Maybe rating points shouldn't reset
- Thread starter Matt Yuen
- Start date
- Status
is an invite to worlds (other than those given to the previous winners) supposed to be a reward for one's play/performance during that specific year, or for one's 'reputation' as a player?
'mom
drmario
New Member
That would NOT work for these reasons.
1. New players would never be able to catch up
2. Every game and sport in the world starts out with the players equal at the beginning of the season, some sports, like football, actually give bad teams advantages(like picking first in the draft).
3. Pokemon is a game that changes with every set released, so somone good one year might not be good next year because they have to use a new deck or the old one doesn't work as well because of changes to the metagame.
4. See all the above.
1. New players would never be able to catch up
2. Every game and sport in the world starts out with the players equal at the beginning of the season, some sports, like football, actually give bad teams advantages(like picking first in the draft).
3. Pokemon is a game that changes with every set released, so somone good one year might not be good next year because they have to use a new deck or the old one doesn't work as well because of changes to the metagame.
4. See all the above.
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
I think drmario's right.
Why didn't you take any time to explain why this should be? No use starting a thread like this if you're not going to defend it.
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
I wrote a whole article on this topic.
See my sig.
See my sig.
Carry over would have to take into account players who hadn't played in a while. It was disgusting under Wizards to see people who had quit in a stink like 18-24 months prior still in the top 10, 20, 30, etc. A rolling year would be a possibility?
*goes to read FS article*
*goes to read FS article*
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
Yeah. Why hasn't anyone written, say, a long article, all about why a bi-yearly system would alleviate most of the problems that the system has right now.
Someone should really do that.
Hmm..i don't know, i wouldn't write off this so fast, I mean isn't a world's tournament meant to be the best of the best competing, not just those who netdecked correctly and got lucky? I mean, it doesn't seem right if someone could (in theory) qualify for worlds in the first year they've been playing the game, where another person who has been skillful for a long time missed a qualifying spot because of a few bad shuffles
1. New players will always be able to catch up, the only difference is the length of time required to do so, older, experienced players' ratings wouldn't change as much as an up and coming player's would
2. In an environment where the play isn't based on the individual, this makes sense, because it's possible that one team could have none of the same players from one year to the next, in a game based on the individual you are (ideally) the same person from one year to the next, your knowledge and skill making a difference
3. Welcome to trading card games...this isn't a closed system like chess (where everything stays the same no matter what) those who can't do as well because of new cards won't be as good because of the inability to adapt, while those who can do well and adapt will show a continued level of skill
Though if anything, i think the system seems much too fragile in it's current form, it seems far too reliant on perfectly flawless luck more so than actual skill
1. New players will always be able to catch up, the only difference is the length of time required to do so, older, experienced players' ratings wouldn't change as much as an up and coming player's would
2. In an environment where the play isn't based on the individual, this makes sense, because it's possible that one team could have none of the same players from one year to the next, in a game based on the individual you are (ideally) the same person from one year to the next, your knowledge and skill making a difference
3. Welcome to trading card games...this isn't a closed system like chess (where everything stays the same no matter what) those who can't do as well because of new cards won't be as good because of the inability to adapt, while those who can do well and adapt will show a continued level of skill
Though if anything, i think the system seems much too fragile in it's current form, it seems far too reliant on perfectly flawless luck more so than actual skill
NoPoke
Active Member
It should be reset each year. I really don't want last years winners to have such an advantage over this years new entrants as to make it not worthwhile playing. The idea that we should tell a ten year old player that he has to play for two years before seeing anything ratings wise completely neglects just how long two years is for the younger players. Don't forget there is even the common belief amongst tcg manufacturers that the typical player stays with a game for three years before moving on. It has to be reset.
A different question is does it need to be a hard reset all the way back down to 1600 or should players retain a fraction of last years performance? This looks good but what of those players who happen to perform badly in their first year. It seems wrong to discourage them in year two. The hard reset down to 1600 still looks best to me.
But what of all those matches early in the season where 1600 for everyone just isn't a true value for that players skill? Surely that can't be ignored? Well one way around this would be to perform the ratings run twice. The first pass through everyone starts with 1600. Final ratings from the first pass are then used as the starting point for the second pass. This is feasible and retains the needed yearly reset but some questions need to be answered before such a dual pass could be implemented. Would everyones rating just inflate in the way that blowing air into a balloon moves every point on the surface of the balloon further away from every other point. Or will ratings settle to a more representative figure?
[Aside: the second pass need not be carried out the same way as the first pass. It would be quite valid to treat all matches in the second pass as though they belonged to a single enormous tournament and calculate the overall win expectancy for the tournament. This is frequently done for chess tournaments where your rating does not change after each match but only once when the tournament has been completed. ]
A different question is does it need to be a hard reset all the way back down to 1600 or should players retain a fraction of last years performance? This looks good but what of those players who happen to perform badly in their first year. It seems wrong to discourage them in year two. The hard reset down to 1600 still looks best to me.
But what of all those matches early in the season where 1600 for everyone just isn't a true value for that players skill? Surely that can't be ignored? Well one way around this would be to perform the ratings run twice. The first pass through everyone starts with 1600. Final ratings from the first pass are then used as the starting point for the second pass. This is feasible and retains the needed yearly reset but some questions need to be answered before such a dual pass could be implemented. Would everyones rating just inflate in the way that blowing air into a balloon moves every point on the surface of the balloon further away from every other point. Or will ratings settle to a more representative figure?
[Aside: the second pass need not be carried out the same way as the first pass. It would be quite valid to treat all matches in the second pass as though they belonged to a single enormous tournament and calculate the overall win expectancy for the tournament. This is frequently done for chess tournaments where your rating does not change after each match but only once when the tournament has been completed. ]
Last edited:
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
As already stated in that topic, very few casual Gymmers actually read the Feature Article section. Sticky in the News section for a month, maybe?
- Status