Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Would you sit on your rating?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm in the same position as Pablo. Slightly bad-average luck equals a win (most of the time), which I sometimes don't get, costing me anywhere from 18-25 points or even more.

ELO doesn't work for a game that requires luck because win expectency shifts dramatically based on variables outside of the player's skill level.

Do I still have a 90% chance to win a match when I start with Celebi ex with 3 castforms prized?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent rips off a t2 Flygon d when I can't even set up?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent hits 15 heads in a row on agility?

There's the flaws of the system.
 
desert eagle said:
I'm in the same position as Pablo. Slightly bad-average luck equals a win (most of the time), which I sometimes don't get, costing me anywhere from 18-25 points or even more.

ELO doesn't work for a game that requires luck because win expectency shifts dramatically based on variables outside of the player's skill level.

Do I still have a 90% chance to win a match when I start with Celebi ex with 3 castforms prized?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent rips off a t2 Flygon d when I can't even set up?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent hits 15 heads in a row on agility?

There's the flaws of the system.
Click to expand...

Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when my competition gets 10 CCs and 4 States?
Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when X-2 isn't even good enough half the time to top cut?
Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when there is so much parity on the West Coast?

=/
 
The rating system is not going to find the best player and send him/her to worlds. But it is going to send several very good players to worlds.

matchups and pairings luck can be huge in Pokemon. So someone out there is going to get more than their fair share and someone out there isn't. Thats the nature of the beast.

Its much simpler if you don't view the ELO numbers in pokemon as a player rating and view them as a player reward instead. Simpler because a reward system accepts that the best player doesn't always win. Whereas a rating system basically insists that the better player will win.

Feel for you Pablo...
 
Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when X-2 isn't even good enough half the time to top cut?
Click to expand...
lol x-2 shouldnt get in most of the time. In all the states ive been to never has there been more than one or two x-2s that got in. If you want a trip dont loose so many games XP. Being x-2 in an event means you didnt do well enough, go x-1 or x-0 like the rest of us who want in at worlds.
Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when my competition gets 10 CCs and 4 States?
Do I have any chance of an invite via rating when there is so much parity on the West Coast?
Click to expand...
Some west coasters are doing very good in the rankings. If you want to go to worlds dont complain about east coast west coast, but instead just go win more.
 
They are ilegitimatge because I was a huge favorite, 90%+ in every one of them. Unlucky and illegitimate go hand by hand, its not my opponent surpassed my skill or anticipated my moves or was better at calculating x and y factors, it was luck and thus it was illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Low chance is not the same as no chance. Sometimes the .1-9% likely stuff happens. I reiterate that this hasn't a thing to do with the ranking system but with the game itself. If you want every single game to be determined by "skill" alone then you're obviously playing the wrong game. I'm sorry, but it's really that simple.

And it is proof that the system is flawed because ELO works for chess cause its only one game, same variants for everyone, in Pokemon there are so many other factors to be taken into account, such as matchup, skill, deck structure, who goes first, starting hand etc. that a system like ELO is not the best suited IMO, but meh nothing I can do except go to some shaman up in the mountains to rub an egg over my body, I am really considering that.
Click to expand...
ELO doesn't work for a game that requires luck because win expectency shifts dramatically based on variables outside of the player's skill level.

Do I still have a 90% chance to win a match when I start with Celebi ex with 3 castforms prized?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent rips off a t2 Flygon d when I can't even set up?
Do I still have a 90% chance to win when my opponent hits 15 heads in a row on agility?

There's the flaws of the system.
Click to expand...
There's no point in fussing over freakishly unlikely things. The fact is that the chance of such absolutely godly or horrible starts are so low that you could factor them directly into your win probability and I would be surprised if it made a difference of 1%. Besides, any horrible screw that can happen to you can happen to your opponent too, so really it evens out.
 
It doesn't even out when it happens at EVERY tournament and accounts for almost EVERY single one of my losses this season except one. I should be at 2000+ right now!
 
It doesn't even out when it happens at EVERY tournament and accounts for almost EVERY single one of my losses this season except one. I should be at 2000+ right now!
Click to expand...
Again, that's highly improbable; it's a freak event. If you lucked out that badly under a different system you'd still be screwed. The fact that you're doing somewhat poorly due to bad luck is completely independent of the reward system you're playing under.
 
ZAKtheGeek said:
Again, that's highly improbable; it's a freak event. If you lucked out that badly under a different system you'd still be screwed. The fact that you're doing somewhat poorly due to bad luck is completely independent of the reward system you're playing under.
Click to expand...

If invites were given based on, say, win %, then those bad luck losses wouldn't hurt as much as they do in the current system.
 
Pablo said:
It doesn't even out when it happens at EVERY tournament and accounts for almost EVERY single one of my losses this season except one. I should be at 2000+ right now!
Click to expand...

Pablo: The sour grapes line is in a different thread. Go get in line :lol:

Keith
 
If invites were given based on, say, win %, then those bad luck losses wouldn't hurt as much as they do in the current system.
Click to expand...
That's true, but does that hold under any system that isn't obviously completely implausible?
 
ZAKtheGeek said:
Again, that's highly improbable; it's a freak event. If you lucked out that badly under a different system you'd still be screwed. The fact that you're doing somewhat poorly due to bad luck is completely independent of the reward system you're playing under.
Click to expand...

The problem IS with the reward system, because like I said in a previous post, the ELO system works for chess where the only variables are anticipation and skill which are enhanced by practicing, in Pokemon you take those 2 and add:

-matchups
-who goes first
-starting hand
-deck structure
-many in game changing states such as status conditions

I am doing poorly because of luck and it is reflecting on my ranking, how does that make it independent? its COMPLETELY the opposite. Since I can't be paired with people with similar ratings, it is complete luck who I face, and luck in game on how I perform. And how is being 45-11 out of 9 tournaments doing somewhat poorly? I probably have one of the top 5 winning percentages so far this year, I average 1.2 losses per tournament, how is THAT a poor performance? But due to the system not being a reflection of my skill but rather how unlucky I have been, it goes on to show the reward system is flawed.
 
Not even status conditions, since there's decks that base strategy off that...but this game is way too reliant on COIN FLIPS to use a system like ELO.
 
Pablo's right. There probably aren't 5 people in the world right now with win %'s about 80, and his win% doesn't put him in the top 8.
Really shows the flaws in the system.

Mine is 82% (41-9) and I'm only 7th.
 
I wouldnt sit on any rating. No specific rating is safe imo. I would keep playing and keep doing good or decent to keep my rating still, steady, and up to date. Anything could happen...especially toward the end of the season or the last few tournies. Just my input.

~MSF45
 
desert eagle said:
Pablo's right. There probably aren't 5 people in the world right now with win %'s about 80, and his win% doesn't put him in the top 8.
Really shows the flaws in the system.

Mine is 82% (41-9) and I'm only 7th.
Click to expand...

I had that record before my states fiasco lol., and jsut goes on to show that you have had better luck in terms of pairings with better rated people or have gone to many more tournaments, where as I with a very (too) similar record am ranked 51st cause of my bad luck during games and with pairings.
 
54-14:biggrin:



Ratings invites should be based on PERCENT of total players, not some arbitrary fixed number at the begining of the year.

0.27% of players in North America is just a rediculously small amount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top