Tangerine, for someone who has such a fallacious argument, you sure are angry at other people's posts.... You are under the assumption that luck is dependent on the skill of the player, and that for some reason, a better player will always be impacted more by luck. In reality, this is not the case. If two players were using the same teams and using the same moves on every turn, they would have an equal chance of haxing. That is what is meant by "luck will even out". Since we know that people don't use the same teams, they will not have the same chance of haxing. This begs the question: what makes a "good team" good? Would you use a paraflinch team in an ST5 match? No, obviously, and if you did you would likely lose. Good teams are built specifically to reduce the player's dependance on luck. They are also built to reduce the effect that luck has on the outcome of the match. I never used SpDef CBTar, until I was crit OHKOd by a Celebi's Grass Knot. Now, I can take a crit and still nail it back with a Crunch. That is just one example of how skill/experience can turn the tides of luck into something as insignificant as possible. The most prominent flaw in the support of this formula is that people think that good players are affected more by luck. They are not. Good players are actually less impacted by luck than bad players, since their teams are built to not need luck to win and to reduce the bad effects of luck as much as possible. Changing the rating system to lessen the effect of luck would be completely irrelevant to the sometimes unlucky but skilled player. When I was talking about how Pokemon is a game of odds manipulation, I was assuming that people would take the next step and understand that the better players manipulate the odds to better suit their chances of victory. If someone gets to a point where one critical hit can win the game, obviously they are doing something right, regardless of what their perceived skill level is. Players with a higher ranking are already judged less harshly based on luck than worse players because the nature of the game implies that good players see less "meaningful" luck. You would be correct about the current rating system being wrong, if the bolded part of this quote was actually true. There is no reason to believe that how "well" you win matters, and there is nothing to determine what a "good win" even is. My main problem with this is that the rating system being proposed does not actually place more value on skill, it just deters people from using potentially gamechanging moves because they could be deemed too lucky. Pokemon is a game of manipulating luck, trying to soften the punishment of people who are victims of luck is just as bad as rewarding those who do get lucky. I am in agreeance with Colin here, I don't buy the "some wins are worse than others" argument when the objective of the game is as clear as it is in Pokemon: knock them out before they knock you out. We already do, probability is taken into consideration every step of the way, from when we are in the team builder to when we decide who is the winner and loser. The element of luck is part of the game, if you don't want to get luckfucked then dont use moves that can miss, use bulky pokemon that can take hits, dont take stupid risks. These are things that good players already do that account for probability. There is no need to change the rating system because of your perception that luck and skill are opposites. Whether or not the current rating system is the best, I don't see how it is not at least a fairly accurate representation of battler's skill. Would I like to know how good I am? Yes, and since Pokemon is a game that includes hax, it would be unreasonable to take the hax out of the game just to say that you are better in haxless Pokemon (a game that doesn't exist). Haxing is out of the player's control, and devaluing wins and losses because of a random element like this is arbitrary and self-serving. This is especially true since most of the prestigious battles are in tournament form, where luck plays a huge role in a single elimination format. Would we have to devalue "luck wins" in tournaments, too, or is this only relevant on the ladder? Instead of implementing this formula, why don't we just invoke a "hax clause" that removes all haxes from ranked matches? It would be much easier than this IMO, and at least it would be consistent and fair to players on every level of the ladder. I'm not going to say that the current rating system is perfect, but this is not the way to go about improving it. what? How does "I don't want to turn a significant part of the game into a disadvantage" translate to "I don't want anybody to be ranked"?