Jump to content

pachima

Tier Council
  • Posts

    2483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pachima

  1. Goddamn this is beautiful. @gbwead I know you like these stuff.
  2. Feel free to call me arrogant, if you think that helps you nonarguments. The issue is simple, people are just overcomplicating it for no reason. People don't pick lower tiers cause they can pick OU in the same timeframe, its as simple as that. How do you fix that? Create different timewindows for OU and lower tiers. See? Also simple. is it good? No. Is it simple? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes. All I see is people using this thread as an excuse to boost rewards, and as a result we derailed to the point of, for the 500th time, claiming tours have bad rewards. Why? Because people don't care about lower tiers, they care about rewards more than that, and this isn't the thread for that. If you still cannot understand, let me rephrase it simply, what some of ppl's arguments in here hare. - All tiers have similar rewards, but people pick OU nevertheless. But wait, if we boost all rewards in all tiers, then we would have (magically): - All tiers have similar rewards, but fear not cause people would also pick other tiers nevertheless. Does it fix the issue? No, unless you only boost lower tiers, which they cant do as stated above. Is it good? Yes, it is. Does it make sense? No. Do I like it? No. Would I want better rewards? Yes, but its pointless to the thread in question so please for the love of God stop claiming it in here. If you want better rewards, go create yet another thread.
  3. Yes, 100% agree, now we are getting somewhere. But here is the thing. (Note I said "we would", meaning that its something that isnt happening, because of what I stated earlier) If they boost every reward in every tier, like plebs above are suggesting, then the same happens, full stop. If devs simply boost lower tiers rewards, then they would have to deal, not with 50 ppl that play lower tiers, but with 4000 that play OU and consider that boost unfair to them. That's something they shouldnt' do and won't do, for obvious purposes. Different timewindows is still the only fair way to fix this issue at some extent.
  4. As I said and will repeat, no matter if people believe in it or not, while we have OU + UU/NU MM ranked at the same time, the vast majority of players will queue to OU, period. Rewards are irrelevant, cause if they were not, we wouldn't have active lower tiers in the beginning in the first place, and we would have a more balanced flux of players in each tier cause every tier has similar rewards. So, the only surefire way to fix the low flux in lower tiers is creating timewindows separately, for OU and lower tiers, simple as that.
  5. Semi-finals has finally come! #top4plebs #Rotomsneedtogo #Villainsbetrayal #LunasSailingtothewin #Thinkbetterhost #1and2return #Nobias #Darylinverymad #Unfairadvantages #Riggedcointoss #Napoleonbonabat #Zigh'slastchance Any doubt contact your manager, or check discord links. The Ruthless Rotoms (5) vs (1) Sailor Lunatones OU1: Darker vs Senjutsuka OU2: Stelian vs DoubleJ UU: Zennen vs Tohnr NU: xLuneth vs Artemiseta Doubles: AkaruKokuyo vs Zigh LC: Xondex vs Aldahirramirez M-LC: Mkns vs SweeTforU Devil Bats (1) vs (4) Empoleon Bonapartists OU1: Frags vs Getovaherez OU2: CristhianArce vs Schuchty UU: Urquidi vs MadaraSixSix NU: tmoi vs Cristi Doubles: GasaiYunoSan vs Superman LC: KiiritoX vs YeyoXD M-Dubs: TiToooo vs Badbaarsito Matches can be played from Monday December 7th 16h00 GMT until Monday 14th 23:59 GMT.
  6. I've been thinking about this a bit further. 1- Buffing prizes won't work. Prizes aren't relevant at all cause if they were, we'd see all tiers played equally, which we don't. (Unless we drastically buff, which won't happen, and is not healthy for the game) 2- UU- NU IS more restricted than OU. The big masses are mostly casuals who use their favorites and therefore have to play OU. It doesn't really matter if NU has more viable pokes or not, OU doesn't restrict, NU does, period. 3- With 1, and 2, I conclude that the reason why UU-NU are dead is because of OU itself. For as long as we have the three tiers available at the same, the big masses will almost always pick OU, automatically reducing UU-NU flux of players. So, since I'm forced to agree it is hard to make lower tiers more interesting, the only way I can see of fixing this issue is having different timewindows for OU and UU-NU.
  7. It's simple. System works fine. People should play both tiers with equal motivation because their rewarding is similar. If they don't is because: a) UU and NU are much more restrictive than OU, in the sense you can use less mons there, which means plenty of players won't breed dedicated teams for those tiers. b) UU and NU are simply not interesting enough for the big masses. If you want to fix the issue, you try to make the tiers more interesting (Not exactly sure how). If you simply add bonus rewards for those tiers, all you are doing is delaying the issue. People would start playing again,because of the novelty, and then, gradually, you'd see exactly what happened before, less and less people signing.
  8. This is clearly community's fault, not system fault. System proved to be super effective when it first was introduced and it's not like it has changed in the meantime. Nerfing/ boosting UU-NU also makes no sense because the rewards for each tier are approximately the same, and therefore people should have the same motivation to play all of them equally. If they don't, it is because they don't want, or let me rephrase it better, the vast majority don't want (You may know 10 or 20 individuals who would like to actively play UU-NU, but thats so far from the majority) If you want more people to care about lower tiers, simply create more tours around these tiers, more events around these tiers. Anything that promotes these tiers as tiers and not as MM, so more people will actually try to join these tiers on MM. TLDR; MM system is fine, it has proved so in the past. If the vast majority don't play lower tiers it's because they don't feel interested enough in these tier. If you want them to care about it, improve anything else that is lacking, not something that inherently is fine.
  9. As an irrelevant note: Petition to change Hall of Fame to Hall of Grind.
  10. Allow me to speak my mind of the 3 options. Old system: Promotes hard counterteam buildings that are solely exclusive made to beat that one team, and fail miserably against everything else. In most games with this type of building, the skill exerted into the actual game is little or none. The winner player is whoever rolled the better matchup team, not whoever read the game better (Note that this doesn't happen everytime, but the system itself promotes these situations, which we shouldn't want to) - It also gives inherent advantage to bigger scouting teams. New system: It is, imo, a step in the right direction, since it hinders the hard counterteaming aspect until late rounds. Although it is, again imo, preferable that the old system, it still has 2 inherent flaws: Early round teams are a bit random, since they fall in the false sense of safety of being uncountered. Second is that late rounds are still subjected to hard counterteaming. Possible newer system: Something regarding fixed Battle Boxes selected prior to the tour happening. Players would then be somewhat forced to build decently solid teams in order to have the odds in their favor against several different opposing teams. Number of Battle Boxes would have to be low to avoid specific counterteamings to common teams selected as "filler" battle boxes. PS: Before you say that counterteaming is part of the game, there is a difference between the ideal world where players would create a team that is solid overall and excels against the opposing teams AND a team that is only viable against the opposing team, and fails miserably against everything else. First isn't entirely matchup dependant, allows skill exerted into the actual match, and makes the tier evolve. Second does not. Thank you all.
  11. All I learnt is that according to these guys the better player is the one who enters the match with the better matchup team, and not the one who reads the game better. *flees*
  12. No. You got it all wrong. It's a win/win scenario. - If counterteam is successful, they win - If counterteam is unsuccessful then they have to win with the most dumb team ever, and since they consider the game too easy, its a challenge they won't find anywhere else. Also, no-water resistance teams >
  13. 1 - Do you realize how controversial this is? You are saying u don't need matchup to win, but then you outright imply you need to use a counterteam for whoever your opponent may be. If you want to counterteam the enemy, then you necessarily want to win via matchup, disregarding all skill put into the game. However, building a solid team around stuff that are good versus the few different opponents you may find, like nikhilr said, makes you able to beat all those enemies most of the time without relying on matchup alone. 2- No one is saying you are not good at playing. All I am saying, and this is not directed to anyone in particular, is that people who want to win via counterteams (and I've seen a lot of hard counterteams that are inherently bad) don't want to put effort into the actual game to win.
  14. If you put effort in all your teams and your opponent doesn't then your teams are more solid than theirs, and thus giving you better odds. Now if you ask: b-but what if they only have 1 solid team? And I reply: Then in the long term they are more prone to lose eventually. If you don't believe go check how many tournament high round players actually reached there without switching teams, and how many reached there switching teams. Also, just for the sake of it, go check how many players didnt switch teams in old system, cause I guarantee you the number is about the same.
  15. That's what more low speed means in darylese :)
  16. Why is it so relevant to have good matchups? You can't win if you have a bad matchup? You cant actually put skill into the game itself to win a game with bad matchup? Because sadly this is what everyone thinks, and as a result we have a very poor community mentality where everyone thinks copying teams >>>>, ignoring the fact they are completely clueless how to play said teams. Yes, it's nice to have good matchups, but a solid team never has awful matchups (that are common) and that are 6-0d by literally everything, and thus allow their players to actually turn their odds in their favor by actually playing their game skillfully. If you don't want to actually play your game, outplaying the enemy, but rather winning the game turn 1 on teampreview with a cool matchup, then this shouldn't be the game for you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.