Word...............

Couldn't agree more. I addressed this same issue in the mega thread, but it was easy to loss in the enormity of 800+ posts.

I also think there is a second issue to the rating system vs. PC points:

The rating system is impossible to understand for most players and very difficult if not impossible to calculate on your own. Delays in a tournament being entered into the system also make it more difficult for each player to know where they stand.

PC points are easy to understand and calaculate based on your finish in a tournament. Each player knows where they stand, even if a T.O. takes three weeks to report the event.

canamarock - your example is excellent, but I doubt most players will easily know what their rating really is. For example, Joe looks up his rating and he is at 2480, but one of his more recent events isn't entered into the system. How can Joe even figure out whether participating in a CC will be in his favor or not.

-Mike

This is unfortunately true, but this only adds another layer to the complications. I'm assuming the system for updating points becomes more streamlined if it's the sole venue of entry, where even in that ideal case, problems still arise. It's perhaps possible that the increasing 'sharking' due to uncertainty will cause a slight player increase, but I could only presume the delays and issues would exacerbate the issue more than resolve it any.

Could not possibly agree more.

As I prepare to try to revive our local hobby league (DOA for a year now) with my friends as my part in 'saving' OP for the game, this is my number one concern. Obsession with rating (all ours are quite low, we depended on PC points and play jank regularly at tournaments) will make my competitive buddies bring their A game. We will crush any newbies that show up and completely negate any effort we have put into recruiting new players to play with.

That is precisely correct, noritoru. I concerns in that regard are exactly that... the rating system has always been somewhat awkward as an entry system, even when it's been only a workaround to the 'real' entry system of points & LCQs. At this point, I wonder if adopting some sort of system to ease the point-gaining so that more people can get to the PCs would be a positive motivator to move people into semi-competitive play. The downside: PCs have more people that aren't "the best... around... and nobody's gonna keep them down." The upside, though, is that more people will be going, which reflects well on the game to outsiders and helps to build community.

The other problem I see with the now lack of pcqs and the shift toward ratings being the basis of invitation is the inability to actually gain ratings points.

Even if everyone knew their rating and how to calculate it, odds are very high that if the only place you can make points is at a local level (read hobby league and city champs), all you're doing is swapping points with people in your area. If Greg beats Steve, but loses to Joe, and Steve beat Joe, there's a net gain of what, maybe 1 rating point if they're lucky?

By eliminating a broader regional-level event (like a pcq used to be), you eliminate the ability to play new people. You have less opporunity to actually gain any number of ratings points.

I actually like the idea of having pcqs where the points pass down. If the player that wins has 20+ points, his points winnings slide to the next highest finisher that doesn't have his points-cap yet. This eliminates pros from black-holing points and gives more people the opportunity to play the PCs.

I don't think anybody actually cares what skill-level the field is at the PC overall. It's relative to your level as a player anyway.

Man.... who are you?

I've been saying this for years.

I actually think that if this was the rule, attendance would be higher in areas that had a concentration of Q'ed players. People would know that they still had a chance to Q if they came in 4th. This would also result in less begging for concessions.