I went to 8 Cities and I am on the fence regarding the current invite system (which is WHAT exactly this season?). I have been in an area before without many events which required much travel. I know how that is. I don't think there is a perfect system, either. The Gym Challenges were worse, and this is coming from someone who has qualified for Worlds three different ways. Lastly, you are borderline attacking Jeremy for some ludicrous statements, Jay. For as great of a player you are, this is going a bit too far, even further than I have taken some things on here. Jeremy has nearly earned his invite already and that is some sort of a problem? I guess I can say "kind of" but the fact that he's done it in the hardest area in North America is saying something, also. 6 in T50 from California. Over 10% of the T100 in North America rankings with the vast majority of rating coming from our own events. The numbers speak for themselves.
To many points for cities
- Thread starter Jaeger
- Start date
- Status
sdrawkcab
Forum Moderator
It's called living in Western Canada. If we want an invite you need a near perfect run through provincials regionals and nats while losing in top 8.
I had the opertunity to attend 4 cities however was sick on one of them...and the other we had a wicked blizzard.
Of course I care about an invite, but I'm not going to complain about it.
Nuking events K value and reducing the amount of tournaments you can attend is doing more harm then good. The best solution I've heard thus far is Nopokes adjusted elo....or a 2-3 season elo carry over.
DarthPika
New Member
sdrawkcab, your situation is EXACTLY the kind of situation we have been talking about. Reducing K value would do nothing to help, but reducing the number of tourneys you can go to would do a LOT.
And, when I say limit the number you can attend, I'm not talking about limiting it to 2 or 3. I was thinking it would be fair to go for the 5-8 range. Seriously people, 5CC's is a LOT of pokemon. This would allow people to still play a lot, while keeping those who can only go to 2 or 3 from falling completely behind to the point that it's virtually impossible to catch up. Nopokes suggestion was interesting as well.
What I can't fathom, is ever since I joined this game, many of the players have been arguing that the ELO is a bad system for the game, and doesn't work. (which, it really doesn't) Why on earth does P!P seem to make about every other change to the game you can imagine, yet ignore that the current rating system is badly flawed?
And, when I say limit the number you can attend, I'm not talking about limiting it to 2 or 3. I was thinking it would be fair to go for the 5-8 range. Seriously people, 5CC's is a LOT of pokemon. This would allow people to still play a lot, while keeping those who can only go to 2 or 3 from falling completely behind to the point that it's virtually impossible to catch up. Nopokes suggestion was interesting as well.
What I can't fathom, is ever since I joined this game, many of the players have been arguing that the ELO is a bad system for the game, and doesn't work. (which, it really doesn't) Why on earth does P!P seem to make about every other change to the game you can imagine, yet ignore that the current rating system is badly flawed?
I got nothing against the guy personally, heck I don't even know him outside of this message board. But yea I can take offense
"If you can't travel to worlds or afford the cards to do well why would you need an invite anyway forcing people to try to grind in for your spot does not seem at all fair to me."
Expecially when I have gotten ranking invites 2 years and in far more legit ways than placing well at a large number of cities (win 2 states and 2nd at Regs one year and 2nd at States and than winning the other States and Regionals, along with T32ing Nats that year). Not to mention I feel like I've been in this game long enough to bring up a "problem" I feel in the system without being acussed of "crying". I got nothing against the guy personally but some of his statements I do.
---------- Post added 01/29/2011 at 10:25 AM ----------
Rating Caps would be another way to allow players who can attend 8+ cities and advantage without killing those who can't. If you would freeze a persons rating at a certain point but keep allowing them to play and knock their oppoenents down points without having to risk there own to it. I mean if you could sit in a Casino and keep trying to win their money without ever having to put up any of your own, wouldn't you? It would also force players to play through a majority of the season without sitting out the big tournaments. And would correct the whole problem without putting penlitys for dropping. To be honest I think this would be the fairest way to do this. This would also show skill if you could get to the ratings cap in 5 cities it would allow you to either sit out the rest of cities or give you more cities to go after your opponents rankings without penlty than someone who had to play in 10 cities to reach the cap.
But keep in mind that doing something like this would make every single match soooo much more important for every single player. We'll see much more manipulation of the system like strategic dropping or purposely turning in your list late to start out playing the x-1's.
Also, everyone is acting like people who go to more cities just have unlimited time and opportunity to raise their rankings and that you can afford to do terribly in several tournies as long as you go to enough. That's not true at all. During the season, my rating has been 20 to 30 points higher, but just going x-2 in a few tournies in a row dropped me a ton. No matter how many tournaments you play in, each game is of maximum importance each time.
NoPoke
Active Member
@darthPika: reducing the number of tournaments a player can go to DOES NOT HELP.
elo needs data and the sooner players can provide that data the better.
elo automatically applies ratings caps once enough results have been entered. In fact elo is BRUTAL in how it applies its rating caps as it currently ignores that a player might lose due to luck and takes a lot of points away.
Any player who has gone through the gauntlet of the strong marathons deserves their high rating. They were not easy wins. They played at risk, and as their rating will now be higher than those who only attended a few events, play at considerable risk to their rating as many of those players that they encounter will have elo ratings that are below thier true value.
elo needs data and the sooner players can provide that data the better.
elo automatically applies ratings caps once enough results have been entered. In fact elo is BRUTAL in how it applies its rating caps as it currently ignores that a player might lose due to luck and takes a lot of points away.
Any player who has gone through the gauntlet of the strong marathons deserves their high rating. They were not easy wins. They played at risk, and as their rating will now be higher than those who only attended a few events, play at considerable risk to their rating as many of those players that they encounter will have elo ratings that are below thier true value.
Just to throw in a few cents of my own. I know Kettler mention he went to 5, most of which weren't "close" by any means. And, Austin Baggs went to the GA marathon and he's from OK, not close by any means. So, even if guys like them DIDN'T have ~1800 ratings right NOW, they would probably be hitting up enough States/Regionals to get there. They are obviously good players and are obviously willing to travel, does it really matter WHEN they travel?
ShadowCard
Active Member
Limit the amount of events a player can attend? 
I was under the impression people liked playing this game. Why would we want to stop them from playing?
Also to be considered is the effect on stores. Limiting the number of events players can attend directly impacts the attendance of the event, which means less customers in the venue. A decision to limit the number of events a player can attend will ultimately cause a decrease in the number of possible events as players pick the events to fit into their allotment instead of how many they would like to play in. That means players will leave local areas to go to places with better scheduling. When those local venues see that less people come to their events, they may reconsider whether or not it is worth it to continue supporting the game.
Players like playing this game, they like the travel, they like the people they meet. To restrict the number of times they can do that can only be recommended by someone who does not understand the larger picture of OP and the game.
==========================================
DarthPika, answer this:
And wasn't it you who said you did not have time for more events? How can you even argue for more?
I was under the impression people liked playing this game. Why would we want to stop them from playing? Also to be considered is the effect on stores. Limiting the number of events players can attend directly impacts the attendance of the event, which means less customers in the venue. A decision to limit the number of events a player can attend will ultimately cause a decrease in the number of possible events as players pick the events to fit into their allotment instead of how many they would like to play in. That means players will leave local areas to go to places with better scheduling. When those local venues see that less people come to their events, they may reconsider whether or not it is worth it to continue supporting the game.
Players like playing this game, they like the travel, they like the people they meet. To restrict the number of times they can do that can only be recommended by someone who does not understand the larger picture of OP and the game.
==========================================
DarthPika, answer this:
And wasn't it you who said you did not have time for more events? How can you even argue for more?
Last edited:
Limit the amount of events a player can attend?
Let me just be clear no one is saying to limit the number of events people travel to. I actually love the idea of the marathon a week of Pokemon tournaments whats not to love. Not to mention trying to limit the number of events a player could play in would be a nightmare for PTOs. My complaint is with the huge advatange a player gets from going to marathons. Any fix in the system should not IMO limit the number of events a player can attend.
DarthPika
New Member
Jaeger, I did suggest limiting the number of events. However I said that it could be something like 5-8 range. I hardly see that as limiting.
I noticed that those of us who live in small states, where we could potentially hit 4+ are limited to only 2 States, just like EVERYONE else. No one seems to have a problem with that. However, you bring up the topic of limiting those in areas where they can hit 10+ CCs, to make it more fair for those who can't, and suddenly you're a baby for suggesting to take away from them to make life fair for you. What a big bunch of hypocrites...
I noticed that those of us who live in small states, where we could potentially hit 4+ are limited to only 2 States, just like EVERYONE else. No one seems to have a problem with that. However, you bring up the topic of limiting those in areas where they can hit 10+ CCs, to make it more fair for those who can't, and suddenly you're a baby for suggesting to take away from them to make life fair for you. What a big bunch of hypocrites...
You bring up a good point, but there are many differences between cities and states/regionals. The obvious reason is the k value. It wouldn't be good for the game if we could have the same people who x-0 drop at cities do the same thing at 4 states. Once you get to that point in the season, things start getting exciting because of the fact that you can only play in 2 states, 1 regionals. Winning the tournaments start to matter. This is especially true if you get bye's again at nats. I'm sure organized play is able to do something like that because they can accurately estimate about how many people could be elligible for byes.
Traveling around hitting up as many cities as you can while really preparing for states/regs/nats is a part of pokemon culture. We are not hypocrites because we appreciate the system provided for us.
Shino Bug Master
Front Page News Editor
Doesn't higher k value equivilate to more points lost when someone loses? Meaning that even at marathon like events, the better you do from the get go the more you have to lose? You either play opponents with similair ranking and most likely equal skill level or are at risk of losing 2 games worth of points to bad starts verse players with lower ranking than you.
I only attended 5 cities, one of which i had to drop after 3 rounds to meet up for a previous engagement. Knowing how many cities you can attend should be something very well thought out for the competitve player. Obviously some people get to attend up to 10 cities, allowing them to play higher risk higher reward kind of decks, like chosing LuxChomp in a field with 4-5 Machamp because a single loss will be shaved away by a good win threshold. Knowing your limitations and your player base to chose the best deck to preform for you is a huge part of the game. I feel content with my preformance even though i didn't get to attend any marathons, or an obscene amoutn of cities, or have points well past 1800.
Now if i only had a handful of cities available to me, i most likely would feel differently. But under no circumstance would i ever want to limit the number of events a player can attend anymore than its done. This is why States are held so that a maximum of 2 can be attended. My only complaint with number of cities would be based on proximity. If 3/4 events are less than 30 minutes from eachother, it certainly gives an unfair advantage to those in the area. That's something, that if even occurs, should be dealt with. As it stands, preformance at States, Regionals and Nationals still have the weight to almost entirely upset the rankings, as they should. If the number 1 rated Master did poorly at all 3 events, even with his current advatage, s/he would still be at great risk of not qualifying for worlds. So what's the problem?
Obviously dropping at the 3 events will be one of the biggest. With a rating in the 1800's, what stops a 4-0 from dropping and taking a clean ride into the low but safe invite cushion? Nothing really. And that's where Cities become a problem. When they have enough value to almost nullify the three events meant to far overshadow them. So it sets some at an unfair advantage. But arguablely (and i'm sure it will be argued) it doesn't set anyone at a truly unfair DISadvantage. Median cities preformances can still be made up by events that can't be spammed, or unequally distributed or noobflooded. They will be difficult, luck, skill, deck choice and deck play based events that mean everything to most players hoping to qualify, and very much anyone's game. It'd be nice if every state had the same pool of cities to draw from, but those alone will not be enough to qualify for worlds, so stop complaining of whats past and look ahead to STates. If you are concerned about the number of events you attended this season, get in touch with your PTOs and see what you can do to improve next year's event pool.
I only attended 5 cities, one of which i had to drop after 3 rounds to meet up for a previous engagement. Knowing how many cities you can attend should be something very well thought out for the competitve player. Obviously some people get to attend up to 10 cities, allowing them to play higher risk higher reward kind of decks, like chosing LuxChomp in a field with 4-5 Machamp because a single loss will be shaved away by a good win threshold. Knowing your limitations and your player base to chose the best deck to preform for you is a huge part of the game. I feel content with my preformance even though i didn't get to attend any marathons, or an obscene amoutn of cities, or have points well past 1800.
Now if i only had a handful of cities available to me, i most likely would feel differently. But under no circumstance would i ever want to limit the number of events a player can attend anymore than its done. This is why States are held so that a maximum of 2 can be attended. My only complaint with number of cities would be based on proximity. If 3/4 events are less than 30 minutes from eachother, it certainly gives an unfair advantage to those in the area. That's something, that if even occurs, should be dealt with. As it stands, preformance at States, Regionals and Nationals still have the weight to almost entirely upset the rankings, as they should. If the number 1 rated Master did poorly at all 3 events, even with his current advatage, s/he would still be at great risk of not qualifying for worlds. So what's the problem?
Obviously dropping at the 3 events will be one of the biggest. With a rating in the 1800's, what stops a 4-0 from dropping and taking a clean ride into the low but safe invite cushion? Nothing really. And that's where Cities become a problem. When they have enough value to almost nullify the three events meant to far overshadow them. So it sets some at an unfair advantage. But arguablely (and i'm sure it will be argued) it doesn't set anyone at a truly unfair DISadvantage. Median cities preformances can still be made up by events that can't be spammed, or unequally distributed or noobflooded. They will be difficult, luck, skill, deck choice and deck play based events that mean everything to most players hoping to qualify, and very much anyone's game. It'd be nice if every state had the same pool of cities to draw from, but those alone will not be enough to qualify for worlds, so stop complaining of whats past and look ahead to STates. If you are concerned about the number of events you attended this season, get in touch with your PTOs and see what you can do to improve next year's event pool.
Man I can appreciate what your saying man but lets leave the name calling out of this (refering to everyone) its not doing anybody any good and just is making things more heated.
---------- Post added 01/30/2011 at 02:18 PM ----------
I agree with you on this, if I could hit up 14 cities I would love to. My complaint is with the huge advantage it allows to a very small percentage of the Pokemon Community. Any fix in the ratings system shouldn't limit a persons ablity to play in as many cities as they want.
---------- Post added 01/30/2011 at 02:21 PM ----------
Thoughts are in red
ShadowCard
Active Member
You can't have more states. SCs are one-per-state events. The bigger OP is in one area or the distance to the next state's SC doesn't do anything for you to get a second SC. You either get a SC or you don't. However, the number of CCs and BRs in a state can be influenced by the player base in the state.
The two really can't be compared.
So do I, I would much rather play in 4 States than 12 cities. Those were also back in the day gym challenges
I get the same feeling from 14+ Cities
- Status