NikhilR

Kanzo also won PSL earlier with me as a sub / cheerleader. Man is a lucky charm.

More like this, yes?

Congrats Empoleons, especially Jaawax. I had doubts about whether you were a good manager pick, but I was wrong and it goes to show how out of touch I am with the community. Also kudos to the Rotoms for being so dominant throughout this PSL edition. Thank you to Mago and Badbaar for recording a majority of the games. It helped folks like me who barely log on to still catch up.

Don't spectators talk in normal chat? If so, maybe just disable normal chat? The reason I'm saying this is so that you don't get fazed by something people say during the game. That being said, insulting a player shouldn't go unpunished, and so it would also help if chat logs in normal chat can be stored so that these players who insult could be reported.

You are our Mayor, you don't have to work out a compromise. Just give the order and we shall obey.

The bolded part isn't 100% true. Some players opt for going for safe builds when scouting their opponents while others adopted riskier builds. At the end of the day, the players still had the choice of being able to choose what kind of build they want to run. But now that choice is taken away since you're not able to scout your opponent early on because you don't know who your opponent is. Yes, you can still run riskier builds even if you don't know who your opp is, but the risk in doing it now is much higher than now before. It's not about c-builds only being useful against a specific team. It's that they are the best team to go with when you know what the opponent likes. The innovation comes with choosing an unconventional 6 or an unconventional set on a pokemon that is effective against your opponent. For example, I know that it is a standard practice for many players to use Cofagrigus to stop Conkeldurr, so I can now build teams where I pair Conkeldurr with something that easily beats Cofagrigus, like maybe a sub tyranitar (which is a bit novel for the meta). My preference towards running that Conk-Sub TTar team arises when I know my opponent is the kind to use Cofagrigus, because I know that that running such a team is most likely to give me an advantage. When you say that bringing gimmicks is still possible in this system, you also have to account the higher risk of bringing it early on, and how that risk decreases only when you reach a stage where you're able to determine who your opponent is likely to be (such as in finals, I think?). C-building becomes a huge factor in creating innovation. When you see a standard / safe team that is being dominant or doing super well in multiple tours, you ask yourself how to then build a team that doesn't lose to that. As a response to it, you then start to build teams to counter it or be able to deal with it. This may require breeding new sets on a Pokemon or again, an unconventional combination 6 generic pokemon, to deal with it. That's still innovation and it comes as a response to wanting to counter something. When I played DPP in SPL, one of the most safest and best builds out there was a BKC team with (TTar / Nidoqueen / Skarm / Jira / Clef / Rotom). It's a team that can perhaps handle one water type, but if you overload it with 2 water types or a water type with longevity, then it can lose. I then made sure that it was a requirement that every team I built from then on was capable of beating such a team. So I am innovating or coming up with new builds as being able to beat a standard team has sort of become my baseline for building a good counterteam. I think countering is a much bigger incentive to innovation than simply innovating because it is fun. The reason being that losing sucks and feels terrible. At the same time it is also a learning lesson for you to then change your approach so that you can avoid that same shitty feeling you experienced. Repeating the same pattern of using the same old playstyle that brought about the loss would fall under the definition of insanity of Einstein. So a player is forced to branch out to different playstyles. It's just that in this tour system, this happens way too late in the tour, which to me is worse. Innovation is innovation nonetheless. It is a gamble if it works, but changing the metagame for the better is what we should strive for. Sure we don't know what our opponent is going to run, but if you go into your game with a psychological advantage that your team is better than theirs, that helps a lot. Regarding the bolded part, the opposing player is still not a bot. We don't really know what exactly will happen beforehand, but I'm happy to learn from my wins/losses because that is information that is useful. If I run a team that I was earlier sure about having an upper hand match up wise, and it turned out to be false, I can know not to repeat it.

In a 128 man OU tournament, 64 players advance to the next round. This means that the information would be "gleaning" over is of 63 participants. Gathering information of 63 players with the time available is literally impossible unless you have the power to hack into the game to know who your opponent is in advance or the power to stop time. There is something called an incentive, which drives people towards wanting to innovate. This system incentivizes players to play safe rather than innovate because the lack of scouting makes the risk of bringing an innovative build over a safe build all the more higher. At the end of the day, both players (the safe player and the riskier player) compete for the same prize, so the riskier player enjoys no benefit by taking the higher risk by bringing that riskier build. When you don't give players a reason to want to innovate, then yes you are hindering the meta which contributes to its stagnation. The bolded part is simply anecdotal and not specific enough to be given much weight. There is no reference as to which players you are referring to, the situation in which these players were competing in, the skill level of the players competing etc. Just because the players you have watched were running safe builds does not mean that the rest of the players you did not watch were also running safe builds. This is then used to support your stance that playing safe has always been the mantra. In short, it is a weak stance. People do run safe builds in the first round, but they go out of their comfort zone in the later rounds. In a scouting-based system, there will still be players who run safe builds, but there are also folks who run riskier builds. If you want evidence for this, I can show you replays of SPL / WCOP for almost any gen. You are now adding an additional factor as to why players in MMO run safe builds -> the resources argument. This bolded part is also false because there is still a commonality with the loss associated with Showdown and MMO. 1) You referred to the loss in MMO as "money, items, breeding fodder, and time." What you have actually then lost is time because what you mostly spent to acquire those money, items, breeding fodder is time to grind them. 2) When you invest in resources to build a team, you are also investing in resources to build those actual pokemon. We also need to define what we mean by a "risky build." It can consist of an unconventional set on a Pokemon or an unconventional combination of 6 pokemon. If you breed 12 pokemon with generic sets, but an unconventional combination of 6 of them results in your loss, it is not a waste of investment of money or breeding fodder because all it means is that the combination you ran was wrong, not the components of the combination. 3) If you do run something idiotic like a Choice Specs Scyther, then yes that could be a complete waste of investment because it is unlikely you will be able to use it effectively unless you manage to sell it to another fool down the road, in which case it still wouldn't be a waste of time since you are getting your money's worth. These same resources can be used for grinding NPCs or as breeding fodder itself, so the likelihood of you breeding something that is a complete waste of time is rare. 4) As far as Showdown players go, they have the freedom to build more teams than the MMO player, which also means that they spend a lot more time testing out teams. They also compete in tournaments where they play biweekly for 3 months to then be eligible to qualify for Playoffs (the tour is called Smogon Tour). Some of them still run riskier builds in playoffs with the risk that in one bo3 they are completely eliminated for a tour that they spent months to qualify. So saying that all that a Showdown players loses is a bit of time and pride is heavily downplaying the amount of time they have lost.

I see what you mean now. I do agree that Blaziken being at full health is what stopped Absol from sweeping by going to Slowbro. I think it was still the riskier route because you have to win a bunch of 50/50s, as you mentioned, and there is that additional risk of crit happening at a higher attack stage which is far more daunting. For example, let's stay that Toxicroak didn't crit Slowbro. He suckered at +4 when Slowbro used Future Sight. Then he drain punch kills Slowbro. Then Blaziken comes out for the revenge kill, which is ALSO the turn that Future Sight activates. That means Toxicroak was always going to either be at +2 (if he future sighed t1) or +4 depending on how Tawla played it out. So unless Tawla miraculously won a bunch of 50/50s with the Future Sight-Sucker Punch interaction, he was worse off. With that being said, I think going to Clefable against the Absol was a misplay because that became a 100% loss route.

Can you explain to me why going to Blaziken was a terrible play? I'm sorry but I lost track. You're focused more on Tawla losing the game nonetheless because of the hax rather than when he could've made more optimal plays to still turn things around. The reason Tawla got swept by an Absol is because he let it get to +2. Going to Slowbro / Clefable would've enabled that to happen, which is why he should've made sure that it was always Blaziken / Vanilluxe to face Absol. We definitely know that Espeon isn't Specs because of damage to Slowbro with Signal Beam. If Espeon is Scarf and facing Vanilluxe after it killed Absol, then if Clefable was alive it dealt with it. Espeon can't trick Vanilluxe as it would be forced to attack. Clefable can then stall out whatever move it is locked into Psychic or Psyshock.

There is a difference though because in one situation you're giving an opponent an extra turn to crit. No one is saying that going to Slowbro was a misplay because of the crit. It was a misplay because 1) going to Infernape at +2 has much better odds than letting it to go to +4 against Slowbro. Not only did it crit Slowbro, but it would also have been possible for Toxicroak to then crit Blaziken when it was +4 as well. The other reason I think going to Slowbro was potentially a misplay is because assuming Slowbro kills Toxicroak, doesn't Absol then get an SD? It would need to dodge a burn, but if it did so, that too could've been threatening. If CJ went for the Superpower, he 100% lost the game, didn't he? Because if he superpowers Clefable, then Tawla brings in Vanilluxe, which kills the Absol. Espy comes in, and then dies to Blaziken. CJ's best play was to SD, so he should do it even if he feared Clefable had something else. If Clefable did indeed have something else, then he would've lost in either scenario -> whether he SD'd or Superpowered. So it was better for him to go with the SD route.

I don't think crits should be taken into account as far as a misplay goes. I think Sweet mentioned it correctly when he said that the best play was to immediately future sight with slowbro rather than slack off. That Toxicroak shouldn't have gotten to +4 vs Slowbro. If we're also looking at the crit from the turn or the stage in which it took place, the Slowbro crit took place when Toxicroak was at +4, whereas the Blaziken would've come in when Toxicroak was at +2, and so there was a difference of a turn. I think at that point the Clefable revealed that it was Teleport? It also took damage so you could see that it was of the bulkier variant. I don't think offensive Clefables would run Teleport, and I don't know if I have seen a Tri Attack Clefable ever. If it revealed Tri Attack, I would've been caught by surprise because my decisions would've been guided by prior knowledge. Something like Tri Attack would be unforeseeable, and so I wouldn't call it a misplay. Nonetheless, if CJ wanted to win, his best option was to SD, because attacking the Clefable right away would've then lost him the game guaranteed. Also, if Clefable was Tri Attack or Toxic or whatever it was, it would have then explained why Tawla switched it into an Absol. But given that all it did was Seismic Toss the Absol, it means that his Clefable was incapable of stopping Absol from getting a free SD, which means that his decision did result in Absol getting a free SD against it. I get preserving Blaziken incase it was a Specs Psyshock Espeon in the back, but what was in front of him was an Absol that he couldn't stop from getting a free SD. He didn't 100% know the Espeon set, but he still chose the 100% loss route by going Clefable against Absol when it wasn't able to stop Absol from SD'ing up. Lotus mentioned another potentially great play which would've been to go to Vanilluxe on the Sucker Punch, thereby preserving the Blaziken. EDIT: It wasn't Specs Espeon based off the damage it did to Slowbro when it used Signal Beam.

This part is just so unclear. I don't know in what context you're saying that people are still employing scouts when that is the difficulty at hand. How is the info I need distorted by extra info? At what stage precisely is the person distilling that info to build a robust team? If you mean building before a tournament, no one is denying that this is an important skill. But time management and being able to distill all that extra info in less than 10 min is also a skill even if you know what you are facing. Counterteaming isn't as simple as knowing what your opponent ran the last round because there is always a risk that your opponent changes the team. There are players who build teams that can handle effectively handle other playstyles prior to the tournament, who fit in your example, and they too would benefit from a scouting system so that they can use the right robust team for the occasion. Assuming one builds their team in less than 10 min, not only are they building it while keeping in mind of what their opponent ran last round, but they are also keeping in mind what the other threats they could come against, which means they are doing more work than the one-team player and in lesser time. The reason there is a lack of scouts is because of this system. You're also assuming that newer comp players don't try to join teams and try learning from others. Can you support that assumption? My assumption is mostly based on the newcomers in PSL who all are in a part of a team. It probably isn't an accurate sample size but if you have any way to support your assumption that a newer player will never be able to bridge the gap between a veteran and a newcomer as far as resources go, please share it. There is no explicit barrier in the game for a newcomer to do so, for instance there is no requirement that in order to join a team you need to have certain credentials / resources. There is also a tournament called a "Team Tournament" which requires players to be in a team in order to participate, which gives players another incentive to try to join teams to participate. I don't see any reason why a team would reject a skillful player despite their lack of resources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how this part addresses my earlier part about the flaws in the system. I also don't understand what is wrong with gathering information and detecting a pattern in your opponent's plays or likelihood to bring a certain team. This can also backfire because you're not playing a bot, but an actual human person. Pokemon is a psychological game and the other person can lure you into a false sense of them bringing a certain playstyle when they aren't. Which part of my statement was false? I'm not saying people don't bring anything new at all, but the system encourages people to play with safe builds. This isn't new, but just because it isn't new doesn't mean that it is a good thing. I also explained why it isn't a good thing as far as the metagame goes. Playing with safe builds is good in this system, but not in another kind of system because it makes you predictable which can then make you vulnerable to other situations. Safe builds don't always guarantee a win, it just has good odds of beating a newcomer because this newcomer is inexperienced to get past a safe build, whereas a more experienced player will be able to break it apart. Safe builds are safe because they try to cover everything in the metagame, without rarely having much of a strategy of their own. What you call "experimental build" I call advancing the metagame, and advancing the metagame is always a healthy way to achieve that end. Pokemon games aren't meant to be a gamble. Choosing your team isn't meant to be a gamble. If you try to associate a competitive game with a "gamble" then we completely differ on our ideas of what competitive means. If I put the time and effort to predict what my opponent would run rather than gambling, and it either backfires or works in my favor, then that is data that I can use to serve me better in the future. I don't like making decisions without any lack of data. What's the difference between "scouting" and "direct information reporting"? Give me an example of how "even with scouting the meta has stagnated many times." All you have done is provide a conclusory statement. I can give you another example, with respect to MMO, as how a metagame has changed. A few years ago, people used to run Exeggutor to counter Breloom and Scizor, but Houndoom was also prevalent at that time which meant that Exeggutor was no longer a good answer if Breloom and Scizor were paired with Houndoom. So people had to come up with a new answer for Breloom and Scizor that wasn't trappable by Houndoom, and that's how Defensive Altaria with Flamethrower was born. Now show me an example of an active metagame stagnating with scouting prevalent. There is a difference between a metagame stagnating and the inability to come up with new techs to change the metagame. The former means that people aren't making efforts to make any changes to the metagame and the latter is where people's efforts have failed. EDIT: You said that the player on top has a larger target on their back, I agree. And when you say people work on innovating and breaking that team, that's exactly what we want as well. In the current tournament system it becomes hard to do since you don't know whom you're facing so you won't be able to run that team that can break theirs. You then mention that a player hinders themselves in the long run by not making extra investments, which the current system encourages them not to do. The only reason such players would fall from their standing is because players "scouted" or "countered" them.

Those sneakers have been collecting dust because you've been unable to play hoops :(

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." The notion that "Oh you shouldn't rely on counterteaming to win" can also be reversed by saying that this one-team player should be capable of building a team that isn't so easily countered. Building a team that makes it hard for someone to counter you is also a skill, just as how being able to identify what a player's team is weak to is also a skill. This kind of system doesn't encourage both skills. If you know your opponent is incapable of counterteaming you, then you won't try to make your team counterteam-proof. This isn't to say that a team can be counterteam-proof, but it is about making it as close to it as it can be. For example, if your opponent needs a very niche threat that has not been introduced into the metagame to beat you, that is making your team close towards being counterteam-proof. The argument that a new player shouldn't be punished because lack of resources is not a competitive argument. There is a relationship to it since tournaments are played in this game where resources matter, but it is something that can be detached from what people consider to be "competitive." Moreover, it is a weak argument because nothing stops you from borrowing resources from your friends or teammates. 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. 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. A scouting-less system stagnates a metagame, which is essentially the opposite of what a healthy metagame should be like. Look at old generations like ADV or DPP, which have been around for decades still changing to this date because scouting allows for top players to constantly innovate and come up with anti-metagame techs. People also try to create concepts around "lures" as a surprise because it is effective, however they are one-trick ponies. In a tournament system like this, people are never going to resort to one-trick ponies because doing so would require investing in more resources (time and money to build more teams), and since this system does not punish a player for not being versatile, they aren't encouraged to make these extra investments.

First round or win it all!

The thing is, the turn Slowbro died, Toxicroak was at +4. So it would depend on which of the two situations is better: 1) Infernape taking +2 Sucker Punch + Higher Recoil Damage; or 2) Infernape taking +4 Sucker Punch + Lower Recoil Damage I'm not aware of the calcs about it, but I think 1) seems to be healthier.

Hax is a very common part of the game, so if it still tilts you or throws you off your game, then you are at fault. I can understand not thinking clearly if there are external factors during your game, like someone informing you of an upsetting news or if you're getting a uguu from Katy Perry like Doc, but at this point if you can't think clearly once hax starts to kick in, which it inevitably does, the fault is then on you.

This is going to be another edition of me providing constructive criticism on a game. Incase you want to say, "Who asked?," the answer is no one did but I'm doing this so as to help players learn from their mistakes rather than immediately tilting from hax and blaming it. Totally not because I want to find a way to stay relevant. Tawla said "Hax won," and admittedly hax did influence the way the game was played, but it was not completely determinative of the outcome. Let's look at what plays could've been done better. Turn 21: https://youtu.be/yFNh_yQEi7A?t=594 Steelix vs Serp. I don't really see the purpose of rocking here. It's not likely that the opponent has a Sash user in the back because I think Sash Espeon is unheard of, and Absol wants Scope Lens. Toxicroak also doesn't seem like the kind to run sash (it revealed Lum later, however, that is hindsight benefit), but nonetheless, rocks are always useful. So, I can give one the benefit of the doubt there, and since no damage was taken that turn by Steelix from Serp, as Serp glared that turn, it wasn't a punishing turn. ------------- Turn 22: https://youtu.be/yFNh_yQEi7A?t=616 I don't get staying in with Steelix. A paralyzed Steelix is probably not beating Serp, so the best play there is to go to Clefable and teleport to Blaziken. Flare Blittz smashes everything there. Also keeping Steelix at full health is always nice for sturdy, which would've then later helped against something like Absol. -------------- Turn 28: https://youtu.be/yFNh_yQEi7A?t=776 I would've been greedy and SD'd again with Toxicroak. But cj decided to kill the Rotom there. -------------- Turn 29: https://youtu.be/yFNh_yQEi7A?t=792 Why not go to Blaziken after Rotom died and Toxicroak was at +2? Blaziken was literally at full health, so I didn't see the purpose of going to Slowbro. Blaziken also resists sucker punch so it would've killed Toxicroak there, which would've then left you with a healthy Slowbro (although given that Slowbro sucks against Espeon / Absol, it wasn't that much of a problem.) The benefit of this though would've been that Blaziken would've only taken a +2 Sucker Punch instead of a +4 Sucker Punch. --------------- Turn 32: https://youtu.be/yFNh_yQEi7A?t=1025 Instead of staying in with Blaziken against Absol, Tawla went to Clefable, which then gave Absol a FREE SD. Staying in with Blaziken would've forced Absol to Sucker Punch that turn, which means that when Specs Vanilluxe came in, it would've been facing a non-boosted Absol. Those are all that I could find, and of course I'm willing to hear criticisms on the above plays that I suggested too. Shoutouts to Mago for providing the community with recordings of the battle with enjoyable music to go along with it.

Even though Darker got lucky, Senju could have still won that game if he made a different play at a certain point. The flinching of P2 due to Kings Rock Cloyster was definitely terrible, and of course there are a bunch of morons who decided to make hax items legal and there will be a few who decide to abuse it, but I digress. When Cloyster was at +2 attack and speed, and was facing a Weavile (at 10% health), Darker switched out his Cloyster to Skarmory. This meant that his Cloyster didn't have Ice Shard. Now you can say that he was bluffing about hiding Ice Shard, but it doesn't make sense to make a bluff when you are way ahead and lost nothing by revealing it. Later on in the game, when it was neutral boosted Cloyster (at less than 10% health) vs Garchomp, instead of staying in with Garchomp and killing the Cloyster with EQ, he switched out his Garchomp to P2, which ultimately resulted in P2 dying to Cloyster. I'm not saying that the hax didn't matter at all, but there was a way to avoid it and part of Pokemon is learning why you lost or finding a way to win despite the shitty luck you face. That's why I'm the best of all time. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

I'm upset that Kuisha didn't list me alongside Frags, Bowser, and JSTUD, as one of the top players in this game :(

Damn, one must've done something really wrong to piss off the entire rest of the Spanish-speaking community.

@Mlhawk