pachima
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by pachima
-
-
I've been thinking about this a bit further.
1- Buffing prizes won't work. Prizes aren't relevant at all cause if they were, we'd see all tiers played equally, which we don't. (Unless we drastically buff, which won't happen, and is not healthy for the game)
2- UU- NU IS more restricted than OU. The big masses are mostly casuals who use their favorites and therefore have to play OU. It doesn't really matter if NU has more viable pokes or not, OU doesn't restrict, NU does, period.
3- With 1, and 2, I conclude that the reason why UU-NU are dead is because of OU itself. For as long as we have the three tiers available at the same, the big masses will almost always pick OU, automatically reducing UU-NU flux of players. So, since I'm forced to agree it is hard to make lower tiers more interesting, the only way I can see of fixing this issue is having different timewindows for OU and UU-NU.
-
12 minutes ago, Zymogen said:
I don't understand what you mean by "promotes these tiers as tiers and not MM"
It's simple. System works fine. People should play both tiers with equal motivation because their rewarding is similar. If they don't is because:
a) UU and NU are much more restrictive than OU, in the sense you can use less mons there, which means plenty of players won't breed dedicated teams for those tiers.b) UU and NU are simply not interesting enough for the big masses.
If you want to fix the issue, you try to make the tiers more interesting (Not exactly sure how). If you simply add bonus rewards for those tiers, all you are doing is delaying the issue. People would start playing again,because of the novelty, and then, gradually, you'd see exactly what happened before, less and less people signing.
-
-
Edited by pachima
This is clearly community's fault, not system fault. System proved to be super effective when it first was introduced and it's not like it has changed in the meantime. Nerfing/ boosting UU-NU also makes no sense because the rewards for each tier are approximately the same, and therefore people should have the same motivation to play all of them equally. If they don't, it is because they don't want, or let me rephrase it better, the vast majority don't want (You may know 10 or 20 individuals who would like to actively play UU-NU, but thats so far from the majority)
If you want more people to care about lower tiers, simply create more tours around these tiers, more events around these tiers. Anything that promotes these tiers as tiers and not as MM, so more people will actually try to join these tiers on MM.
TLDR; MM system is fine, it has proved so in the past. If the vast majority don't play lower tiers it's because they don't feel interested enough in these tier. If you want them to care about it, improve anything else that is lacking, not something that inherently is fine.
-
-
-
-
Allow me to speak my mind of the 3 options.
Old system: Promotes hard counterteam buildings that are solely exclusive made to beat that one team, and fail miserably against everything else. In most games with this type of building, the skill exerted into the actual game is little or none. The winner player is whoever rolled the better matchup team, not whoever read the game better (Note that this doesn't happen everytime, but the system itself promotes these situations, which we shouldn't want to) - It also gives inherent advantage to bigger scouting teams.
New system: It is, imo, a step in the right direction, since it hinders the hard counterteaming aspect until late rounds. Although it is, again imo, preferable that the old system, it still has 2 inherent flaws: Early round teams are a bit random, since they fall in the false sense of safety of being uncountered. Second is that late rounds are still subjected to hard counterteaming.
Possible newer system: Something regarding fixed Battle Boxes selected prior to the tour happening. Players would then be somewhat forced to build decently solid teams in order to have the odds in their favor against several different opposing teams. Number of Battle Boxes would have to be low to avoid specific counterteamings to common teams selected as "filler" battle boxes.
PS: Before you say that counterteaming is part of the game, there is a difference between the ideal world where players would create a team that is solid overall and excels against the opposing teams AND a team that is only viable against the opposing team, and fails miserably against everything else. First isn't entirely matchup dependant, allows skill exerted into the actual match, and makes the tier evolve. Second does not.
Thank you all.
-
-
Edited by pachima
9 hours ago, gbwead said:People would use these 10 mins to build the most ridiculous counter teams against each other.
No. You got it all wrong. It's a win/win scenario.
- If counterteam is successful, they win
- If counterteam is unsuccessful then they have to win with the most dumb team ever, and since they consider the game too easy, its a challenge they won't find anywhere else.
Also, no-water resistance teams >
-
3 hours ago, Moi said:
1 - I didn't mean that its completely necessary to have a perfect matchup to win but XelaKebert said that I can make a good counterteam team thinking in 6 different opp that cover most part of them, and thats just dumb.
2 -. I've already given my reasons why I don't like blind brackets so stop saying that I want it gone because I'm not good at playing.
1 - Do you realize how controversial this is? You are saying u don't need matchup to win, but then you outright imply you need to use a counterteam for whoever your opponent may be. If you want to counterteam the enemy, then you necessarily want to win via matchup, disregarding all skill put into the game. However, building a solid team around stuff that are good versus the few different opponents you may find, like nikhilr said, makes you able to beat all those enemies most of the time without relying on matchup alone.
2- No one is saying you are not good at playing. All I am saying, and this is not directed to anyone in particular, is that people who want to win via counterteams (and I've seen a lot of hard counterteams that are inherently bad) don't want to put effort into the actual game to win.
-
1 minute ago, Quinn010 said:
how ?
If you put effort in all your teams and your opponent doesn't then your teams are more solid than theirs, and thus giving you better odds.
Now if you ask: b-but what if they only have 1 solid team? And I reply: Then in the long term they are more prone to lose eventually.
If you don't believe go check how many tournament high round players actually reached there without switching teams, and how many reached there switching teams.
Also, just for the sake of it, go check how many players didnt switch teams in old system, cause I guarantee you the number is about the same.
-
-
Edited by pachima
7 hours ago, Moi said:Unless those 6 opponents use something really similar there's no way you can have a good matchup against all of them lmao.
Do you even play competitive? its a genuine question
Why is it so relevant to have good matchups? You can't win if you have a bad matchup? You cant actually put skill into the game itself to win a game with bad matchup? Because sadly this is what everyone thinks, and as a result we have a very poor community mentality where everyone thinks copying teams >>>>, ignoring the fact they are completely clueless how to play said teams.
Yes, it's nice to have good matchups, but a solid team never has awful matchups (that are common) and that are 6-0d by literally everything, and thus allow their players to actually turn their odds in their favor by actually playing their game skillfully.
If you don't want to actually play your game, outplaying the enemy, but rather winning the game turn 1 on teampreview with a cool matchup, then this shouldn't be the game for you.
-
Edited by pachima
12 hours ago, NikhilR said:1 - This system rewards a player for being one-dimensional, aka being able to win only using one team or playstyle. Being versatile is also a skill, and this kind of system actually hinders such a skill because a person would not want to change their team if they're constantly winning with it. It's only when they start losing, perhaps due to counterteaming, will they realize, "Oh maybe team isn't good enough, or maybe one team alone won't cut it."
2 - People may consider that a person being able to win with one team alone as being skillful, but it can also be construed as the person being lucky because the lack of scouting prevents others from being to come up with the right teams or threats to break that team because this tournament system encourages people to resort to more balanced squads, which are safer because they are less risky.
3 - The other issue with the system is that it punishes players for having multiple well-rounded teams. If I have 10 well-rounded teams, each built around a specific Pokemon, and if I know my opp is weak to that specific Pokemon, I can bring that team to the game. I wouldn't be simply bringing a counterteam, but I would be bringing a wellrounded team that can beat my opponent. That's a huge difference as this is more strategic as i) you are identifying a weakness in your opponent's team; and ii) you're bringing a good team that is capable of winning even if your opponent changes their teams, which a blind counterteam will often fail to do. If I didn't know what style my opp is weak to, then out of my 10 well-rounded teams, random.org will decide which team I bring to the game.
4 - In a tournament system like this, people are never going to resort to one-trick ponies.
1 - Being versatile is also a skill, but everyone in here is ignoring the fact players actually have to play well to win. It's not the single team that makes them win, its how they play it that does, otherwise everyone would get tournament wins easily, but they don't. Out of every player that uses the same playstyle, only a very few can actually advance through the rounds, because they are able to actually play it effectively, and that is also a skill. Besides, since no team is perfect, using the same team actually hinders your odds of winning, scouting or not, in the long term.
2 - The bold part makes me think you don't want to explain your points but rather throw out a sentence in the hopes the readers dont fully understand and nod along. (Its a joke btw)
3- System doesn't punish multiple well round teams at all? If you have more well round teams than the opponent does, then you have more odds of winning, and this is the exact opposite of a punishment. That last sentence of yours isn't also an issue of our current system because the exact same argument can be used in the older system. If you know exactly what your opp is weak to, random.org will also trigger the chances of them switching it and thus, making all this argument irrelevant.
4 - This is simply false, and I can actually confirm it for myself along with other people.
Bonus points, not directed to you in specific: The sole fact people claiming teams singlehandedly win games, not how they play it, proves to me how uncompetitive this community mentality has become. It's a fact that solid teambuilding is a skill, but honestly, there are more solid teambuilds with this system than with the old one, and don't get me started with examples cause I can provide a plethora of them. And sadly, its amazing how no one considers that a player has to actually play a team to win lol.
-
14 minutes ago, Moi said:
Most teams I see in tours nowadays are replicas from other builds. Do people who can't build for themselves deserve to be rewarded? Because thats what this type of brackets does. You can just copy one team and be able to win. I don't find entertaining playing in a system that feels pretty much the same than ladder.
On the contrary. System doesn't promote copying teambuilds, community does. People have been copying teambuilds since 1956, and not joking, they have been copying them way before tour system changed.
You cannot copy one team and win at all. You need to outplay the several enemies you face in order to win, unless their teams are just worse than yours, in which case you deserve to win.
The problem is that people always tried to win the game before actually playing it. Most mentalities right now are: if I have bad matchup I lose, and not: if I have bad matchup, I have to outplay the guy more to win, as it should.
I could list plenty of examples of successful /unsuccessful counterteams that ultimately don't matter because their used team was pretty much garbage and the whole game was decided on pure matchup. For spectators this is even worse, because they outright know who is more prone to win in the first turn.
I understand that if you play in a tournament, you want to win, but if you keep outplaying your opponents, then you'll have more chances to win, as it should, and this sytem doesn't take that away at all. Is it perfect? No, but imo better than what we had before.
-
Edited by pachima
3 minutes ago, Quinn010 said:i disagree look at jjjhhh a player that just copied a team from good players in every tier and spam it in tours ( he never reached great results with it but did some decent runs)
That just means the guy copied a good team but is unable to use it effectively.
With heavy scouting players don't need/want to be the better player, they want to be the player with better matchup and grab the easy wins that contribute nothing for their overall skill.
-
-
-
Edited by pachima
Or maybe, just maybe, the guy who spammed said team actually built a good team and deserves to be rewarded.
It's not boring at all. I'd rather face an opponent with the same advantages and win the game based on skill than fishing for good matchup and get 6-0d or 6-0 back just because I got the matchup. And trust me, most teambuildings in the past fished for this type of matchup and because of that, they were inherently bad. I really can't tell how many times I saw semifinals or finals finishing in a couple of turns just because the matchup fish was so real that one of teams got completely vaporized by the other. Was the finalist winner the better player overall? No, he simply was the guy who got lucky the most with the matchup fishing.
As Xela pointed out, there is some skill regarding counterteaming, but its little compared to actually build a solid team overall and actually playing it effectively.
-
Edited by pachima
17 hours ago, Laz said:I totally agree, but I gotta say Download may be broken.
+1 236+ SpA Porygon Tri Attack vs. 236 HP / 236+ SpD Munchlax: 13-16 (39.3 - 48.4%) -- 43.8% chance to 2HKO after Stealth Rock
+1 236+ SpA Porygon Tri Attack vs. 236 HP / 236+ SpD Eviolite Munchlax: 9-12 (27.2 - 36.3%) -- 91.4% chance to 3HKO after Stealth Rock
0 Atk Munchlax Body Slam vs. 236 HP / 36 Def Eviolite Porygon: 7-9 (26.9 - 34.6%) -- 17.6% chance to 3HKO after Stealth Rock
+1 236+ SpA Porygon Tri Attack vs. 236 HP / 252+ SpD Eviolite Porygon: 9-12 (34.6 - 46.1%) -- 0.4% chance to 2HKO after Stealth Rock
Add the possibility of running agility on it and you got a sweeping material that does it's job without any effort, just by coming in against a pokemon that has a higher defense than sp.defense.
You missed my point. Porygon MAY be broken now, I don't disagree with that. However, if that is the case, then its also broken with mienfoo in the tier( especially since Mienfoo isn't a counter, and totally can't check agility versions). So IF porygon is broken, we ban Porygon, we don't unban Mienfoo.
That is the first reason why unbanning Mienfoo to balance Porygon makes little sense.
The second is that unbanning a Pokemon to balance others is a dangerous argument and opens unwanted cans of possibilities like misdreavus with scraggy or scraggy with murkrow, etc, etc.
-
7 minutes ago, Huargensy said:
No, it was not a counter, but it was a check, to force the change to porygon something that other mon did not, or did timburr force the change to be slower? or a croagunk with focus blast risking 70% of hitting it? I don't see many mons who can put pressure on porygon as well as mienfoo did
This is interesting because most mienfoos chose to run drain over close combat, and drain doesn't pressure Porygon at all, at least not more than plenty of other pokes can. (ex: munchlax, cranidos, pawniard, ... ). Actually Porygon offensive was so not considered a threat that I had actually seen plenty of mienfoos that sacrificed offense for more bulk. And I pretty much doubt this would be the case if Porygon was the monster you all claiming it to be.
Of course Mienfoo is an amazing mon, and while this is not enough to justify a ban, your argument actually solidifies what I stated earlier, that the issue seems to lie elsewhere, and offensive Porygon actually was amazing against most past teams, but only now that weakness became glaringly obvious, as with some other stuff.
-
1 hour ago, PoseidonWrath said:
Wym it makes no sense?
clearly if mienfoo is unbanned less people are gonna use porygon bcs right now with mienfoo banned mons like Bronzor Pory and munch are getting used ALOT
mienfoo pressured those mons .
so u dont think porygon is broken? Tell me some LC that safely can handle a +1 tri attack/ hp fire or psyc
The problem is that Mienfoo can't switch against +1 porygon as well. So if Porygon offensive is a big deal currently, it would be a big deal before. And if we agree offensive porygon wasn't even used much prior to Mienfoo ban, and if we agree Mienfoo can't switch on Porygon, then we have to agree Porygon offensive has other switch-ins within the tier, otherwise no matter if mienfoo is in the tier, porygon would be broken offensively, which was not, or at least no one complained about it.
Now, my personal input regarding current LC is that mienfoo singlehandedly fixed most flaws any LC team had in the past. This alone doesn't make it Mienfoo banworthy, no. However, based on my experience, Mienfoo successfully hid all those flaws simply by being fit in a team. It is not a coincidence that Mienfoo takes ages to be removed, and once it does, everything else follows rather quickly, unless we're talking about heavy stall matches. Now here's the thing. Mienfoo's replacement, Timburr, isn't able to fix all those weaknesses at once, and only now people are realizing that maybe, just maybe, their other 5 fillers are utterly garbage as a team, and maybe, just maybe, their other 5 fillers have way too many exploitable weaknesses, and therefore should be changed. Of course its much easier to just go on forums and say: b-but porygon broken.
tldr; if +1 offensive Porygon is so goddamn broken and has no switches in LC, then +1 offensive porygon was also so goddamn broken and had no switches in LC prior to Mienfoo ban, simply because Mienfoo doesn't safely switch against +1 offensive Porygon at all. Therefore, the issue lies elsewhere, and my personal input says its connected to how Mienfoo allowed bad teams and therefore bad teambuilds to exist without a big risk.
PS1: Sorry if I sounded repetitive.
PS2: This post wasn't made to justify a Mienfoo ban. It was made to explain how Porygon being "supposedly" broken now doesn't matter towards unbanning Mienfoo.
-
13 hours ago, PoseidonWrath said:
either unban mienfoo or ban Porygon.
Porygon comes in +1 and goodluck saccing 1 mon lol
really balanced
This makes 0 sense cause mienfoo isn't switching on +1 +porygon either.
If Porygon is broken (which I don't think it is), we ban Porygon, we don't unban a Pokemon that has nothing to do with it for the sake of it.
- Makarovs and LifeStyleNORE
-
1
-
1
PSL XIII - Semi-Finals
in Competition Archive
Posted ·
Edited by pachima
Semi-finals has finally come!
#top4plebs #Rotomsneedtogo #Villainsbetrayal #LunasSailingtothewin #Thinkbetterhost #1and2return #Nobias #Darylinverymad #Unfairadvantages #Riggedcointoss #Napoleonbonabat #Zigh'slastchance
Players have 4 days to schedule their battles. If one of the parties fail to respond in that timeframe, proof must be given to the hosts until the end of Saturday. The team of the player who failed to schedule either tries to get the match done, or they are enforced a sub who is able to play at the requested times.
o If no sub is able to play at those times, the other team gets an activity win.
o If a sub is able to play at those times, they both must attend the match.
o Extensions can be given only once.
· If both players attempted to schedule their match but are unable to do so by whatever reason (timezones, etc etc). Whoever has the lowest salary is forced to sub. Otherwise both teams are forced to sub.
· Players need to provide at least 3 different times.
· If no player attempted to schedule a match until the end of Saturday AND if they don't show up to play at the end of the week (Monday). Both teams are forced to sub, and an extension is given to the new players. After this sub, any rule stated previously still applies.
Any doubt contact your manager, or check discord links.
The Ruthless Rotoms (5) vs (1) Sailor Lunatones
OU1: Darker vs Senjutsuka
OU2: Stelian vs DoubleJ
UU: Zennen vs Tohnr
NU: xLuneth vs Artemiseta
Doubles: AkaruKokuyo vs Zigh
LC: Xondex vs Aldahirramirez
M-LC: Mkns vs SweeTforU
Devil Bats (1) vs (4) Empoleon Bonapartists
OU1: Frags vs Getovaherez
OU2: CristhianArce vs Schuchty
UU: Urquidi vs MadaraSixSix
NU: tmoi vs Cristi
Doubles: GasaiYunoSan vs Superman
LC: KiiritoX vs YeyoXD
M-Dubs: TiToooo vs Badbaarsito
Matches can be played from Monday December 7th 16h00 GMT until Monday 14th 23:59 GMT.