In my opinion , if 2 players have same rating ,the one with the higher winrate should be higher in placements than the other player.

I think its a pretty reasonable suggestion , hope u take it into consideration .

Ty

I must disagree, because someone who faces 20 complete beginners, and beats all of them, isn't better than someone who faces 20 pro players, and beats 15 of them.

Usually we see players with 500+ games and really bad winrates having same rating with players with 100 games with much better winrate. Who u think is better? What u say happens only in few situations. U think we should reward ppl that spam games more than players that acheive the same rating with really less games?

Edited December 5, 20187 yr by Matherfather13

Not sure why this is not a thing already.

As far as I've been able to see, it comes down to who has the earliest letter in the alphabet. That sounds just about fair, right? Not sure what the max amount of characters a person can have in his name is, but whatever the amount, I'm filling it up with A's at the next possible chance to change my username.

 

After playing enough games, you will get sorted into your natural rating one way or another. It's not about the lucky winstreak you may have versus 20 newer players. If you end up winning those 20, you'll eventually get up against someone who's better. It's bound to happen.

Not sure why this is not a thing already.

As far as I've been able to see, it comes down to who has the earliest letter in the alphabet. That sounds just about fair, right? Not sure what the max amount of characters a person can have in his name is, but whatever the amount, I'm filling it up with A's at the next possible chance to change my username.

 

After playing enough games, you will get sorted into your natural rating one way or another. It's not about the lucky winstreak you may have versus 20 newer players. If you end up winning those 20, you'll eventually get up against someone who's better. It's bound to happen.

 

Exactly

Even if you spam 1000 fights, if your natural ability isn't that good, you won't get that high.

The PVP system is a ELO System. Theoretically, with a very very good matchmaking system, we should all have around 50% winrate. In practice, it can't work on PRO because the community is low, it's impossible to have a good matchmaking system.

On PRO, with the ELO and the matchmaking system, the winrate means nothing, the winrate just show how lucky you were on matchmaking.

 

BTW, spamming game doesn't give more rating than you should have. Yes, there is a minimum of game to do to have an certain rating, but doing more game than this minimum will not give more rating.

We can see some example of players doing 1500 games in one season and stay at same ratings during the entire season.

 

In the past, i saw some cases of players with same rating in ladder, in the same day, you just had to refresh your page on ladder and see each others changes their places (so the characters in the name changed nothing). Not sure if it was changed or not.

 

 

Imagine, we decide to create a new system: if 2 players has same rating, the player with better winrate win. This system tends to not motivate players to continue to PVP. If you reach your theoretical max ratings whatever you do you will stay at same rating, the only impact to continue to PVP is just reduce your winrate.

Edited December 7, 20187 yr by Kaminokage

The PVP system is a ELO System. Theoretically, with a very very good matchmaking system, we should all have around 50% winrate. In practice, it can't work on PRO because the community is low, it's impossible to have a good matchmaking system.

On PRO, with the ELO and the matchmaking system, the winrate means nothing, the winrate just show how lucky you were on matchmaking.

 

BTW, spamming game doesn't give more rating than you should have. Yes, there is a minimum of game to do to have an certain rating, but doing more game than this minimum will not give more rating.

We can see some example of players doing 1500 games in one season and stay at same ratings during the entire season.

 

In the past, i saw some cases of players with same rating in ladder, in the same day, you just had to refresh your page on ladder and see each others changes their places (so the characters in the name changed nothing). Not sure if it was changed or not.

 

 

Imagine, we decide to create a new system: if 2 players has same rating, the player with better winrate win. This system tends to not motivate players to continue to PVP. If you reach your theoretical max ratings whatever you do you will stay at same rating, the only impact to continue to PVP is just reduce your winrate.

If the lower winrate guy has at least 1 more rating of course he will be higher in ranking

The PVP system is a ELO System. Theoretically, with a very very good matchmaking system, we should all have around 50% winrate. In practice, it can't work on PRO because the community is low, it's impossible to have a good matchmaking system.

On PRO, with the ELO and the matchmaking system, the winrate means nothing, the winrate just show how lucky you were on matchmaking.

 

 

This is fundamentally not true and cannot be applied to the game, at all.

It would be the case if it was theorised that each and every PVPer is of equal skill and the match ups were "fair", but they aren't, and they never will be.

Take football for example, the teams in the middle of the table are those most likely to have around a 50% winrate. It's not because they play the top teams more often than they play anyone else, cause they literally play each team the same amount of times throughout the season. Now, I do realise this is somewhat counterproductive because you don't have any set matches in PRO, but bare with me.

Moving on from the previous note. You already established that it's impossible to have this "perfect" matchmaking system.

However, the win-rate isn't useless. You mention:

 

BTW, spamming game doesn't give more rating than you should have. Yes, there is a minimum of game to do to have an certain rating, but doing more game than this minimum will not give more rating.

We can see some example of players doing 1500 games in one season and stay at same ratings during the entire season.

 

Your win ratio depends on the luck you have with matchmaking, which means your rating does too. Spamming an insane amount of games in a season increases your chance of getting 30 bad opponents in a row and therefore climbing, does it not? I mean - you do the math and everything, but don't try to tell me the chance isn't higher if you play 1500 games compared to playing 150.

A person may be good enough to be around 400 rating with a 60% winrate, for example.

However, that same person may play a lot of matches throughout a season, and eventually he/she is going to win enough matches to go well above 400 rating, because there's a probability of either getting bad opponents and not getting haxed in those games, or getting decent/good opponents and haxing/winning against them naturally. That natural 400 rating player may lose 8 or 9 out of 10 times to the better player, but if this is the one game where said person wins, their rating will LIKELY be higher than their usual "max" rating. Remember Leicester City almost being relegated one season and then winning the Premier League the season after? Yeah, they exceeded their skill cap and were arguably lucky as well. It happens, though. Considering Pokémon as a whole is much less skill involved and relies more on luck, it is much more applicable, in my opinion.

 

 

Imagine, we decide to create a new system: if 2 players has same rating, the player with better winrate win. This system tends to not motivate players to continue to PVP. If you reach your theoretical max ratings whatever you do you will stay at same rating, the only impact to continue to PVP is just reduce your winrate.

People already have access to use alt accounts in PVP, because of their competetive anxeity, so why is it not fair?

The fact that they shouldn't be allowed it a whole other discussion, but there really aren't any arguments to be made. It doesn't disencourage PVP'ing. It really is about what your incentive is to start off with, is it not? You rarely see people with the same rating on top of the ladder at the end of a season.

I primarely PVP because I enjoy it and want to end on ladder, although it isn't very hard at the current point in time, from a subjective point of view, obviously.

If your incentive is you want to end on ladder, you have no reason to PVP while you're on ladder anyways. If your incentive is to have fun and test teams, or even get PVP coins, you have no reason to care. It really wouldn't change anything.

On one hand, it definitely is irritating to see people be rewarded for consistently average play. (PRO ladder system definitely rewards grinding)

 

On the other, your winrate is its own reward - you can spend a lot less time grinding PvP and achieve the same result.

 

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter that often, but why not just give coins to everyone involved in a tie at 25th?