i really like your take on the k-factor. im currently at 1750 and open entry events are just a nightmare. I need 6-7 wins to cover up 1 loss against lower rated players, thats rough. also luck is a relevant factor in tcgs, in chess there is no luck at all. if lss wants to continue to use an elo-system for the game we need a few changes, mainly the k-factor and decay
I feel like my situation is the perfect example of why ELO as it is currently does not work. I went to PT 1, PT2 and Worlds the first year and I did badly in all of them. Because the K level of these events was so high, it is almost impossible for me to get out of this rating hole living in New Zealand. The only events I realistically can play in are RTN and Pro Quest. A win at RTN against the highest ranked player will get me 8 points of ELO max. It would take a lot of wins without any losses just to get me back to the new player ranking of 1500 ELO. There were players qualifying for NZ nats with 1508 ranking but I didnt make it despite making top 8 of a RTN because my rating was so low from going to pro events. I literally would have been better off not playing the big events. Im not sure thats how it is supposed to be.
Great chat, interesting info. Thank you for addressing chess (I as a lamen consider chess as kind of the OG poster child for Elo). Is it an issue of k-factor assignments then? Since we wouldn't expect FaB to have elo based tourneys?
I am assuming the inverse elo rating, is because some pros descend on lower level events (that they really have no reason to be at once they are qualified- aka battle hardened) and vacuum up the PTIs and special foil prizing. BH philly had so many pros, and they were all qualified already. I would assume the system is to dissuade them from being there to allow a health influx of new players into the pro circuit, instead of gatekeeping. Edit: Not disagreeing with your analysis, I think you have some great points.
Nah I understood it’s just to stop people not playing at small events and risking all their ELO What it does in reality is actually prevent new players from gaining any relevant amount of ELO at local events which now effects nats qualification. Also imo fab isn’t big enough to dissuade good players from coming to local qualifiers. We need everyone. :)
I wouldn’t fixate too much on what sort of event people should be playing. If you had a system like chess where Elo was tied to rating rather than event. You’d see the desired outcome across any event format.
I think that the system as it is, is okay. The ELO system is only being used to handle invites for Nationals or Worlds. There is going to be a delta between new players winning larger events and seasoned players who won smaller ones. My current issue is that there isn’t a decay or bracket reset like they have in most games that have a top 100 or 50. So a player could win 400-1000 points and then just never compete again in pro events and still get all the invites.
@@SteelfurSpeaksYes 👍 The probelm with cathing a premiere as it's going out. Noticed that you mentioned him later. - But you still say E.L.O. about half the time after that. ;) (I'm guilty of that too and need to remind myself.) Think what this is coming back to is probably that a different system entirely would be better overall?
i really like your take on the k-factor. im currently at 1750 and open entry events are just a nightmare. I need 6-7 wins to cover up 1 loss against lower rated players, thats rough. also luck is a relevant factor in tcgs, in chess there is no luck at all. if lss wants to continue to use an elo-system for the game we need a few changes, mainly the k-factor and decay
Exactly. It’s a bit absurd how much risk you take on in a game with this much variance.
I feel like my situation is the perfect example of why ELO as it is currently does not work. I went to PT 1, PT2 and Worlds the first year and I did badly in all of them. Because the K level of these events was so high, it is almost impossible for me to get out of this rating hole living in New Zealand.
The only events I realistically can play in are RTN and Pro Quest. A win at RTN against the highest ranked player will get me 8 points of ELO max. It would take a lot of wins without any losses just to get me back to the new player ranking of 1500 ELO.
There were players qualifying for NZ nats with 1508 ranking but I didnt make it despite making top 8 of a RTN because my rating was so low from going to pro events. I literally would have been better off not playing the big events. Im not sure thats how it is supposed to be.
Exactly, you are probably not a 1300-1400 player. Meaning the system is not correctly recognising your skill level. So it’s not working as intended.
Great chat, interesting info.
Thank you for addressing chess (I as a lamen consider chess as kind of the OG poster child for Elo).
Is it an issue of k-factor assignments then? Since we wouldn't expect FaB to have elo based tourneys?
Thanks! I think it’s deeper than just changing K ratings. Feels like we need to add in a few things that make it fairer but also rewarding.
I am assuming the inverse elo rating, is because some pros descend on lower level events (that they really have no reason to be at once they are qualified- aka battle hardened) and vacuum up the PTIs and special foil prizing. BH philly had so many pros, and they were all qualified already. I would assume the system is to dissuade them from being there to allow a health influx of new players into the pro circuit, instead of gatekeeping.
Edit: Not disagreeing with your analysis, I think you have some great points.
Nah I understood it’s just to stop people not playing at small events and risking all their ELO What it does in reality is actually prevent new players from gaining any relevant amount of ELO at local events which now effects nats qualification.
Also imo fab isn’t big enough to dissuade good players from coming to local qualifiers. We need everyone. :)
Also surely a bh is at the point where good people should be going because it isn’t specifically qualifying for an event but a pti?
I wouldn’t fixate too much on what sort of event people should be playing. If you had a system like chess where Elo was tied to rating rather than event. You’d see the desired outcome across any event format.
It can use some tweaking. Maybe there should be an average calculator instead of a hard plus and minus IMO. Have it winrate based or something.
Yeah not sure really of the perfect answer or I’d have a different career. I just can see it’s not working right now
I think that the system as it is, is okay.
The ELO system is only being used to handle invites for Nationals or Worlds.
There is going to be a delta between new players winning larger events and seasoned players who won smaller ones.
My current issue is that there isn’t a decay or bracket reset like they have in most games that have a top 100 or 50.
So a player could win 400-1000 points and then just never compete again in pro events and still get all the invites.
Oh yeah we 100% need some decay, but I think the biggest issue is the huge shifts, its confusing people and putting them off playing events.
Great video and I agree 100%
It's a small gripe, but Elo is the guy's name who invented the rating system. it's not an acronym like "ELO" xD
NERDS! You and the other 10 nerds who messaged me about this :D
Not to be 'that guy' (which means I'm going to be 'that guy) ;) - it's not E.L.O. - it's 'Elo' - it's named after the guy who invented the system.
I actually call him out in the video. I just thought it was capitalised. 🫠
@@SteelfurSpeaksYes 👍 The probelm with cathing a premiere as it's going out. Noticed that you mentioned him later. - But you still say E.L.O. about half the time after that. ;) (I'm guilty of that too and need to remind myself.) Think what this is coming back to is probably that a different system entirely would be better overall?
@@misterdrm6359 potentially a different system or just a better tuned version of what we have.
Lol ok Karen