Elite_4_Allen
New Member
Would you rather have a few good cards nerfed, or an entirely broken format?
The point system is busted.
- Thread starter jeffrey123
- Start date
- Status
LionheartEX
Active Member
Poketurn has counters until a Dialga G LvX hits the field. Assuming the B/W rules are coming in, Sabledonk and Uxiedonk are going to be ridiculous. Not unbeatable, but ridiculous. It's going to cause a lot more grief than it's worth. It wouldn't surprise me to see either of those cards banned, or the rules not come in until Sept 1st.
NoPoke
Active Member
its a rant.
its not a very good one.
the proposal is flawed.
---
The pokegym already has better proposals for change and alternatives to ELO. The Pokegym already has better thought out criticisms of ELO. Pehaps the OP's cause would be better served by looking for those threads first.
its not a very good one.
the proposal is flawed.
---
The pokegym already has better proposals for change and alternatives to ELO. The Pokegym already has better thought out criticisms of ELO. Pehaps the OP's cause would be better served by looking for those threads first.
Last edited:
losjackal
Technical Administrator
There are two fundamental "problems" under consideration here:
1. The game involves elements of luck with dice rolls and drawing cards. A system intended to rate skill level won't always be "fair". But some kind of system is necessary to determine the "best" players.
2. Donking is possible in the current format. It might not be in future formats, therefore this is a temporary issue. I've seen a couple of different proposals to help counter this (the person getting donked has until the end of their turn to put down another pokemon, and the upcoming Professor Cup will use an "I choose you" rule where you can pick your starting pokemon).
Doubtful #1 will change, but maybe #2 will, but hard to know if and when.
1. The game involves elements of luck with dice rolls and drawing cards. A system intended to rate skill level won't always be "fair". But some kind of system is necessary to determine the "best" players.
2. Donking is possible in the current format. It might not be in future formats, therefore this is a temporary issue. I've seen a couple of different proposals to help counter this (the person getting donked has until the end of their turn to put down another pokemon, and the upcoming Professor Cup will use an "I choose you" rule where you can pick your starting pokemon).
Doubtful #1 will change, but maybe #2 will, but hard to know if and when.
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
This has come up before many times. My thought is that it's not a given that ELO is broken for Pokemon. There are changes that could be made outside of ELO that would make it work better. One example is given above. The card pool could change redering donks less frequent. Another option would be that our games in Swiss could all be best 2 of 3, thus reducing the impact of a single donk.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Is it broken? No, but by disallowing draws, we also disallow the possibility of "soft" drops in rating, which in turn leads to bigger top-tier ratings than we'd have otherwise. Therefore, it's not as pure as it is in Magic or chess.
Is it inferior? Yes, it is inferior to a pro point system; or a prop point+ELO system. Either way, the endemic dropping in our game is sign to even lay players that the system is weak in a crucial area.
But...Is the plan proposed by OP a good course of action? No, we don't need arbitrary point gains like this: it needlessly skews ELO's 1600 standard (key word "needless" - you can theoretically skew ELO for justice). Also, it's capable of triggering some pretty nasty team play (e.g., you scoop to me first turn and I scoop to you).
Is it inferior? Yes, it is inferior to a pro point system; or a prop point+ELO system. Either way, the endemic dropping in our game is sign to even lay players that the system is weak in a crucial area.
But...Is the plan proposed by OP a good course of action? No, we don't need arbitrary point gains like this: it needlessly skews ELO's 1600 standard (key word "needless" - you can theoretically skew ELO for justice). Also, it's capable of triggering some pretty nasty team play (e.g., you scoop to me first turn and I scoop to you).
PhadedPhione
New Member
Magic has a big problem with rating stagnation as well, there are hundreds of players ranked 2000+ composite in Magic's rating system that keep it high for rating based invites and rarely play. P!P is smart by resetting the rating each season to force competition and not allow the highest tier to simply be able to ride out points.
Collusion is always a problem when rating points are on the line.
NoPoke
Active Member
The rating stagnation issue in magic is why magic has pro-points. The use of pro-points resolves the problem in magic of how to reward players based upon their elo in the presence of stagnation.
Neither pokemon's nor magic's elo system is like that in chess: the mathematics may be similar but the use of K as an event status scaling factor is very different.
Neither pokemon's nor magic's elo system is like that in chess: the mathematics may be similar but the use of K as an event status scaling factor is very different.
Last edited:
PhadedPhione
New Member
While this is true, having the cut-off composite rating (iirc 2075) will get you invites to events where you can earn pro points. Playing in those level of events, you don't tend to have the drastic point loss possible in Pokemon right now due to donks.
The TCG ELO systems are not like chess, I agree. Chess ELO can allow for selection of opponents etc.
The TCG ELO systems are not like chess, I agree. Chess ELO can allow for selection of opponents etc.
It would be interesting to see the win-loss records of the top-rated players. I'd be curious to see if their win-loss percentages are widely varied.
Under ELO, all games are not equally weighted (ie., K-factors, ratings matchups). Adding another complexity level to ELO for how you won or lost a game seems interesting, but it would probably discourage the use of some deck types. Anything that discourages the use of winning decks is not really a good thing, unless... (read below)
The "bench-win" condition is a flaw in the game, IMO. I'm not sure it can be fixed, but adding a scaled win-loss value to a 1-game match based on prize-count seems like a possibility.
One question would be, how should the scale look? Linear? Increasingly non-linear? Decreasingly non-linear? Also, should the calculation consider prizes taken by both players, or just the prize difference?
Nevertheless, this is a "slippery slope." It might lead to other considerations in how games are weighted such as:
1. Deck matchups - for example, should a player whose deck that is weak to its opponent's deck get a bonus for winning?
2. Turn count - for example, should a long game be scaled higher than a short game?
Etc....
Under ELO, all games are not equally weighted (ie., K-factors, ratings matchups). Adding another complexity level to ELO for how you won or lost a game seems interesting, but it would probably discourage the use of some deck types. Anything that discourages the use of winning decks is not really a good thing, unless... (read below)
The "bench-win" condition is a flaw in the game, IMO. I'm not sure it can be fixed, but adding a scaled win-loss value to a 1-game match based on prize-count seems like a possibility.
One question would be, how should the scale look? Linear? Increasingly non-linear? Decreasingly non-linear? Also, should the calculation consider prizes taken by both players, or just the prize difference?
Nevertheless, this is a "slippery slope." It might lead to other considerations in how games are weighted such as:
1. Deck matchups - for example, should a player whose deck that is weak to its opponent's deck get a bonus for winning?
2. Turn count - for example, should a long game be scaled higher than a short game?
Etc....
jeffrey123
New Member
PhadedPhione
New Member
I love that thread, it really highlights the problem in a meaningful way. Ruin some people's rating, then drop for Dragon Age 2. good game.
jeffrey123
New Member
That's exactly what I am saying. Disgusting.
There are so many illogical things going on here.
So, let's say I could gain more than 10 points if I did not donk someone. What then? That's unfair to me. Even if I'm not playing a donk deck, let's say I open Ambipom G against their lone Garchomp C. Say they're sitting on a ton of points, and I'm kinda slacking so I really need to get some points out of this game. They draw pass. So now what do I do? Donk him for the minimum points, or pass and let him set up so I have a chance at more points?
Also, donks come in many forms. It is possible to be donked T2 instead of T1. The "bogus" donk that many are referring to comes from decks like Uxie donk, but there are scenarios where you might have a bad hand and get donked anyways. For example, let's use the scenario above again. But this time, the Ambipom player has no bench, so if he does not execute the donk, he himself will be donked by a Dragon Rush. This is potentially worse now because this is a T2 donk, and I'm assuming your proposal only counts for T1's. It's unfair.
Now, let's conversely say that the Garchomp C player is very low on points, and the Ambipom G player is very high. With the current point system, if he were to donk Garchomp he would actually gain less than 10 points. This is also unfair.
All of this goes without saying that losing 50 points cannot happen, losing 32 is improbable, and awarding no points to 1 of 2 players makes ELO non-zeroing.
---
It seems that everyone is really blowing the new rule changes way out of proportion. Firstly, the new rules really hurt Uxie donk and cards that are used in minor variants like Dunsparce and Shuppet. Remember the rewording on PlusPower: It gets discarded as soon as you use it. It does not go back to the deck or back to your hand. Uxie donk will no longer have an end game. If you do not win before your first Psychic Restore, you will be capping out at 40 damage (or 50 if you run Shuppet). Today we don't see that as much because Uxie donk can still be a monster if it doesn't get the donk. It uses a single energy attack to do around 80 damage every turn past the first trainer turn, has a likely chance of ruining your set up, and makes you play from around 3 prizes down. It has somewhat of an endgame, although weaker than most decks. It cannot do that after the B/W rule changes.
Furthermore, no one should be worrying about Uxie donk anyways. So what if you can play Trainers first turn? It has exactly the same odds of winning as before, there is almost no significance in being able to play trainers first turn (for Uxie donk). Think about it. With our current rules, Uxie donk needs to be able to go 2nd in order to play trainers. Thus, there is a 50% chance of going second and performing the donk. Likewise, it needs to go 1st with the B/W rules. This is also a 50% chance. If Uxie donk goes second with the B/W rules, then the opposing players will have access to Trainers/Supporters/etc when they go first, significantly lowering the chances of being donked. It's a 50/50 chance for Uxie no matter which rule set it is using.
So this leaves us at only 1 threatening deck: Sabledonk. I agree, it will be somewhat of a beast, but it's not as if we have to worry about Sableye, Uxie, and Shuppet variants altogether... just Sableye. Think though, there are counters. Many decks either play Spiritomb or Sableye. If you play Spiritomb, there's no way Sableye will have access to Poketurns. Your bench is virtually off limits to them outside of Seeker, and they will still need a Crobat and a Special Dark to KO your Spiritomb. Most people will agree that Spiritomb creates a safe deck. Then there's your own Sableye, making Sablock a safe deck for Nats. With 2 Sableyes active, you neutralize each of their Pokebodies, so there's no way to abuse it. Also, take note that it's entirely possible for Sablock to start with their own Sableye while Sabledonk does not, giving you a huge advantage and time to create a bench.
That brings me to my next point: Even though Sableye has a higher chance of going first than most decks, it still needs to be able to 1.) Start with Sableye 2.) Draw resources in order to donk. If they don't start with Sableye, you're back to potentially going first. If they do start with Sableye, they still need resources to perform. Unlike Uxie donk, Sableye will need to run resources that can clog its hand and bench. Running more than 1 energy, Unown Dark, additional supporters like Collector, and Sableye itself will all get in the way. Case and point: I don't think Sabledonk will have the ability to reliably deck itself and retrieve all of its resources like Uxie donk.
Alex2k said:
So, let's say I could gain more than 10 points if I did not donk someone. What then? That's unfair to me. Even if I'm not playing a donk deck, let's say I open Ambipom G against their lone Garchomp C. Say they're sitting on a ton of points, and I'm kinda slacking so I really need to get some points out of this game. They draw pass. So now what do I do? Donk him for the minimum points, or pass and let him set up so I have a chance at more points?
Also, donks come in many forms. It is possible to be donked T2 instead of T1. The "bogus" donk that many are referring to comes from decks like Uxie donk, but there are scenarios where you might have a bad hand and get donked anyways. For example, let's use the scenario above again. But this time, the Ambipom player has no bench, so if he does not execute the donk, he himself will be donked by a Dragon Rush. This is potentially worse now because this is a T2 donk, and I'm assuming your proposal only counts for T1's. It's unfair.
Now, let's conversely say that the Garchomp C player is very low on points, and the Ambipom G player is very high. With the current point system, if he were to donk Garchomp he would actually gain less than 10 points. This is also unfair.
All of this goes without saying that losing 50 points cannot happen, losing 32 is improbable, and awarding no points to 1 of 2 players makes ELO non-zeroing.
---
It seems that everyone is really blowing the new rule changes way out of proportion. Firstly, the new rules really hurt Uxie donk and cards that are used in minor variants like Dunsparce and Shuppet. Remember the rewording on PlusPower: It gets discarded as soon as you use it. It does not go back to the deck or back to your hand. Uxie donk will no longer have an end game. If you do not win before your first Psychic Restore, you will be capping out at 40 damage (or 50 if you run Shuppet). Today we don't see that as much because Uxie donk can still be a monster if it doesn't get the donk. It uses a single energy attack to do around 80 damage every turn past the first trainer turn, has a likely chance of ruining your set up, and makes you play from around 3 prizes down. It has somewhat of an endgame, although weaker than most decks. It cannot do that after the B/W rule changes.
Furthermore, no one should be worrying about Uxie donk anyways. So what if you can play Trainers first turn? It has exactly the same odds of winning as before, there is almost no significance in being able to play trainers first turn (for Uxie donk). Think about it. With our current rules, Uxie donk needs to be able to go 2nd in order to play trainers. Thus, there is a 50% chance of going second and performing the donk. Likewise, it needs to go 1st with the B/W rules. This is also a 50% chance. If Uxie donk goes second with the B/W rules, then the opposing players will have access to Trainers/Supporters/etc when they go first, significantly lowering the chances of being donked. It's a 50/50 chance for Uxie no matter which rule set it is using.
So this leaves us at only 1 threatening deck: Sabledonk. I agree, it will be somewhat of a beast, but it's not as if we have to worry about Sableye, Uxie, and Shuppet variants altogether... just Sableye. Think though, there are counters. Many decks either play Spiritomb or Sableye. If you play Spiritomb, there's no way Sableye will have access to Poketurns. Your bench is virtually off limits to them outside of Seeker, and they will still need a Crobat and a Special Dark to KO your Spiritomb. Most people will agree that Spiritomb creates a safe deck. Then there's your own Sableye, making Sablock a safe deck for Nats. With 2 Sableyes active, you neutralize each of their Pokebodies, so there's no way to abuse it. Also, take note that it's entirely possible for Sablock to start with their own Sableye while Sabledonk does not, giving you a huge advantage and time to create a bench.
That brings me to my next point: Even though Sableye has a higher chance of going first than most decks, it still needs to be able to 1.) Start with Sableye 2.) Draw resources in order to donk. If they don't start with Sableye, you're back to potentially going first. If they do start with Sableye, they still need resources to perform. Unlike Uxie donk, Sableye will need to run resources that can clog its hand and bench. Running more than 1 energy, Unown Dark, additional supporters like Collector, and Sableye itself will all get in the way. Case and point: I don't think Sabledonk will have the ability to reliably deck itself and retrieve all of its resources like Uxie donk.
Last edited:
DarthPika
New Member
Donks are no fun for either party (unless one of said parties is out to be a jerk, or in a vengeful mood against the evil luxchomp 
), and in general, just suck for the game. There is NO skill in most donks, and that's where the ELO system really does suck hardcore. It's unfair to punish the higher ranked player so harshly for something that they could not control.
I know for a fact that people are going to fear for their ratings at regs when they play against me because I've played 1 tourney this year, and did horribly at it. The ELO system is going to assume that I'll be the less skillful player in probably just about every match, and snatch a BOATLOAD of points for every win I get. I REALLY don't think this is fair to the other players. I'm not trying to destroy ratings, but that's what's going to happen under the current system.
), and in general, just suck for the game. There is NO skill in most donks, and that's where the ELO system really does suck hardcore. It's unfair to punish the higher ranked player so harshly for something that they could not control. I know for a fact that people are going to fear for their ratings at regs when they play against me because I've played 1 tourney this year, and did horribly at it. The ELO system is going to assume that I'll be the less skillful player in probably just about every match, and snatch a BOATLOAD of points for every win I get. I REALLY don't think this is fair to the other players. I'm not trying to destroy ratings, but that's what's going to happen under the current system.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
How could I ever forget about the insanity that is Regice?
Then again, I was speaking specifically about the lone-Tomb start...
- Status