Event Suggestions & Feedback

[Strych]

As you all know, we enjoy running events. We try to come up with as many new and exciting ideas for them as we can, whilst also attempting to cater to our broad player-base.

Have we run a particular event that you'd like to see again? Perhaps one that you didn't like so much?
Do you have an idea for an event that you'd like to see happen? We're interested in your feedback and ideas, so feel free to post them in this thread.


Please keep ideas within the realm of possibility. I realise "if X is implemented, Y could be a great event", but lets try to work with what we have.



Note: This thread is for the discussion of official events (like those posted in PokeMMO Official Events).

[Eggplant]

Hey, guys.

Thoughts on official events around more or less now?

It'd be a convenient time for australia I think, morning for europe, those who want to get up at a reasonable time.

Despite this not being the most active time of day, would there be any interest? Would we fill a bracket around this time of day? What about on a weekday?

[BurntZebra]

Hey, guys.

Thoughts on official events around more or less now?

It'd be a convenient time for australia I think, morning for europe, those who want to get up at a reasonable time.

Despite this not being the most active time of day, would there be any interest? Would we fill a bracket around this time of day? What about on a weekday?

That's pretty early for Europe still, and pretty late/early for East coast americans. West coast might do fine since it would start at like 11 pm or midnight for them. Tbh I'm not really sure how many Australian/asian players we have, guess I don't really play when they're usually playing. I kind of doubt you would get a full bracket but who knows until someone actually hosts one

[DoubleJ]

I've noticed that the hosts of the various official tournaments are starting to experiment with moving the lone "31 IV" on the shiny comps to fit what they feel is the best mold for these comps. 

 

I would suggest letting the players decide on where that 31 should go. For instance with the upcoming Shiny Spoink prize, the 31 is being placed on HP rather than speed. Personally I'd prefer it on speed in order to capitalize on Grumpig's unique speed tier and potentially avoid being scouted by opponents that know I don't have "perfect speed". 

 

Pros: Prevent scouting; Allow for more creativity; Give winners a say

Cons: Potential for Squirtle making an oops

[DoubleJ]

When staff make decisions behind closed doors, for example when they claim to come together and refuse any rematches whatsoever on DC's, that information should be made public to avoid a shit storm.

 

Today Raaidn dc'd on turn one in the semi-finals and EMMME, his opponent, wasn't given the opportunity to give a rematch. Instead, staff auto-DQ'd Raaidn claiming that staff "discussed" DQ's and decided to DQ every time. Without this information becoming public knowledge (auto-DQ on DC's), this decision seems like an "anti-Raaidn" decision. He was even muted for 800 seconds after simply saying "fucking asshole" in normal chat. 

 

All in all, I think staff did my boy dirty here and it could have been handled a hell of a lot better. This is another one of those "grey-area" situations that is absolute bullshit, like Time Clause being extended past 45 minutes for certain players and not for others. 

 

Oh as for a suggestion, let staff become a bit more professional and communicate with the community when they want to enforce rules that have otherwise been "grey". 

[codylramey]

You guys should change the policy to let it be up to the opponent for the finals at least. If i ever make it to the finals i wouldnt want to win on DC. I would want to win bc i beat the second best in that toruny.

Edited August 25, 2015 by codylramey

[Eggplant]

Hey guys.

I'd like to address what's been going on regarding this "new dc rule".

The reason why you haven't heard an official statement about it, is because we literally just finished discussing it. It was kind of a work-in-progress, I suppose.

It just so happened that immediately after, this specific situation would arise in a semifinal. A few turns later, in a round 1 or 2, nobody would've blinked.

Anyways, here's the tldr:

• If you disconnect during an official match, you will be disqualified. - This is the way the rule has always been, really.
• Previous calls of allowing rematches - they were a mistake. While it's been on and off in the past, sorry about that.
• If there's a crazy server issue with 30+ people dc'ing much like the last time this happened in a final, then we can maybe talk about a rematch. But generally, no. It's the slippery slope argument. Yes, it'd be reasonable to allow it on the first turn before any moves. It'd also be reasonable to allow it the turn after. But then there are exploits, abuses, rng that comes into play. So in the end, no rematches will be allowed.
• If you're looking for an official announcement of some sort, this is it. We're simply reiterating the strictness of the rule, that is, if you disconnect during a match, you will be disqualified.
• If you're concerned about this being a biased call against a certain player, rest assured, the call will remain the same from now on, and I hope that when noticing this consistency over a long duration, you'll be convinced it wasn't personal.

[BurntZebra]

I agree with this except for the server issues. If half of the spectators/refs/one of the duelers dc, it should be fairly clear that it is the server and not anyone's internet. It doesn't matter if its in the finals or semifinals or even round 1, a player should not be at fault if the game servers messed up and kicked off 30 people from the server. 

[XPLOZ]

I think you should modify prices. BPs' value dropped so nobody will chose 20k BPs instead of 1m and 10k BPs is quite bad.

[KaynineXL]

 

Hey guys.

I'd like to address what's been going on regarding this "new dc rule".

The reason why you haven't heard an official statement about it, is because we literally just finished discussing it. It was kind of a work-in-progress, I suppose.

It just so happened that immediately after, this specific situation would arise in a semifinal. A few turns later, in a round 1 or 2, nobody would've blinked.

Anyways, here's the tldr:

• If you disconenct during an official match, you will be disqualified. - This is the way the rule has always been, really.
• Previous calls of allowing rematches - they were a mistake. While it's been on and off in the past, sorry about that.
• If there's a crazy server issue with 30+ people dc'ing much like the last time this happened in a final, then we can maybe talk about a rematch. But generally, no. It's the slippery slope argument. Yes, it'd be reasonable to allow it on the first turn before any moves. It'd also be reasonable to allow it the turn after. But then there are exploits, abuses, rng that comes into play. So in the end, no rematches will be allowed.
• If you're looking for an official announcement of some sort, this is it. We're simply reiterating the strictness of the rule, that is, if you disconnect during a match, you will be disqualified.
• If you're concerned about this being a biased call against a certain player, rest assured, the call will remain the same from now on, and I hope that when noticing this consistency over a long duration, you'll be convinced it wasn't personal.

 

I do think the 'new rule' should have been announced before you put it to work in this tourney otherwise situations like this will occur. =)

[XelaKebert]

I do think the 'new rule' should have been announced before you put it to work in this tourney otherwise situations like this will occur. =)

It's not a new rule, it's in literally every single tournament thread. It was just improperly enforced in the past. The decision was made to enforce the rule as written.

[DoubleJ]

eggplant the only staff member right now worth his/her salt. Wish they would have explained this before the tournament or made one final exception before declaring it final.

Rip Nik ever playing in a tournament again though. Dc clause too stronk.

[XelaKebert]

eggplant the only staff member right now worth his/her salt. Wish they would have explained this before the tournament or made one final exception before declaring it final.

Rip Nik ever playing in a tournament again though. Dc clause too stronk.

Making one final exception would have undermined the whole decision to enforce the rule as it is written in literally every tournament thread. This isn't a new rule, it's us going back to properly enforcing a rule that we had already written. It's not a grey area and it's not a judgement call.

 

Regarding server issues. Rematches will only be granted in cases where an Administrator has made it public knowledge whether or not there is a server issue at the time, and in these cases they will be mandatory. No option given to the players who didn't disconnect whether or not they rematch.

[DoubleJ]

Making one final exception would have undermined the whole decision to enforce the rule as it is written in literally every tournament thread. This isn't a new rule, it's us going back to properly enforcing a rule that we had already written. It's not a grey area and it's not a judgement call.

Regarding server issues. Rematches will only be granted in cases where an Administrator has made it public knowledge whether or not there is a server issue at the time, and in these cases they will be mandatory. No option given to the players who didn't disconnect whether or not they rematch.

Wish you guys would have acted like this for time clause.

[XelaKebert]

Wish you guys would have acted like this for time clause.

Time clause was different. In that case we changed the rule to be a set amount of time, then played with some other variables with it. All of those needed to be announced because the lettering of the rule changed. In this case the rule is already there to the letter, "If you disconnect during your match you will be DQd. It is in literally every tournament thread that has been posted since the rule was made.

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/55902-standard-ouaugust-24th/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/56392-the-great-verdanturf-pignic-6v6-nu-tuesday-1st-september/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/56430-summer-ball-reserves-tournament-sunday-30th-august/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/56168-summer-ball-qualifier-8-sunday-23rd-august/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/55963-augusts-double-trouble-weekend-saturday-august-29th/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/55720-oceanic-ou-august-edition-saturday-22nd-august/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/55820-friday-night-nu-21st-august/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/56035-monotype-tournament-20th-august/

https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/54117-the-return-of-nu-sunday-28th-june/

 

There are plenty more examples in the Event Archives if you wish to take a look. Those all say it to the T exactly how the rule should be enforced. Improper enforcement in the past was a mistake and as such we made the change to properly enforce the rule in response to complaints we have received.

[DoubleJ]

Hey I'm not debating the rule in written form, im debating its handling in the past, in the present, and also the future.

Moving forward an offer to rematch should be given to the opponent of the individual that dc'd in the semis and finals.

As for time clause, it was written that players would be dq'd if they exceeded 45 minutes of play. This was upheld in some matches and ignored in others. Those variables were not discussed but rather introduced on a case by case basis.

Edit: i also appreciate the added details. If i weren't on my phone I'd do the same for you.

Edited August 25, 2015 by DoubleJ

[XelaKebert]

Hey I'm not debating the rule in written form, im debating its handling in the past, in the present, and also the future.

Moving forward an offer to rematch should be given to the opponent of the individual that dc'd in the semis and finals.

As for time clause, it was written that players would be dq'd if they exceeded 45 minutes of play. This was upheld in some matches and ignored in others. Those variables were not discussed but rather introduced on a case by case basis.

Time clause is something else that needs to be worked on, but for now here is how disconnections during tournaments will be handled. If you disconnect you lose. No option for a rematch at all, not even in the finals.

 

As far as server issues go, I've already addressed what how we will handle those.

[DoubleJ]

Then my suggestion would be as I said above; let the opponent have the choice to rematch or not in semis and finals. It promotes competition, doesn't hinder progress, and offers an opportunity to the person who dc'd after making such a deep run. Abuseable or not, the choice is in their opponents hands to make. I'm sure they will judge accordingly.

You can decline now, but my suggestion is here and hopefully will be considered.

[XelaKebert]

Then my suggestion would be as I said above; let the opponent have the choice to rematch or not in semis and finals. It promotes competition, doesn't hinder progress, and offers an opportunity to the person who dc'd after making such a deep run. Abuseable or not, the choice is in their opponents hands to make. I'm sure they will judge accordingly.

You can decline now, but my suggestion is here and hopefully will be considered.

That is a flat no. There will be no option for a rematch in semi finals or finals. The rule will be uniform across all rounds.

[Gunthug]

I think the real crime is the constant nikhil v. raaidn 1st and 2nd round matches. what does challonge's randomizer have against those two?

[BurntZebra]

Making one final exception would have undermined the whole decision to enforce the rule as it is written in literally every tournament thread. This isn't a new rule, it's us going back to properly enforcing a rule that we had already written. It's not a grey area and it's not a judgement call.

 

Regarding server issues. Rematches will only be granted in cases where an Administrator has made it public knowledge whether or not there is a server issue at the time, and in these cases they will be mandatory. No option given to the players who didn't disconnect whether or not they rematch.

Will admins assume the responsibility and actually tell staff if there was an official server error or whatever? Or do we have to pray that desu or kyu are online and can confirm at the time. 

[fredrichnietze]

ok so issue.
first off "why do we have this rule at all?"
two reasons

• possibility of abuse by players for rematch
• time clause

for the abuse, you can solve it by giving the opposing player the option of saying yes/no to the rematch. the only person hurt by the abuse is the opponent of the DC'er so if they are ok with a rematch then it's all good. some players might say no to a rematch, but true competitors are in it for the fun of competition and will say yes unless it's obviously abuse, or they were going to win.

in short win/win for everybody most of the time.

 

for time there are a few solutions.

• count the time of the original match in addition to the time of the second match for the 45 minute time limit.
• set a limit on the number of rematches to 1
• use the clock system in place as intended as a replacement for time clause.

or you could just say "fuck it" and allow no rematches ever. the above solutions are in the best interest of the players, the "fuck it" option is in the best interest of staff assuming you value simplicity above players being happy and pretty much everything else.

 

what are your priority's? 

 

i quit so basically unbiased as you can get while still knowing wtf is going on and such.

[XelaKebert]

ok so issue.
first off "why do we have this rule at all?"
two reasons

• possibility of abuse by players for rematch
• time clause

for the abuse, you can solve it by giving the opposing player the option of saying yes/no to the rematch. the only person hurt by the abuse is the opponent of the DC'er so if they are ok with a rematch then it's all good. some players might say no to a rematch, but true competitors are in it for the fun of competition and will say yes unless it's obviously abuse, or they were going to win.

in short win/win for everybody most of the time.

 

for time there are a few solutions.

• count the time of the original match in addition to the time of the second match for the 45 minute time limit.
• set a limit on the number of rematches to 1
• use the clock system in place as intended as a replacement for time clause.

or you could just say "fuck it" and allow no rematches ever. the above solutions are in the best interest of the players, the "fuck it" option is in the best interest of staff assuming you value simplicity above players being happy and pretty much everything else.

 

what are your priority's? 

 

i quit so basically unbiased as you can get while still knowing wtf is going on and such.

Well, to paraphrase the underlying issue here, it is also to reduce the number of judgement calls the host has to make during a tournament as that was deemed to be an inefficient and inconsistent way of running things. So the final ruling will remain that a DC during a duel will always result in a DQ.

 

Regarding information about server issues and whether or not the players will be informed. Rest assured that we will remain as consistent as possible with this ruling and if necessary employ the stipulations regarding server issues.

[DrCraig]

i quit

Lies

 

Serious Craig is telling me that rematches are a gift. A rematch is a gift because your internet or whatever the issue was shut off. You should be DQ'd. You don't restart a track event because a runner fell.

 

Competitive Craig says that rematches promote a competitive atmosphere. Strict rules can be invasive and when they are enforced, it causes too much of a commotion solely because it is taking away the competitive nature of a tournament. A battle is being skipped completely due to a simple phrase, and that's tough to deal with in a community where we are so close to the people writing these rules.

[XelaKebert]

Lies

 

Serious Craig is telling me that rematches are a gift. A rematch is a gift because your internet or whatever the issue was shut off. You should be DQ'd. You don't restart a track event because a runner fell.

 

Competitive Craig says that rematches promote a competitive atmosphere. Strict rules can be invasive and when they are enforced, it causes too much of a commotion solely because it is taking away the competitive nature of a tournament. A battle is being skipped completely due to a simple phrase, and that's tough to deal with in a community where we are so close to the people writing these rules.

 

As tough as it may be, the rule had been in place for months and only started getting bent recently. So from this point forward the rule being enforced as written.

Will it take away the competitive aspect? Only slightly. It reduces the competitive atmosphere more when a player opts for a rematch and then has to wait 15 minutes, or even more, for their opponent to reconnect. Not to mention that offering a rematch is still unsafe as, in rare cases, a player can get stuck on the server and have to wait until the next server restart before being able to log back in. Unclean disconnects are unpredictable as to whether or not you will be able to log back in right away or not so having a uniform rule also works to remove that variable from the equation.

[KaynineXL]

It's not a new rule, it's in literally every single tournament thread. It was just improperly enforced in the past. The decision was made to enforce the rule as written.

It was a rule that wasn't in effect until this exact tourney where Raaidn got DQ'd. You could see how that would piss someone off? There should have been an announcement saying the rule is now enforced and then this situation would not happen.

 

Poor Zehkar