Jump to content
  • 16

[PvP] Locked in team


ThinkNicer

Question

This might be a bit of a controversial suggestion. But I want to suggest the staff that host tournaments to consider using a 'lock in' of some sort for tournies. Basically it means that players cannot change their teams from the initial team that they signed up with.

 

Why would you want that? That makes scouting a huge issue. Well, scouting already is a huge issue. So this actually levels the playing field. Consider it like this, in tournaments I have to consider the possibility that my team has been scouted. But I'm not sure to what extend. I can't be sure that my opponent will make plays based on scouted information. Therefore I never have a clear idea of what to expect. This, in my opinion, is not competitive.

 

If, however, teams are locked in from the start. I can be sure that everyone will scout their opponents. I will do the same. Our level of information is the same, so the battle becomes more competitive as a result. What I'm suggesting isn't an uncommon thing. It's used in VGC and smogon tournaments and I like that it enables a higher level of thinking (my opponent knows I have x, and i know that they know I have x).

 

So here are the pros in short:

- A lower entry barrier for PvP. If you want to make it far in tournaments, you almost always have to have multiple teams. But not with a system like this.

- Lower entry barrier means players can spread their focus across tiers more easily. This should help tiers like UU and NU grow immensely, because all of the player's money doesn't have to be spent on 5multiple OU teams/pokemon.

- A more equal information game. The more equal the level of information is, the more skill based a game becomes. Chess, for example, is a perfect information game.

- More emphasis on strong teambuilding. Because counter teaming won't be a thing, players are encouraged to build teams that are well prepared for a majority of threats.

 

Cons:

- Bad matchups are amplified.

- Surprise gimmick moves/pokemon are less powerful.

 

I'm not saying that every tournament should use a 'lock in' system. But it sure won't hurt to try a few times to see what people will think of it.

Edited by ThinkNicer
Added a pro (second one)
Link to comment

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Doubt this will ever happen. Devs want players to farm multiple mons etc healthy economy etc. Only needing 1 team to enter tournaments pretty much defeats the whole point of that. Not even gonna mention how lame it is to go from a rain matchup to a stall matchup, without being able to swap my team etc since that's been talked about countless times in similar threads. 

Link to comment
  • 0

Though I like the principle of lowering the barrier of entry for newer players I do not think this suggestion is feasible. I would like to go over your cons again as I believe I should elaborate.

 

"Bad matchups are amplified"
This is really unhealthy for the tournament, why should the better player lose because he/she couldn't change his/her team? Even in VGC where you are forced to bring only 1 team it does allow both players to change up their 4 picks (out of 6) to make each game different. Not to mention scouting is near impossible with the bracket changing every round. At the end of the day, it would suck to see the better player lose because his opponent brought an obscure mon that is not very consistent but was amazing for that one team. I would also like to point out that some people prefer to use different play styles depending on who they are playing, if they were forced to use only one team that could place an impact on their results.

 

"Surprise gimmick moves/pokemon are less powerful"
If you take this at face value, many strategies become useless. Got a mon with an unusual hidden power? Well now your opponent will never get lured in. This kind of ruins creativity and consistency. Now if we look at this from a broader angle, no doubt would we see usage stats being very skewed. The gimmicky mons would fall down tiers and the better players would somewhat control the top used mons because they are simply playing more games.

 

Another point is that scouting is very unreliable. Sure you could try to fully counter team poor Timmy in a tournament but what if he changed his team? Suddenly you are the one that has a poor matchup and  Timmy wins as a result. If you are very concerned about being scouted ask your friends to borrow a team or grind up another squad of mons. You should treat every game uniquely and be more concerned with how consistent your teams are rather than counter teaming. 

 

Spoiler

TLDR
- The better player should win most of the time

- No room to swap play style
- Mons may drop tiers that they shouldn't
- Top tournament players would somewhat control usage
- Counter teaming isn't worth it most of the time

 

Edited by xXBlu3BreathXx
Link to comment
  • 0
12 hours ago, LifeStyleNORE said:

Doubt this will ever happen. Devs want players to farm multiple mons etc healthy economy etc. Only needing 1 team to enter tournaments pretty much defeats the whole point of that. Not even gonna mention how lame it is to go from a rain matchup to a stall matchup, without being able to swap my team etc since that's been talked about countless times in similar threads. 

Lock in tournaments won't hurt the economy one bit. Players that invest heavily into OU can more freely try out other tiers with lock in tours, so they will still spend money. Even if they keep playing OU, a competitive player will still want to try new teams or strategies. If a player is satisfied with just 6 pokemon, they would never spend much more money in any other format anyway. Additionally not every tournament should be a lock in tour, so the economy point is moot. 

 

Going from rain to stall, idk how that is relevant. Git gud at teambuilding I guess? Although I suspect that rain would be less popular in lock in tours. Because full on rain teams have an even harder time of winning a bad match up. So it's risky to lock yourself into full on weather teams.

 

1 hour ago, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

"Bad matchups are amplified"
This is really unhealthy for the tournament, why should the better player lose because he/she couldn't change his/her team? Even in VGC where you are forced to bring only 1 team it does allow both players to change up their 4 picks (out of 6) to make each game different. Not to mention scouting is near impossible with the bracket changing every round. At the end of the day, it would suck to see the better player lose because his opponent brought an obscure mon that is not very consistent but was amazing for that one team. I would also like to point out that some people prefer to use different play styles depending on who they are playing, if they were forced to use only one team that could place an impact on their results.

Even VGC, like you said, has bad match ups. Even if they can switch between their Pokemon. Bad matchups are not an auto loss (unless youre playing stall lol). So I don't really see what you're arguing here. 

 

A good player can lose against an obscure Pokemon that is inconsistent. But an inconsistent obscure Pokemon is unlikely to make it past the first two rounds of a tournament. And if it does, it isn't a very inconsistent Pokemon now is it? So you either have

A) a good player loses to an obscure pokemon in the early rounds, which can already happen. Or

B) a player brought an obscure pokemon that performs well in the meta, and is rewarded by winning matches. Not really a problem.

 

1 hour ago, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

"Surprise gimmick moves/pokemon are less powerful"
If you take this at face value, many strategies become useless. Got a mon with an unusual hidden power? Well now your opponent will never get lured in. This kind of ruins creativity and consistency. Now if we look at this from a broader angle, no doubt would we see usage stats being very skewed. The gimmicky mons would fall down tiers and the better players would somewhat control the top used mons because they are simply playing more games.

 

Another point is that scouting is very unreliable. Sure you could try to fully counter team poor Timmy in a tournament but what if he changed his team? Suddenly you are the one that has a poor matchup and  Timmy wins as a result. If you are very concerned about being scouted ask your friends to borrow a team or grind up another squad of mons. You should treat every game uniquely and be more concerned with how consistent your teams are rather than counter teaming. 

An unusual hidden power still forces mind games, especially if you already know that your opponent knows that you have it. Weird hidden powers won't become unusable, they will be harder to use correctly. And that's fine in my opinion. 

 

I have a special infernape without a grass move. My opponent has a swampert and knows i dont have a grass move. Well now I could play differently, maybe I can double switch into something that benefits from Swampert being on the field? Maybe my opponent thinks Swampert is too obvious and makes a different play? With more information, the game only becomes more complicated. It doesn't make versatile and gimmick pokemon useless. 

 

On your scouting paragraph: but that isnt the reality. Counter teaming happens, especially in later rounds. You aren't rewarded for building a well balanced team and sticking to it. You will be countered with obscure picks or move choices. Your mention of using team mates and other teams is exactly the problem with the entry barrier. Not every player will have multiple team mates that can help at any time or have the pokemon they need. It just further divides wealthy players and teams from newcomers. 

 

If I want to test how good my team is, I cant do it in a tournament. Only on the ladder and that's just kinda sad.

Link to comment
  • 0
17 hours ago, ThinkNicer said:

I'm not saying that every tournament should use a 'lock in' system. But it sure won't hurt to try a few times to see what people will think of it.

I don't mind gimmick tournaments, a 1 team tournament wouldn't be bad for a gimmick event, but asking for it to become the norm : nty. 

Link to comment
  • 0
2 hours ago, ThinkNicer said:

Even VGC, like you said, has bad match ups. Even if they can switch between their Pokemon. Bad matchups are not an auto loss (unless youre playing stall lol). So I don't really see what you're arguing here. 

VGC doesn't really have many scenarios where you can have a bad matchup. It's more about planning ahead to what you think your opponent with bring, specifically what they will lead. Most cases of a bad matchup is just having a bad lead matchup.

Quote

 

A good player can lose against an obscure Pokemon that is inconsistent. But an inconsistent obscure Pokemon is unlikely to make it past the first two rounds of a tournament. And if it does, it isn't a very inconsistent Pokemon now is it? So you either have

A) a good player loses to an obscure pokemon in the early rounds, which can already happen. Or

B) a player brought an obscure pokemon that performs well in the meta, and is rewarded by winning matches. Not really a problem.

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this but you say it is unlikely for this scenario to happen, there are many noob vs noob games in the early rounds of a tournament. Most people which play this game have no idea how it works and can still win just because of RNG or some insane matchup. I would much rather players worry about swapping their team instead of thinking "if I run into X mon with Y move in the tournament I lose". 

Quote

 

An unusual hidden power still forces mind games, especially if you already know that your opponent knows that you have it. Weird hidden powers won't become unusable, they will be harder to use correctly. And that's fine in my opinion. 

 

I have a special infernape without a grass move. My opponent has a swampert and knows i dont have a grass move. Well now I could play differently, maybe I can double switch into something that benefits from Swampert being on the field? Maybe my opponent thinks Swampert is too obvious and makes a different play? With more information, the game only becomes more complicated. It doesn't make versatile and gimmick pokemon useless. 

Pokemon is not meant to be played like this, you are supposed to make a educated guess on what they might or should be running. E.g. I see Chansey, Garchomp and 4 other pokemon that don't learn Stealth Rocks. I will assume that Chansey will be carrying Rocks, however with the system you propose I will know that Garchomp is the Rocker. This is not fair for both parties to know each others full movesets. Sure with scouting you can make an assumption they will bring that same team but it is never guaranteed. Tournament play would be fundamentally different from match making and PSL, to me that just doesn't make any sense. Why should there be different rules in play for only tournaments?

Quote

 

On your scouting paragraph: but that isnt the reality. Counter teaming happens, especially in later rounds. You aren't rewarded for building a well balanced team and sticking to it. You will be countered with obscure picks or move choices. Your mention of using team mates and other teams is exactly the problem with the entry barrier. Not every player will have multiple team mates that can help at any time or have the pokemon they need. It just further divides wealthy players and teams from newcomers. 

 

If I want to test how good my team is, I cant do it in a tournament. Only on the ladder and that's just kinda sad.

Counter teaming will always happen but not to the extent you would probably think. The only times I see it working in full force is if someone has used the exact same team multiple rounds in a row, at that point you are kind of asking for it. If you were serious about tournament play I would advise getting 2 teams and some substitutions to throw off counter teaming, there isn't much you can do to lower the barrier of entry without changing how the game is designed to be played. If anything getting competitive mons and items cheaper is how you would do it. Sure 5x31 or even 6x31 are optimal but new players can make do with 2x31 and have the rest 27+ to start off with.

Testing a team in a tournament isn't a great idea, players are there to win. Imagine if you reach the finals and want to test out a brand new team, sure it can work but finals isn't exactly a great place to do so.

Edited by xXBlu3BreathXx
Link to comment
  • 0

When you compare the pros VS the cons it's obvious to me this is an idea that would hurt more people than it would help. A few quick points I see as the main issues, some of which may have been said already

 

- Low entry fee to play tournaments

  Tournaments are meant to be the most competitive place to play PvP, where the ideal goal is for everyone to be trying their best to win. New players should not just be handed the same opportunities as someone with thousands of hours played, they need to earn the same advantages we did. If I spend the time/money/effort to breed 3 different variants for each Pokemon in a tier, I should have that advantage.

 

- Scouting

  Not even sure how that's a real argument, that somehow having a finals matchup where both players know the exact moves/items of their opponent is even close to the current system. At least in the current system, I have the ability to avoid scouting by again, spending that extra time of making different variants of the same Pokemon.

 

- 'Better teambuilding'

  In the current system, you are able to use whatever playstyle you want and have the chance to succeed. If I believe I have a bad matchup, I am free to change playstyles for the next round. With this idea, you are going to punish poor matchups which will likely result in everyone shifting towards only using balance/stall, in fear of not wanting those poor rain VS sand matchups as an example. I don't think that is healthy at all.

 

- "A more unique information game"

  You compared this to chess, but Pokemon is far from it. The top competitive players already have the knowledge of what is meta, and if another top competitive player is ballsy enough to break away from that meta by using something different, they should be rewarded for it by having that element of not knowing what they could be running.

 

Not only do I see this as being hurtful for the competitiveness of tournaments, but I see it killing a lot of the fun as well. Just my opinions though, feel free to tell me why any of these may be wrong or how you could solve these issues.

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • 0
On 7/23/2020 at 3:19 PM, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

VGC doesn't really have many scenarios where you can have a bad matchup. It's more about planning ahead to what you think your opponent with bring, specifically what they will lead. Most cases of a bad matchup is just having a bad lead matchup.

Just like Singles, in VGC you can't cover for everything. But I'll give you that in VGC it's more possible to win in grim looking situations.

 

On 7/23/2020 at 3:19 PM, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this but you say it is unlikely for this scenario to happen, there are many noob vs noob games in the early rounds of a tournament. Most people which play this game have no idea how it works and can still win just because of RNG or some insane matchup. I would much rather players worry about swapping their team instead of thinking "if I run into X mon with Y move in the tournament I lose". 

Pokemon is not meant to be played like this, you are supposed to make a educated guess on what they might or should be running. E.g. I see Chansey, Garchomp and 4 other pokemon that don't learn Stealth Rocks. I will assume that Chansey will be carrying Rocks, however with the system you propose I will know that Garchomp is the Rocker. This is not fair for both parties to know each others full movesets. Sure with scouting you can make an assumption they will bring that same team but it is never guaranteed. Tournament play would be fundamentally different from match making and PSL, to me that just doesn't make any sense. Why should there be different rules in play for only tournaments?

I just don't understand how you can argue this point when it is actually way worse in the current way we do tournaments. If you recall you said: 'why should a better player lose to a player that brought an obscure pokemon?'. Currently, this can happen during EVERY round of a tournament. While with locked in teams (gonna name it LIT from now on) a better player can mostly be surprised in the first two rounds. After the first few rounds, you'll know the Pokemon your opponent is bringing and actually form a gameplan against it. Again, this isn't possible in the current tournament format. So why are you arguing that this is worst in a LIT system (hehe). 

 

And I'm sorry but you see LIT everywhere in VGC, the most official form of tournament play we have for Pokemon. Yet you say that 'Pokemon is not meant to be played like this'. The making of educated guesses and team evaluations, is still an invaluable skill in early rounds in a LIT tournament. After the first few rounds though, the style of play will change and I think that's actually a really interesting dynamic. 

 

Also tournament play SHOULD differ from laddering and events like the PSL. Why shouldn't it? Just like laddering for VGC is incredibly different compared to playing a VGC tournament. Tournament play is a different skill compared to laddering and I think that difference isn't clear enough right now.

 

On 7/23/2020 at 3:19 PM, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

Counter teaming will always happen but not to the extent you would probably think. The only times I see it working in full force is if someone has used the exact same team multiple rounds in a row, at that point you are kind of asking for it. If you were serious about tournament play I would advise getting 2 teams and some substitutions to throw off counter teaming, there isn't much you can do to lower the barrier of entry without changing how the game is designed to be played. If anything getting competitive mons and items cheaper is how you would do it. Sure 5x31 or even 6x31 are optimal but new players can make do with 2x31 and have the rest 27+ to start off with.

Testing a team in a tournament isn't a great idea, players are there to win. Imagine if you reach the finals and want to test out a brand new team, sure it can work but finals isn't exactly a great place to do so.

Counter teaming is at its worst when players change up little moves so that they can still get a surprise knock out. I'm arguing that, this is actually uncompetitive in tournament play when you're in like the top 8. Things you can't make out in team preview but are solely put in because your opponent has scouted a few of your teams. Sure you could argue that you should change teams more often, but I don't like that it is 100% neccesary to win a tournament. I don't even think two teams would be enough, because then it actually starts becoming a gamble as well. 'Will my opponent bring A or B?' . 

 

Lastly, with testing a team i don't mean I literally throw a new team in a tournament and see how it does. I mean having  built a well crafted team and to see how it can actually fare in a tournament environment. Like if you look at VGC you always have these awesome 'team reports' of people winning tours, having built specific teams for new tournaments. You can't really do those things in non LIT tournaments, because the emphasis on team building and knowing the ins and outs of your team are less emphasized. In essence a tournament doesn't differ that much from playing ladder now, but I already went over that.

 

Don't get me wrong though. I don't think every tournament should be LIT. But I think they definitely have merit to be used. I don't see why you can't have two OU officials in a month and have one be LIT and one be traditional. Anyway, I think I've said everything I wanted to say. Thank you for your perspective.

Link to comment
  • 0
15 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

Just like Singles, in VGC you can't cover for everything. But I'll give you that in VGC it's more possible to win in grim looking situations.

 

I just don't understand how you can argue this point when it is actually way worse in the current way we do tournaments. If you recall you said: 'why should a better player lose to a player that brought an obscure pokemon?'. Currently, this can happen during EVERY round of a tournament. While with locked in teams (gonna name it LIT from now on) a better player can mostly be surprised in the first two rounds. After the first few rounds, you'll know the Pokemon your opponent is bringing and actually form a gameplan against it. Again, this isn't possible in the current tournament format. So why are you arguing that this is worst in a LIT system (hehe). 

Most of the time this obscure mon in the current system is a result of counter teaming, which shouldn't be an issue if you change your team up between rounds. I've witnessed many counter team fail because their mon(s) that were supposed to carry them are suddenly dead weight. The issue with a LIT is you cannot change your team in the earlier rounds to prevent an auto loss.

15 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

 

And I'm sorry but you see LIT everywhere in VGC, the most official form of tournament play we have for Pokemon. Yet you say that 'Pokemon is not meant to be played like this'. The making of educated guesses and team evaluations, is still an invaluable skill in early rounds in a LIT tournament. After the first few rounds though, the style of play will change and I think that's actually a really interesting dynamic. 

I have participated in VGC events in the past. VGC is a completely different ball game due to time restraints, many events run for the whole day and the bigger ones can run into the next day. When I refer to "Pokemon is not meant to be played like this" I mean that both players should have no concrete knowledge of the opposing team(s). The reason nobody complains about this in VGC is because VGC uses a swiss format for the earlier rounds and single elimination for the top cut. It would be incredibly difficult to scout anyone in a real life event, essentially each round you are paired with someone with a similar win/loss ratio but most likely have no clue who they are let alone what they are running. I guess it could be a small problem for the top cut but the vast majority of players don't have to worry about this.

15 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

 

Also tournament play SHOULD differ from laddering and events like the PSL. Why shouldn't it? Just like laddering for VGC is incredibly different compared to playing a VGC tournament. Tournament play is a different skill compared to laddering and I think that difference isn't clear enough right now.

I mean no doubt there will always be some differences but my problem with this system is that free information is given away. A lot about playing Pokemon is gaining information, just from Team Preview alone you can infer some things. Some sets solely rely on the opponent not knowing what their set is, e.g. I see my opponent is uses HP electric Volcarona so I will never use my Gyarados to check it. If I had not known this my opponent would have got a knock out. Sure this specific set is gimmicky but Volcarona can run a variety of moves and figuring out the coverage could mean it does nothing.

15 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

 

Counter teaming is at its worst when players change up little moves so that they can still get a surprise knock out. I'm arguing that, this is actually uncompetitive in tournament play when you're in like the top 8. Things you can't make out in team preview but are solely put in because your opponent has scouted a few of your teams. Sure you could argue that you should change teams more often, but I don't like that it is 100% neccesary to win a tournament. I don't even think two teams would be enough, because then it actually starts becoming a gamble as well. 'Will my opponent bring A or B?' . 

It is usually best to build multiple solid teams and just switch between rounds to prevent this. Sure it costs a lot of time and resources but counter teaming in of itself is a huge risk and this will capitalize off that. Sometimes matchup is rough but you can still pull it back.

15 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

 

Lastly, with testing a team i don't mean I literally throw a new team in a tournament and see how it does. I mean having  built a well crafted team and to see how it can actually fare in a tournament environment. Like if you look at VGC you always have these awesome 'team reports' of people winning tours, having built specific teams for new tournaments. You can't really do those things in non LIT tournaments, because the emphasis on team building and knowing the ins and outs of your team are less emphasized. In essence a tournament doesn't differ that much from playing ladder now, but I already went over that.

 

Don't get me wrong though. I don't think every tournament should be LIT. But I think they definitely have merit to be used. I don't see why you can't have two OU officials in a month and have one be LIT and one be traditional. Anyway, I think I've said everything I wanted to say. Thank you for your perspective.

Sorry for misunderstanding, I figured you were bringing a whole new team into a tournament. As for this being a gimmick tournament once in a while I wouldn't mind a trial but would much rather have a traditional tournament. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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