Jump to content
  • 29

Event Suggestions & Feedback


Strych

Question

As you all know, we enjoy running events. We try to come up with as many new and exciting ideas for them as we can, whilst also attempting to cater to our broad player-base.

Have we run a particular event that you'd like to see again? Perhaps one that you didn't like so much?
Do you have an idea for an event that you'd like to see happen? We're interested in your feedback and ideas, so feel free to post them in this thread.


Please keep ideas within the realm of possibility. I realise "if X is implemented, Y could be a great event", but lets try to work with what we have.



Note: This thread is for the discussion of official events (like those posted in PokeMMO Official Events).

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I'd like to propose a change to the Time Clause. Currently when 45min is reached in a match both players are dq'd (disregarding any extentions). This leads to 2 unhappy players, a possibility that 1 was time stalling, a 3rd player to get a bye in the next round.

I would like to see the new battle timer taken into account at the 45min mark, the player with the most time left on their timer is the victor. This causes players to have to start making quicker moves if they want to avoid dq late in the match, possibly ending it before the 45min mark. It also will stop any stalling as that player would usually have a lower time left on their clock and finally it doesnt give any byes in an otherwise full bracket.

If this were to become the norm I would expect it to be enforced 'every' time 45min is hit and the tourney is held up. Even if both players had 6mons, one player had 1 or both had 1. I hope to see some discussion on this

Link to comment
  • 0

I'd like to propose a change to the Time Clause. Currently when 45min is reached in a match both players are dq'd (disregarding any extentions). This leads to 2 unhappy players, a possibility that 1 was time stalling, a 3rd player to get a bye in the next round.
I would like to see the new battle timer taken into account at the 45min mark, the player with the most time left on their timer is the victor. This causes players to have to start making quicker moves if they want to avoid dq late in the match, possibly ending it before the 45min mark. It also will stop any stalling as that player would usually have a lower time left on their clock and finally it doesnt give any byes in an otherwise full bracket.
If this were to become the norm I would expect it to be enforced 'every' time 45min is hit and the tourney is held up. Even if both players had 6mons, one player had 1 or both had 1. I hope to see some discussion on this

I feel like that is only a fix for the intentional staller and not solving a problem between two players playing a genuinely close match Edited by DrCraig
Link to comment
  • 0

I feel like that is only a fix for the intentional staller and not solving a problem between two players playing a genuinely close match

We can either have a straight line in the sand or a sine wave in the sand with fluctuations causing the particles to become distressed.

From what I've seen in the comunity they dont like the rules being bent. I agree that I'd love to see a great match reach its climax but if it starts holding up a tournament, what falls under the clasification of "its such a good match, we'll let it continue" and so when this doesnt happen to another player, uguuing occurs.
Link to comment
  • 0

Can someone explain to me, how someone dcing after turn one or two is in any form exploitable? If it's not exploitable, then why DQ someone in the first case? I'm sure some of the GMs can see a person's team and hence know if they make changes in their line up (assuming a rematch is given).

 

Where I come from, rules were supposed to help people and not screw them over. It's one thing to have RNG do that to you and another to have your net do so (something something India poverty). To me, it feels like this rule is now existing to protect staff members so that every time a DC happens, they don't need to make calls based on emotions or bias but rather hide behind "it's a rule".

 

I'm sorry that I feel it this way, but that's just how I see it. 

Link to comment
  • 0

Can someone explain to me, how someone dcing after turn one or two is in any form exploitable? If it's not exploitable, then why DQ someone in the first case? 

 

That situation may not be exploitable, but the fact that rules are getting bent is exploitable. Even though the rule havent been enforced properly its still always been there and its very clear and simple to follow. Starting to allowing rematches after 1 round or whatever leads to so many grey-areas which can be exploited. Having a clear rule thats actually enforced is alot easier to deal with for both staff and the players.

 

as for asking the opponent if a rematch is ok isnt the best of solutions either. it would lead to alot of grouppressure and saying "no" would make you look like a dick even though its completly fair imo.  

 

Yes there should have been an announcment or something, this wasnt the best way to reveal something like this..

Link to comment
  • 0

That situation may not be exploitable, but the fact that rules are getting bent is exploitable. Even though the rule havent been enforced properly its still always been there and its very clear and simple to follow. Starting to allowing rematches after 1 round or whatever leads to so many grey-areas which can be exploited. Having a clear rule thats actually enforced is alot easier to deal with for both staff and the players.

 

as for asking the opponent if a rematch is ok isnt the best of solutions either. it would lead to alot of grouppressure and saying "no" would make you look like a uguu even though its completly fair imo.  

 

Yes there should have been an announcment or something, this wasnt the best way to reveal something like this..

 

What rules are you referring to as getting bent to be exploitable? Let me start off with the time clause rule. If one person is stalling and the other person is trying to win, it'd be clear as day to know what outcome each of the players is trying to go for. That is, one person is trying to win, while the other person is trying to take down the other one with him. It's because that such players exist, a small extension is given so that the person who is trying to win can wrap it up. And trust me this bending of the rule, is something that no one has ever had a problem with because it's never screwed over someone. 

 

It's not about allowing rematches after round 1. It's about allowing rematches after evaluating the situation of a match. If I was two moves away from winning and my opponent DC's, I most likely wouldn't allow the rematch because I was going to win any way. If I was gonna lose and my opponent DC's, I'd ask the staff to give him the win because he deserved it. If my opponent DC'd after making 2-3 turns, I'd volunteer for the rematch. From Zehkar's whisper, he accused Raaidn of purposefully DCing which leads to people thinking he "exploited" that situation when there was nothing to exploit. After one-two turns of a match, is it right to DQ someone if they DC? 

 

What is this group pressure you're referring to? This is between the two individuals who are fighting and the only decision that matters is the decision you make. When I was asked whether I wanted to rematch a person, I didn't care about what others had to say because it was my decision and I wasn't going to let anyone else make it up for me. The only time I'd let others make a choice or decision for me, is during the team tournament. The only reason this group pressure exists is because of the rule we had in place which states that DCing results in DQ. A modification of that rule which says that past a certain amount of time, a rematch isn't allowed would be an even better solution imo. 

 

My problem right now is with the announcement, not that they didn't say it before because saying we will DQ someone if they DC without evaluating the situation at all is BS. 

Link to comment
  • 0

It was a rule that wasn't in effect until this exact tourney where Raaidn got DQ'd. You could see how that would piss someone off? There should have been an announcement saying the rule is now enforced and then this situation would not happen.

The rule has been written in every tournament thread since it was written. Saying that we should announce that we're going to enforce it is like announcing that we're going to enforce the Code of Conduct. It's there, it's always been in effect, just improperly enforced. In response to complaints about the enforcement being inconsistent the decision was made to strictly enforce it.

Link to comment
  • 0

It's not about allowing rematches after round 1. It's about allowing rematches after evaluating the situation of a match. If I was two moves away from winning and my opponent DC's, I most likely wouldn't allow the rematch because I was going to win any way. If I was gonna lose and my opponent DC's, I'd ask the staff to give him the win because he deserved it. If my opponent DC'd after making 2-3 turns, I'd volunteer for the rematch. From Zehkar's whisper, he accused Raaidn of purposefully DCing which leads to people thinking he "exploited" that situation when there was nothing to exploit. After one-two turns of a match, is it right to DQ someone if they DC? 

 

These are the extreme cases and if was always like this it would be a totaly diffrent case. The problem is where are you gonna draw the line? If staff has to evaluate each situation there will be inconsistency and diffrent outcomes which could make players feel badly treated and start a shitstorm etc. this can be avoided by staff being nazi about this rule and never accept a rematch, sometimes people who are supposedly winning are gonna loose because they DC'd. And i know it sucks but its really not the staffs problem that your internet screws you over.  

And to be fair a rematch in itself even if you only played 1 round before some DC'd can be explioted, figuring someones lead can mean alot. Not all players have enough comps to just go and switch, or your other pokemon that you can use as a lead might not fit that well for your team. thats ofc the minority of the players who participate in officals but that doesnt mean its not a valid argument. 

 

 

What is this group pressure you're referring to? This is between the two individuals who are fighting and the only decision that matters is the decision you make. When I was asked whether I wanted to rematch a person, I didn't care about what others had to say because it was my decision and I wasn't going to let anyone else make it up for me. The only time I'd let others make a choice or decision for me, is during the team tournament. The only reason this group pressure exists is because of the rule we had in place which states that DCing results in DQ. A modification of that rule which says that past a certain amount of time, a rematch isn't allowed would be an even better solution imo. 

 

First of let me rephrase my self, if asking the opponent if a rematch would become the standard i think a grouppressure would arise. And maybe you dont care what other people thinks but i know I would to an extent and propably many others. Even though its only between you two or a staff is involved people around are still going to know what happend. And i totally disagree with you, this grouppreassure exists (or will exist) because of a rule that isnt enforced properly.

 

 

But my main point is things are so much easier for everyone to deal with if staff is strict with the DC=DQ rule. ofc i see the cons but i dont think they overweight the pros. 

Link to comment
  • 0

These are the extreme cases and if was always like this it would be a totaly diffrent case. The problem is where are you gonna draw the line? If staff has to evaluate each situation there will be inconsistency and diffrent outcomes which could make players feel badly treated and start a shitstorm etc. this can be avoided by staff being vampire about this rule and never accept a rematch, sometimes people who are supposedly winning are gonna loose because they DC'd. And i know it sucks but its really not the staffs problem that your internet screws you over.  

And to be fair a rematch in itself even if you only played 1 round before some DC'd can be explioted, figuring someones lead can mean alot. Not all players have enough comps to just go and switch, or your other pokemon that you can use as a lead might not fit that well for your team. thats ofc the minority of the players who participate in officals but that doesnt mean its not a valid argument. 

 

 

 

First of let me rephrase my self, if asking the opponent if a rematch would become the standard i think a grouppressure would arise. And maybe you dont care what other people thinks but i know I would to an extent and propably many others. Even though its only between you two or a staff is involved people around are still going to know what happend. And i totally disagree with you, this grouppreassure exists (or will exist) because of a rule that isnt enforced properly.

 

 

But my main point is things are so much easier for everyone to deal with if staff is strict with the DC=DQ rule. ofc i see the cons but i dont think they overweight the pros. 

 

This has been discussed to death so this is the final word on this discussion.

 

From this point forward, anyone who DCs during a match is DQd. There will be no offers for a rematch. This is what has been written for months. Just because it had been improperly enforced in the past, that does not mean that the rule no longer applied. The point of going back to strict enforcement of the rule is to remove the judgement call of whether or not to allow a rematch from the host. Having the host and referees making judgement calls was deemed to be an inconsistent way of enforcing the rules. Improper enforcement of the rule in the past does not mean that the rule no longer applied since it was applied, but inconsistently. Making a decision to uniformly enforce the rule as written requires no announcement because it is written in every tournament thread.

 

Under circumstances in which a server issue causes issues with running the event itself, rematches will be be mandatory. However, this will only be employed when necessary.

 

The discussion of this rule is closed.

Link to comment
  • 0

It's not a new rule, it's in literally every single tournament thread. It was just improperly enforced in the past. The decision was made to enforce the rule as written.

This rule has been in place for ages, while pretty much never beeing truly enforced. Rematches have been given on alot of occasions, often far into matches. So I'm sure you can see how I feel I got fucked over after DC'ing turn 1 and no rematch, mainly because you guys have made no such announcement that the rule will be all nazi like now.

 

"We dont have to announce it because it was already in place" This statement is pretty stupid. If a "rule" isnt beeing enforced do you really think people take it serious? I mean rematches have pretty much always been given as long as the other players agrees.

 

And if it had already been discussed, why did Zek use 5 mins to make the decision? Please respond to this

Link to comment
  • 0

This rule has been in place for ages, while pretty much never beeing truly enforced. Rematches have been given on alot of occasions, often far into matches. So I'm sure you can see how I feel I got fucked over after DC'ing turn 1 and no rematch, mainly because you guys have made no such announcement that the rule will be all nazi like now.

 

"We dont have to announce it because it was already in place" This statement is pretty stupid. If a "rule" isnt beeing enforced do you really think people take it serious? I mean rematches have pretty much always been given as long as the other players agrees.

 

And if it had already been discussed, why did Zek use 5 mins to make the decision? Please respond to this

 

Improper enforcement does not mean that the rule doesn't apply. The decision to enforce the rule as written was one that needs no announcement. In every tournament thread the rule is listed as, "If you DC during a match you will be DQd." or something to the effect. It makes no reference of rematches being given at all. When the rule was getting bent, that was a mistake which was corrected by going back to enforcing it as written. The rules that are listed in the thread should be assumed to be in effect unless announced otherwise. This rule is listed in the thread so it should be considered to be in effect. The only rules not listed in the thread that are always in effect are the Code of Conduct and Terms of Service, which apply at all times.

Link to comment
  • 0

And to be fair a rematch in itself even if you only played 1 round before some DC'd can be explioted, figuring someones lead can mean alot. Not all players have enough comps to just go and switch, or your other pokemon that you can use as a lead might not fit that well for your team. thats ofc the minority of the players who participate in officals but that doesnt mean its not a valid argument. 

 

First of let me rephrase my self, if asking the opponent if a rematch would become the standard i think a grouppressure would arise. And maybe you dont care what other people thinks but i know I would to an extent and propably many others. Even though its only between you two or a staff is involved people around are still going to know what happend. And i totally disagree with you, this grouppreassure exists (or will exist) because of a rule that isnt enforced properly.

 

But my main point is things are so much easier for everyone to deal with if staff is strict with the DC=DQ rule. ofc i see the cons but i dont think they overweight the pros. 

 

 

That's why most staff members when offering the rematch, tell you to lead with the same pokemon. And GM's know which pokemon you run so they'll be able to tell whether or not you switched your team.

 

Again, which group of people are you referring to or in what way can they pressurize you? 

 

Just because things may seem easier to deal with, doesn't mean that they're being dealt with in the right manner. Like I said, this rule is just now being enforced so that things become easier for staff and not players. 

 
------------------------------------------------
 
I believe it was suggested quite some time ago by Forfiter or someone where we had the option to re-connect to the server when a DC happens, like showdown. I don't know why this hasn't even been implemented yet since that would solve a lot of problems. No idea why  staff can't come around on a compromise for a DC. When people were afk-ing others mercilessly in semis and in finals, it took a forum shitstorm for you all to come around to the fact that the afk rule is bullshit and that it can now only be applied until the semis. Well now I'm here telling you that this new rule is just like that. This is how a convo would go about:
 
Me: Hey Staff, I just dc'd first turn, can I get a re?
Staff: Nope. Rules state that if you dc, you get DQ'd. Sorry my hands are tied.
 
It's easy for you to say your hands are tied because you guys are responsible for tying your own hands up and this gets you off. When compromises were made, did any of the community backlash on that? No, I don't think so. It's only when rules are being enforced unfairly that this issue has arised. I don't know if staff are ever going to decide to be the tiniest bit lenient, but all you're doing with these goddamn rules is driving away your playerbase. 
 

 

 

From this point forward, anyone who DCs during a match is DQd. There will be no offers for a rematch. This is what has been written for months. Just because it had been improperly enforced in the past, that does not mean that the rule no longer applied. 

 

Have you ever asked yourself why these decisions were improperly enforced? It's because at that time, it was the right thing to do. 

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0
 

Just because things may seem easier to deal with, doesn't mean that they're being dealt with in the right manner. Like I said, this rule is just now being enforced so that things become easier for staff and not players. 

 

Making things easier for the staff is done to make things easier for the players.

 

If we have set rules in place then everything is acted on in the same manner and the tournament runs as smoothly as possible.

 

 

I believe it was suggested quite some time ago by Forfiter or someone where we had the option to re-connect to the server when a DC happens, like showdown. I don't know why this hasn't even been implemented yet since that would solve a lot of problems. No idea why  staff can't come around on a compromise for a DC. When people were afk-ing others mercilessly in semis and in finals, it took a forum shitstorm for you all to come around to the fact that the afk rule is bullshit and that it can now only be applied until the semis. Well now I'm here telling you that this new rule is just like that. 

 

 

It's easy to say "This would be better if X was implemented", but it's currently not.

It's not out of the question, however it is nowhere near as easy as you are making out to be.

Link to comment
  • 0

 

 

In an ideal world allowing rematches after a 1 turn dc is basically common sense. The fault in this is where do you draw the line? If someone dc's after 2 turns can they rematch? how about 10 turns? This is why staff have to have strict rules, and to enforce them all effectively (which was an issue in the past, and the only reason this argument is taking place).

Link to comment
  • 0

Making things easier for the staff is done to make things easier for the players.

 

If we have set rules in place then everything is acted on in the same manner and the tournament runs as smoothly as possible.

 

It's easy to say "This would be better if X was implemented", but it's currently not.

It's not out of the question, however it is nowhere near as easy as you are making out to be.

 

 

I don't see how it's easier or better for the players tbh Darkshade. It's just easier to come to a decision since this decision in no way benefits the player because if I spent 3 hrs of my life where I'm sacrificing on my sleep to play this game and to get screwed over this, it'd be shitty. Not trying to say staff members don't put in a lot of effort when it comes to hosting tourneys, but it's easier for you host tournaments at a time convenient for you or which fits your schedule, something that we members don't have the privilege of.

 

I agree with the tournament being run smoothly because there'd be an answer to every situation you encounter. 

 

I know the showdown reconnect thing hasn't been implemented yet and I know it's easier for me to just say it and not know the difficulty in implementing it, which is why I said that until that's been implemented, some compromise over the DC rule should be given, like how the chess timer hadn't been implemented when the afk rule started.

 

In an ideal world allowing rematches after a 1 turn dc is basically common sense. The fault in this is where do you draw the line? If someone dc's after 2 turns can they rematch? how about 10 turns? This is why staff have to have strict rules, and to enforce them all effectively (which was an issue in the past, and the only reason this argument is taking place).

 

Thank you for agreeing that rematches after 1 turn is DC. What I'm trying to say is, DCing after 1 turn, rematches are mandatory. After 3 min or so into the match, the rematch can be allowed provided that the person who gave the rematch has some conditions like the same moves to be played. If this happens, I don't see what harm could possibly happen unless some big rng happened in the first few turns. There's no line or something to be drawn because where does someone take advantage of it? May be after 10 min or so, the staff member can say no to a re. But ultimately, the opposing player should have the option of whether or not to opt for the rematch. It's easily possible to know the movements you've made and coordinate with your opponent to make sure that the same things happen. 

Edited by XelaKebert
Removed edited in portion
Link to comment
  • 0




I don't see how it's easier or better for the players tbh Darkshade. It's just easier to come to a decision since this decision in no way benefits the player because if I spent 3 hrs of my life where I'm sacrificing on sleep to play this game and to get screwed over this, it'd be shitty. Not trying to say staff members don't put in a lot of effort when it comes to hosting tourneys, but it's easier for you host tournaments at time which your schedule, something that we members don't have the privilege of.

I agree with the tournament being run smoothly because there'd be an answer to every situation of what you're supposed to do.

I know the showdown reconnect thing hasn't been implemented yet, which is why I said that until that's been implemented, some compromise over the DC rule should be give, like how the chess timer hadn't been implemented when the afk rule started.


Thank you for agreeing that rematches after 1 turn is DC. What I'm trying to say is, DCing after 1 turn, rematches are mandatory. After 3 min or so into the match, the rematch can be allowed provided that the person who gave the rematch has some conditions like the same moves to be played. If this happens, I don't see what harm could possibly happen unless some big rng happened in the first few turns. There's no line or something to be drawn because where does someone take advantage of it? May be after 10 min or so, the staff member can say no to a re. But ultimately, the opposing player should have the option of whether or not to opt for the rematch. It's easily possible to know the movements you've made and coordinate with your opponent to make sure that the same things happen.


The problem is still where does the line get drawn? We start forcing restarts after one turn then it opens Pandora's Box on introducing more grey area. It starts with one turn rematches and then it slowly goes back to making it judgement calls and that just makes things inconsistent and difficult for everyone. It seems like one turn rematches are good but they aren't. Even if we impose using the same starters what is stopping someone for disconnecting after the first turn because they didn't like how it went. Then it becomes a question of adding a limit to rematches and that just simply is not fair. If a rematch must be granted then there has to be a justifiable reason for it. In this case the most justifiable reason is if there is a server issue.
Link to comment
  • 0

The problem is still where does the line get drawn? We start forcing restarts after one turn then it opens Pandora's Box on introducing more grey area. It starts with one turn rematches and then it slowly goes back to making it judgement calls and that just makes things inconsistent and difficult for everyone. It seems like one turn rematches are good but they aren't. Even if we impose using the same starters what is stopping someone for disconnecting after the first turn because they didn't like how it went. Then it becomes a question of adding a limit to rematches and that just simply is not fair. If a rematch must be granted then there has to be a justifiable reason for it. In this case the most justifiable reason is if there is a server issue.

 

Then draw the limit over there Xela, after one turn. Draw the line at the point which makes common sense.

 

There's no way the outcome of a OU/UU match is decided within the first 5 min. And like I said, if you do give the rematch say after 10 min, the same moves can be played. So it's just like someone picking up where they started off. That's the condition the player has to agree with in order for the rematch to happen. In that way, it's never going to exploitable. 

 

My proposal is only that:

 

1 turn DC = Rematch Mandatory

X turn DC = Rematch Optional (if opposing player agrees to it)

 

Ofc that would make him look bad, but it's his decision.

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0

I beg to differ that doing it that way will not be exploitable. What you are proposing takes the rules that are in place for the sanity of everyone and turns it on its head. Now you're saying instead of a flat dq that we mandate a rematch after one turn, but if you are saying a match isn't decided after 5 minutes then outside turn one introduces more grey area. At what point is a match effectively decided? What is a good amount of time to cutoff rematch opportunities? How do we know a player isn't purposefully quitting to get a rematch after one turn? Why should we put limits on it? Doing it the way you want introduces so many more variables into the situation. Let's say they get an unclean disconnect after the first turn do you know how long it will be before they can get back on? The general rule of thumb is 15 minutes but it could be more or less. If it ends up being more then we hold up the rest of the tournament waiting for that player to come back online, if they don't get stuck on the server until the next restart.

Link to comment
  • 0

I beg to differ that doing it that way will not be exploitable. What you are proposing takes the rules that are in place for the sanity of everyone and turns it on its head. Now you're saying instead of a flat dq that we mandate a rematch after one turn, but if you are saying a match isn't decided after 5 minutes then outside turn one introduces more grey area. At what point is a match effectively decided? What is a good amount of time to cutoff rematch opportunities? How do we know a player isn't purposefully quitting to get a rematch after one turn? Why should we put limits on it? Doing it the way you want introduces so many more variables into the situation. Let's say they get an unclean disconnect after the first turn do you know how long it will be before they can get back on? The general rule of thumb is 15 minutes but it could be more or less. If it ends up being more then we hold up the rest of the tournament waiting for that player to come back online, if they don't get stuck on the server until the next restart.

 

I can't say with exact 100% if a match is decided within 5 minutes or not, which is why at that point the decision to rematch where it's 5 min or more, should entirely be up to the opposing party. It's the opposing party's judgement call to make on whether or not the match has been decided and even if it hasn't, he can still say he would've won and claim the win. That way the power still stays with him and nothing can be done about it. If opposing party is a dick, he can claim the win. If he isn't and wants to win fairly, he can make sure that the same moves from turn1 onwards are repeated. So again, purposefully dc-ing doesn't benefit the person who dc'd. 

 

I've bolded your first statement so that I could exactly reply to it. Why would a player purposefully quit after the first turn? There is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so. GMs have the power to know if a team has been changed and that way, you'd know if the person was using this dc to manipulate his way into getting to a better position. But again I ask, how much can a person benefit from turn one? Even at this instance after turn one, you can make sure that the same leads and moves are played out. 

 

If the hold up for the person is more than 15 minutes, then go ahead and give the other party a win because at that point, no one is to blame, it's just shitty luck and at least you can go ahead and say that you did your best to give the dc'd guy a fair shot. That's all I'm asking for. 

Link to comment
  • 0

You haven't addressed the question at all. Even if we impose using the same starters that doesn't mean a player won't use this to their advantage to get a better look on the first turn. What you're touting as common sense and simple isn't as simple as it sounds. In fact it introduces more variables into the system that leave room for inconsistent judgement calls on the part of the host. Sure we can ask the other player if they want a rematch but what about other grey areas like what happens if a rematch is agreed to and the player can't get back on for an hour or even has to wait for the next server restart. The point of a flat disqualification is to remove as many variables and judgement calls as possible not to introduce more.

Link to comment
  • 0

 

I don't see how it's easier or better for the players tbh Darkshade. It's just easier to come to a decision since this decision in no way benefits the player because if I spent 3 hrs of my life where I'm sacrificing on my sleep to play this game and to get screwed over this, it'd be shitty.

 

It's not about the inconveniences you suffer personally, it's about making things fair as a whole.

As Xela has pointed out, we have no way of determining whether or not the ability to rematch is being abused and therefore disconnecting will result in a flat loss.

Can this suck when a player has legitimately disconnected due to a bad internet connection? Of course, but better to do that than to provide a way to potentially exploit the rematch system or give the impression that we favour one player over another.

Those accusations are going to happen regardless, but if we have a flat ruling for everybody then everybody gets treated exactly equally.

Link to comment
  • 0

You haven't addressed the question at all. Even if we impose using the same starters that doesn't mean a player won't use this to their advantage to get a better look on the first turn

 

Same starters and same moves. That way, things will go ahead as they had happened. You say that a person will use this to their advantage, but how are they going to exploit? What makes you feel that what happens in the first turn can largely affect the outcome of the match? Even then, having the same moves re-enforced, would make sure that the dc'd player cannot take advantage of this. 

 

 Sure we can ask the other player if they want a rematch but what about other grey areas like what happens if a rematch is agreed to and the player can't get back on for an hour or even has to wait for the next server restart. The point of a flat disqualification is to remove as many variables and judgement calls as possible not to introduce more.

 

 

I told you, if the wait is 15 minutes more, then DQ him. Because at that point, you and the opposing party would've done the right thing about giving the guy a fair chance to battle. This new system of rules doesn't even give such a person a fighting chance. If that guy doesn't get back on for 15 min, he will more than likely understand why you'd DQ him because that would make more sense than DQing in the first turn immediately. Xela, if you are aware of the existing variables, then come back to me and I'll tell you how each of it can affect the situation or what the right call is to be made.

 

 

It's not about the inconveniences you suffer personally, it's about making things fair as a whole.

 

For whom exactly is it fair, DS? Definitely not for the person who gets DQ'd after turn one or for the person who wanted to have a real competitive match and is willing to give a rematch but is unable to. The only people that come to mind are staff because it's easier for them to come to a decision. 

 

 

As Xela has pointed out, we have no way of determining whether or not the ability to rematch is being abused and therefore disconnecting will result in a flat loss.

 

And you guys have never pointed out either on how the ability to rematch can be abused if the same leads, same moves and same teams are used. Several times, as mentioned by your fellow staff, rematches have been given. At any instance when this happened, was there any sign of abuse? I don't think so and neither will there be. 
 

Can this suck when a player has legitimately disconnected due to a bad internet connection? Of course, but better to do that than to provide a way to potentially exploit the rematch system or give the impression that we favour one player over another.

 

I agree with you about how this rule considers no partiality and that way how it has its advantages. But you can still make some slight modifications to maintain that same impartiality by making rematches mandatory after turn one and when it is multiple turns, optional because you did everything in your power to make things right. No one is going to accuse you of being impartial because you followed the rules and then everything is decided in hands of the player. At that point, as quoted by someone, rematch is considered as a gift not a right. I'm here asking to make rematches for DC's after turn one, a right. 

 

 

Those accusations are going to happen regardless, but if we have a flat ruling for everybody then everybody gets treated exactly equally.

 

In what way with my proposal, is anyone going to be treated unfairly because the way I see it, everyone gets equal treatment since DC's after first turn are mandatory. If there is no way someone is getting treated unfairly, then in no way is an accusation gonna happen. If it does happen, then it's BS and you know it.. After turn one or two, the decision to have a rematch entirely belongs to the player the DC'd guy is facing and at that point, a rematch is considered as a gift. 

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0

Let's say we go with this scenario and a player gets paralyzed on the first turn or gets KO'd in one shot. Knowing that they will get the match restarted if the DC they could use that to get that match restarted to try and get more favorable RNG. Introducing a limit on when the rematches become optional is just an arbitrary time of 5 minutes. The problem with that is that there is no good amount of time to draw the line it. You may not think it's a bad idea and it may sound like common sense to you, but it's not.

 

The point is that your system has more variables tied to it than what we have in place and will not be used. This system is flat DQ if you disconnect. In this system the only variable we account for is server issues causing connection problems, which result in mandatory rematches.

 

As I said, the point of the current system if to remove the variables, not introduce more. As such the rule will stay as it has been written for over a year. Improper enforcement of the rule in the past is irrelevant. Those instances are in the past and the complaints were that the rule was not consistent. So we went back to the consistent rule as it has been written in literally every tournament thread since the rule was written. Touting that your system is common sense is incorrect. It's common sense to go with the more consistent system. The more consistent system is to have a flat DQ and only account for server issues. Not restart after one turn, then start offering after an arbitrary amount of time.

 

This discussion is closed. The rule is being enforced as it has been written for over a year. There is no more discussion to be had on this topic.

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.