Ratings?

[Misty]

This tdc topic, courtesy of dragontamer, did open up a useful idea that I think warrants some discussion. The idea is simple: should we add an ELO-style rating system (examples include chess ratings) to Competitor? As noted in the chat, I think it presents a really good alternative to simple W-L-D records, which don't mean much since they don't take into account the quality of the opponents.

The issues are -

1) We need some way of handling disconnects. A good idea (used by playsite) is that a disconnect spawns a 5-minute timer. If the player returns within the time limit, the timer is reset (so most accidental disconnects can be rectified). On the other hand, if the player fails to return within the allotted time, it is considered a loss.

2) This needs to be a server-wide, automated implementation (which is the major problem with dragontamer's design), or else it is meaningless. That's why I'm presenting the issue here. Other servers would come with the ability to turn it off, but whether it should be implemented in the main server is the major question here.

3) Should records still be used with this system in place? There is some potential that the two systems could augment each other to give a good overview of a person's skill level. Optionally we could just ditch records altogether if people don't feel there's enough benefit.

 

[husk]

I like this. Issue 1 is how netbattle handled rated disconnects and that system worked great. Records would be cool to see with it.

 

[obi]

I don't like the idea of forced ratings. It really decreases the potential to just fool around with some ideas.

 

[Mekkah]

I thought it was decided that records weren't going to be in competitor in any way or shape, and actually I was quite content with that idea because it was part of what made NetBattle so annoying to battle on and moderate sometimes.

 

[Aeolus]

Ok, a couple of thoughts:

1) I like the idea of some sort of a rating system. The problems that arise from it stem from the fact that people want a good record to display. If the ratings were private to individual users (or at least an option to do so?) then some of those problems might be resolved.

2) Obviously unrated matches would have to be an option for the reasons Obi is referring to. Perhaps the system could be toggled on and off depending on the team that is being used so as to be sure that "testing" isn't penalized?

3) This is more than secondary to actually getting Competitor out and working. If the implementation of this would delay its release even 1 more day, I'd say it should be back burnered for a subsequent release. Smogon is pretty desperate for this sim and I'd rather not further deprive the community of it for a bell or a whistle that can be included in an update.

 

[Misty]

Oh absolutely, I don't believe this will be out day one - it's more of a working idea for later.

 

[Kumar]

I like the idea of ratings as long as there's an unrated option. I really wouldn't mind showing off how good I am :)

 

[Hipmonlee]

I hate ratings built into competitor. It was the cause of almost all moderating hassles in NB. Even private records are annoying, consider ET's Wifi battling..

On the other hand, I like the idea of ratings, but I think it should just be based on tournament results.. This way you can fool around as much as you would anyway since you are being a dick if you arent taking tournament matches seriously, and you also can avoid people distorting results by battling only overrated players or whatever.

I am not really familiar with Elo, but I dont believe it has a way of adjusting the value of matches.. I think that it would be important to make like Official Smogon Tournament 4 matches more valuable than a match in a tournament some random creates. People definitely take these games more seriously than others (I have actually thrown matches in the build up to big tournaments).

I have had some other thoughts on this at times, my brother suggested using a method based of google page rank, the only problem being it would need adjusting to make it consider losses..

[edit] - also out of interest what rule did that tdc thread break?

Have a nice day.

 

[gene]

also out of interest what rule did that tdc thread break?

he essentially missed all of the 'tournament applications are closed' crap and didn't send me a PM about it at all. I know it isn't really a tournament but he should have at least discussed it with me before posting.

on the topic of ratings, I don't like them very much. if an 'unrated' option existed, I don't think there would be much interest overall in the rating system, and if all matches were to be played rated, it seems like people would be discouraged from using fun/gimmick teams.

 

[Glen]

i never liked the idea of rating systems.

ESPECIALLY with smogon as big as it is now; i mean seriously, does anyone actually think for a second that the good players wont get recognized as good players?

plus, with a ranking system like this, i could definitely see it being used in arguments, a la 'stfu u noob im ranked way higher than u y r u even arguing with me', but maybe thats just overly presumptuous.

 

[Aeolus]

it isn't really a ranking Glen... it would carry no more weight than NB records did.

 

[Misty]

An unrated option is really a "standard" feature of any rating apparatus... playsite has it, and obviously anyone can play chess games without having to resort to alerting the USCF or whatever. To ensure that this system has merit, we would probably force tournament matches to be rated, but friendly matches would be up to the discretion of the players.

 

[Glen]

it isn't really a ranking Glen... it would carry no more weight than NB records did.

im aware it wouldnt carry any more weight, but when i looked at the thread misty was talking about i got the impression that the ranking system that the original thread creator was doing would be carried over.

the original thread isnt there anymore, so i may just look crazy : (

 

[obi]

Eh, here's the IRC log, it had a lot of good discussion:

[22:27] <Hipmonlee> I wanna ask some things about elo ratings
[22:27] <Misty> sure
[22:27] <Hipmonlee> uhh
[22:27] <Misty> I don't know the specifics behind them, it's a lot of complex math that can be done by a simple calculator
[22:27] <Misty> but i know a lot of the theory
[22:27] <Hipmonlee> ok like
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> lets say like someone like arti for instance
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> who doesnt have a rating
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> after a while
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> because he hasnt been playing
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> but is obviously good at pokemon
[22:28] <Hipmonlee> starts and he has like the default rating of whatever
[22:29] <Hipmonlee> and say I have a huge rating because I am the best
[22:29] <Hipmonlee> I battle him and lose
[22:29] <alex> you lose a lot of points
[22:29] <Hipmonlee> yeah
[22:29] <MoP> depends on how much you have though
[22:29] <Hipmonlee> I have a huge amount
[22:29] <MoP> then you lost the average amount i would like to assume, as a new user doesn't mean 'suck'
[22:29] <Hipmonlee> ok but couldnt it be possible to have a system that like repeats
[22:30] <alex> repeats?
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> like
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> I dont really know how to explain it
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> but like in that scenario
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> I lost a lot of points because of timing
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> like arti went on to battle a lot and he is good at pokemon
[22:30] <alex> could reset everyones rating every so many months
[22:30] <MoP> well according to the system, he is not 'obviously good'
[22:30] <Hipmonlee> so his points shot up quickly
[22:30] <alex> but
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> yeah but that is the problem isnt it mop
[22:31] <alex> thats just how it goes, someone new comes, if theyre good they shoot up fast and eventually shit levels out
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> yeah but I still am punished for my bad timing
[22:31] <MoP> yes
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> if I was smart I just wouldnt battle arti
[22:31] <alex> or you could battle unrated
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> until he had a decent rating
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> yeah
[22:31] <Misty> oh no, you lost points
[22:31] <Hipmonlee> I could do that
[22:31] <Misty> go fight some good people and get them back
[22:31] <Misty> :/
[22:32] <alex> and its not like the points are hard to make u
[22:32] <alex> p
[22:32] <MoP> i'd say thats fair
[22:32] <alex> its not a win-loss record
[22:32] <Hipmonlee> I am just suggesting
[22:32] <alex> the losses dont exist
[22:32] <Misty> it's not like you'd lose 200 points or something anyway
[22:32] <Hipmonlee> that we could improve this system
[22:32] <alex> i dont understand what your suggestion is though
[22:32] <MoP> i dont think any system will 'work' unless yo're able to win a match yet still lose points
[22:32] <alex> i can see the "problem"
[22:32] <alex> but how do you suppose we fix it
[22:32] <Hipmonlee> ok
[22:32] <MoP> hip is thinking like, if you buy a computer from apple store for 1500
[22:32] <Hipmonlee> so we take a time period
[22:32] <MoP> and it goes on sale to 1200 a week later
[22:32] <MoP> can he get that 300 back
[22:33] <Hipmonlee> and we just keep repeating the formula on the results of this time period
[22:33] <alex> i dont think hes asking for points back?
[22:33] <Hipmonlee> until it sorta steadies out
[22:33] <MoP> but the general idea of it kinda
[22:33] <Hipmonlee> so we can sorta backdate scoring
[22:33] <alex> so you mean
[22:33] <Hipmonlee> I dont know if the elo formula would allow for this
[22:33] <alex> if you lost to jason
[22:33] <MoP> also um i dont think any point system will ever work unless you can still lose point for winning
[22:34] <alex> and he were to go up like 500 rating in the next week or whatever
[22:34] <Hipmonlee> stfu mop
[22:34] <MoP> no seriously
[22:34] <MoP> whats to stop me from battling randomstarknub 18000 times
[22:34] <Steelicks> L.L
[22:34] <alex> youd lose less points because he shot up in such a short time period?
[22:34] <alex> you can get 0 points from a win
[22:34] <Hipmonlee> well I have a suggestion for that mop too
[22:34] <alex> if theyre significantly lower than you
[22:34] <MoP> dont say ladderbot system
[22:34] <MoP> please dont say ladderbot system
[22:34] <alex> youll get like 0-2 points
[22:34] <Hipmonlee> of course not mop
[22:35] <alex> hip am i getting what youre trying to say here
[22:35] <alex> [00:36:13] <+alex> if you lost to jason [00:36:19] <+alex> and he were to go up like 500 rating in the next week or whatever [00:36:36] <+alex> youd lose less points because he shot up in such a short time period?
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> yeah
[22:35] <alex> that sounds reasonable
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> I dont even know if it would be a points system
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> but like
[22:35] <MoP> i still dunno, cause random user with ET mentality would bring up a cloan and keep changing nicks and forfeiting
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> if you think about like a points system
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> say I battle and I beat you
[22:35] <MoP> therefore shooting his points up for the first 10 or so battles etc
[22:35] <Hipmonlee> then we battle again and you beat me
[22:36] <MoP> clone*
[22:36] <Hipmonlee> like when I battled you we were even
[22:36] <Misty> yeah, ELO has it set up so if you beat someone way less than you
[22:36] <Misty> you will get no points
[22:36] <MoP> what if you keep beating people that are new with 'default' amount of points
[22:36] <Hipmonlee> then when you battled me I had more points than you so you got more points for winning than I did
[22:36] <Hipmonlee> when I beat you
[22:36] <alex> the default is very low compared to what players like us would have
[22:36] <Hipmonlee> so you are ranked higher when we are 1-1
[22:36] <alex> you would get nothing
[22:37] <alex> hip it doesnt even differentiate that
[22:37] <alex> it would be the same amount of points
[22:37] <MoP> k than thats all of my concerns basically!
[22:37] <alex> the rating you get from beating someone equally rated is like 15ish
[22:37] <alex> he MIGHT get 16
[22:37] <alex> instead of 15
[22:37] <alex> but probably not
[22:37] <alex> unless you got a lot more points in between the two battles
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> ok whatever that is a minor point anyway
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> it was just trying to illustrate what I was suggesting
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> alsop
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> the other thing is I think definitely some battles should have higher weightings than others
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> because people do try harder in tournaments
[22:38] <Hipmonlee> I know I do
[22:39] <Hipmonlee> and as far as I am aware elo wouldnt consider that
[22:39] <MoP> so you want tournament battles to have a different point setting?
[22:39] <Misty> that's... not really quantifiable
[22:39] <MoP> thats cause elo probably has one forumla
[22:40] <Hipmonlee> we can pick arbitrary amounts misty
[22:40] <MoP> hip i think you're treating this as if theres someone deciding what battle is important and which isn't
[22:40] <MoP> but i might be just getting all this wrong
[22:40] <alex> hip thats true
[22:40] <Hipmonlee> there is something deciding that
[22:40] <Misty> if you aren't going to play up to your level, just play unrated
[22:40] <alex> i dont really take any non-tourney battles seriously
[22:40] <alex> for the most part
[22:40] <Misty> that is why i recommend tourney battles be forced rated
[22:40] <alex> i take huge risks and stuff like that
[22:41] <alex> but in tourneys im more conservative i guess
[22:41] <Hipmonlee> I actually think non tournament battles should not be counted at all
[22:41] <MoP> but those are the ones that get you into shape for said tournaments
[22:41] <Hipmonlee> that way you prevent people screening opponents or whatever
[22:41] <alex> depends on how many tournaments are running at a time
[22:41] <MoP> sure people fuck arond and try new stuff
[22:41] <MoP> but you still have to test out your 'actual team' to serious battles
[22:42] <alex> i kinda agree with only tourney battles counting actually
[22:42] <Hipmonlee> yeah but if you are testing
[22:42] <Hipmonlee> that shouldnt be rated
[22:42] <alex> that sounds good to me if we can keep a steady stream of tournaments going all the time
[22:42] <Hipmonlee> well we will have the tour
[22:42] <MoP> honestly to me, having no rating or have the option to never have something rated
[22:42] <MoP> keeps all the complications away
[22:42] <Hipmonlee> the other thing is like, non dp ou battles
[22:42] <Hipmonlee> should they count or what?
[22:42] <alex> no
[22:42] <alex> or
[22:43] <alex> there should be separate ratings
[22:43] <alex> for each gen
[22:43] <MoP> but then when do non-dp ou tournaments
[22:43] <Misty> each gen i can do
[22:43] <MoP> etc etc
[22:43] <Misty> stuff like uu would get annoying though
[22:43] <Hipmonlee> well I dont think it would need to be programmed into competitor
[22:43] <alex> it would
[22:43] <Hipmonlee> especially if it was only tournaments
[22:43] <alex> manually keeping track of that shit is a total pain
[22:43] <Hipmonlee> well we already manually keep track of tournaments
[22:44] <alex> yeah but not the ratings of thousands of battlers
[22:44] <MoP> if we did manually tracking of tournament only we are doing basically what pr did
[22:44] <alex> doing it manually is silly, id rather no records than that
[22:44] <Hipmonlee> well I have no idea what pr did
[22:44] <alex> but anyway mop
[22:44] <Hipmonlee> but it seems like a good idea to me
[22:44] <alex> the reason i like the rating shit is that there are some good randoms who i dont know at all
[22:44] <alex> and who id like to battle and would never challenge otherwise
[22:45] <MoP> yeah but i'd say give people the option to have ratings or not
[22:45] <Hipmonlee> the reason I like ratings is I wanna kick peoples asses
[22:45] <Hipmonlee> especially mops
[22:45] <alex> especially when the people i know like arent on
[22:45] <MoP> lol are you kidding me?
[22:45] <MoP> i rather not have ratings
[22:45] <alex> why
[22:45] <MoP> i rather be -0-0-0-0%
[22:45] <MoP> cause it removes all complications
[22:45] <alex> what complications
[22:45] <MoP> if you think i suck than obviously your opinion doesn't matter, but if you know what you're doing and matter
[22:45] <MoP> it doesn't take me having a rating
[22:46] <MoP> to show that i'm good
[22:46] <Hipmonlee> "my opponent wont move for 5 minutes because he doesnt want to lose his rating"
[22:46] <MoP> so why the fuck would i care if i had a rating
[22:46] <Hipmonlee> to prove that you are second only to mr
[22:46] <Hipmonlee> me
[22:46] <alex> i seriously wouldnt ever battle the low rated people
[22:46] <MoP> well if thats your belief, than so be it
[22:46] <alex> it would save me time
[22:46] <alex> 99% of my battles on shoddy are totally worthless
[22:46] <MoP> i rather stay at neutral rating
[22:46] <Lesm46> i would like to make ratings optional too so i can use any random team without worrying about ruining my rating
[22:46] <alex> i dont learn anything, i dont get any better, its not fun
[22:46] <MoP> 99% of my battles on shoddy are from #smogon
[22:47] <alex> even then
[22:47] <Hipmonlee> well this is why I say base it only on tournament battles
[22:47] <Misty> unrated battles will definitely be in
[22:47] <alex> a lot of #smogon people are just as terrible as anyone
[22:47] <alex> i just dont want to waste my time battling shitty people
[22:47] <Misty> that is sort of necessary
[22:47] <alex> its not fun
[22:47] <alex> and the rating system will help significantly in that respect
[22:47] <alex> challenge from someone with rating <x? nope, declined
[22:48] <Hipmonlee> I dont like the idea of a rating system for that purpoose lords
[22:48] <Hipmonlee> if there is a rating it should just be about friendly competition rather than excluding people from battliung
[22:48] <MoP> and what happens if you start losing lords
[22:48] <MoP> cause if you are only playing tough competition
[22:48] <Hipmonlee> it wont matter if we have a good stystem mop
[22:48] <MoP> than other people will start holding the same thought as you
[22:48] <MoP> 'oh lords has a low rating, fuck this'
[22:48] <Hipmonlee> also then is a word
[22:49] <alex> my rating wont be low..?
[22:49] <alex> there is no one i cant beat at least sometimes
[22:49] <MoP> but that holds true for everyone else
[22:49] <alex> right
[22:49] <MoP> anyone can beat any other person on any given day in here
[22:49] <alex> not anyone
[22:49] <Hipmonlee> also the other thing about elo that I am unsure of
[22:49] <alex> but the top tier of us yes
[22:49] <Hipmonlee> well
[22:50] <alex> so once our ratings are established
[22:50] <alex> and we pull ahead of the rest of the people
[22:50] <Hipmonlee> I am confused about when ratings should be updated
[22:50] <alex> theyll fluctuate a bit but will stay in roughly the same place
[22:50] <alex> after every battle theyre updated
[22:50] <Misty> it would be automatic
[22:50] <Misty> yeah
[22:50] <Misty> once you finished a battle your rating would update immediately
[22:50] <Hipmonlee> I dont really understand how they work well enough to criticise
[22:51] <Misty> the idea is simple, your rating depends on not just on your wins and losses, but who you win and lose to
[22:51] <Hipmonlee> yeah
[22:51] <Misty> it is a fairly accurate system, chess ratings are based on it
[22:51] <Hipmonlee> well every rating system should be like that
[22:52] <MoP> um isn't yahoo ratings like that?
[22:52] <Hipmonlee> yes
[22:52] <Misty> probably
[22:52] <Misty> playsite has that system too
[22:52] <Misty> the idea is just to search out an improvement to the retarded "w-l-d" system on netbattle
[22:52] <MoP> yeah so doesn't pretty much every rating system on this side of ladderbot already goes like that
[22:52] <Misty> because that will NOT be in competitor, at least not alone
[22:52] <Hipmonlee> well misty, if that is the case I hate the idea
[22:53] <MoP> well that SHOULD be in it, although not alone
[22:53] <Hipmonlee> but I think it would be cool to have some kind of official rankings
[22:53] <Hipmonlee> since pokemon is not really a game well suited to knockout tournaments
[22:53] <MoP> hip is there any intent on why you want this besides trying to show off
[22:53] <Hipmonlee> I like showing off
[22:53] <Hipmonlee> I just think it would be fun
[22:53] <MoP> well in that case i hope you unlucky in your first 15 battles
[22:54] <MoP> and end up in negative points
[22:54] <Hipmonlee> I'll just keep battling
[22:54] <alex> i dont think w-l-d should be in
[22:54] <alex> theres no reason
[22:54] <Misty> w-l-d is already not in
[22:54] <alex> [00:55:22] <+MoP> well that SHOULD be in it, although not alone
[22:54] <Misty> that decision was made a while back
[22:54] <alex> addressing that
[22:54] <MoP> i'd still like to see how often someone wins or loses to where they got to their points
[22:54] <MoP> or rather rating
[22:54] <Misty> yeah if the rating system is in
[22:54] <Misty> w-l-d might be okay to augment it
[22:55] <MoP> yeah thats what i'm going for
[22:55] <alex> again, why
[22:55] <MoP> otherwise i can careless as i plan to go all out unrated
[22:55] <Misty> to give you some more information
[22:55] <Hipmonlee> yeah I dont like that at all misty
[22:55] <Hipmonlee> it will just be a pain in the ass
[22:55] <alex> rating gives you all the information you need
[22:55] <Hipmonlee> ratings too
[22:55] <MoP> w-l-d can show you how much someone improved for example
[22:55] <alex> well i wouldnt care if we had no form of records at all
[22:55] <MoP> if it was with ratings
[22:55] <CFickle> ratings always seem to foster a negative attitude though
[22:55] <MoP> or how much someone is dedicated
[22:56] <Misty> well it might be able to give you some insight into how accurate the rating is
[22:56] <alex> the rating is always accurate, thats the point
[22:56] <Misty> if they are rated 1700 but they have 2 wins, they probably just got lucky
[22:56] <alex> you cant cheat the system
[22:56] <MoP> like someone could have a respcetable rating if they beat the top 3 rated person
[22:56] <Roy> yeah, some of us just brag about our win streak against other people ls
[22:56] <MoP> but i dont fear anyone who is 3-0
[22:56] <CFickle> i know roy, its really horrible
[22:56] <CFickle> those people are pathetic
[22:56] <Hipmonlee> maybe you could have total rated games
[22:56] <Hipmonlee> or something
[22:56] <Roy> yeah!
[22:56] <alex> total games played would be fine with me
[22:56] <alex> i just dont want to have to play seriously and avoid getting losses on my record
[22:57] <alex> with the rating system i dont care if i lose to whomever
[22:57] <alex> because i can just get it back and theres nothing lost
[22:57] <Hipmonlee> but anyway I still think the idea of any inbuilt rating system is just gonna be a pain in the ass
[22:57] <alex> you cant erase a loss
[22:57] <MoP> whats wrong with getting losses on your record
[22:57] <MoP> if your rating is sky high
[22:57] <alex> ...
[22:57] <MoP> no really
[22:57] <alex> i just dont want them there
[22:57] <MoP> you sound like a recordwhore
[22:57] <MoP> or some shit
[22:57] <alex> no ive never even played rated
[22:57] <Sonuis> Seperate servers
[22:57] <Hipmonlee> some people will be record whores mop
[22:58] <Hipmonlee> and those people will bitch and moan and it will suck balls
[22:58] <Hipmonlee> and we also have to worry about people registering new accounts to erase their records
[22:58] <MoP> i dont see how you can stop that
[22:58] <alex> link them by IP
[22:58] <Misty> yeah you can't
[22:58] <MoP> some people might play serously but under aliases
[22:58] <Hipmonlee> not have ratings?
[22:58] <Misty> and who cares anyway
[22:59] <Misty> i don't see why that's a big deal
[22:59] <MoP> like otherwise you have people like jump who would always refuse to battle
[22:59] <alex> and yeah that doesnt really matter..
[22:59] <MoP> under his own nick in case someone gets lucky etc
[22:59] <Hipmonlee> well it was a big deal on netbattle
[22:59] <alex> thats because w-l-d is retarded
[23:00] <alex> anyway i dont care either way so whatever
[23:00] <Hipmonlee> well if we had an elo system on nb then people would still register new accounts and it would be a big deal on nb still
[23:00] <Misty> i'm going to leave you guys to discuss this, i'm going to bed (i'll read the logs tomorrow though)
[23:00] * Misty is away
[23:00] <Hipmonlee> well I didnt want to discuss that at all
[23:00] <Kumar> we can ban people with multiple accounts
[23:00] <Hipmonlee> I wanted to discuss the system itself
[23:00] <Kumar> like we used to do on nb

 

[X-Act]

I support the idea of a rating system, as long as there's also an unrated option. If I want to test a team, I wouldn't like the game to be rated.

A simpler idea of a rating system is the ladder system. In a nutshell:

1) A new player starts at the bottom of the ladder.
2) If a player on the ladder (ranked #a) challenges a higher-ranked player on the ladder (ranked #b) and wins, the winner goes to rank floor(a+b)/2. (The other players ranked below this are moved one spot downwards, of course.)
3) Top 10 (or Top 20, depending on the number of people on the ladder) players must play at least a rated game a week. (Otherwise, they could just refuse every battle and stay in that rank forever.) This could be done by a weekly tournament exclusively for the top 10 or top 20 players.
4) If a player in the Top 10 (or Top 20) fails to play a rated game in a week, his ladder position drops by 10 (or 20) ranks at the end of the week.

That's it. What do you think of this suggestion?

 

[Hipmonlee]

I dont really like the idea of forcing people to play.. Also it seems a little chaotic.. If the #1 player lost to the last player they would lose a lot..

Have a nice day.

 

[X-Act]

No, if the #1 player lost to the last, he would still be #1. The #1 player will only relinquish his place if he loses to the #2 player.

If a player loses, his place on the ladder doesn't change. Your place on the ladder goes down only when someone else overtakes you by beating a higher-ranked player.

 

[chaos]

why are we discussing this? there wont be a rating system in competitor builtin. if we are discussing a specific script for smogon to run, whatever.

 

[Articuno64]

For what it's worth, I think ANY sort of record/rating system, optional or not, will cause more problems than it will give benefits. I am only in favour of running tournament scripts.