Sounds like a winner there except does that mean the events work around everyones schedules? That should make it fair to all.
Sour Grapes: BR's dont make sense
- Thread starter BigChuck01
- Start date
- Status
Sounds like a winner there except does that mean the events work around everyones schedules? That should make it fair to all.
SuperWooper
New Member
Chuck, you're really making light of Kettler and Ross's accomplishments during the Battle Road season. Kettler's gigantic X-0 streak would be impressive anywhere, but the fact that he's done it in Texas, where there are a handful of 1800+ players who can give him a run for his money, is what has earned him the #1 spot in the continent. And Ross, seated at spot #2, has had to struggle through a lot of close games to come out with the rating he has. He's won what, 4 or 5 BRs, and X-0 dropped at least one more before the top cut. Washington isn't exactly a cakewake, either. You talk about BRs being illegitimate because people can go to Kansas and mop the floor with the locals there and skyrocket to the top of the list. But the guys who are up there at the top didn't do that. The highest ranked player in Kansas is sitting at 1704.55 - fourteen people in Washington (not counting Oregon there) can top that, and nineteen in Texas. You not being in the Top 8 anymore isn't a solid reason to abolish Battle Roads altogether - and if that's not the only reason you made your post, you need to be more direct in communicating the message, rather than venting at whoever's above you on the list, and their states/countries, to boot.
LionheartEX
Active Member
I dont get why people are bashing Texans for
seriously
its a lesson of: you SNOOZE you LOSE!
its that simple
They took advantage of those sitting on their rankings and it payed off
quite frankly dont bash the guys in Texas for YOUR mistake
seriously
its a lesson of: you SNOOZE you LOSE!
its that simple
They took advantage of those sitting on their rankings and it payed off
quite frankly dont bash the guys in Texas for YOUR mistake
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
Well, I didn't read anything past the first page, since I don't feel like spending an hour or more reading 8 or so pages. I do think Chuck has a valid point, though I don't necessarily agree that the people at the top aren't deserving.
Anyway, I think the problem lies in the order of the events rather than Battle Roads themselves. Since the order in which you win and lose your matches seems as important as the number of each, the events that are to be considered most important like Nationals, Regionals, States need to be toward the end of the season and smaller, easier tournaments like CC's and BR's need to be held at the beginning of the season. This way if you pick up a record of 30-2 going through no competition at BR's and CC's you'll still need to do well at States, etc to elevate your rating to where it needs to be to earn a Worlds invite. The way the tournaments are laid out currently you can afford to do poorly at States and Regionals because you can potentially make up all the points at easy BR's.
The top players in the Rankings will typically be the people who did the best at the most recent set of premier events. Make Regionals the last event before Nationals and I think the problem would be solved.
Anyway, I think the problem lies in the order of the events rather than Battle Roads themselves. Since the order in which you win and lose your matches seems as important as the number of each, the events that are to be considered most important like Nationals, Regionals, States need to be toward the end of the season and smaller, easier tournaments like CC's and BR's need to be held at the beginning of the season. This way if you pick up a record of 30-2 going through no competition at BR's and CC's you'll still need to do well at States, etc to elevate your rating to where it needs to be to earn a Worlds invite. The way the tournaments are laid out currently you can afford to do poorly at States and Regionals because you can potentially make up all the points at easy BR's.
The top players in the Rankings will typically be the people who did the best at the most recent set of premier events. Make Regionals the last event before Nationals and I think the problem would be solved.
Lord Broly
New Member
You Know, honestly it was the High Ranking Players Choice before the BR 's
to "NOT" play in BR's for fear of losing Points. It's your fault that you didn't
play and it's your fault that Mediocre players are sitting above you. Just My 2
Cents.
And for the record I do agree that this Point System is bad for Trips. GC's
should be brought back. However, I do somewhat Disagree on the Tourney
Season about Having less Battle Roads and Having Less Tournaments a Year.
Having more tournaments keeps everything going and gives more chances
who didn't do so well a Chance to recover and get back up there.
Also I do agree with Slimey Grimey. His point is a good answer.
to "NOT" play in BR's for fear of losing Points. It's your fault that you didn't
play and it's your fault that Mediocre players are sitting above you. Just My 2
Cents.
And for the record I do agree that this Point System is bad for Trips. GC's
should be brought back. However, I do somewhat Disagree on the Tourney
Season about Having less Battle Roads and Having Less Tournaments a Year.
Having more tournaments keeps everything going and gives more chances
who didn't do so well a Chance to recover and get back up there.
Also I do agree with Slimey Grimey. His point is a good answer.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
I think this is just something they're looking at...should a professional even have to answer a topic that's anything but professional? =x
The only bearing it has on POP is the general population's opinion of the system. #10's sour grapes against 6/9 of the poeple above him doesn't concern them in the least, does it?
The only bearing it has on POP is the general population's opinion of the system. #10's sour grapes against 6/9 of the poeple above him doesn't concern them in the least, does it?
GinoLombardi21
New Member
Im suprised no ones dissed New England yet. If you wanna, make sure im your first target! 
Rulemaster
New Member
what are they gonna say?
"yeah, our rating system is trash"?
NoPoke
Active Member
POP don't need to respond. The season isn't over yet. Its not finished. USA nationals will shake up the ratings again.
24-0 deserves a crack at Worlds. There would be something very wrong if 24-0 didn't identify you as a "contender". It is just sour grapes if its a complaint because someone managed 24-0. I suspect that it is much more about a group of players' expectations (possibly a very large group too) of how the season would operate not being met. That is a legitimate topic for complaint but does not automatically identify a problem that has to be fixed through anything other than education/discussion. The assumption that it was absolutely safe to sit out BR can be rejected but an alternative hypothesis that you have to play in BRs has not been demonstrated. Its not over yet... K=44 awaits
24-0 deserves a crack at Worlds. There would be something very wrong if 24-0 didn't identify you as a "contender". It is just sour grapes if its a complaint because someone managed 24-0. I suspect that it is much more about a group of players' expectations (possibly a very large group too) of how the season would operate not being met. That is a legitimate topic for complaint but does not automatically identify a problem that has to be fixed through anything other than education/discussion. The assumption that it was absolutely safe to sit out BR can be rejected but an alternative hypothesis that you have to play in BRs has not been demonstrated. Its not over yet... K=44 awaits
Last edited:
No, if they did post, they would give you some tricky, hard to comprehend, monkeywrench/make you think twice about what you said sort of answer.
SuperWooper
New Member
I agree. He makes that clear in his post. What I said was that Chuck "was making light of his accomplishments." Doesn't matter what the player, deck, or area is: 24-0 is no small feat, and I don't think Alex is giving that the recognition it deserves. He's discrediting the ranking system because the guy who's on top won twenty-four straight games? That doesn't make sense (to me).
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
Cawthon*
BRs:
4-0 Drop
5-2 1st place
5-1 1st place
5-0 1st place
5-0 1st place
4-0 Drop
6-0 1st place
A big factor was two other high ranked players were competing every week for rating points. Paul J ended at 15th I think, and I beat him twice in the last tournament so I was still getting significant points.
~`Flygon`~
New Member
BRs is the ish,I won 4 in a row and I know iM not a mediocre player at all.
I see what chuck is saying,but I mean they play the game,they win their points like you would win your points,I mean they arent playing the best in the US or anything like that,but they are just playing trying to compete. I mean alot of people on the top mite not be the BEST, but deserving they have to be because they won those events to get the points and outsmarted all the people necessry to get the points.
BRs is a good event to have,anything is a good event to have if its gonna have people playing pokemon to keep it going.Chuck your good,I know this for a fact,but just win those easy events to get that little bosst u need.
I see what chuck is saying,but I mean they play the game,they win their points like you would win your points,I mean they arent playing the best in the US or anything like that,but they are just playing trying to compete. I mean alot of people on the top mite not be the BEST, but deserving they have to be because they won those events to get the points and outsmarted all the people necessry to get the points.
BRs is a good event to have,anything is a good event to have if its gonna have people playing pokemon to keep it going.Chuck your good,I know this for a fact,but just win those easy events to get that little bosst u need.
NoPoke
Active Member
[Congrats Ross on a great record. I've been practicing your surname too (no more extra rs)]
--------------------------------------------
Flygon and others:
If you are on top then you are the BEST. Argue about the measurement all you want but don't forget that by the measurement being used the player is the best. It really is sour grapes to knock another players achievements.
BRs are not 'easy' events. If they were, everyone would play and not sit. Just like with most events some are easier than others, but to universally dismiss BRs as 'easy' is wrong.
What of risk? Well late season single game swiss is potentially high risk for players with high ratings. Why is this so? because average players can play faultlessly when games only last one or two turns. The ELO equation gets the win expectancy completely wrong when games only last a few turns. There has been a lot of interest in Infernape as a deck: it is a deck that plays itself for the first few turns and often wins early in a match. As a top rated player are you seriously going to enter an environment where you believe that many games could be 50-50 and decided in a few turns? You stand to lose 27 points or gain 5 depending upon the outcome of that 50-50 single game. Determination of risk has thus become one of judging the BR metagame. Some sit and some play. To make the impact of a donk less a few organisers have run the swiss rounds as 45minutes 2/3.
So thats risk covered. Now for reward. If you have a secret deck that counters the fast Infernape why would you expose it at battle roads to secure the BR victory? Of course you don't you sit. I have no idea what the deck is or if it exists, but if I had such a deck I'd be sitting out BRs too. The reward at Nationals is far greater than that at any BR.
--------------------------------------------
Flygon and others:
If you are on top then you are the BEST. Argue about the measurement all you want but don't forget that by the measurement being used the player is the best. It really is sour grapes to knock another players achievements.
BRs are not 'easy' events. If they were, everyone would play and not sit. Just like with most events some are easier than others, but to universally dismiss BRs as 'easy' is wrong.
What of risk? Well late season single game swiss is potentially high risk for players with high ratings. Why is this so? because average players can play faultlessly when games only last one or two turns. The ELO equation gets the win expectancy completely wrong when games only last a few turns. There has been a lot of interest in Infernape as a deck: it is a deck that plays itself for the first few turns and often wins early in a match. As a top rated player are you seriously going to enter an environment where you believe that many games could be 50-50 and decided in a few turns? You stand to lose 27 points or gain 5 depending upon the outcome of that 50-50 single game. Determination of risk has thus become one of judging the BR metagame. Some sit and some play. To make the impact of a donk less a few organisers have run the swiss rounds as 45minutes 2/3.
So thats risk covered. Now for reward. If you have a secret deck that counters the fast Infernape why would you expose it at battle roads to secure the BR victory? Of course you don't you sit. I have no idea what the deck is or if it exists, but if I had such a deck I'd be sitting out BRs too. The reward at Nationals is far greater than that at any BR.
Last edited:
I think you're brave to post such a controversial rant Chuck! Bravo for cojones! :biggrin:
However- maybe wait until after Nats/Worlds to see how these BR-Boosted players do there. If they don't do that well at either- THEN you have a very valid point. If you own them dayly, nightly and ever so rightly at the same tournaments, AGAIN, your point is proved further.
However- maybe wait until after Nats/Worlds to see how these BR-Boosted players do there. If they don't do that well at either- THEN you have a very valid point. If you own them dayly, nightly and ever so rightly at the same tournaments, AGAIN, your point is proved further.
SuperWooper
New Member
You can't make that kind of statement, because what makes the BRs easy is the fact that people DO sit. If people weren't sitting, I don't think Chuck would have made this thread at all.
- Status