Ratings FAQ up!

[Bolt]

My biggest beef is that Cities are now the most important series of the year. There's like seven billion of them and they're worth almost as much as Nationals.

This could've had potential tho.

If they would have put some kind of cap on the amount of cities you could get points for...

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

If they would have put some kind of cap on the amount of cities you could get points for...

That's not going to happen, though.

Let's say they limit each person to 4 Cities. And you go to 4. Then what? Take a 1.5 to 2 month break? POP won't do that as you will not buy any cards during that time.

The purpose of OP is to do two things:

-Get you to buy cards.

-Convince more people to start playing. (and thus, buying cards)

Limiting the number of events you can play in does nothing for that.

 

[ryanvergel]

That's not going to happen, though.

Let's say they limit each person to 4 Cities. And you go to 4. Then what? Take a 1.5 to 2 month break? POP won't do that as you will not buy any cards during that time.

The purpose of OP is to do two things:

-Get you to buy cards.

-Convince more people to start playing. (and thus, buying cards)

Limiting the number of events you can play in does nothing for that.

he said get points for, not attend. There's a difference. Maybe they could do it where each city you attend you progressively earn less and less points. Maybe 10% less point gain per city, or 5% or something, to discourage people from going to ~20 and balancing out the field more.

 

[NoPoke]

LOL at a cap on the number of citys that you can attend. Mexico DOES IT!
What next? Limits on the maximum attendance too?

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

he said get points for, not attend. There's a difference. Maybe they could do it where each city you attend you progressively earn less and less points. Maybe 10% less point gain per city, or 5% or something, to discourage people from going to ~20 and balancing out the field more.

Sorry, mis-read.


In that case, you introduce the problem that the ratings will not be zero-sum. What will the K-value be when you have someone playing in their 5th City against someone who's playing in their first?


It sounds nice, but the technical problems it introduces would need to be overcome.

 

[ryanvergel]

Sorry, mis-read.


In that case, you introduce the problem that the ratings will not be zero-sum. What will the K-value be when you have someone playing in their 5th City against someone who's playing in their first?


It sounds nice, but the technical problems it introduces would need to be overcome.

Just the job for PUI and NoPoke =D

 

[Bolt]

The K-Value stays the same, since the person who plays in 5 wouldn't have such an inflated rating (if they decrease for each one).

 

[ryanvergel]

The k-value could stay the same, but one could introduce a new factor into the equation to determine the points earned. If the stakes and all that jazz remained the same, why wouldn't it work?

the new factor would be 1.05-(.05n) where n is the number of this city championship in reference to however many others you went to.

1.05-.05=1. You multiple your winnings by 1 for the first CC.
For the second, it's 1.05-.1=.95. 95% point gain this time, for your second CC.

Could even make it .03 or .025.
It seems very plausible.

 

[Prime]

I don't personally like the changes PUI has made to the game this year either, but the only real thing we can do is make PUI know that we don't like it and then try to have fun and not lose interest in the game for a year.

Personally, I am looking forward to getting to Nationals and seeing what changes PUI has made to it. At the very beginning of the season I was let down about the World changes but I was happy to hear about how Nationals was planning on being a bigger event. For those that didn't really have a chance to get to Worlds last year, Nationals was their own little Worlds, and I truely can't wait for Nationals this coming year.

Part of me feels the current changes will really push players to realize why they play the game. If they play the game to get to Worlds, then they might reconsider playing the game, which is bad for the game. Either way, if someone plays the game primarily to get to Worlds, they most likely would quit sooner or later anyways once they don't get to Worlds one year.

You will have to play to have fun this year unless your one of the few that can get to Worlds via cash or trip.

 

[Moss Factor]

Playing to get to Worlds is a lot different when you can go via a Gym Challenge or through a ratings system. If you know that all you have to do is get a hot hand for one tournament and take it to get to Worlds, it gives you far more hope of getting there rather than needing to be a consistent player all season as with a rating system.

While I favor a rating system (although the sheer lack of invites is horrendous), to the casual player a Gym Challenge-type system is much more preferred.

If we had instituted this ratings system for invites with the same number of trips as last year, I would have been VERY satisfied with things. I don't know how anyone can be satisfied with having less of a chance to get to Worlds. Every single player in America and Canada is worse-off than they were last year.

 

[Bolt]

I think this could have been really great. Gym Challenges favor people who can travel the same way; going to 10 of those gives you a great chance at going to worlds.

More invites, fairer system...whatev!

 

[SlimeyGrimey]

I personally am very happy with the k-value allotments for the different events of the seasons. I dislike the idea that basically the players that do well at nationals have the highest rating under a system where nationals has a k-value much, much higher than other tournaments.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

If we had instituted this ratings system for invites with the same number of trips as last year, I would have been VERY satisfied with things. I don't know how anyone can be satisfied with having less of a chance to get to Worlds. Every single player in America and Canada is worse-off than they were last year.

Last year we had 50 Gyms and Top8 from Nats go to Worlds.

IMO, if we had 50 invites from ratings this year, and Top8 from Nationals, there would be very little complaining over the new system. There would be some complaining over the level of competition at Cities now, but the great MAJORITY of players would be in favor or impartial to the new system.

I personally am very happy with the k-value allotments for the different events of the seasons. I dislike the idea that basically the players that do well at nationals have the highest rating under a system where nationals has a k-value much, much higher than other tournaments.

I mostly agree.

If the K-values were anything like the rumors I heard before the season started, all someone would have to do to get into Worlds is place well at 2 Regionals and Nationals. Ratings are about consistant play ALL SEASON, not just at the highest-level late season events.

I will agree that Cities are slightly weighted. However, It's not possible to win your trip to Worlds by going to 13 Cities and 0 other events, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.