Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Would you sit on your rating?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is why I maintain that it is a reward system and not a rating system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

I believe that much more complex systems that ELO exist which attempt to factor in the players history in calculating how many points should be exchanged. I expect that they have their flaws too. (flaws = assumptions)

Lifetime ratings have lots of problems too.

You fix one thing and something else gets broken!
 
NoPoke said:
Which is why I maintain that it is a reward system and not a rating system.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

I believe that much more complex systems that ELO exist which attempt to factor in the players history in calculating how many points should be exchanged. I expect that they have their flaws too. (flaws = assumptions)

Lifetime ratings have lots of problems too.

You fix one thing and something else gets broken!
Click to expand...

DING DING DING...we have a winner. The ONLY way you will be on top of the ratings pyramid at the end of the season is to play many more tourneys than most! Granted, the top players are very good players too, they just get more opportunities to add points to their totla than many others. Jake/Dendro is a GREAT player, his rating (under this system) will NEVER add up to his skill level bc he CHOOSES to spend time with his family :eek: (what a horrible thing to do.. Pokymanz 4lyfe! :lol: ) Anyway, this is the system we have this year, and if anyone gets upset/mad/hurt feelings bc they lose to a "lower ranked" but not "lower skilled" opponent...go read SotG again (or play better next time! :rolleyes: )

Keith
 
I really don't like the idea of a lifetime rating. Everyone should be put at an even level at the beginning of year, even if it's ness. All players should have to start out low and miss and hit early on point wise. If they are good enough, they will continue to gain points.
 
The only thing I wouldn't play in is Battle Roads, ONLY If I am rated higher than 2000. But at Nationals If I go undefeated, I won't drop, I don't care if I got a million points. I would like to risk it chasing after the National Champion title.
 
For one, I don't even think there is going to be 10 rounds, let alone 9 at Nationals. Secondly, I think you'd be a total fool for dropping after swiss at Nationals. You're X-0, you REALLY are that much of a pansy to drop when you should realistically have a chance of winning it all? I think I'd "risk" my rating to win the biggest event in the World. On top of that, you would lose to highly rated players in the top cut, so you aren't risking as much as you would think.
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
I know I'd be angry if I lost to one of the best players in the game, and instead of the loss counting as a loss to one of the best players in the game, it counted as a loss to Random McNoobypants. That would suck.
Click to expand...

That's basically how I placed 2nd at two states and 3rd at another and came out with a net of only 8 points. I lost to the following players across my three state championships:

Ryan S
Orion C
Elissa H
Curran H

None of these players are random n00bs, they are all very good players who have a very good chance to beat me. Other than Ryan maybe, however, their ratings were all considerably lower than mine. I lost 20-25 points each time I lost to one of them. The most I got for beating any of them is about 12.

I wouldn't sit out nats or drop after swiss under any circumstance.
 
my ranking would be higher if i went to more tournoments
but instead, i choose to spend time with my girlfriend...
my gf is costing me my chance to win a trip to worlds...
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
I believe the thing that Dendro was trying to get to was this paradox:

A rating system that is reset every year (like ours) puts EVERYONE on the same footing at the beginning of the year. This means the system thinks Ness has only a 50% chance of beating ANYONE at the first event of the year.

Saying that Ness has exactly a 50% chance of beating Random McNoobypants early in the year, but a 90% chance by States is, IMO, absolutelly wrong.

What this leads to is this... What if Ness doesn't play in the first few tournaments of the year? Even though everyone knows he is the best player, it just so happens that he would be rated below ~half of the players in the tournament.

That is EXACTLY what Dendro has brought up. He was busy for much of the earlier part of the year. This means he has the chance to ruin many players ratings because, although he is better than them, he is rated LOWER than them.

I know I'd be angry if I lost to one of the best players in the game, and instead of the loss counting as a loss to one of the best players in the game, it counted as a loss to Random McNoobypants. That would suck.



In short, I think a Lifetime rating system needs serious concideration for next years format.

There are very simple ways to prevent rating sitting if you're worried about it.
Click to expand...


ooooorrr you could skip out to Idaho, where you have a much better chance of only playing Random McNoobypants.
 
The goal of the system is to have players END UP with the ratings they deserve.

I remember in the early WOTC days, I had a 5 year old take down the then #1 player in the world in a sanctioned match. He quit that day to protect his points.

Sure, Ness most likely has a greater than 50% chance at the beginning of the season, but now that we are in the meat of the season, his rating reflects his opportunity.

I feel sorry for those that lose to James B, who has been chilling all season, at Regionals or Nationals. Still a top player, whose rating is "deceptively" low.

If you look at the "Big Board" and know the players, I doubt anyone doubts the legitimacy of the players sitting at the top...just one question...Pablo...where did you go?

Vince
 
Just out of curiosity why couldn't rating be based on the last 12 months worth of matches? Each month matches older than this would be dropped from the ratings calculation. By worlds it would reflect the past year only and it would seem to prevent the problem of folks who take a few months off having a 1600 rank when they do go to their first event ... and at the same time prevent sitting for years on end.
 
we already know that Junior Senior and Master ratings aren't the same point for point. Every year a sizeable percentage of Juniors and Seniors moves up into the next age group. So though I quite like the idea of a rolling 12month rating you would still end up with all those new entrants into the age starting at 1600. Its much cleaner to reset it each year.
 
meganium45 said:
The goal of the system is to have players END UP with the ratings they deserve.

I remember in the early WOTC days, I had a 5 year old take down the then #1 player in the world in a sanctioned match. He quit that day to protect his points.

Sure, Ness most likely has a greater than 50% chance at the beginning of the season, but now that we are in the meat of the season, his rating reflects his opportunity.

I feel sorry for those that lose to James B, who has been chilling all season, at Regionals or Nationals. Still a top player, whose rating is "deceptively" low.

If you look at the "Big Board" and know the players, I doubt anyone doubts the legitimacy of the players sitting at the top...just one question...Pablo...where did you go?

Vince
Click to expand...

I am the living example of the flaws in the system.

Notice my record, it is 45-11, I have over a 80% win rate at this point but pairings are killing me. I only get paired up against very low ranked opponents and win 8 or less points. Then I take on bad beats due to bad hand/prizes/luck and I take 25 point loses.

If I were constantly paired with people closer to my ranking, with such a record I could be safely sitting on my ranking packing up my suitcase for Hawaii.

Also take into account 10/11 losses this season so far in 9 events have been illegitimate and due to INSANELY bad luck, hitting percentages as low as 0.09% where the other 99.91% of the time I win and you get what I'm saying.

I don't even want to have GOOD luck, I want to have average luck, maybe even a little bad luck, and I will be at the top, but the levels of bad luck right now are just unbeilivable, I have been more likely to win the lottery so far this season than lose some of the games I've lost.
 
Just out of curiosity why couldn't rating be based on the last 12 months worth of matches? Each month matches older than this would be dropped from the ratings calculation. By worlds it would reflect the past year only and it would seem to prevent the problem of folks who take a few months off having a 1600 rank when they do go to their first event ... and at the same time prevent sitting for years on end.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty interesting idea... Although I doubt they would dare to implement it until the current system has been in use for a full year.

Also take into account 10/11 losses this season so far in 9 events have been illegitimate and due to INSANELY bad luck, hitting percentages as low as 0.09% where the other 99.91% of the time I win and you get what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
So it's not illegitimate, it's just unlucky. That you get really crappy luck sometimes has nothing to do with this system. Luck like that could screw you over under any ranking or reward structure...
 
ZAKtheGeek said:
So it's not illegitimate, it's just unlucky. That you get really crappy luck sometimes has nothing to do with this system. Luck like that could screw you over under any ranking or reward structure...
Click to expand...

They are ilegitimatge because I was a huge favorite, 90%+ in every one of them. Unlucky and illegitimate go hand by hand, its not my opponent surpassed my skill or anticipated my moves or was better at calculating x and y factors, it was luck and thus it was illegitimate.

And it is proof that the system is flawed because ELO works for chess cause its only one game, same variants for everyone, in Pokemon there are so many other factors to be taken into account, such as matchup, skill, deck structure, who goes first, starting hand etc. that a system like ELO is not the best suited IMO, but meh nothing I can do except go to some shaman up in the mountains to rub an egg over my body, I am really considering that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top