Manipulation of the Rating System of the 2007-2008 Season

[Prime]

And most likely these 1-2 invites would be given out through regionals or would they be only ratings? Because I can see problems with both.

If it's given out through regionals, and out of state players cannot win the invite, then many players that travel will not like it.

If it's given out through invites, then you have states like Florida that have more skilled players than the norm that might whine about how it's not fair they only get 2 invites.

See where I am going with this? It doesn't matter what you give players. They will still whine and beg for more.

 

[Gatsu]

you're assuming the TO will let you into the tourney 2 or 3 rounds in. not to mention that i'd guess you MIGHT get away with that ONCE...but show a pattern of it? you think POP is stupid?

*facepalms*

nice topic

'mom

I hope POP is not stupid but it acted like it was in 2006-2007 since it didn't notice that someone was cheating without any problem....

Even when it was showed the cheating it didn't do nothing to cheaters...

Fake BRs continued and many trips was stolen to players that earned them.

I still had see no explanations on how Pablo was banned for asking a few bucks to concede, and someone, stealing trips worth some thousand dollars, didn't get any punishment at all.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

And most likely these 1-2 invites would be given out through regionals or would they be only ratings? Because I can see problems with both.

On rankings.

If it's given out through invites, then you have states like Florida that have more skilled players than the norm that might whine about how it's not fair they only get 2 invites.

See where I am going with this? It doesn't matter what you give players. They will still whine and beg for more.

That is a sad way to look at things.

Maybe the only fix is to stop giving out any prizes at POP tournaments altogether?

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

If it's given out through invites, then you have states like Florida that have more skilled players than the norm that might whine about how it's not fair they only get 2 invites.

Inevitably. Aren't a bunch of US players already doing this, but on an international scale?

 

[pikachual]

even worse is the fact that in some situations, 12th > 6th. two things solve this, imo: eliminate point loss in top cut as previously stated, and limit the amount of events a player can get points for.

I agree with you Bolt and everyone else that top cut should not be penalized in points

 

[Professor Elm]

Some people are getting way too mathematical/scientific.

It's a game!
Play it and have fun. Don't drop a tournament just cause you lost a few points.
NOW, I will admit, dropping a tournament if you know you have a clenched spot for worlds is OK.
I would drop any tournament if I had a guaranteed trip to worlds, as would almost anybody.

BUT y'all are getting way too deep into this system. Y'all are trying to figure out all these loop-holes and how to beat the system.

Just play the game and have fun.

 

[Prime]

I don't know if a lot of players play this game to have fun. I play this game to have fun, but I'm sure a lot of people play for the prizes.

 

[Poliwag92]

Cyrus!?!?!?!?

 

[SlimeyGrimey]

I like Cyrus' ideas.

Bolt: limit the number of rounds/matches, not the number of events. Its not fair if someone gets to attend three 6-round CC's while another player only gets to attend three 4-round CC's.

 

[PSYCO829]

as big chuck once said
if you play pokemon for the prizes, you're in the wrong game

 

[PokeDaddy]

Bolt et al -

I can see your point of view with respect to limiting the tourneys/rounds.

Here's a different perspective though.

If your income was based on how many events you run and how many people were at your events, would you knowingly limit the number of events per person?

I wouldn't and I don't think you would either (but who knows :biggrin

Take care.

Steve

 

[Cyrus]

Guys, I think a lot of you are trying to solve problems that no longer exist, because the K value adjustment should fix things for this season. Why limit the amount of events a person can play in now, when they're worth so little?

 

[bullados]

We don't know what the K-value adjustment will be. All we know is that BRs are 1/4 of what they were last year (big props, great idea).

On the Prof forums, NoPoke made a suggestion that I think is very good. He suggested a Luck modifier to the K-value that is determined by the difference between the higher rated player and the lower rated player. Without getting too technical, it adjusts the stake downwards based on that difference.

Using ProPoints with smaller areas makes sense, until you think about people who have residence in two different areas. I go to school in Champaign, IL, but my parents live in San Antonio, TX. How would it be fair to those in Chicago if I could go down to San Antonio and get a 2nd and a 1st in one weekend with a deck I'd never played before? How is it fair to me if I have to play in a ":stronger" area in order to secure an Invite in a "weaker" area? How is it fair to me if only my matches in one area count when I'm forced to split time between both areas?

Incorporating a Luck factor into the Elo system, on top of a steeper graduated K-value system (let's face it, 50% difference b/w Nationals and BRs wasn't enough) would probably be more than enough to provide a balanced system.

 

[NoPoke]

From a purely mathematical point of view I think the K values last season were perfectly reasonable. There is a trade off between a single year season and a wide spread of K values. If K=8 tournaments are introduced early season they will be of so little significance that we might just as well set the K value at zero and avoid all the bagage associated with the need to win every game.

Staying within the topic of manipulation: having battle roads after nationals was open to potential abuse. At the very least players with invites should not be able to play in rated local tournaments after their nationals have been held. It is necessary to keep the matches honest that players have something at risk when they play in a rating system.

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

Luck factor?

Ew, that's just insulting to everyone. Why should good players have a chance of unjustly losing points (or earning less) while people of close skill are unfairly distributed prizes?

Besides, distributing points (therefore prizes) on a luck factor is gambling. If players may or may not receive prizes after paying an enterance fee due to a luck factor isn't that just like a roulette wheel?

 

[Cyrus]

As nice as a luck factor would be (it'd keep me in power! ), it's unhealthy for the game. The only thing you can offer consistently good players is the prospect of better luck in the future...be it next month, next year, or next decade ($1 says the game will be gone by then :O), people who stick with the game get rewarded, no matter how atrocious their fortune may be in the short-term.

 

[NoPoke]

magic_umbreon: accepting that there is luck in Pokemon and adjusting the mathematics behind the ELO system to take this into account benefits the skilled players. It is not an insult to admit that luck plays a part in this game. The current implementation of ELO makes the incorrect assumption that the outcome of every match is wholely determined by player skill.

Cyrus/Prime: explicitly modifying the ELO stake to take account that some matches are determined by luck will remove the justified reasoning that had several strong players sit out BRs this season. Explicitly accounting for luck shifts the risk-reward ratio so that getting donked by a low rated player late season does not ruin a whole years effort. Players can actually have more fun if the elo equation accounts for luck, strong players can enter the season late if they wish without grinching points as a consequence of having an artificially low rating.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

Nopoke -

I looked at your graphs and stuff, and (along with being sorry for the late response), have to say that it would fix a few of the problems we had this year. But, in general, the same problems that were present last year would also be present after this system were introduced.



Basically, the problems ELO presents to Pokemon are:

-Players avoiding events to save their ratings.
-Players asking for concessions to save their ratings.
-Losing points on bad starts/matchups (your idea does address this, but completely illegitimate losses still occur).
-The problem of 5th place getting more points than 2nd.
-Allegations of TO/LD abuse of the system through various means.
-People showing up 2+ rounds late for a tournament (as suggested in the first post) and cake-walking some easy points.
-People going 4-0 DROP just so they can increase their ratings without having to risk them in the next round.
-The great-player-with-low-rating paradox.
-Late-season events being worth vastly more than early-season events.



The Pro Points system I proposed on the last page fixes 6 of these completely, and 3 partially.

 

[taylor2007]

i think the rating system is great but the way they give invites is stupid they need to give an invite to the #1 player in the state in each age group then select 4-5 #2 player

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

But even with bad starts etc. there is still skill on the opponent's side to take advantage of that whereas factoring in luck after skill has decided a game means prizes are in some manner distributed randomly. By "insulting the players" I mean dependant on the scale of the luck factor, a player with a lower % of wins can earn more rating points than someone with a higher % of wins simply because the times they struck lucky on the luck factor were when they won games, while the better player was unlucky for these.

I mean if players' abilities are subject to unfair influence and thus do not reflect their true skill, it's like saying "we don't really care that those who deserve it may not get prizes".

Besides, I don't see why introducing luck solves lots of problems.

I don't know lots about the whole "drop" procedure but based on my small understanding, couldn't they simply say you can only drop with a valid reason or that the rest of your games count as losses? Ie. no option to drop at all simply teh option to forfeit your future games.

Couldn't PUI issue warnings that abuse of the rating system is inappropriate and not within spirit of the game?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

But even with bad starts etc. there is still skill on the opponent's side to take advantage of that whereas factoring in luck after skill has decided a game means prizes are in some manner distributed randomly. By "insulting the players" I mean dependant on the scale of the luck factor, a player with a lower % of wins can earn more rating points than someone with a higher % of wins simply because the times they struck lucky on the luck factor were when they won games, while the better player was unlucky for these.

I mean if players' abilities are subject to unfair influence and thus do not reflect their true skill, it's like saying "we don't really care that those who deserve it may not get prizes".

Besides, I don't see why introducing luck solves lots of problems.

I don't know lots about the whole "drop" procedure but based on my small understanding, couldn't they simply say you can only drop with a valid reason or that the rest of your games count as losses? Ie. no option to drop at all simply the option to forfeit your future games.

Couldn't PUI issue warnings that abuse of the rating system is inappropriate and not within spirit of the game?