Jump to content

PSL XIII - Week Five


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

Yes but maybe you should propose some realistic scenarios in stead.


In that replay, in the first 4 turns, there is literally 0 RNG. No dmg roll, nothing. If the duel ended on the 4th turn instead of the 5th turn, is there any reason why the duel should not be replayed? That's a realistic scenario since it's what happened.

 

Btw I'm not pushing for a replay since like I said several time already, the teams were not linked to the hosts prior to the duel. Just responding to Pachima's question.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, pachima said:

Out of curiosity (We are well aware that rules need polishing and are far from perfect). But how would you word your rulings regarding similar circumstances without setting exploitable precedents?

PS: Anyone is welcomed to answer this.

You are the host at the end and part of being host is have their own way to think and understand the situation you are facing here. I always see players balmming moderators cause they don't think in the community and say they are brainless and they attack in the same way the tier council too with same arguments but Do you wanna see something here? You are doing something similar here. You wanna stick to the rules cause you dont wanna argue and face the situation you have here. You say is easy to abuse of this kind of situations. You are the host and you can avoid that kind of situations and more If you have the battle logs just like Aerun said. 

Lifestyle said here before that nobody of empoleons tried to go for the rematch until 24 hours later of this. We were just waiting for host decision. You can't just come and make drama when there is not an official announcement yet. 

I'm not here searching for rematch. I'm just here after reading a lot of nonsense stuff around the situation we faced days ago. I don't blame Blazikens player cause at the end he will do the best for their team. I don't blame madara neither too. He tried to win and is not their fault that their pc crashed. I don't blame the host about the call they done. All I can say is that if you gonna do a call just to avoid any kind of argue and to avoid drama. I think is kinda unffair then. 

#rematch? #Stopbeingmad #freemadara? #dramaeachweek #restartpsl #morevideoswhen? 

 

Edited by Xigbar
Link to comment

Maybe you guys should suggest to the devs to implement a feature that allows a game to be restarted or recreated from a certain point.  It won't help with this current PSL but it could help down the road.  

 

As far as the DC rules here go, I think asking all players to submit their teams prior to the game could help prevent exploitation, especially in games that have had a short number of turns played.  All they have to do is encrypt their team on a site like cryptobin.co, and send the host a link to the file prior to the game.  The teams will still be encrypted, so it's not like the host can leak someone's team.  If a DC does happen, the host can then ask for the players who submitted the encrypted links to then provide the password to decrypt it.  If you DC and don't submit your team, you lose.  I'm not sure what should happen in a scenario where if you DC and submit your team but your opp doesn't, but this could be a starting point.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Xigbar said:

You are the host at the end and part of being host is have their own way to think and understand the situation you are facing here. I always see players balmming moderators cause they don't think in the community and say they are brainless and they attack in the same way the tier council too with same arguments but Do you wanna see something here? You are doing something similar here. You wanna stick to the rules cause you dont wanna argue and face the situation you have here. You say is easy to abuse of this kind of situations. You are the host and you can avoid that kind of situations and more If you have the battle logs just like Aerun said. 

Here is the thing about hosting a major event: you're always going to be the bad guy to half of the people, no matter how 'fair' your decision is. Written rules will never cover the grey areas in a game like this and if a host fills in the grey areas for themselves the party that will be in a disadvantage because of that will point to the rules. And its fair of them to do so, because if we can't rely on the rules what can we rely on?

 

I've always been a host that is more free form and often I would fill in the grey areas for myself, Pachi has a different style. As co-hosts we had to find middle grounds on a lot of topics. We allowed the community to look at the rulesets as well so we could gather feedback, but we didn't get anything.  So the rules that are in place now will stay that way for now and I will follow them (Quinn I swear dont start again). 

 

So of course we can expand the rules to cover more areas. But Pokemon is a complicated game, in the sense that a lot of things can happen (misses, crits, confusion hits, damage rolls) and if we wanted to cover all the single areas the rules would become too large and probably exploitable in multiple ways. We need to find a simple solution to the problem that keeps things as simple as possible and we'll have to accept that there are always going to be outliers. 

 

Nik's suggestion is a good start and would've helped a lot in the Chuck vs Cristhian decision as well. So we could look into that.

 

But for now #badhosts

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Xigbar said:

 All I can say is that if you gonna do a call just to avoid any kind of argue and to avoid drama. I think is kinda unffair then. 

#rematch? #Stopbeingmad #freemadara? #dramaeachweek #restartpsl #morevideoswhen? 

 

Let me give you a concrete example:

Game 1: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Hp ice, flame, grass knot)

Game 2: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Mach punch, rocks, grass knot)

 

Game 1: Infernape player disconnected. He had the 100% win if they dont misclick. What can hosts do? According to your logic, if we gonna go with the fair decision, we either offer the infernape player the win or enforce a rematch. The unfair decision would be giving the win to the opponent.

 

Now let's take a look into Game 2: Infernape player sees they cannot win, because they cannot beat salamence at all. But then he knows we made the fair decision on game1, so all they have to do is to disconnect on purpose, claim they had the easy win, and get a free rematch or a free win in a game that was lost.

And since we cannot really have different decisions on similar circumstances, being fair or not becomes irrelevant because that "fair" decision allows for super easy exploits, which are inherently not fair at all.

 

Regarding what Nik said, and some other people. It might be unviable, but we might take a look into it cause it "partially" fix the issue, and hey, its better than nothing. However, none of the players sent their team to us prior to disconnect (Why would they?), and therefore we cannot really go for the "fair" decision here, without setting a precedent of that magnitude.

 

Now, we can get more effort into doing something similar of what Nik proposed next season, if able, but in this season, same rules for everyone.

 

Tldr; the decision might be unfair in your case, but you cannot guarantee it is always unfair in the same circumstances, and in the same system we currently possess.

Thank you.

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, pachima said:

Let me give you a concrete example:

Game 1: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Hp ice, flame, grass knot)

Game 1: Infernape player disconnected. He had the 100% win if they dont misclick. 

I know it's not the point you were trying to make, but the Infernape could totally lose against that core: Sandstorm from Hippo, Rocky Helmet from potentially Hippo and Salamence, Life Orb recoil from potentially Infernape. The Infernape player needs to predict correctly in order to win against Blissey/Salamence/Hippo.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pachima said:

Let me give you a concrete example:

Game 1: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Hp ice, flame, grass knot)

Game 2: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Mach punch, rocks, grass knot)

 

Game 1: Infernape player disconnected. He had the 100% win if they dont misclick. What can hosts do? According to your logic, if we gonna go with the fair decision, we either offer the infernape player the win or enforce a rematch. The unfair decision would be giving the win to the opponent.

 

Now let's take a look into Game 2: Infernape player sees they cannot win, because they cannot beat salamence at all. But then he knows we made the fair decision on game1, so all they have to do is to disconnect on purpose, claim they had the easy win, and get a free rematch or a free win in a game that was lost.

And since we cannot really have different decisions on similar circumstances, being fair or not becomes irrelevant because that "fair" decision allows for super easy exploits, which are inherently not fair at all.

 

Regarding what Nik said, and some other people. It might be unviable, but we might take a look into it cause it "partially" fix the issue, and hey, its better than nothing. However, none of the players sent their team to us prior to disconnect (Why would they?), and therefore we cannot really go for the "fair" decision here, without setting a precedent of that magnitude.

 

Now, we can get more effort into doing something similar of what Nik proposed next season, if able, but in this season, same rules for everyone.

 

Tldr; the decision might be unfair in your case, but you cannot guarantee it is always unfair in the same circumstances, and in the same system we currently possess.

Thank you.

 

Now stop arguing and go edit the thread Ty

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I know it's not the point you were trying to make, but the Infernape could totally lose against that core: Sandstorm from Hippo, Rocky Helmet from potentially Hippo and Salamence, Life Orb recoil from potentially Infernape. The Infernape player needs to predict correctly in order to win against Blissey/Salamence/Hippo.

Yes I could've rephrased it to include leftovers on everyone or something of the sort and rocks and whatever, you're right. 

Either way the point stands, Without the revealed teams, like you said, we cannot really enforce rematches at all.

#nextseasonwillbebetter #withworsehosts

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, pachima said:

Yes I could've rephrased it to include leftovers on everyone or something of the sort and rocks and whatever, you're right. 

Either way the point stands, Without the revealed teams, like you said, we cannot really enforce rematches at all.

#nextseasonwillbebetter #withworsehosts

U can play with dogs when u want, It Just take 5 Min to edit post, go fkin edit it

Link to comment
6 hours ago, ThinkNicer said:

Here is the thing about hosting a major event: you're always going to be the bad guy to half of the people, no matter how 'fair' your decision is. Written rules will never cover the grey areas in a game like this and if a host fills in the grey areas for themselves the party that will be in a disadvantage because of that will point to the rules. And its fair of them to do so, because if we can't rely on the rules what can we rely on?

 

I've always been a host that is more free form and often I would fill in the grey areas for myself, Pachi has a different style. As co-hosts we had to find middle grounds on a lot of topics. We allowed the community to look at the rulesets as well so we could gather feedback, but we didn't get anything.  So the rules that are in place now will stay that way for now and I will follow them (Quinn I swear dont start again). 

 

So of course we can expand the rules to cover more areas. But Pokemon is a complicated game, in the sense that a lot of things can happen (misses, crits, confusion hits, damage rolls) and if we wanted to cover all the single areas the rules would become too large and probably exploitable in multiple ways. We need to find a simple solution to the problem that keeps things as simple as possible and we'll have to accept that there are always going to be outliers. 

 

Nik's suggestion is a good start and would've helped a lot in the Chuck vs Cristhian decision as well. So we could look into that.

 

But for now #badhosts

I don't think both of you are doing a bad job as PSL hosts. Is good to see you apply the rules or big part of them at least. All I can continue saying is that If you took the decision on madara vs hazuu duel just to not face the argument from Empoleons managers then I think was the wrong call but I you make the call cause the rules then is ok. 

You as host shoould be able to avoid the explitable thing in a rule. You have a rule where you punish any kind of bad conduct. I think if someone abuse of that watching the battle logs you can easly punish that player for trying to abuse of that just like football when a striker wanna fake a penalty fault. 

The host will be always the villain of any event no matter what. Thank you for the PSL by the way. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, pachima said:

Let me give you a concrete example:

Game 1: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Hp ice, flame, grass knot)

Game 2: Infernape full hp vs hippowdon + salamence + Blissey (Revealed set: Close combat - Hidden set: Mach punch, rocks, grass knot)

 

Game 1: Infernape player disconnected. He had the 100% win if they dont misclick. What can hosts do? According to your logic, if we gonna go with the fair decision, we either offer the infernape player the win or enforce a rematch. The unfair decision would be giving the win to the opponent.

 

Now let's take a look into Game 2: Infernape player sees they cannot win, because they cannot beat salamence at all. But then he knows we made the fair decision on game1, so all they have to do is to disconnect on purpose, claim they had the easy win, and get a free rematch or a free win in a game that was lost.

And since we cannot really have different decisions on similar circumstances, being fair or not becomes irrelevant because that "fair" decision allows for super easy exploits, which are inherently not fair at all.

 

Regarding what Nik said, and some other people. It might be unviable, but we might take a look into it cause it "partially" fix the issue, and hey, its better than nothing. However, none of the players sent their team to us prior to disconnect (Why would they?), and therefore we cannot really go for the "fair" decision here, without setting a precedent of that magnitude.

 

Now, we can get more effort into doing something similar of what Nik proposed next season, if able, but in this season, same rules for everyone.

 

Tldr; the decision might be unfair in your case, but you cannot guarantee it is always unfair in the same circumstances, and in the same system we currently possess.

Thank you.

 

But your example didnt attacked the issue in madara's duel. Nobody got any kind of advantage cause both players got 6 pokemon alive and just passed 5 turns from the beginning. If you are talking about chuckunso vs christian arce duel then is correct but I don't see clearly this example you gave can fit with madara vs hazuuu duel. 

You have a video where you can see what really happened and you can see clearly if a player tried to abuse of the rules cause bad match up or any kind of disadvantaje. In the special case of madara vs hazuu duel. Is ok you are following the rules, but then You are saying to me that You aren't able to see if any players is trying to abuse the rules. Right? Even If you have battlevideo and battle logs. In this match specially nobody had advantage and nobody tried to abuse in the rules so Defend the whole call saying what you said above I think is kinda bad. 

You gave me examples I wish i could give you one but I think is no needed with the video above of us. Im not saying we had a clear winner on that duel and we dont have a clear loser too.

Thank you for following the rules. That's perfect cause set a good precedent about if you break the rule you will punished and that make both of you good hots, but I think in this call you can done something more. 

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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