites, byes or whatever.
TPCi, please think about it!
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Okay, I'll bite.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the reasons we moved away from Gym Challenges in the first place? Because players could sit out the entire year, then show up at a Gym Challenge and win a trip to Worlds?
I thought one of the purposes of rating invites was to encourage play all year long. But as it stands right now, rating invites only encourage play until the player reaches a 'safe' rating (+/-1850). After that, the system awards not playing the game.
Aside from that, I must agree with The Gorn (to a point). Obviously, we don't want to just hand out invites to anyone who attends 10+ tournaments a year. (Or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out of a hat.) But I find it difficult to believe that someone can win 2 States, or a States and a Regionals, and not get invited to Worlds because they get unlucky at Nats and go 5-3. Or because they go 6-2 and lose in the topcut.
We should award those who perform consistently well in multiple major events, not award those who dominate Cities then go 3-0DROP for the rest of the year.
This, unfortunately, is something we can never get rid of.
As long as TOM pairs siblings or friends against each other, there will be team play.
The function of entrants should be minor. But I believe it should exist, for one simple reason:
It is harder to win a 20-person City than a 10-person City.
And what about the Junior division that can have 5 or less players in some small tournaments (CCs and BRs)? Do those that win without competition get as many points as those that have to play a full 5, 6, 7 rounds?
This may be my opinion alone, but I feel there are already enough tournaments. Let's just look at the calendar:
Jan - CCs
Feb -
Mar - States
Apr - Regs
May - BRs
Jun - BRs
Jul - Nats
Aug - Worlds
Sep - BRs
Oct - BRs
Nov - CCs
Dec - CCs
Wow that's full! Even excluding Prereleases, there's Pokemon happening in 11 months of the year.
Maybe you could shove in a couple more CCs or BRs, but more tournaments would benefit those who play in many tournaments and win! Again, you are encouraging greater participation.
* * *
Now, I'm going to go watch the updates of US Nationals. Let's see how many go 3-0DROP.
=/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the reasons we moved away from Gym Challenges in the first place? Because players could sit out the entire year, then show up at a Gym Challenge and win a trip to Worlds?
I thought one of the purposes of rating invites was to encourage play all year long. But as it stands right now, rating invites only encourage play until the player reaches a 'safe' rating (+/-1850). After that, the system awards not playing the game.
Aside from that, I must agree with The Gorn (to a point). Obviously, we don't want to just hand out invites to anyone who attends 10+ tournaments a year. (Or whatever arbitrary number you want to pull out of a hat.) But I find it difficult to believe that someone can win 2 States, or a States and a Regionals, and not get invited to Worlds because they get unlucky at Nats and go 5-3. Or because they go 6-2 and lose in the topcut.
We should award those who perform consistently well in multiple major events, not award those who dominate Cities then go 3-0DROP for the rest of the year.
This, unfortunately, is something we can never get rid of.
As long as TOM pairs siblings or friends against each other, there will be team play.
The function of entrants should be minor. But I believe it should exist, for one simple reason:
It is harder to win a 20-person City than a 10-person City.
And what about the Junior division that can have 5 or less players in some small tournaments (CCs and BRs)? Do those that win without competition get as many points as those that have to play a full 5, 6, 7 rounds?
This may be my opinion alone, but I feel there are already enough tournaments. Let's just look at the calendar:
Jan - CCs
Feb -
Mar - States
Apr - Regs
May - BRs
Jun - BRs
Jul - Nats
Aug - Worlds
Sep - BRs
Oct - BRs
Nov - CCs
Dec - CCs
Wow that's full! Even excluding Prereleases, there's Pokemon happening in 11 months of the year.
Maybe you could shove in a couple more CCs or BRs, but more tournaments would benefit those who play in many tournaments and win! Again, you are encouraging greater participation.
* * *
Now, I'm going to go watch the updates of US Nationals. Let's see how many go 3-0DROP.
=/
NoPoke
Active Member
The replacement to elo has to work outside the USA too. It should at the very least not be worse than the current system.
=======
My suggestion would incorporate changes to how elo is implemented and a switch to an overlapped two year rating cycle. Each year your tournaments count towards a rating for this year and last year along with a this year plus next year cycle. You are working towards increasing your rating for the current invite season and the next season at the same time. With Nationals as one of the high K events in the middle of all two year cycles sitting out would be a bad strategy. The annual reset still occurs but only for the two year old rating so no player can get a high rating and just sit on it forever.
=======
My suggestion would incorporate changes to how elo is implemented and a switch to an overlapped two year rating cycle. Each year your tournaments count towards a rating for this year and last year along with a this year plus next year cycle. You are working towards increasing your rating for the current invite season and the next season at the same time. With Nationals as one of the high K events in the middle of all two year cycles sitting out would be a bad strategy. The annual reset still occurs but only for the two year old rating so no player can get a high rating and just sit on it forever.
Last edited:
This!
Magic has a point system: winning 3 points, loosing 0 points and Intentional Draws 1 point for each player.
Last week i play a MTG PTQ. In the last round (7 total, top 8 cut) all the first 8 players had 18 points (6-0 in pokemon) and the rest 15 points and lower. So all 4 matches from the first 8 players ended in a intentional draw . Top 8 cut was 19 points, no one else coud reach top 8 with 6-1.
Last edited:
I would really like to see a points system put in place that did not give negative points.
A loss would simply get you 0 points. But a win would result in an increase.
Sitting out a tournament would be the same thing as going 0-x. Other players, if you chose not to play, would have the opportunity to catch up/pass you in points. So you should play. There is no upside to not playing.
A loss would simply get you 0 points. But a win would result in an increase.
Sitting out a tournament would be the same thing as going 0-x. Other players, if you chose not to play, would have the opportunity to catch up/pass you in points. So you should play. There is no upside to not playing.
StormFront
New Member
I think using a ranking system simalar to what Tennis uses would be best. Yes it rewards people who play the most and compete in areas of high population density. However, the people who play the most tend to be the best players so why shouldn't they be rewarded? Any system that rewards people for not playing is fundamentally wrong.
NoPoke
Active Member
You get NO REWARD unless you play. There is no reward for not playing. Having earned your reward it is sensible under any system to make the what-if cost assessment.
This is identical to the issue faced by many in the USA of travel to nationals or travel to worlds. OR because both cost money.
This is identical to the issue faced by many in the USA of travel to nationals or travel to worlds. OR because both cost money.
Articjedi
Active Member
Replies in bold. Always a good discussion, Ian.
Now, for a concise proposal for a rewards system of rating invite that mirrors the current system we have now. It's imperfect, but I suggest that you guys refrain from dissecting this amateur proposal; rather, just acknowledge things that could work to solve the current problem (and if you're P!P, then feel free to lift it if you like it :smile.
Brand name: PLAY! POINTS
Structure: issue invites to the Top X in Play! Points per zone (say, top 40 in North America)
Process of rewarding points:
Battle Roads: one (1) point per win
City Championships: four (4) points per win, two (2) per every second place, and one (1) for every top four finish. Could be reduced to discourage team play/event hopping
State Championships: eight (8) points per win, four (4) points per every second place, two (2) for every top four finish, and one (1) for every top eight finish.
Regional Championships: sixteen (16) points per win, eight (8) points per every second place, four (4) for every top four finish, two (2) for every top eight finish, and one (1) for every top sixteen finish.
National Championships: tentative. May need to be structured appropriately per rating zone.
So yeah, take it for what it's worth y'all.
Oh, and re Ice Cold: I only went to five Battle Roads that one season, so your suggested cap would have done absolutely nothing.
How about no points for brs or cities? Solves the event hopping problem instantly. Problem is you basically have to do well at 4 different events, 2 states, regs and nationals. There's always going to be a tradeoff somewhere. The question is whether 4 events is enough to make a good measurement of "player skill" sufficient enough to qualify for worlds.
JandPDS
New Member
I am very confused, if he 4-0 dropped states and lost early in the top cut of regionals, how did he get a bye at Nationals?
As for Ranking points, just get rid of Ranking ivnites all together. This would eliminate players going X-0 and dropping at Nationals. Give inites ot worlds based on top finishers at States, Regionals and Natonals. Then let like the Top16 in though a swiss played LCQ.
Last edited:
Pete De Shaw
Master Trainer
Flaming Spinach: The existence of a system that often rewards not playing is clearly POP’s fault, not the player’s. Maybe somebody with good forum excavation skills can dig up the post where I explain that the ELO system is not the system we want, but it is a good system given the data set we have to work with. Most of the alternate proposals we see assume data I don’t have.
I don’t really see it as blaming the players, but I can see how that would come across from my post. We spend a bunch of money trying to accomplish a specific goal. If I find out that that the money is not accomplishing that goal, I need to make a change no matter who is to blame for the situation. That being said, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that money removed from an incentive to get players to Nationals should go to a different incentive to get players to Nationals.
I don’t really see it as blaming the players, but I can see how that would come across from my post. We spend a bunch of money trying to accomplish a specific goal. If I find out that that the money is not accomplishing that goal, I need to make a change no matter who is to blame for the situation. That being said, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that money removed from an incentive to get players to Nationals should go to a different incentive to get players to Nationals.
give them their money after they play.
jaws_is_ra
Member
I think they should do something like this
Get rid of the round Bye first
Next they get their paid Travel but no other prizes that they have to pick up at Nationals are givien till at less till they have played in 3 Rounds. (Exptions can be made but only if the Head Judge apoves of them. Any rewards not picked up will be rewared to the winner of Nationals. It would get people that show up to play because they would not want their prizes to end up going to the winner.
This is how I see it should be done. It almost the only way it could be done with out droping the Travle from States and Regionals and then we could see a drop in people playing in State and Regional.
I think something a long the line as i discribed would be set up if not exatly like it at less something along the lines
One thing I would like to see and I know TPCI would never do it
Have 4 Battle Roads a year Spring BR Summer BR Fall Battle Road and Winter BR
Spring-March
Summer-July
Fall-Sept
Winter-Dec
Have all CC in Jan.
That would put the Looks at
Jan-CC
Feb-
March-BR
April
May
Jun-Br
July
Aug
Sept-Br
Oct
Nov
Dec-BR
Get rid of the round Bye first
Next they get their paid Travel but no other prizes that they have to pick up at Nationals are givien till at less till they have played in 3 Rounds. (Exptions can be made but only if the Head Judge apoves of them. Any rewards not picked up will be rewared to the winner of Nationals. It would get people that show up to play because they would not want their prizes to end up going to the winner.
This is how I see it should be done. It almost the only way it could be done with out droping the Travle from States and Regionals and then we could see a drop in people playing in State and Regional.
I think something a long the line as i discribed would be set up if not exatly like it at less something along the lines
One thing I would like to see and I know TPCI would never do it
Have 4 Battle Roads a year Spring BR Summer BR Fall Battle Road and Winter BR
Spring-March
Summer-July
Fall-Sept
Winter-Dec
Have all CC in Jan.
That would put the Looks at
Jan-CC
Feb-
March-BR
April
May
Jun-Br
July
Aug
Sept-Br
Oct
Nov
Dec-BR
Last edited:
- Status