Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The Future of Ratings Invites

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Box of Fail

New Member
Unfortunately, someone whom I know was knocked out of the top 40 in NA after thinking he had the invite.

It sucks to be on the bubble, but even more so if you appear in the top 40 for a few days.

Next year, should OP simply take a certain rating number (say, the lowest rating which achieved an invite in each division this year; or alternatively, a simple and easy-to-remember number like 1780 JR/ 1800 SR/ 1850 MA in NA, and alternative numbers based on the lowest-rated invites this year in other places) and give everyone past that number a Worlds invite?

This would allow invite winners to know that they had the invite immediately after their Nationals results were updated, without having to wait for other Nationals results. It would also tone down the speculation over what ratings will make Worlds and give each player a definitive point goal for which to shoot.

Obviously there would still be a little last-minute heartbreak over match corrections, but when you just have to worry about a change in your own rating and not those of tons of other people (well, to the extent that they don't affect yours), the potential for a last-minute letdown is decreased.

It would also be tougher to guarantee an exact number of Worlds players, but with the single-elimination grinder's removal of the resistance factor, that's already an issue. Also, OP would presumably use the data from each season to more accurately determine an effective minimum rating number for the following season. That way, any growth or shrinking of the player base could be incorporated into the system. The required number would ideally be announced before the start of each season, so every player would know how many points they needed.

Thoughts?
 
Sigh... Another Speculation thread.

The name of this section of the forum is is TCG News & Gossip Discussion. Threads like these are neither News or Gossip. Threads like these may produce some neat ideas in theory but nearly all of them are ideas that are not fully thought out, have obvious flaws and/or may be logistically imposable. Perhaps a new section of the forum should be created just for speculation and idea threads like this.

Just to stay on topic...

Unfortunately, someone whom I know was knocked out of the top 40 in NA after thinking he had the invite.
Click to expand...

Errors happen, P!P needs to fix them to insure those who have deserved and earned an invite gets the invite. He should not of got his hopes up until he actually gets the invite.

It sucks to be on the bubble, but even more so if you appear in the top 40 for a few days.

Next year, should OP simply take a certain rating number (say, the lowest rating which achieved an invite in each division this year; or alternatively, a simple and easy-to-remember number like 1780 JR/ 1800 SR/ 1850 MA in NA, and alternative numbers based on the lowest-rated invites this year in other places) and give everyone past that number a Worlds invite?

This would allow invite winners to know that they had the invite immediately after their Nationals results were updated, without having to wait for other Nationals results. It would also tone down the speculation over what ratings will make Worlds and give each player a definitive point goal for which to shoot.
Click to expand...

So different ratings cut offs for different age divisions. That seems silly, having things not equal across the age divisions. Also players will sit out when they know they have the invite giving more people a chance to catch up which could cause there to be more players at worlds then expected

Obviously there would still be a little last-minute heartbreak over match corrections, but when you just have to worry about a change in your own rating and not those of tons of other people (well, to the extent that they don't affect yours), the potential for a last-minute letdown is decreased.

It would also be tougher to guarantee an exact number of Worlds players, but with the single-elimination grinder's removal of the resistance factor, that's already an issue. Also, OP would presumably use the data from each season to more accurately determine an effective minimum rating number for the following season. That way, any growth or shrinking of the player base could be incorporated into the system. The required number would ideally be announced before the start of each season, so every player would know how many points they needed.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't think the goal of RANKING invites is to give out invites based on RATING. Invites based on RATING has that "you won this many games and gained this many points, gj, gl at worlds" sort of feel. Invites based on RANKINGS has that feeling of "you had a great season and you did better then this many people, gj, gl at worlds gj, gl at worlds" What I am trying to say you want to give invites based on individual performance (RATINGS) rather then performance with in the player base (RANKINGS). The latter has that prestigious feel that worlds is suppose to have.

Again cute ideas, but bad imo
 
LOLZ makes some very good points, to earn an invite you have to do just that, earn it. The system you're proposing could have people marathoning cities/states and making worlds without having to participate in a higher level event which is ludicrous. If you are a player that has one of the best 40 seasons in the US then you get the invite (different for other regions), that should be that, no "magic number", no shortcuts.
 
I don't like the idea of the number of players invited being uncontrolled. Right now, a specific amount of people play in Worlds, so that (to my knowledge anyway), anyone who goes 5-2 nearly always top cuts. I don't like the idea of people winning 5/7 games against some of the best players in the World before bubbling, and not being able to participate further.

Plus, the cut off changes every year, and could be difficult for POP to gauge a figure in which to let people past that in. Changes in the amount of high K value tournaments, changes in the size of player bases and the affordability of Worlds all alter what people's eventual rankings can be.

I feel sorry for that guy who bubbled, but I don't see the need to change a system because of that. He needed to be one of the top 40 ranked players in the US and he wasn't. Even with a point more, he would have only scraped an invite, as opposed to comfortably securing one. If you change the system, there's going to be people ranked at 1849 that are in a similar position to him, the problem will still be there.
 
I see why you'd want this, but I've got to disagree.

See, the only reason for a "over this and this gets an invite" system is not giving sour grapes.

The cons:
It would be impossible to calculate a line in the beginning of a season, since it's dependant on so many things. Number of players, number of tournaments, diversity between good and bad players... OP would then have to invite a number of people into Worlds that they can't directly control. What if some year 60 people get past that line? That's half more than the 40 they were going for.
Sitting out at tournaments would also be easier, since you can just stop playing when you reach that line, and be testing for Worlds with peace of mind. This would lead to yet another uncertain factor when calculating the line. How many people lost their invite when they decided to play at Nats because they weren't sure they'd make it, and how many just played for fun?

If you feel uncomfortable about the fact that you can appear in the top 40, and drop to 41 because of a slight error and .50 points, just shut your eyes until they close the rankings. ;)
 
This is why you shouldn't skip out at nationals, unless you're 100% sure you have your invite. Anything can happen at nationals, and people can get huge rating boost.

Also another reason why we should ditch ELO and get pro point system.
 
Mac Sting said:
This is why you shouldn't skip out at nationals, unless you're 100% sure you have your invite. Anything can happen at nationals, and people can get huge rating boost.

Also another reason why we should ditch ELO and get pro point system.
Click to expand...


Yeah kids, remember, if you dont skip nats youll surely secure your invite. Let me tell you, I played nats, made top cut, and still lose my invite because I played... There is no way of knowing, stop pretending "just play" is a surefire solution because it absolutly isnt...
 
I lol everytime you post. stop whining dude. it's super easy to get an invite in europe.
 
Stop QQ about your nats playing while you had the invite etc etc you deserved to be on 51 because you didn't perform well enough this season to get an invite.
 
Meesie6x6 said:
Stop QQ about your nats playing while you had the invite etc etc you deserved to be on 51 because you didn't perform well enough this season to get an invite.
Click to expand...

Well gee that's a really nice thing to say huh. Sami Sekkoum was 50th in EU this year; do you think if Yoshi had won one more game at Nats that Sami wouldn't have deserved his invite? A .44 point difference means Sami did way better than he huh.
 
You can't do that. You can't say that once you get past X number you get an invite. We'd have a billion invites. So many players would skip out on events because they qualified for an invite early it isn't funny. It's a great idea, and I'd be for it, only because I can make it past 1850 in my sleep, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to go about it.

Drew
 
Sami isn't a very good point to make. He only played 2 high level tournaments (London State Championship + Nationals) this year, and took a gamble that he could get an invite from that. If he had played throughout the whole season, he would have easily been within the Top 5, let alone the Top 50.
 
funny thing is Sami isn't even playing worlds XD but a guy who can play 2 tournaments and get a higher ranking from that then you is certainly better.
 
It is very risky to draw conclusions as to who is better when comparing fractions of an elo point amongst cohorts that do not mix.

I'm being nice by saying it is very risky.
 
Well, at first is said performed better this season, which you absolutely can't deny,
 
My 2 cents is that the number of RANKING invites should be lowered and the number of invites from winning regionals and top performances at Nationals should increase. The Regional winners are often top rated players anyways, but it frees them up to not have to play the "ranking" game in there head and lead to people sitting out of there own Nationals.

I can't believe when people sit out US Nationals. I think the only folks who should could be have a "legit" reason to sit out nationals are folks who have won nationals. The rest of the folks that feel forced to sit out of Nationals because of the ranking game is a tragedy.

Ranking "gaming" isn't right, but it is forced onto the players who want to make it to Worlds. Change the rules so that we get less people who feel compelled/ forced to sit out Nats.

Again, still have some ranking invites, thus for someone who finished in top 10 ELO pre nat's and still finishes in top 32 rounds still makes it to worlds. Thus let the risk/reward for playing in Nationals greater enough that folks let it roll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top