30 + 3

[Ness]

Sorry this is off topic but I would like to point out that there is a difference between being a professional who follows the Professor Core Values, and being a “yes-man”.

No one here is upset that folks want to discuss what they see as issues. We do and always have encouraged people to send us feedback and suggestions. (In fact Dave and I had a good conversation about the email you sent us just the other day.)
In order to run a program like this you also have to be able to seek out and appreciate those who are also willing and able to offer constructive criticism and POP is fortunate to have plenty of folks who care enough about the game that they are willing to tell us exactly what they think.
Most of those folks also manage to do so while still following the Professor Core Values, which is even more impressive. :wink:

Also, while "yes-men" exist, I think you may be using the term unfairly. I have met precious few “yes-men” in our program thus far. Keep in mind that what you are talking about are sycophants who claim to agree with POP regardless of what their own opinion might be. We may have plenty of folks who like the way things are and who are super excited with our program just the way it is, but that does not make a person a sycophant.

We don’t ever immediately assume that a person who criticizes us is doing so just to be contrary or a hater so I would caution folks to not label those who might legitimately support our programs as sycophants or yes-men. One of the fastest ways one can break up constructive debate on a topic is to disparaging a person’s opinion based on an unfair label.

I think it's fair to say you guys have exceeded our most optimistic expectations since you took this game over from WotC. You took a game that WotC ran into the ground, then tried to bury since they would end up competing with it, and then you turned it into one of the most successful TCGs of all time. A lot of that success IMO stems from adapting and changing the game to meet what the players wanted. You guys added more prizes, made tournaments more exciting, more fun, created year-round seasons to play in. We saw Nationals go from a one-day event, to two days, to now three days. Let's not stop there. I think its time Regionals became a two-day event. In addition, I think it's time to add ties. Both of these stop parents and little kids from getting stuck at a tournament past midnight. We don't want to turn what would be an otherwise wonderful experience for a family into an unpleasant one, simply because the tournaments run so late.

I never intend to come off as disrespectful when I post a new idea. I hope you never perceive me this way. Pokemon has been a passion in my life for 11 years and I love to see the game continue to develop and grow. Thank you for all the work you guys have put into it. It doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[Biggie]

I think it's fair to say you guys have exceeded our most optimistic expectations since you took this game over from WotC. You took a game that WotC ran into the ground, then tried to bury since they would end up competing with it, and then you turned it into one of the most successful TCGs of all time. A lot of that success IMO stems from adapting and changing the game to meet what the players wanted. You guys added more prizes, made tournaments more exciting, more fun, created year-round seasons to play in. We saw Nationals go from a one-day event, to two days, to now three days. Let's not stop there. I think its time Regionals became a two-day event. In addition, I think it's time to add ties. Both of these stop parents and little kids from getting stuck at a tournament past midnight. We don't want to turn what would be an otherwise wonderful experience for a family into an unpleasant one, simply because the tournaments run so late.

I never intend to come off as disrespectful when I post a new idea. I hope you never perceive me this way. Pokemon has been a passion in my life for 11 years and I love to see the game continue to develop and grow. Thank you for all the work you guys have put into it. It doesn't go unnoticed.

As the new guy on the team (can I still say that after a year?) I can't personally take credit for how far the game has come since the WotC days but I know that the rest of the crew appreciate the props.

You've not come off disrespectful at all boss, I only interjected on the topic of yes-men because debate is healthy and important to us. While I know you were not using it to shut down other perspectives, I've seen labels like that kill debate completely in other communities. The Pokémon community is a thriving and generally positive group and I would love to see it stay that way.

 

[skovtrold]

What NoPoke said

Try for a second, to stop thinking about how it changes from what he have now,

How would people not complain about, how the person, whom, before the change, was allowed to make the cut, by making a draw in the last game, because he did well, throughout the rest of the swiss, but now will have the chance of missing the cut, because he drew bad the lost round ?

Allowing draws, also allows for a more tactical aspect, even when not playing.

Just saying, think about it.

//peace

 

[NoPoke]

The reason for my post that you referenced was that there is a perception out there amongst lots and lots of players and TOs that IDs were grossly unfair. That the distortion their presence caused was excessive. Over time that incorrect view becomes accepted as fact then dogma as it is without a sound basis and thus cannot be questioned or challenged. I was trying to burst that particular bubble or at least deflate it somewhat.

IDs are a problem. But they became a scape goat for players and parents to hang their own missunderstandings on. As such I take the position that the wholesale removal of draws was an overreaction. I have no doubt that POP felt compelled to act at the time, and I hope that in time PIP will revisit the issue and reintroduce draws once more along with some restrictions or other changes to remove the incentive to ID. As draws are a bit of a soap box issue for me I will keep returning to them when they are germane.

FWIW the suggestion of reintroducing draws but assigning them zero points does actually work! It addresses the ID incentive and fixes the major cause of tournament overrun once under way. However it is a bit extreme. Could be that draws in just the last round should have zero points or draws in the last two rounds at the top X tables have zero points where X might be the cut size. There are lots of was of addressing the ID problem without the wholesale removal of draws.

 

[Cyrus]

Now...On the topic of incentives to not ID:

The season that draws were allowed, rating gains and losses "were" 0 points. However, would far fewer people quickly jump into IDs if ratings _were_ changed by draws? According to ELO, the higher ranked player would by default lose points - after all, you're tying with a technically weaker opponent.

Rating points are still a desirable thing for many players. If you fully implement ELO to a system that allows draws, then several serious competitors will be far less willing to draw.

 

[NoPoke]

Now...On the topic of incentives to not ID:

The season that draws were allowed, rating gains and losses "were" 0 points. However, would far fewer people quickly jump into IDs if ratings _were_ changed by draws? According to ELO, the higher ranked player would by default lose points - after all, you're tying with a technically weaker opponent.

Rating points are still a desirable thing for many players. If you fully implement ELO to a system that allows draws, then several serious competitors will be far less willing to draw.

Some might be less willing. A few might be more willing

With invites determined by rating there is a mild disincentive to draw and then play in the cut. For a few there would be an incentive to draw and drop when they realise that they should have dropped at the end of the previous round! Actually I kind of like that second chance but thats just me.

For most here is how it plays out ratings wise.

Winning in the last round of swiss and then being knocked out of the cut is a ratings wash for most players. Drawing in the last round of swiss and then being knocked out of the cut would be the same as loosing the last round and not making the cut for most players.

Just the added uncertainty and complexity acts as a disincentive. With those chasing ratings or trying to maintain an on the cusp rating I can see Draw+Drop as an option. One that has the curious side effect of potentially allowing players into the cut who would not otherwise make the cut. Without the draw and drop option loosing players will probably want to play in the cut to recover the damage to their rating and have a shot at the prizes.


==========

FWW I think looking at incentives to NOT ID is the right approach to this issue.