PSL Season 4 General (Smack Talk) Thread

[Vorred]

it's not like new host means we need a fresh draft. it's still season 4.

[DoubleJ]

it's not like new host means we need a fresh draft. it's still season 4.

Retaining players imo hurts competition and the goal of the psl, which is to highlight talented players that otherwise don't get much shine.

Find a new crew and make them great.

[Vorred]

Retaining players imo hurts competition and the goal of the psl, which is to highlight talented players that otherwise don't get much shine.

 

and how does retaining players affect that, talented players are still going to shine.

I'd just be letting a guy shine 2 seasons in a row for a team he was a part of.

 

A player I don't retain would still sign up and be drafted either way.

[Magnet]

Players blacklisted from previous PSL to season 4 will be blacklisted season 4 even with the different host (assuming I can find all the blacklist decisions).

 

 

What about players who were banned from game and hence blacklisted and are now unabanned?

[OrangeManiac]

What about players who were banned from game and hence blacklisted and are now unabanned?

 

People didn't get blacklisted from PSL by default by being forum or in-game banned. Blacklisting only happened when a player got forum banned while PSL was on, I think there was only one incident of this. If a player was banned from forums and/or in game but they aren't anymore, nothing prevents that person from playing.

About retaining players, I never liked that rule if I'm completely honest. In addition it would be really difficult to implement in a different format I find it better to just not have it.

Edited September 30, 2015 by OrangeManiac

[RysPicz]

I wanna be a manager, pls respond

[Kiliminati]

I wanna be a manager, pls respond

You'll just try to draft all the girls (inb4 PinkWings reaches like 40k between TJ and 4f)

[RysPicz]

That depends on who's gonna sign up. I will prob pay any money for Nik

 

E:

Orange, it'd be good if a CM/GM could hold the pot in case you get banned for irrelevant shit or try to rmt or abuse a bug or idk what else, nomsayin... ;x

Edited September 30, 2015 by RysPicz

[fredrichnietze]

ok so *smack talk

 

and best out of 3 for doubles / vgc (all formats would be nice)

 

and no player limit would force managers to actually plan and make sure they have enough to afford all the players they need. if they fuck up, they would have to trade some of their cash/players for a 2 for 1 deal, or take the auto loss every week. this added mechanic would create a penalty for spending a majority of your cash on half a few high ranked players, because their is no guarantee that their will be cheaper players to full out the team. as it is, the player cap means their will always be players in the pool for cheap.

 

also i'll come back for dis (then leave again after)

 

and i'll donate 1mil if you implement best/3 for doubles&vgc and 1mil if you implement no cap for teams.

 

EDIT:@4f because cm's dont get banned for stupid shit? give it noad. never seen a SGM get banned.

[spoiler]

not gonna post examples of cm's/gm's cause dont wanna get this post removed

[/spoiler]

Edited September 30, 2015 by fredrichnietze

[Robofiend]

I feel DPP is a really balanced and enjoyable format that takes true skill. 

 

I'm really skeptical about how balanced a format is if I'm a top player in it, lol

[RysPicz]

I'm really skeptical about how balanced a format is if I'm a top player in it, lol

I feel that randoms are going to be a very balanced tier

[OrangeManiac]

@Fred

The reason why I created a cap of 10 players / team is that I don't want a PSL to be a tournament to bench people while they need to be constantly around just in case they're required to play and don't want to be blacklisted. 4 people benched / week is already a bit unfortunately high but this number makes sure no manager will not have someone to play even in the worst case scenario.

[DoubleJ]

I'm really skeptical about how balanced a format is if I'm a top player in it, lol

 

Only cuz Showdown is bad

 

 

EDIT: And don't give into Fred, player cap is love, player cap is life. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by DoubleJ

[fredrichnietze]

each team still needs a minimium number of players, otherwise they'll loose matches automatically. with so many managers and teams, no manager will say "i spent all my money on 4 players i think i'll just auto loose the rest of my matches", he/she will trade one or two of his players and/or money for midseason for more players.

it's so that their is a risk factor involved with spending all your money on a few players. if you spend too much on the few, you will have to trade one of them for several players to fill out the team.

if a manager tries to up the prices of a dozen or two early on then the other managers have to bid on more players at once, or just not and then that one manager is stuck with a large amount of low win % players and has to trade many of them away for some better ones.

 

you shouldn't make being a manager too easy.

[DoubleJ]

each team still needs a minimium number of players, otherwise they'll loose matches automatically. with so many managers and teams, no manager will say "i spent all my money on 4 players i think i'll just auto loose the rest of my matches", he/she will trade one or two of his players and/or money for midseason for more players.

it's so that their is a risk factor involved with spending all your money on a few players. if you spend too much on the few, you will have to trade one of them for several players to fill out the team.

if a manager tries to up the prices of a dozen or two early on then the other managers have to bid on more players at once, or just not and then that one manager is stuck with a large amount of low win % players and has to trade many of them away for some better ones.

 

you shouldn't make being a manager too easy.

 

wot? promoting one or two managers to buy up all the lesser known players doesn't promote competition at all. it just promotes backstabbery between managers and players getting needlessly benched. 

[fredrichnietze]

your assuming that the result will be one or two teams with a lot of cheap players and the rest with a few expensive ones.

 

lets assume 8 managers with a pool around 80. each team ideally wants 10 members. if they spent the exact same amount of every player it'd be 10% per player. but this doesnt happen because not all players are worth the same amount in the eyes of the managers.some players are worth spending more. but how much more? if their is a cap then they only need to keep enough for the min bid for 3-5 players and spend the other 90-94% of their cash (assuming 2% is min bid) on 5-7 of their "main guys". as it is now everything can be calculated, and their is little to no risk using this strategy because their is a player cap. unless one or more of these main guys get banned or quit, and assuming they scouted which every manager should do, then thats all they have to do.

 

EVERYTHING has been calculated and their is no risk, and no need to trade, or work together with other managers. just spend 90% on the top 5-7 players.

 

if their is no cap, then it becomes more complicated. you do not know what the minimum amount of cash you will need to afford those  cheaper players. it is almost certainly more then 6-10%. so the managers will have to form one of several strategy's. 

 

sow your seed to the wind~

bid small amounts on everyone early on and try to get a large total # of players. the point of this is once you have all the cheap players, other teams will have to trade with you to fill up their roster.

the risk involved is "what if you spend all your money on players who cant win consistently and no one needs to trade with you" 

the reward is if done correctly you will give most of the other teams auto loss's unless they play ball and buy some of your players, which leaves you with a good team, and hurts the other teams.

 

90% 

bid 90% or so on the top 5-7 players and hope you can get one or two cheap for min bid.

the risk is what if you dont get those players? what if you dont have enough players? you have to trade away some of those expensive people for quantity

the reward if done right will give you the best players in the game who can consistently win and a few cheaper players who can sometimes pull off a win

 

balanced

instead of going for the top in ever tier, go for the 2nd-4th in every area. you should have enough to afford a good but not great player in every tier. vs unbalanced teams with a few great players and the rest cheap, you can win against the cheaper players, and you only have to beat one or two of the GREAT players.

the risk is getting mediocre players if you dont scout well

the reward if done right is consistently winning a high % of your matches, especially if your opponents who bet everything on a few players gambled poorly

 

working together

alliance with another manager would give you a advantage over all the other managers. 2 vs 1 aint fair, and you could use your resources to mutual benefit. ofc this has the risk of backstabbing and their is no guarantee the other managers wont do the same, but the reward is getting better players for the same/less cost.

 

point is, if their is a element of risk/reward involved it'll raise the skill and difficulty level and also be more fun.

 

because their are 8 or so managers the "team with under min # of members" wont happen, because the only way that can happen is if a manager spends all his money on a few players and cant afford anymore, and then their are 7 other teams to trade with. the only way a manager spends all of his money on a few players, is if they are highly desirable, and then the other 7 teams all want them.

 

now does this promote managers backstabbing? kinda, it's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemmawhere if no one backstabs anyone they both win, and if they both backstab each other they both loose, but if one backstabs the other the stabber benefits.

 

would players get needlessly benched? no because with a large pool of teams, a team with not enough members best option is to trade. and the other teams only benefit if they are the team who trades, or if no one trades. with 7 other teams, there is no way ALL of the other teams are not going to make that deal and benefit. so since their is no benefit in not trading unless everyone does it, and it's unlikely that everyone will work together for this, the best option is to trade for both parties. 

[OrangeManiac]

So basically the main thing I'm getting from this is that managers shouldn't pay too much for players because otherwise other managers can just buy the list empty from the players so they can't have any? I mean I see your point but I'm still sticking with what I have. It's enough risk that you cannot choose your remaining players if you pay too much for some people.

There's no need for dozen or so players to sit on a bench because a manager is recklessly using their credits. In the current situation it is that yeah, you probably will go almost all in for that 6 players you wanna start + have 1-2 good backups you can fit everywhere. But it doesn't mean you still shouldn't spend that amount wisely.

[fredrichnietze]

ok, best/3 for doubles?

[OrangeManiac]

ok, best/3 for doubles?

VGC yeah but MMO Doubles no.

[fredrichnietze]

avg doubles battle goes fro 5-15 minutes on avg. rarely goes longer. longest i ever saw was 30 something minutes. 3 matches should take 30-45 avg maybe a bit longer if both players bring very wall heavy teams, but that rarely happens cause offensive>defensive in doubles.

 

ou and uu matches regularly take a hour or longer. last season i saw a dozen 100+ minute matches.

 

TL;DR time is not a factor.

 

doubles is THE most rng heavy metagame in pokemon by far.

 

the only reason we didnt do best/3 last season was because i brought it up after several matches already took place and kinkrice "didnt want to change the format mid season". this would not be mid season.

 

last season multiple matches came down to a RNG in doubles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZI9kMsvRQ

[OrangeManiac]

Aight I'm willing to consider that. Just thought that the Standard MMO Doubles is best of 1 but fair point.

[fredrichnietze]

havent decided if player or manager yet, but if i do player, here me 6-0'ing a guy in random doubles https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/randomdoublesbattle-276563249

[Vorred]

these people talkin like they confirmed to be manager if they apply

 

smh rite coolio

[Eggplant]

Ah yeah btw assuming managers can't play, I miiight sit out on this one.
Gotta show people (like coolio) who's doubles masta.

[DoubleJ]

DoubleJ Doubles Master.

[Spoiler] literally tho. Check my sig. [/spoiler]