The point system is busted.
- Thread starter jeffrey123
- Start date
- Status
You make it sound like Fulop is a victim. If he was as good as you make him sound, he wouldn't have to purposely turn in his decklist late just so that he gets to face all the x-1's all day. So basically, I agree with the point you made, but you may be looking at this the wrong way.
pokesam128
New Member
someone at oregon states got donked by a theme deck with psyduck he was playing shuppet and another person playing shuppet got donked 4 times in a row
NoPoke
Active Member
Lotad, Darkwalkers post is valid.
It is my top criticism of our current system too. Play at risk systems like elo avoid all the issues with a pure reward system where the inability to attend lots of events can lock out players too. But for play at risk to work the risk-reward balance has to be something like representative of the games that take place.
It is my top criticism of our current system too. Play at risk systems like elo avoid all the issues with a pure reward system where the inability to attend lots of events can lock out players too. But for play at risk to work the risk-reward balance has to be something like representative of the games that take place.
Darkwalker
New Member
No matter what you think of Chris personally, you should respect his ability to play this game as well as his deck building skills. Late entry, or not, I'm positive Chris would rather play out each tournament to win it if he were not hampered by the way the ratings system is set up. Playing the system has replaced playing the game for him. He's not alone, either.
I'm not trying to make the most successful players out there into victims of their own success, just stating a fact. In a luck based game, the highest rated players have to weigh their ability to offset the likelihood of taking a loss during any tournament. When ratings become so high that 1 loss requires 4-5 wins to break even a top player cannot have an off day. Top notch Masters like Chris are one thing, but try explaining to a 10 year old that the 6-2 record and 2nd place at States didn't help his or her ratings points. I don't know what can be done to fix how things are currently done, but I can clearly see that it's not the ideal system for this game to be using. Every system will have it's flaws, though. I just find that setting the system up in a way that it discourages the best players from even playing seems, well, not really in the Spirit of the Game.
I'm not trying to make the most successful players out there into victims of their own success, just stating a fact. In a luck based game, the highest rated players have to weigh their ability to offset the likelihood of taking a loss during any tournament. When ratings become so high that 1 loss requires 4-5 wins to break even a top player cannot have an off day. Top notch Masters like Chris are one thing, but try explaining to a 10 year old that the 6-2 record and 2nd place at States didn't help his or her ratings points. I don't know what can be done to fix how things are currently done, but I can clearly see that it's not the ideal system for this game to be using. Every system will have it's flaws, though. I just find that setting the system up in a way that it discourages the best players from even playing seems, well, not really in the Spirit of the Game.
NoPoke
Active Member
I am biased in favour of elo and similar approaches. My bias can be reduced to a belief that our tcg remains a game of skill and that it is possible to uncover players relative abilities by analysing their performance against other players. This has been the case in the past.
The strongest argument in favour of abandoning elo is that it is not working well at the moment and that the current environment is going to persist for the foreseeable future.
elo and similar are the only mathematically sound approaches for rewarding a whole seasons worth of steady good performance that never quite made the medals. elo identifies the marathon runner and not the sprinter. The sprinters already get their rewards with the event prizes and at nationals the scholarships and trips - so what of the others, the marathon runners, the players who maybe aren't winning but you'd rather not be paired against? It is these players that any replacement of elo has to look after. It is easy to say that elo is broken, but not so easy to replace unless the easy road of focusing upon rewarding winners is taken.
The strongest argument in favour of abandoning elo is that it is not working well at the moment and that the current environment is going to persist for the foreseeable future.
elo and similar are the only mathematically sound approaches for rewarding a whole seasons worth of steady good performance that never quite made the medals. elo identifies the marathon runner and not the sprinter. The sprinters already get their rewards with the event prizes and at nationals the scholarships and trips - so what of the others, the marathon runners, the players who maybe aren't winning but you'd rather not be paired against? It is these players that any replacement of elo has to look after. It is easy to say that elo is broken, but not so easy to replace unless the easy road of focusing upon rewarding winners is taken.
Last edited:
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
ELO is an interesting system and it does have strong points that frequently balance out it’s weaknesses. At the moment the biggest problem is that our format increases the amount of luck based wins and thus renders ELO a less accurate measure of skill. I really feel Darkwalker’s point as well. Any system that encourages folks to NOT play is a problem.
We’ve seen the following suggestions in this thread and others.
I’ve probably missed a few, but just in looking at the suggested changes it becomes clear what ELOs flaws are. Personally I would like smaller tweaks to the system rather than just getting rid of it.
We’ve seen the following suggestions in this thread and others.
- Make Swiss matches best 2 of 3. This will help make ELO a more accurate measure of skill.
- Use Jimmy’s suggested rule change regarding having to have an active Pokémon by the end of your turn. This would cut down on donk based wins and help make ELO a more accurate measure of skill.
- Don’t resent ELO every year. Suggestions have ranged from 2 years worth of data to having a rolling cutoff. This helps address the problem where highly skilled players come in mid season and “steal points” whether intentionally or not.
- Use ELO only for Swiss rounds. Don’t count Top Cut wins or losses for ELO. This takes away the major disincentive of ELO that causes people to drop in order to maintain points.
- Implement some sort of Pro Point system in addition to ELO that rewards actually winning an event. Pro Points don’t have to be used for Worlds Invites, but they could be. Perhaps a better use of Pro Points would be for the first round byes that at Nats that are currently given to winners of States and Regionals.
- Get rid of ELO and bring back the Gym Challenges or something similar. This would be the opposite of ELO and would reward the “sprinters” as NoPoke calls them. While susceptible to luck based results, the good thing about Gym Challenges is that it rewards winning rather than encouraging folks to come in late or drop out of top cut.
I’ve probably missed a few, but just in looking at the suggested changes it becomes clear what ELOs flaws are. Personally I would like smaller tweaks to the system rather than just getting rid of it.
NoPoke
Active Member
it is possible to modify elo to make it a closer match to the luck element of pokemon.
it is possible to modify elo (using provisional ratings) to avoid players with inappropriately low ratings grinching lots of points at Nationals/Regionals.
It isn't possible to completely remove the play-at-risk factor that is at the heart of elo without abandoning elo. In an environment dominated by fast decks that just seem to get faster it isn't possible to make a good assesment of the risk. Elo is not appropriate and never can be for a game of solitaire where who you paly makes no impact on outcome. Solitaire play (T1 wins) is where an obsession with speed eventually leads and will result in many old hands leaving the game for other tcgs. I have no idea how important it is to pokemon's sales that it remains a game of skill.
2/3 helps but without draws can lead to problems with tournament scheduling.
I don't see the benched win condition going away.
Limiting elo to the swiss won't fix much
and by cutting down the information available to decide relative strength probably makes elo worse. Top cuts could have a smaller K value in the first round of the cut, and I'm sure that other modifications could be introduced to limit the impact of a first round loss in the top cut without wrecking elo. That double loss isn't any different to any other point in the tournament but players seem to be much more concerned that it can happen in R1 of the cut than at other points in the tournament.
A two-year ratings cycle helps, but would need care to avoid players being able to sit on high ratings.
It is not easy to design a pure-reward system that doesn't penalise players who are unable to travel a lot, don't live near a center of OP, or doesn't result in team play.
it is possible to modify elo (using provisional ratings) to avoid players with inappropriately low ratings grinching lots of points at Nationals/Regionals.
It isn't possible to completely remove the play-at-risk factor that is at the heart of elo without abandoning elo. In an environment dominated by fast decks that just seem to get faster it isn't possible to make a good assesment of the risk. Elo is not appropriate and never can be for a game of solitaire where who you paly makes no impact on outcome. Solitaire play (T1 wins) is where an obsession with speed eventually leads and will result in many old hands leaving the game for other tcgs. I have no idea how important it is to pokemon's sales that it remains a game of skill.
2/3 helps but without draws can lead to problems with tournament scheduling.
I don't see the benched win condition going away.
Limiting elo to the swiss won't fix much
and by cutting down the information available to decide relative strength probably makes elo worse. Top cuts could have a smaller K value in the first round of the cut, and I'm sure that other modifications could be introduced to limit the impact of a first round loss in the top cut without wrecking elo. That double loss isn't any different to any other point in the tournament but players seem to be much more concerned that it can happen in R1 of the cut than at other points in the tournament.A two-year ratings cycle helps, but would need care to avoid players being able to sit on high ratings.
It is not easy to design a pure-reward system that doesn't penalise players who are unable to travel a lot, don't live near a center of OP, or doesn't result in team play.
Ratings NEED to age somehow.
Back in 2001, three players from the US were invited to the Tropical Mega Battle in Hawaii. The players were chosen from the top-rated players at the time. WOTC did NOT reset nor age the rankings. Of the three US players invited, my son was the only "active" player - the other two had not played Pokemon in almost a year. The same thing happened in the 2002 TMB when a local CO player was invited, despite not playing the entire previous season.
Back in 2001, three players from the US were invited to the Tropical Mega Battle in Hawaii. The players were chosen from the top-rated players at the time. WOTC did NOT reset nor age the rankings. Of the three US players invited, my son was the only "active" player - the other two had not played Pokemon in almost a year. The same thing happened in the 2002 TMB when a local CO player was invited, despite not playing the entire previous season.
yoyofsho16
New Member
No. Aged ratings hurt the growth of the game.
The second year of a 2-year cycle would see such little growth in tournament play. People wouldn't care if they already lost a shot at the big prize early on.
The second year of a 2-year cycle would see such little growth in tournament play. People wouldn't care if they already lost a shot at the big prize early on.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
2-year rotating cycle, where half of the Invites come from the two-year, and the other half come from the one-year?
I still like NoPoke's Luck modifier, BTW.
I'm also of the opinion that Fall BRs are worth FAR too little, especially given their place in the cycle. Namely, early, when ratings have to equalize themselves quickly. Give Fall BRs a K-value of 8-12, and you'll not only see attendance shoot up, but you'll also probably see greater stabilization in the ratings later in the season.
I still like NoPoke's Luck modifier, BTW.
I'm also of the opinion that Fall BRs are worth FAR too little, especially given their place in the cycle. Namely, early, when ratings have to equalize themselves quickly. Give Fall BRs a K-value of 8-12, and you'll not only see attendance shoot up, but you'll also probably see greater stabilization in the ratings later in the season.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
I find it interesting that folks focused on just one of the suggestions I listed.
As long as we are talking about 2 year ELO ... you don't have to have flat 2 year cycles. Track ELO twice. Do it once with last year's data added and once without. When that season is over, throw away the old "two year data" and start traking it twice again.
As long as we are talking about 2 year ELO ... you don't have to have flat 2 year cycles. Track ELO twice. Do it once with last year's data added and once without. When that season is over, throw away the old "two year data" and start traking it twice again.
I believe it is what WoWtcg used under UDE(at least its similiar if its not :biggrin: ). I like the system as a whole. I like the idea of it meaning more(points wise) for you to take 1st/Top 4/Top 8 etc. then to go 5-0 drop to uphold your rating(which we had someone do at MO states).
Just my .03
-Lawso
Cbankerjirachi
New Member
I am sorry to say I AM that person with a 1620.?? ranking... I just made SableDonk and I terribly want a Medal. I dont give a crud if it's city's I just want something to be proud of. I am using this deck because I've bubbled out of TC every tourney. The battle road in my signature was Top 2
- Status