Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Would you sit on your rating?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigChuck01 said:
45-13 here :-D.

Ugh, give top 20 invites so I don't have to sweat this out!
Click to expand...
That diffinately would be alot better then top 8. Taking only a select few from a large quanity of great players just causes way too many problems/complaints to take. I mean, look how many posts in this thread alone are complaints about the invite system...its going to screw alot of people out of going to worlds...and I get the feeling I'm going to end up being #9. ;/ btw, 68-15.
 
There is NO fair way to distribute 8 invites among 3000 people. It can not be done.



GUERO51 said:
What is the most points a person can gain in one match? The reason I ask this is because my brother only gained 20-25 points for beating a player who had 250 point rating higher than him, yet when he lost to another person in that same state championship that had a slighty higher ranking than him he lost the same number points. It doesn't make sense that these numbers are almost the same.
Click to expand...

http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42840

It's a long-ish read, but it is well worth it.
 
Pablo: I'm sorry you got the short end of the stick, but I personally can live with a system that fails under such unlikely conditions. I'm sure many others can too.

Also, and perhaps more to the point, you seem to want a system that finds and rewards skill and skill alone. Firstly, how in the world do you propose that happens? How are you supposed to measure pure skill in any way? You simply can't, and if that's your main concern, then you could complain about any and all possible systems. Unless I'm overlooking something, so if you have any ideas, please share. Second, what's with this skill obsession anyway? Do worlds matches have this magical property where all luck is eliminated and it's a pure skill event? No, it's just like any other game of pokemon! Luck is constantly a part of any game, even the most elite ones, so it doesn't really even make sense to try and purge luck from the equation. Luck is rewarded in this game; always has been, and barring major card design and rule changes, it always will. Live with it or don't; your choice.
 
So far, I'm not a huge fan of how the ratings are determined. I've attended six events this year, winning three CC's and a State, and my other records were 3-2 and 6-2. Still, I'm not in the T20 for ratings. On the other hand, people who bombed CC's and won a State and even some who haven't won a single tournament are rated higher than me.

However, I know that Pokemon is a random game. With uncontrollable factors like pairings, matchups, and bad luck, it's impossible to make a perfect rating system.

I do find it sort of ridiculous that I only gained 10 points from winning States, though. :p
 
when you loose your games in the season matters a lot. early losses that take your rating below 1600 don't do any damage to your late season prospects... Whereas late season losses when you have a high rating hurt lots.

Damed if they do and damned if they don't... given the reduction in invites to worlds just how can pop spread them around the tournaments more evenly? The suggested solutions all require more invites to worlds. Nationals is to be the big show for the majority of players. Worldwide. There are some spare places at the table and pop have correctly (imho) chosen to reward consistancy and dedication over the whole playing season. You can argue about the how but surely you can't argue about the motive.

got to be carefull how you post: as several posts read like "POP should find a way to send ME to worlds" which is an immediate turn-off and ignore :(

One thing that POP could check is to see how using tournament record rather than individual match record affects players ratings. The wikipedia article on ELO explains how this works. (the tournament is zero sum rather than each match which might mean that loosing to a strong player who for whatever reason has a low rating has less impact. This would need to be confirmed.)
 
Last edited:
ZAKtheGeek said:
Pablo: I'm sorry you got the short end of the stick, but I personally can live with a system that fails under such unlikely conditions. I'm sure many others can too.

Also, and perhaps more to the point, you seem to want a system that finds and rewards skill and skill alone. Firstly, how in the world do you propose that happens? How are you supposed to measure pure skill in any way? You simply can't, and if that's your main concern, then you could complain about any and all possible systems. Unless I'm overlooking something, so if you have any ideas, please share. Second, what's with this skill obsession anyway? Do worlds matches have this magical property where all luck is eliminated and it's a pure skill event? No, it's just like any other game of pokemon! Luck is constantly a part of any game, even the most elite ones, so it doesn't really even make sense to try and purge luck from the equation. Luck is rewarded in this game; always has been, and barring major card design and rule changes, it always will. Live with it or don't; your choice.
Click to expand...

One very easy solution, which also supports Pookas statements, would be awarding points depending on the actual place you got in a tournament. Like he said it seems ridiculous to have someone win a State like him and only gain 10 points. Ranking points as prizes for 'x' place in Top Cut would help balance this out alot.

And of course every good player would like this game to be pure skill but it isn't, yet here we are, so trust me, I know better than anyone Pokemon is all into luck.
 
One very easy solution, which also supports Pookas statements, would be awarding points depending on the actual place you got in a tournament. Like he said it seems ridiculous to have someone win a State like him and only gain 10 points. Ranking points as prizes for 'x' place in Top Cut would help balance this out alot.
Click to expand...
Okay, but then there's matching luck. Getting matched with a weak player early on and getting a bad tiebreaker, or constantly getting matched with a deck you have a low chance of winning against... Plenty for people to come here and complain about. Still luck-prone, is what I'm saying, but as long as it accounts for total number of players, still an interesting idea.
 
Use the suggestion I made previously (in a thread about drops before top cuts to protect their points)...give bonus points for top 4 at CCs, States, Reg's. Winning any state championship should add more than just 10 points to anybody's ranking IMO.

Keith
 
I'd be in favor of a "payout" system similar to poker, where for example top 8 in a states gets 10 points, 4th gets 15, 3rd gets 20, 2nd gets 35 and 1st gets 50.
 
I completely agree with Pablo/Lawman. In addition to the points for PLACING there should be more granted based on attedance at well. This would give the West Coast a better and more fair chance when there are less events. Beating a dead horse here, but these are the type of things POP should be asking their players before they implement a ranking system, JMO.
 
Lawman said:
Use the suggestion I made previously (in a thread about drops before top cuts to protect their points)...give bonus points for top 4 at CCs, States, Reg's. Winning any state championship should add more than just 10 points to anybody's ranking IMO.

Keith
Click to expand...
So Agreed.
I gained 15 points for going 5-1 and winning a States. That's just lame.
 
I gained 8 points for getting 2nd at two states and 3rd at another =/

Isn't consistent play like that what this system is supposed to reward? I certainly wouldn't call those places bombing =/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top