[PSL 6] HYPE Thread

[Telf]

5 hours ago, BlackJovi said:

It was obviously Munya, I think they're a couple or something. 

aren't they both girls... Cringe

Edited November 22, 2016 by Telf
fixed my spelling mistake

[BlackJovi]

2 minutes ago, Telf said:

aren't they both girls... hawt

Spelt cringe wrong

[OrangeManiac]

22 minutes ago, gbwead said:

PSL is a truly remarkable event where players have a chance to compete against each other in a unique format. However, no matter how great PSL was, is and will be, this event remains far from perfect from a competitive and organizational stand point.The main idea behind the changes I am proposing is to keep things simple and to eliminate easily exploitable flaws in the current system.

 

Initial auction integrity:

 

  Hide contents

During the auction, managers have an equal chance to get the players they wish to acquire.  The pressure is on as soon as the first bid is made. Each manager tries to raise the price of the players they don’t want to acquire, just so they have more credits than the other managers when it comes time to acquire the player they want. Even though 7 out 8 managers already have their doubles player, they might all bid on the last decent double player of the draft just to bankrupt the 8^th manager. Every time they bid on a player they don’t want, they take the risk of acquiring that player at the expense of their credit count and their teambuilding.

 

Trades – as well as the midseason auction – completely disregard the risks some managers took during the initial auction to secure their teambuilding compared to other managers’ teambuilding.

 

Solution: no more trades, no more mid-season.

 

 

In the latest PSL seasons, Greck and Riga have proven how broken trades are. A manager has the power to destroy his/her own team in a way that benefit certain managers to the detriment of the others. These kind of trades also disregard the compromises that certain managers had to make during the initial auction.

 

Solution: no more trades.

 

Sign-up bias:

 

  Hide contents

Sign-up bias is the biggest PSL problem imo. When a player signs up for PSL, that player should play to the best of his/her abilities regardless of who is his/her manager. By allowing trades, by allowing players to play in tiers in which they did not sign-up and by having a mid-season auction, a player abuse the system to make sure he/she ends up in the team he/she ultimately wants to be in.

 

A player can alter – consciously or unconsciously – his/her performance in order to force a his/her to trade him/her off to another manager. Members of this community can also wrongfully be accused a player to alter his/her performance to end up in the team he/she ultimately wants to be in.

 

Solution: no more trades.

 

If Walpayer signs up only in Doubles in the next PSL season, I doubt managers would value him as much as if he had signed up in OU. If Walpayer, bought as a Doubles player, starts to play OU, it completely fucks all the managers that did not buy him. If a player signs up in an uninteresting tier (to lower his/her price) and then tells a specific manager that he/she is not bound to the tier in which he/she signed up, this should be considered as collusion.

 

Solution: not allow players to play in tiers in which they did not sign up.

 

 

PSL organisation:

  Hide contents

The PSL timeline is unknown to players. Players should know what they commit to when they sign-up. PSL season 6 had two extra weeks that were not planned and that some players might not have expected. This set a bad precedent because some players might no longer sign-up in the future simply because they can’t commit to something that might last longer than expected.

 

Solution: respect and present the PSL season timeline.

 

PSL is too long. People might not sign up simply because they are not ready to commit to a 12 weeks event.

Not enough PSL teams make play-offs. For this reason, some teams know after 5 weeks that they won’t make play-offs and stop fighting. Hellacious Houndooms got utterly fucked by Team Riga this season because of that. Team Riga gave their 100% when they were fighting Dooms and won. Team Riga gave a free win to Koalas in week 7 which sealed Dooms fate. This is wrong and should be fixed.

 

Solution:

Going from 8 to 6 PSL teams could fix a lot of things. Season would not last as long and more we would get 4 out of 6 teams in playoffs which is a better ratio than right now.

 

The main problem with going from 8 to 6 teams is that there would be less players being bought. However, this can be resolved if we introduce more tiers which would force each of the 6 teams to be bigger and if we impose some kind of rotation clause. Perhaps, forbidding a manager to bench a player more than X weeks or forbidding a manager to make a player play more than Y weeks could be an interesting rotation clause.

 

 

Major discussions regarding every PSL rule should be done before a season imo. A PSL host should not have the burden to be a "ruler". Ideally, rules should simply be followed - just like a tiering policy should be followed ^^. I might be too optimisitc about this group idea, but I believe setting up a forum account for PSL season 7 shared by multiple users could work. 

 

 

 

You misunderstood what I was referring as a "ruling". I didn't mean it as a PSL guideline or rule being decided before of the season, there's plenty of time to discuss that before the season starts. I referred "ruling" as an individual decision based on the pre-made rules of the PSL how those are applied. If there's one person to make something like an activity call after the week ends chances are the decision is perfectly reasonable. Having to discuss a single case with multiple hosts is time consuming and unnecesessary. And it's not like reffing a football game where the referees can immediately discuss what happened. In PSL the hosts would at worst communicate at half day delay and needless to say PSL would work really slowly and unconsistently.

 

There's multiple cases where rules aren't so self-explanatory especially in activity cases, unsportsmanship behavior, etc. Lots of things need to ne considered. It's not like everyone would read tiering policies and everyone would agree all the same Pokemon to be banworthy. But tiering decisions is much more broad, you need other perspectives to a Pokemon than your own because everyone always have some bias considering what teams they tend to run. Also tiering decisions can wait week or two, PSL decisions can't.

[BlackJovi]

gb + orange + gunt + JJ for host group 

[gbwead]

Everything I wrote disapeared when I pressed the submit reply button :/

 

48 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

 

You misunderstood what I was referring as a "ruling". I didn't mean it as a PSL guideline or rule being decided before of the season, there's plenty of time to discuss that before the season starts. I referred "ruling" as an individual decision based on the pre-made rules of the PSL how those are applied. If there's one person to make something like an activity call after the week ends chances are the decision is perfectly reasonable. Having to discuss a single case with multiple hosts is time consuming and unnecesessary. And it's not like reffing a football game where the referees can immediately discuss what happened. In PSL the hosts would at worst communicate at half day delay and needless to say PSL would work really slowly and unconsistently.

 

There's multiple cases where rules aren't so self-explanatory especially in activity cases, unsportsmanship behavior, etc. Lots of things need to ne considered. It's not like everyone would read tiering policies and everyone would agree all the same Pokemon to be banworthy. But tiering decisions is much more broad, you need other perspectives to a Pokemon than your own because everyone always have some bias considering what teams they tend to run. Also tiering decisions can wait week or two, PSL decisions can't.

The purpose of a hosting group is not to lesser the bias of every ruling, but to lesser to hosting burden on hosts. Throught a PSL season so much needs to be done: posting threads, updating threads, making decisions (like you mentionned), auction preparation, funding, managing managers, etc. Unlike you, I have never hosted a PSL season, so I might be overestimating how time consuming hosting may be. If someone is up to the task, great. 

 

About activity calls, a host needs to be there at the end of the week to make those calls. If there was a hosting group, the members of that group present at the end of the week would simply vote on these activity calls. Voting doesn't have to be a long proces: 15-30 mins is more than enough imo.

 

As for rules that are not self-explanatory, maybe some of these rules should be more detailed so that as many scenarios are taken in consideration in a way that makes ruling is simpler and more straight forward. Some of the rules will always have a non self-explanatory part, but talking about them could help make the rulings less subjective and less open to interpretation. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by gbwead

[Mike]

This game is boring without psl. Lf play offs :(

[BlackJovi]

Just now, TheChampionMike said:

This game is boring without psl. Lf play offs :(

No idea why we had to take a week off. Rip. 

[Torinnnnn]

LF PSL 7 Hype Thread 

 

 

 

honestly, i think psl should happen all the time, maybe take a month to get donations right, but after that boom new season

[BlackJovi]

1 minute ago, Nobarsmcgee said:

LF PSL 7 Hype Thread 

 

 

 

honestly, i think psl should happen all the time, maybe take a month to get donations right, but after that boom new season

bhill 

[Torinnnnn]

Just now, BlackJovi said:

bhill 

cuz the community combats are enuff for us amirite or amirite

[BlackJovi]

Just now, Nobarsmcgee said:

cuz the community combats are enuff for us amirite or amirite

when u right u right bb 

[OrangeManiac]

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

Everything I wrote disapeared when I pressed the submit reply button :/

 

The purpose of a hosting group is not to lesser the bias of every ruling, but to lesser to hosting burden on hosts. Throught a PSL season so much needs to be done: posting threads, updating threads, making decisions (like you mentionned), auction preparation, funding, managing managers, etc. Unlike you, I have never hosted a PSL season, so I might be overestimating how time consuming hosting may be. If someone is up to the task, great. 

 

You're not overestimating the amount of work there is for PSL hosting, trust me. It takes a shit ton of time and even further your nerves with all the inevitable drama. I just personally felt that it actually takes less time when you can just work it all alone instead of tweaking every little thing with other hosts. The time consuming part isn't posting the lineups and updating stats - the drama is the time consuming part.

 

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

About activity calls, a host needs to be there at the end of the week to make those calls. If there was a hosting group, the members of that group present at the end of the week would simply vote on these activity calls. Voting doesn't have to be a long proces: 15-30 mins is more than enough imo.

 

Often there's more variety than "player 1 gets activity win vs. player 2 does". It isn't a simple vote, if done fair at least. So many things can't be voted more than can be tweaked to find the most fair decision in terms of PSL decisions.

 

 

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

 

As for rules that are not self-explanatory, maybe some of these rules should be more detailed so that as many scenarios are taken in consideration in a way that makes ruling is simpler and more straight forward. Some of the rules will always have a non self-explanatory part, but talking about them could help make the rulings less subjective and less open to interpretation. 

 

I agree with this, yeah.

[DoubleJ]

On my phone right now, but I'm going to pitch in a few words in a bit. Love the discussion so far. 

[fredrichnietze]

3 hours ago, Telf said:

aren't they both girls... Cringe

no they are both guys.

 

also why is the actual downs comment hidden, but the discussion about the comment including exactly what was said is allowed? you cant talk about it unless it's in past tense?

[SweeTforU]

When I king I king

[DoubleJ]

Aight, got a small break to touch on a few things, but just as a reminder I'm going to be writing a large "assessment and summary of PSL 6" after the champ is crowned. For now, hopefully this will help out. 

 

Single Host or Several?

• Just like OrangeManiac, I feel having multiple hosts would be a pain in the butt. I'm not saying it doesn't have its benefits, but for something that isn't our first or maybe even second responsibility in life, waiting on others to make a decision could be taxing. This past season, I can honestly say that I did implement a multiple host like system and it worked really well, so long as the host still had the final say but was open to feedback. Prior to the season, I consulted Orange and Gunt and received their feedback on how to structure the rules and how to approach other elements of the PSL. Throughout the season, I used them as a crutch in difficult decisions. Fortunately, those difficult decisions really didn't come up too often, but behind the scenes we all agreed on most everything that was done. In addition, I consulted my managers often and for the most part they made a lot of the decisions throughout this season themselves. 
• Moving forward, I would be willing to implement an official "small council" to help the host with decisions. While Gunt and Orange were great about giving feedback, it wasn't explicitly stated that it was their job to help out. If I were to host again, I would nominate two other members of the community to reach out to regarding truly difficult decisions. Those decisions would be outlined beforehand and likely include things like trade approval and questionable activity decisions. 

The Rules

• Each season we learn something new to help improve upon the PSL as a whole. It was my personal goal this season to be more strict with the rules and ensure that managers couldn't abuse the system like they had in the past. Overall, I think it was successful but as expected I burned a few bridges when I wasn't willing to bend those rules at all. I have no regrets regarding that, we make rules and we live by them. 
• With that in mind though, there were several things throughout this season that called for more detail in the written rules. I have already started working on improving the standing rules and will discuss those in my end of season analysis. 

Midseason

• Honestly, the midseason was a success this time around. This is an opportunity for players to join who didn't feel comfortable joining early on, didn't want to join and were convinced, or for those who just didn't know about it. In the end, the bad teams were awarded the best players and there was a more competitive atmosphere moving forward. Did it have its downfalls? Certainly. Although, I blame that on the trade system. 

Trades

• For those of us who have been around the PSL from the beginning of time, it's really difficult to keep interest up throughout the season. This season though, I saw excitement and interest from every player, manager, and even spectator. It was truly awesome to see how well this season worked to combat becoming stale and I owe that to the midseason, the newly implemented secondary events, and the trade system. 
• Trades were a big part of that and I fully intend on keeping a trade system, but it is obvious that work needs to be done to avoid abuse. It offers managers more responsibility throughout the season and it sparks discussion on every level. 
• My plan is to allow trades through week five, one week after the midseason auction. After that trades will no longer be allowed. In addition, trades will have restrictions. For example, no trade can be accepted if there is a 3k difference in credit value, or something like that (10k Raaidn traded for 5k DoubleJ would require an additional 2k in credits to be tossed in). 
• Also, trades would need to be submitted by Friday of the week in order for them to be approved by Sunday and implemented for the next week. The decision would be made by the "small council" and the host.

 

tl;dr Midseason was fine, trades were broke, improvement is coming, I got big plans, let's get fucking HYPE. 

[gbwead]

13 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

Trades

• For those of us who have been around the PSL from the beginning of time, it's really difficult to keep interest up throughout the season. This season though, I saw excitement and interest from every player, manager, and even spectator. It was truly awesome to see how well this season worked to combat becoming stale and I owe that to the midseason, the newly implemented secondary events, and the trade system. 
• Trades were a big part of that and I fully intend on keeping a trade system, but it is obvious that work needs to be done to avoid abuse. It offers managers more responsibility throughout the season and it sparks discussion on every level. 
• My plan is to allow trades through week five, one week after the midseason auction. After that trades will no longer be allowed. In addition, trades will have restrictions. For example, no trade can be accepted if there is a 3k difference in credit value, or something like that (10k Raaidn traded for 5k DoubleJ would require an additional 2k in credits to be tossed in). 
• Also, trades would need to be submitted by Friday of the week in order for them to be approved by Sunday and implemented for the next week. The decision would be made by the "small council" and the host.

This is a half-measure imo. Trades have always been broken and, even though we add new limitations at the beginning of a new season, trades always end up fucking up everything. Trades do not provide excitement or interest. Drama provides that, and since people complain about how broken trades are, we always end up with drama.

If PSL seasons become stale fast, perhaps making the seasons shorter would be more appropriate.

[DoubleJ]

Just now, gbwead said:

This is a half-measure imo. Trades have always been broken and, even though we add new limitations at the beginning of a new season, trades always end up fucking up everything. Trades do not provide excitement or interest. Drama provides that, and since people complain about how broken trades are, we always end up with drama.

If PSL seasons become stale fast, perhaps making the seasons shorter would be more appropriate.

Trades haven't broke a season in the past, it's historically always been the midseason. Now that the mid was fixed, the focus can be moved to trades which is what I'm trying to do. 

 

Shortening the season and making it more exclusive with fewer managers doesn't sound optimal. The length right now and number involved is really nice. 

[Eggplant]

I'll agree with JJ that midseason was a success.

Rewarding losing teams with more credits to blow on midseason kind of balances the outcome. Riga, at the bottom of the ladder, managed to win weeks 5 and 6. Was a bit more hype than a guaranteed top 4 advancing. It's the 'mario kart' balance mechanic to me, where 1st place gets bananas and 12th place gets thunders. And it's more about fun, stirring the pot, messing with the outcome, than skill-only no-luck play.

 

Trades are fun, in the sense that they give credits more value than just the midseason pick order.

You can sell players for cr to mess with that midseason pick order. And it's kind of a neat mechanic.

If I had to say, uhhh, might be worth considering disabling trades by the midseason auction--cause it's just waaay too unpredictable to play around. I'm pretty 50/50 on this.

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, DoubleJ said:

Trades haven't broke a season in the past, it's historically always been the midseason. Now that the mid was fixed, the focus can be moved to trades which is what I'm trying to do. 

 

Shortening the season and making it more exclusive with fewer managers doesn't sound optimal. The length right now and number involved is really nice. 

Trades will always be a problem since they fuck up the initial auction.

 

Let's say there are 8 DPP players. Manager X buys 7 DPP players. Manager Y buys 1 DPP player for a large amount of credit because that was the last DPP player available. All other managers end up without a DPP player. If after the auction Manager X starts to trade off all his/her DPP players, this completly fucks Manager Y that paid a lot of credit for his own DPP player.

 

Trades will always be a problem because no matter the limitation, there will always be a way for trade to be abused one way or anothe so that palyers end up in the team they want to be in.

[Gunthug]

1 minute ago, gbwead said:

Trades will always be a problem since they fuck up the initial auction.

 

Let's say there are 8 DPP players. Manager X buys 7 DPP players. Manager Y buys 1 DPP player for a large amount of credit because that was the last DPP player available. All other managers end up without a DPP player. If after the auction Manager X starts to trade off all his/her DPP players, this completly fucks Manager Y that paid a lot of credit for his own DPP player.

 

Trades will always be a problem because no matter the limitation, there will always be a way for trade to be abused one way or anothe so that palyers end up in the team they want to be in.

Trades are such an essential part of most, if not all, competitive sports that to completely exclude them doesn't even warrant consideration, imo

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Trades are such an essential part of most, if not all, competitive sports that to completely exclude them doesn't even warrant consideration, imo

I'm not sure the analogy applies to PSL and that also doesn't mean I will follow someone that jumps off a bridge.

[DoubleJ]

4 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Trades are such an essential part of most, if not all, competitive sports that to completely exclude them doesn't even warrant consideration, imo

My thoughts, just didn't want to upset anyone. I'm a huge sports guy and the drama associated with a trade season is exciting. Some changes need to be made, but I'm not willing to remove trades for our probs this season. 

 

Edit: I'm also not understanding why gb is saying the initial auction gets messed up

Edited November 22, 2016 by DoubleJ

[Eggplant]

1 minute ago, gbwead said:

Let's say there are 8 DPP players. Manager X buys 7 DPP players. Manager Y buys 1 DPP player for a large amount of credit because that was the last DPP player available. All other managers end up without a DPP player. If after the auction Manager X starts to trade off all his/her DPP players, this completly fucks Manager Y that paid a lot of credit for his own DPP player.

I think this is only a problem if you limit people to tiers they signed up for.

This happened to me in season 2, I had zero doubles players, so I bred a doubles team from scratch with the help of six other psl teammates, easy to use, gimmicky, handed it to YagamiNoir, and he was prob best doubles of the season. Then we upgraded it every week.

 

3 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Trades will always be a problem because no matter the limitation, there will always be a way for trade to be abused one way or anothe so that palyers end up in the team they want to be in.

Only problem i can recall is jice leaving greck for kanzo in S5, which imo, should've been vetoed. And if that went though, wouldn't have been an issue.

If it's a ridiculous, abusive trade, then we can yolo deny it--all trades altogether don't necesarily need to be deleted. Idk, I think they're fun. Even if I ended up on team riga after 3 wins for doc :v

Spoiler

the real fix is to not have cancer managers that people dont wanna play for

 

[Telf]

10 tiers is also bad