Team Tournament January 2017 (Saturday 28th January)

[DoubleJ]

2 minutes ago, DaftCoolio said:

can you not name drop us, im kinda tired of it

But bro, you just earned the capital S in SASS!

 

Spoiler

You need to say it with more hate bro, more passion, more "I'm a uguu about everything" attitude

 

[KaynineXL]

@DaftCoolio vs @DoubleJ imo

[Mnemosyne]

1 hour ago, DaftCoolio said:

show us your shinys doe

@pachima show them your superb shiny's.

[DoubleJ]

2 minutes ago, KaynineXL said:

@DaftCoolio vs @DoubleJ imo

But what we have is love yo. Like for real, both our names start with D and that's what I would give him if he wasn't a damn kiwi. 

[KaynineXL]

Just now, DoubleJ said:

But what we have is love yo. Like for real, both our names start with D and that's what I would give him if he wasn't a damn kiwi. 

I was just name dropping him for the lols

[Torinnnnn]

johnny loves me the most

[Laz]

43 minutes ago, DoubleJ said:

 

Sass vs RNG is the new LYLE vs Poo...

 

Did you just call Aura, Poo ?


Beware of all the triggered Aura players jj, beware
 

[DoubleJ]

=)

[LifeStyle]

5 tiers pls, with LC

[OrangeManiac]

@gbwead

 

Alright, let's put it this way: Can you explain us why UU and NU are actually better than Doubles? Sorry but you just talking down Doubles doesn't get you anywhere, if you want to have someone to actually side with you from a neutral standpoint then explain why UU and NU are so good and important to have.

 

My reasoning why they aren't: It's basically the same shit with different Pokemon as OU is. Because of how PokeMMO tiering works, the tiers remind each other quite a lot because of the virtues the tiering wants to achieve. You very often see a player in a certain tier being good and while they get comps for another tier they become good at it too, it's not a different world. Doubles is a whole new experience. It changes the way you think, the approach you have for winning a match and making decisions each turn, it tests completely different skills.

 

I really feel as this thread isn't the most appropriate place for this but hey jumped bandwagon anyways.

[FinnTheMember]

I wanted to follow TT topic but , too much needless and boring noise. Nobody can say this better than that. Even OU better than Metronome battle. Nobody can say that lol. They are all different. 

 

So making 3 tiers TT is stupidty too.

 

Solution = 5 tiers TT. Or remove Doubles permanently. Choose one.

[Mkns1070]

OU - UU - NU plzzzzz!

[OrangeManiac]

12 minutes ago, FinnTheMember said:

Solution = 5 tiers TT. Or remove Doubles permanently. Choose one.

No. Just no.

[gbwead]

2 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

@gbwead

 

Alright, let's put it this way: Can you explain us why UU and NU are actually better than Doubles? Sorry but you just talking down Doubles doesn't get you anywhere, if you want to have someone to actually side with you from a neutral standpoint then explain why UU and NU are so good and important to have.

 

My reasoning why they aren't: It's basically the same shit with different Pokemon as OU is. Because of how PokeMMO tiering works, the tiers remind each other quite a lot because of the virtues the tiering wants to achieve. You very often see a player in a certain tier being good and while they get comps for another tier they become good at it too, it's not a different world. Doubles is a whole new experience. It changes the way you think, the approach you have for winning a match and making decisions each turn, it tests completely different skills.

We had this discussion before. I recognize Doubles is a new world and requires different skills, but I still believe the Doubles competitive scene is too small for it to have such an important role during TT and I feel the RNG impact in Doubles is too strong which diminishes a lot the importance of those diffferent skills. 

 

The prime objective of my posts in this thread was asking that LC gets the same treatment as Doubles. A lot of people said that Doubles grew a lot as tier thanks to its presence in TT. Why would we have it differently with LC?

Edited January 4, 2017 by gbwead

[OrangeManiac]

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

We had this discussion before. I recognize Doubles is a new world and requires different skills, but I still believe the Doubles competitive scene is too small for it to have such an important role during TT and I feel the RNG impact in Doubles is too strong which diminishes a lot the importance of those diffferent skills. 

 

The prime objective of my posts in this thread was asking that LC gets the same treatment as Doubles. A lot of people said that Doubles grew a lot as tier thanks to its presence in TT. Why would we have it differently with LC?

What would need to happen that your argument of "Doubles being unpopular" would change? We have numerous people defending Doubles and voicing up for being enthusiastic Doubles players in these forums lately. Have you seen such enthusiastic defending of a playmode like this yet? Where's the NU fanatics? The UU fanatics? I can count with one hand's fingers that are currently voicing out to be enthusiastic UU or NU players.

 

The fact that Doubles has been unpopular before is irrelevant, which is what I feel as your main core of the argument bases on. NU used to be the joke of the MMO competitive scene for the longest time. Should we neglect the tier just because of this reason?

 

And what comes to Little Cup, it's a fun based tier. Not extra competitive. Not only is the metagame narrow as heck it bases on nothing but speed ties and it has no virtues of a competitive Singles playmode. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing it in 5v5 TT if that ever becomes a thing but the concept of LC is to be fun. Doubles is a whole new competitive concept.

 

Edit: If you're gonna bring some Doubles bracket with byes, didn't the NU eve bracket had like dozen of byes too?

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by OrangeManiac

[gbwead]

35 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

What would need to happen that your argument of "Doubles being unpopular" would change? We have numerous people defending Doubles and voicing up for being enthusiastic Doubles players in these forums lately. Have you seen such enthusiastic defending of a playmode like this yet? Where's the NU fanatics? The UU fanatics? I can count with one hand's fingers that are currently voicing out to be enthusiastic UU or NU players.

NU? UU? Is there even OU fanatics? The players in these tiers have no reason to voice their enthusiasm. When someone says "UU is unpopular" or "NU is unpopular", no one really cares since there is no consequence associated with these statements. When I say "Doubles is unpopular, please less Doubles", Doubles player actually have a reason to voice their thoughts.

 

35 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

The fact that Doubles has been unpopular before is irrelevant, which is what I feel as your main core of the argument bases on. NU used to be the joke of the MMO competitive scene for the longest time. Should we neglect the tier just because of this reason?

This is not at all my argument. The reason why I was talking about "before" is because some people have tried to legitimize Doubles as a timeless TT tier which is completly false. I'm not neglecting Doubles based on it being unpopular in the past, I am just exposing a lie for what it was.

I believe Doubles has becomed more popular, but it remains imo quite unpopular to this day.

 

35 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

And what comes to Little Cup, it's a fun based tier. Not extra competitive. Not only is the metagame narrow as heck it bases on nothing but speed ties and it has no virtues of a competitive Singles playmode. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing it in 5v5 TT if that ever becomes a thing but the concept of LC is to be fun. Doubles is a whole new competitive concept.

My two arguments are unpopularity and lack of competitiveness. When it comes to Doubles, I feel the impact of RNG somewhat invalidates Doubles as a competitive tier. Doubles is a cool competitive concept in theory, but in practice the tier mechanics are unfortunate. In that sense, Doubles is imo the least competitive tier after LC, but if adding LC to TT means improving the LC tier I am all for that. I also like the idea of alternating the two least competitive tiers, just so we can move the problem around. 

Doubles might be slightly more competitive than LC, but it used to be quite horrible. LC would improve if it was added to TT imo.

 

35 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Edit: If you're gonna bring some Doubles bracket with byes, didn't the NU eve bracket had like dozen of byes too?

I have actually not talked about byes in Doubles bracket.

Edited January 4, 2017 by gbwead

[Sashaolin]

6 hours ago, DoubleJ said:

Sass vs RNG is the new LYLE vs Poo... toxic as fuck. 

It seems like you intentionally mixed up gbwead and team RNG, you probably tried to create some beef by throwing an amalgam, nothing surprising coming from you.

By the way, the SASS vs RNG rivalry is like inexistent, at least on our side.

On the other hand, LYLE vs RNG is something to consider.

[gbwead]

6 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

On the other hand, LYLE vs RNG is something to consider.

Not even. I have no beef with LYLE and I do not represent the whole RNG team. It is just JJ that once again taunts and then goes all HotaJJ on us when he gets called out for being passive aggressive... When someone belittles people instead of their arguments, it always reflect poorly on them.

Edited January 4, 2017 by gbwead

[OrangeManiac]

14 minutes ago, gbwead said:

NU? UU? Is there even OU fanatics? The players in these tiers have no reason to voice their enthusiasm. When someone says "UU is unpopular" or "NU is unpopular", no one really cares since there is no consequence associated with these statements. When I say "Doubles is unpopular, please less Doubles", Doubles player actually have a reason to voice their thoughts.

Sorry, but what the hell is this logic? You're basically giving Doubles players a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" here. If someone said "Doubles is not popular, please less Doubles" and Doubles players voice out that "Hey, we like Doubles" it's because they are scared that Doubles will disappear, therefor pointing out that it's an unpopular tier. If someone said "Doubles is not popular, please less Doubles" and Doubles players said nothing that would prove there are no people who want to play Doubles. This is such a fundamentally biased approach to something I can't believe it's from someone as intelligent as you are.

 

14 minutes ago, gbwead said:

My two arguments are unpopularity and lack of competitiveness. When it comes to Doubles, I feel the impact of RNG somewhat invalidates Doubles as a competitive tier. Doubles is a cool competitive concept in theory, but in practice the tier mechanics are unfortunate. In that sense, Doubles is imo the least competitive tier after LC, but if adding LC to TT means improving the LC tier I am all for that. I also like the idea of alternating the two least competitive tiers, just so we can move the problem around. 

Doubles might be slightly more competitive than LC, but it used to be quite horrible. LC would improve if it was added to TT imo.

I've already explained why I think Doubles is not more RNG affected and it's pointless for me to repeat about that any further or argue about that because being able to calculate exactly which tier is more RNG affected is impossible. Such calculation could be never produced because of the numerous factors behind each tier being more or less RNG affected.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's say Doubles were more RNG affected format. So what? We are playing a game which is from its fundamentals RNG affected. We don't stop playing Pokemon and go play chess just because chess is less RNG affected than Pokemon. Quite frankly, the very reason we do play Pokemon is that there are some RNG included. Matches have spice, not every turn goes the same way. You need to adapt to the situation. Poker has no less value as a game than chess because it has luck, you need different types of skill in poker - to calculate the best overall play. In Doubles you can make calculations like "well, if my Rock Slide misses I can still do this with my other Pokemon". In singles miss or a crit often means another one lives and another doesn't. Simple as that. There is much more calculations in Doubles for possible RNG and much more options to calculate the best play than Singles. Even if it had more RNG, you would still need to be able to calculate it better than in Singles. It's not always the amount of RNG, it's the type of RNG.

 

14 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I have actually not talked about byes in Doubles bracket.

Your common argument against Doubles is that there's plenty of "OU comps in Doubles first round" so I kinda pre-argued against this point even if you didn't voice it out in this thread yet.

[LifeStyle]

I got ur back JJ bro

27 minutes ago, Sashaolin said:

It seems like you intentionally mixed up gbwead and team RNG, you probably tried to create some beef by throwing an amalgam, nothing surprising coming from you.

By the way, the SASS vs RNG rivalry is like inexistent, at least on our side.

On the other hand, LYLE vs RNG is something to consider.

no u

23 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Not even. I have no beef with LYLE and I do not represent the whole RNG team. It is just JJ that once again taunts and then goes all HotaJJ on us when he gets called out for being passive aggressive... When someone belittles people instead of their arguments, it always reflect poorly on them.

no u

[gbwead]

57 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Sorry, but what the hell is this logic? You're basically giving Doubles players a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" here. If someone said "Doubles is not popular, please less Doubles" and Doubles players voice out that "Hey, we like Doubles" it's because they are scared that Doubles will disappear, therefor pointing out that it's an unpopular tier. If someone said "Doubles is not popular, please less Doubles" and Doubles players said nothing that would prove there are no people who want to play Doubles. This is such a fundamentally biased approach to something I can't believe it's from someone as intelligent as you are.

It is not logic. Like I said countless times already, you say Doubles is popular. I say it isn't. It is the way we perceive in game reality. I have seen some doubles players claim baselessly that Doubles is popular for the longest time. Saying Doubles is unpopular is doing the same thing. 

 

Edit: Answering bias logic approach: Saying "Doubles is unpopular and therefore we should have less Doubles" should make sense. Someone can disagree with "Doubles is unpopular" part which would lead that person to also disagree with the conclusion. However, my statement still make sense if you believe Doubles is unpopular. You might see Double players voicing up in this thread as an indicator that Doubles is more popular than NU or UU, but I don't see it that way at all giving their incentive to speak up in this thread. You can't disprove unpopularity or prove popularity based on that imo. There is no "damn if you do, damn if you don't" for me. 

 

57 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

But for the sake of argument, let's say Doubles were more RNG affected format. So what? We are playing a game which is from its fundamentals RNG affected. We don't stop playing Pokemon and go play chess just because chess is less RNG affected than Pokemon. Quite frankly, the very reason we do play Pokemon is that there are some RNG included. Matches have spice, not every turn goes the same way. You need to adapt to the situation. Poker has no less value as a game than chess because it has luck, you need different types of skill in poker - to calculate the best overall play. In Doubles you can make calculations like "well, if my Rock Slide misses I can still do this with my other Pokemon". In singles miss or a crit often means another one lives and another doesn't. Simple as that. There is much more calculations in Doubles for possible RNG and much more options to calculate the best play than Singles. Even if it had more RNG, you would still need to be able to calculate it better than in Singles. It's not always the amount of RNG, it's the type of RNG.

Even though the game fundamentals are RNG affected, that doesn't mean players share the same degree RNG sensitivity or acceptance. When the degree of RNG is too important, something gets done to correct it. There is even a ban clause called "uncompetitive based on rng aspects" in the tiering policy. When I feel something is wrong, I rather fix what's wrong than let it go. In the long run, this "too bad, that's the way things are" approach doesn't help anyone and prevents the game from improving. If RNG is a problem in Doubles - I am not saying it ultimately is even though it is to me - it does make sense to remove what is problematic (remove Doubles or have less Doubles in TT) if nothing is done to fix the problem. The fact that you have to calculate more things in Doubles is good. If your Rock Slide does miss or if you get flinched, you can compensate what RNG made go wrong with your other pokemon. However, I see this as "compensation" for RNG, but in no way does it reduce the RNG impact to the lesser degree it has in Singles. 

 

57 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

Your common argument against Doubles is that there's plenty of "OU comps in Doubles first round" so I kinda pre-argued against this point even if you didn't voice it out in this thread yet.

I have used this argument in the past indeed. I did not realise you meant "byes" as in playing against OU comps in Doubles. You were talking about the latest NU tournament that had a lot of byes. Well, isn't normal for an oceanic tournament that was announced with shorter notice than usual and with a low tier prize to not have a full bracket? Iirc, nearly all oceanic tournaments - no matter the tier - get byes, so drawing popularity conclusions based on an oceanic tournament is quite ridiculous. 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by gbwead

[Tyrone]

Rotating Tiers / format for TT is fine.

 

[Bearminator]

Not gonna lie ,  I don't really like doubles. But I think it doesn't hurt having them from time to time.

 

However if there would be only few players playing everytime for each round maybe then it will be wise to choose Nu when there would be much more players playing it.

 

 

Summary: if doubles are enjoyable for players, then why  not

[OrangeManiac]

51 minutes ago, gbwead said:

It is not logic. Like I said countless times already, you say Doubles is popular. I say it isn't. It is the way we perceive in game reality. I have seen some doubles players claim baselessly that Doubles is popular for the longest time. Saying Doubles is unpopular is doing the same thing. 

 

Edit: Answering bias logic approach: Saying "Doubles is unpopular and therefore we should have less Doubles" should make sense. Someone can disagree with "Doubles is unpopular" part which would lead that person to also disagree with the conclusion. However, my statement still make sense if you believe Doubles is unpopular. You might see Double players voicing up in this thread as an indicator that Doubles is more popular than NU or UU, but I don't see it that way at all giving their incentive to speak up in this thread. You can't disprove unpopularity or prove popularity based on that imo. There is no "damn if you do, damn if you don't" for me. 

Something like popularity is so easy to prove. It's not exactly world view. The moment I see enough people voicing up that "I like UU and NU over Doubles" I am happy to concede that as a fact that majority of the players prefer NU or UU over Doubles. You can tag me to every single one of these posts to make sure that I'm able to see them. Or host a poll if you feel that not everyone with their opinion has voiced up in these forums. At this point I've seen you, forfie and Finn to voice up against Doubles in this thread, and in total in any thread where Doubles have been mentioned. Meanwhile the number of people that are voicing up for importance of Doubles is significantly bigger. I am not here commenting that "I personally feel that Doubles is more popular", I'm here to say that the current data is kinda against your claims. 

 

But like I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Any given time.

 

Quote

Even though the game fundamentals are RNG affected, that doesn't mean players share the same degree RNG sensitivity or acceptance. When the degree of RNG is too important, something gets done to correct it. There is even a ban clause called "uncompetitive based on rng aspects" in the tiering policy. When I feel something is wrong, I rather fix what's wrong than let it go. In the long run, this "too bad, that's the way things are" approach doesn't help anyone and prevents the game from improving. If RNG is a problem in Doubles - I am not saying it ultimately is even though it is to me - it does make sense to remove what is problematic (remove Doubles or have less Doubles in TT) if nothing is done to fix the problem. The fact that you have to calculate more things in Doubles is good. If your Rock Slide does miss or if you get flinched, you can compensate what RNG made go wrong with your other pokemon. However, I see this as "compensation" for RNG, but in no way does it reduce the RNG impact to the lesser degree it has in Singles. 

You cannot rank the formats by how much RNG affect them, especially when the RNG doesn't come from the format itself but the Pokemon in it. There's nothing inherently more RNG based in Doubles than Singles, there's just a Pokemon that has a high RNG factor is viable in Doubles metagame, which is Aerodactyl but this is due to other reasons than RNG being powerful in Doubles. You could argue that NU tournaments should be hosted more than OU tournaments because Aerodactyl exists in OU but not in lower tiers and the lower tiers do not have a such a flinch hax fisher Pokemon. And this wouldn't make more sense because a tier/format is much more than just RNG aspect.

 

What comes to "tiering policies reducing RNG based elements", it's used in very special cases like Evasion and SwaggerPlay. Comparing that to the important of formats makes no sense.

[SweeTforU]

TT king