Jump to content
  • 17

Why not go back to the old tournament keys? (Not randomly)


Huargensy

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I don't know if this is possible but I wouldn't mind community combats keep this kind of bracket so that newer players/ players who don't have much time to grind have a better chance of winning, and therefore they'd be more prepared for officials. But please, officials are boring af now, at least for me and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same. Just bring old system back, you had no need to change it in the first place.

Link to comment
  • 0
17 minutes ago, Moi said:

I don't know if this is possible but I wouldn't mind community combats keep this kind of bracket so that newer players/ players who don't have much time to grind have a better chance of winning, and therefore they'd be more prepared for officials. But please, officials are boring af now, at least for me and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same. Just bring old system back, you had no need to change it in the first place.

I agree

Link to comment
  • 0
17 minutes ago, Moi said:

I don't know if this is possible but I wouldn't mind community combats keep this kind of bracket

Having two different standards on automated tournaments is not good design. A newer player could cut their teeth in CC but then be completely thrown off by the change in bracketing dipping into the standard tournaments.

 

The reason why seats are randomized between rounds is to lessen the impact of scouting. Scouting leads to players being able to strictly counter-team a player, which lessens the impact of skill. While it takes some skill to know how to counter a given team, let alone use a given team. Not knowing who you are going to face in the next round means that you and your opponent are on equal footing as far as knowledge is concerned.

 

Tournaments are tests of skill, not a display of who has the most resources. Having a system which gives an inherent advantage to players with more resources diminishes the impact of skill based plays. If you know your opponent only has a single team and have built a team to strictly counter them, it really doesn't take much skill at that point. Don't get me wrong, it still does take some skill, but it's diminished by the fact that your prior knowledge and access to more resources has given you more advantage.

Link to comment
  • 0
1 hour ago, XelaKebert said:

Having two different standards on automated tournaments is not good design. A newer player could cut their teeth in CC but then be completely thrown off by the change in bracketing dipping into the standard tournaments.

I don't think it would be that hard for a new player. I mean, current system is pretty much winning games like if it was ladder till semifinals lol, there's no much science in that. They may struggle a bit in officials at the beginning yes, but if they want to improve I believe they would get better in a short period of time.

 

1 hour ago, XelaKebert said:

The reason why seats are randomized between rounds is to lessen the impact of scouting. Scouting leads to players being able to strictly counter-team a player, which lessens the impact of skill. 

I disaggre. There is more skill in bringing the best team for the occasion rather than just blindly spaming one. You can't strictly counter-team a player because your opponent can scout what you've been using and they're able to change teams.

 

3 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

Tournaments are tests of skill, not a display of who has the most resources. Having a system which gives an inherent advantage to players with more resources diminishes the impact of skill based plays. If you know your opponent only has a single team and have built a team to strictly counter them, it really doesn't take much skill at that point. Don't get me wrong, it still does take some skill, but it's diminished by the fact that your prior knowledge and access to more resources has given you more advantage.

Again I don't agree with the skill part but I do understand that people with less resources are at disavantage. However, I prefer that and having the posibility of using differents teams and cool techs instead of playing same boring stuff every single round because your team has to be as consistent as posible against the whole tier

Link to comment
  • 0

really if we talk about ability for this tournaments it seems to me that much more skill is needed putting together different teams for the tournaments and having to be able to play for each different rival that comes to touch than spam a single team that even in their majority reach be the same in a lot of players as in the case of teams that carry a climate or others that are used in the same way by a lot of players while if the keys of the tournaments return to what should not have changed more is needed ability to know how to play an opponent who may or may not repeat the same team between rounds since when changing teams both only know their way of playing and based on that it is a more equal fight than it is at the moment

Link to comment
  • 0

Or maybe, just maybe, the guy who spammed said team actually built a good team and deserves to be rewarded.

It's not boring at all. I'd rather face an opponent with the same advantages and win the game based on skill than fishing for good matchup and get 6-0d or 6-0 back just because I got the matchup. And trust me, most teambuildings in the past fished for this type of matchup and because of that, they were inherently bad. I really can't tell how many times I saw semifinals or finals finishing in a couple of turns just because the matchup fish was so real that one of teams got completely vaporized by the other. Was the finalist winner the better player overall? No, he simply was the guy who got lucky the most with the matchup fishing.

As Xela pointed out, there is some skill regarding counterteaming, but its little compared to actually build a solid team overall and actually playing it effectively.

Edited by pachima
Link to comment
  • 0
15 hours ago, Moi said:

I don't think it would be that hard for a new player. I mean, current system is pretty much winning games like if it was ladder till semifinals lol, there's no much science in that. They may struggle a bit in officials at the beginning yes, but if they want to improve I believe they would get better in a short period of time.

Of course newer comp players will struggle, but the amount of time they struggle can be helped by keeping everyone blind as to who their opponent is. There is science in being able to win in a tournament as though it was the ladder system. While there is skill in counter-teaming, as pointed out, building a solid team that you can run for the whole tournament takes considerably more skill. Your access to scouts and extra teams should not be a factor in tournaments, ever.

 

15 hours ago, Moi said:

I disaggre. There is more skill in bringing the best team for the occasion rather than just blindly spaming one. You can't strictly counter-team a player because your opponent can scout what you've been using and they're able to change teams.

The skill comes in knowing how to run the team in different situations. Not every match is going to be cookie cutter. A skilled player with a single, solidly built team should not feel like their work gets cheapened because they got scouted and counter-teamed. There is less emphasis on skill when you know what your opponent is going run.

 

15 hours ago, Moi said:

Again I don't agree with the skill part but I do understand that people with less resources are at disavantage. However, I prefer that and having the posibility of using differents teams and cool techs instead of playing same boring stuff every single round because your team has to be as consistent as posible against the whole tier

The random system doesn't take away from that. You can still use a different team each round as long as it was in your battle box before the tourny, iirc. The point I've made is that not everyone can do that or prefers to do that. Their effort shouldn't be cheapened by an external factor that can be controlled. Remember that with this system, no player has an inherent advantage over the other in terms of prior knowledge. You know just as much about your opponent's team as they know about your team. The random system is a far cry better than the alternative to controlling scouting, which would be disabling spectating during tournaments.

Link to comment
  • 0

besides the fact scouting is normal imo, the tournamnets are really boring for example in uu the yanmega druddi rotom heat core is spammed so much it isnt even fun anymore you always see the same teams it becomes pretty boring
and about building a good team you can just copied a team so their is no skill needed for using a good team 

Edited by Quinn010
Link to comment
  • 0
5 hours ago, pachima said:

As Xela pointed out, there is some skill regarding counterteaming, but its little compared to actually build a solid team overall and actually playing it effectively.

i disagree look at jjjhhh a player that just copied a team from good players  in every tier and spam it in tours ( he never reached great results with it but did some decent runs)

Link to comment
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Quinn010 said:

i disagree look at jjjhhh a player that just copied a team from good players  in every tier and spam it in tours ( he never reached great results with it but did some decent runs)

That just means the guy copied a good team but is unable to use it effectively. 

With heavy scouting players don't need/want to be the better player, they want to be the player with better matchup and grab the easy wins that contribute nothing for their overall skill.

Edited by pachima
Link to comment
  • 0
6 hours ago, pachima said:

Or maybe, just maybe, the guy who spammed said team actually built a good team and deserves to be rewarded.

It's not boring at all. I'd rather face an opponent with the same advantages and win the game based on skill than fishing for good matchup and get 6-0d or 6-0 back just because I got the matchup. And trust me, most teambuildings in the past fished for this type of matchup and because of that, they were inherently bad. I really can't tell how many times I saw semifinals or finals finishing in a couple of turns just because the matchup fish was so real that one of teams got completely vaporized by the other. Was the finalist winner the better player overall? No, he simply was the guy who got lucky the most with the matchup fishing.

As Xela pointed out, there is some skill regarding counterteaming, but its little compared to actually build a solid team overall and actually playing it effectively.

Most teams I see in tours nowadays are replicas from other builds. Do people who can't build for themselves deserve to be rewarded? Because thats what this type of brackets does. You can just copy one team and be able to win. I don't find entertaining playing in a system that feels pretty much the same than ladder.

 

There will always be uneven matchups, thing is, you get a say in that if you know what your opponent may use, and for that you need to predict, there's no luck in that. If the winner knew exactly what was his opponent going to use and he brought a good build to beat it, then yeah, he was the better player, because that takes skills. Nevertheless, there isn't much you can do about it in a blind bracket but pray that you don't get a bad MU.

Edited by Moi
grammar
Link to comment
  • 0

In theory, tMoi would be right.

Good scouting is building a strong overall team that's specially good vs what your opponent usually uses.

 

However people are incapable of that and just end up bringing 6 anti sun mons vs a dude that spammed sun in finals and win it like that (it literally happened).

Also to be honest, you can still know who your opponent will be starting from top8 or sometimes top16, if you just wait for the whole 10 minutes you get to see who is queued with who and deduce who you get.

Sure you don't get the whole time to counter build but if you have enough strong teams in your battle boxes you should be able to still adapt to anything they use.

That's healthy scouting : you can be punished for running only 1 team if your opponent is smart but you can't build hard cteam cause you won't have time

 

Also the point about teams being replicas of each other, that was always the case. If we take the UU example, how many people were running the exact same core in round 1 (where you couldn't scout) ? I can provide statistics on that cause I happened to be scouting all round 1 teams back then. Same goes with the screens team that absolutely everyone copied from Umbramol. Now we have a rotom + druddigon meta, doesn't mean everyone using druddi + rotom is lacking building skills 

Link to comment
  • 0
14 minutes ago, Moi said:

Most teams I see in tours nowadays are replicas from other builds. Do people who can't build for themselves deserve to be rewarded? Because thats what this type of brackets does. You can just copy one team and be able to win. I don't find entertaining playing in a system that feels pretty much the same than ladder.

On the contrary. System doesn't promote copying teambuilds, community does. People have been copying teambuilds since 1956, and not joking, they have been copying them way before tour system changed.

You cannot copy one team and win at all. You need to outplay the several enemies you face in order to win, unless their teams are just worse than yours, in which case you deserve to win. 

The problem is that people always tried to win the game before actually playing it. Most mentalities right now are: if I have bad matchup I lose, and not: if I have bad matchup, I have to outplay the guy more to win, as it should. 

I could list plenty of examples of successful /unsuccessful counterteams that ultimately don't matter because their used team was pretty much garbage and the whole game was decided on pure matchup. For spectators this is even worse, because they outright know who is more prone to win in the first turn.

I understand that if you play in a tournament, you want to win, but if you keep outplaying your opponents, then you'll have more chances to win, as it should, and this sytem doesn't take that away at all. Is it perfect? No, but imo better than what we had before.

Link to comment
  • 0

Counter building is exciting because it's a gamble, cos your opponent just may do it also or change team. So it requires both skill knowledge to counter and skill knowledge to make the team good even against other team you wanted to counter. I can understand why it's fun but I dont get the hype about what requires most skill. It's the same game. You just prepare differently 

 

But I agree that random is more fair. Maybe less fun if people enjoyed countering. Though at some point every players in late rounds of tournament know each other and just both counter team. As pachima said it's a matter of who got luckier in the guess game. That's not really skill. 

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

La construcción de contraataques es emocionante porque es una apuesta, porque tu oponente puede hacerlo también o cambiar de equipo. Por lo tanto, se requiere conocimiento de habilidades para contrarrestar y conocimiento de habilidades para hacer que el equipo sea bueno incluso contra otro equipo al que deseaba contrarrestar. Puedo entender por qué es divertido, pero no entiendo lo que requiere más habilidad. Es el mismo juego. Solo te preparas diferente 

 

Pero estoy de acuerdo en que el azar es más justo. Quizás menos divertido si la gente disfrutara contraatacar. Aunque en algún momento todos los jugadores en las últimas rondas del torneo se conocen entre sí y solo a ambos contrarreloj. Como dijo Pachima, es cuestión de quién tuvo más suerte en el juego de adivinanzas. Eso no es realmente una habilidad. 

The ability goes in the fact of having known how to put together a good team that of one against the old rival and also efficiently covers a possible change of pokemon that the rival may have since if we talk about luck in a riddle we have to also talk that with Random keys can be played by an opponent who is also stronger or against yours and it would not be based on skill either

Link to comment
  • 0
7 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

Of course newer comp players will struggle, but the amount of time they struggle can be helped by keeping everyone blind as to who their opponent is. There is science in being able to win in a tournament as though it was the ladder system. While there is skill in counter-teaming, as pointed out, building a solid team that you can run for the whole tournament takes considerably more skill.

Yes, it makes it easier for them. thats the problem. Scouting is another layer of difficulty and if you take that it makes tournaments cheaper. 

7 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

 Your access to scouts and extra teams should not be a factor in tournaments, ever.

Huh? 

7 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

The skill comes in knowing how to run the team in different situations. Not every match is going to be cookie cutter. A skilled player with a single, solidly built team should not feel like their work gets cheapened because they got scouted and counter-teamed. There is less emphasis on skill when you know what your opponent is going run.

A real skilled player is able to have a variety of solid builds. If he's only capable of playing well with one team then he's not that good.

7 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

The random system doesn't take away from that. You can still use a different team each round as long as it was in your battle box before the tourny, iirc. The point I've made is that not everyone can do that or prefers to do that. Their effort shouldn't be cheapened by an external factor that can be controlled. Remember that with this system, no player has an inherent advantage over the other in terms of prior knowledge. You know just as much about your opponent's team as they know about your team. The random system is a far cry better than the alternative to controlling scouting, which would be disabling spectating during tournaments.

I know but like I said, no one has idea of what they're gonna face so people tend to run more commons builds that cover most threats, and seing those kind of teams every round is boring imo. If scout was allowed we could see more creative strats that are not as consistent against certain threats but since you could scout your opponent teams you have an idea of what he may use or not. Scouting is not a external factor at all, it has always been part of most events and will always be, regardless it is psl or live tournaments, etc.

Link to comment
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Moi said:

Yes, it makes it easier for them. thats the problem. Scouting is another layer of difficulty and if you take that it makes tournaments cheaper. 

No it's not and no removing it doesn't cheapen anything. Full stop. Scouting is an external factor that should be controlled.

 

9 minutes ago, Moi said:

A real skilled player is able to have a variety of solid builds. If he's only capable of playing well with one team then he's not that good.

If a player who only has one team can beat a player who has multiple, not only are they better than said player, but they show more skill in being able to adapt a single team. This is objective fact. Simply having multiple teams doesn't guarantee a win the same as having a single solid team doesn't guarantee a win. However, a player who has only been able to muster resources to build a single solid team for their /first/ tournament shouldn't have their effort and time cheapened because other players can't win without scouting.

 

13 minutes ago, Moi said:

I know but like I said, no one has idea of what they're gonna face so people tend to run more commons builds that cover most threats, and seing those kind of teams every round is boring imo. If scout was allowed we could see more creative strats that are not as consistent against certain threats but since you could scout your opponent teams you have an idea of what he may use or not. Scouting is not a external factor at all, it has always been part of most events and will always be, regardless it is psl or live tournaments, etc.

It was like that even before this change and it was like that before automated tournaments were a thing. That's not something that is going to go away. Everyone is going to play the builds they know to be safe while experimenting elsewhere with other builds. Besides, it's not like you /can't/ scout. They made it harder for players to scout ahead. The information that could be gleaned from that would yield the sensible solution for you to simply build a well rounded team that is capable of responding to most threats. If you can't do that without scouting then that is a you problem. Scouts are, and always will be, external forces that have the ability to shift the course of the tournament.

Link to comment
  • 0
54 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

No it's not and no removing it doesn't cheapen anything. Full stop. Scouting is an external factor that should be controlled.

I guess psl and pretty much every other big competitive event suck then cuz they all have scout.

 

54 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

If a player who only has one team can beat a player who has multiple, not only are they better than said player, but they show more skill in being able to adapt a single team. This is objective fact. 

This would be true with scout allowed, if someone is able to win a tour with only one team even tho they could counterteam it then yes, it would be a very skilled player, but it doesn't mean much with blind brackets.

 

54 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

It was like that even before this change and it was like that before automated tournaments were a thing. That's not something that is going to go away. Everyone is going to play the builds they know to be safe while experimenting elsewhere with other builds.

Its not about testing a team what I'm saying, knowing what your opponent may use leaves room for creativity, use things that are not as good overall but against that person could do well. If you don't know what you're going to play against then best option is using more "standart" stuff.

 

54 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

Besides, it's not like you /can't/ scout. They made it harder for players to scout ahead. 

This isn't good, only purpose of this system is preventing scout and it can't even do it properly.

 

54 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

The information that could be gleaned from that would yield the sensible solution for you to simply build a well rounded team that is capable of responding to most threats. If you can't do that without scouting then that is a you problem. Scouts are, and always will be, external forces that have the ability to shift the course of the tournament.

The fuck you know about what I can do? 

Edited by Moi
Link to comment
  • 0

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.

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0
1 hour ago, Moi said:

I guess psl and pretty much every other big competitive event suck then cuz they all have scout.

You are reading way too far into what I am saying. PSL has no means of controlling scouting. That doesn't make it bad or any less exciting. 

 

1 hour ago, Moi said:

This would be true with scout allowed, if someone is able to win a tour with only one team even tho they could counterteam it then yes, it would be a very skilled player, but it doesn't mean much with blind brackets.

But scouting is still allowed, but it's harder to do. Which makes counter teaming more skill based.

 

1 hour ago, Moi said:

Its not about testing a team what I'm saying, knowing what your opponent may use leaves room for creativity, use things that are not as good overall but against that person could do well. If you don't know what you're going to play against then best option is using more "standart" stuff.

It absolutely does not. It means you know how to deal with that team specifically. That's literally all it means. There isn't creativity in counter teaming someone unless you do so with something completely off the wall, which nobody does in a tournament in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, Moi said:

This isn't good, only purpose of this system is preventing scout and it can't even do it properly.

No, it's to reduce the impact of scouting and emphasize skill over access to direct information. Instead of getting direct info on your next opponent you may have info on your next 5-6 possible opponents, which means building a robust team to deal with them and leaving very few gaps in coverage.

 

25 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

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."

Not necessarily. What is happening is that even if you still employ scouts, the info you need is distorted by extra info. With extra info you have an idea of what threats you could come up against. Distilling that info and using it to build a robust team to respond to what is likely to be out there is more key than knowing exactly what you are going up against. That, in itself, is a very important skill, and much more important that responding to direct information.

 

28 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

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.  

By lack of resources, I am referring to a lack of scouts. There will always exist a gap in competitive resources such as Pokemon and items between a veteran player and a new player. You also assume that newer comp players are on resource rich teams. That may not be the case.

 

36 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

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.

You aren't reversing anything here to be completely honest. What you miss out here with the system is that direct information is only applicable to a single match. If you are still scouting to gather information, you are getting a larger picture of what is likely to be in play in future rounds. This means you can use that along with your performance in a given match to better adapt to the trends you are seeing. I'd argue that countering on a macro level is a much more important skill to have rather than relying on information that would only apply to a single match.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

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.

You know just as well as I do that this notion is false. Every once in a while someone will bring something new to a tournament, but the vast majority will play with safe builds. Ones they know to be solid and reliable. This isn't anything new and you know that. It goes both ways. You act like playing it safe until you have another build you can rely on is a bad thing. If you're playing for a prize you want to have your best chances of winning. Playing with experimental builds isn't always the best way to achieve those ends.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

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.

And your opponent is flying just as blind as you are. Nobody is being punished. You can have 10 well rounded teams the same as your opponent could also have 10 well rounded teams. If you decide to switch between rounds you are both playing a gamble.

 

1 hour ago, NikhilR said:

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.

It's not a system without scouting. It's a system without direct information reporting. There is a difference, and even with scouting the meta has stagnated many times. As for the system not punishing players for being versatile, a single team player can only win so many times before someone else finds a way to break their team. Once that happens they have to make the choice of whether or not to make those investments. The higher up a player sits with a single team, the larger the target on them grows as other players work to innovate and break the team. If that player chooses to not make extra investments in additional, they are only hindering themselves long term. That is, and has always been, the nature of comp play. Regardless of whether or not scouting is easy to do, you cannot force a player to make additional investments to protect their standings. They rise and fall on their own doing.

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

Not necessarily. What is happening is that even if you still employ scouts, the info you need is distorted by extra info. With extra info you have an idea of what threats you could come up against. Distilling that info and using it to build a robust team to respond to what is likely to be out there is more key than knowing exactly what you are going up against. That, in itself, is a very important skill, and much more important that responding to direct information.

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.

 

2 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

By lack of resources, I am referring to a lack of scouts. There will always exist a gap in competitive resources such as Pokemon and items between a veteran player and a new player. You also assume that newer comp players are on resource rich teams. That may not be the case.

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.

 

2 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

You aren't reversing anything here to be completely honest. What you miss out here with the system is that direct information is only applicable to a single match. If you are still scouting to gather information, you are getting a larger picture of what is likely to be in play in future rounds. This means you can use that along with your performance in a given match to better adapt to the trends you are seeing. I'd argue that countering on a macro level is a much more important skill to have rather than relying on information that would only apply to a single match.

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.

 

2 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

You know just as well as I do that this notion is false. Every once in a while someone will bring something new to a tournament, but the vast majority will play with safe builds. Ones they know to be solid and reliable. This isn't anything new and you know that. It goes both ways. You act like playing it safe until you have another build you can rely on is a bad thing. If you're playing for a prize you want to have your best chances of winning. Playing with experimental builds isn't always the best way to achieve those ends.

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.

 

2 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

And your opponent is flying just as blind as you are. Nobody is being punished. You can have 10 well rounded teams the same as your opponent could also have 10 well rounded teams. If you decide to switch between rounds you are both playing a gamble.

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.

 

2 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

It's not a system without scouting. It's a system without direct information reporting. There is a difference, and even with scouting the meta has stagnated many times. As for the system not punishing players for being versatile, a single team player can only win so many times before someone else finds a way to break their team. Once that happens they have to make the choice of whether or not to make those investments. The higher up a player sits with a single team, the larger the target on them grows as other players work to innovate and break the team. If that player chooses to not make extra investments in additional, they are only hindering themselves long term. That is, and has always been, the nature of comp play. Regardless of whether or not scouting is easy to do, you cannot force a player to make additional investments to protect their standings. They rise and fall on their own doing.

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.

Edited by NikhilR
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.