Jump to content

Best of 2017


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, BurntZebra said:

Matchmaking is always seen as the inferior form of competitive play, even on smogon. Nearly all top level competitive players either don't play on the ladder or they just see it where they can beat on random noobs to test out teams. Matchmaking is somewhat inherently less competitive as you're not able to anticipate who you're playing, what kind of team will they play, the skill of the player, etc, that all play a role in determining optimal plays. Matchmaking is a good way to test out teams vs a nice sampling of different people and teams, but beyond that, skills in matchmaking don't always matchup to skills in tournament play.

As a hearthstone player, I think we can compare the two games in this question. In Hs, a player can be good at laddering and get high ranks, but as u mentioned there is the stuff about knowing ur next oponent. In ladder u use standart stuff to get a overall performance and testing new stuff, while in tours u use ur knowledge about the player and try counter him (in hearthstone its like bring tech cards in a tournament) while ur opponent might play around a counter team or bring other team and other play style, etc.

Edited by Risadex
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Murcielago said:

First off, stop obsessing over win%... this is a lifetime recorded stat... I have addressed this before, btw... the only thing that this represents often times, is that the low win % player isnt a wussy afraid to do ranked and wants to get better at the game.  For you to assume a player is bad because thier win rate is low is simply ignorant.  IMO many of the best players have sub 60% win rates.  AinhoaJL for example... has a ~53% win rate but is easily one of the top 20, at very least, ou players in the game that plays ranked.

When you're quoting someone and responding to their post could you at least read what they are saying?

 

Show me the place where I said win % is an important stat. I particularly emphasized how it's not.

 

Quote

The whole belief of "Just play a lot and win more than 50% and you will be top player" is completely wrong.  flat out wrong.  This will work to get into the top 100, perhaps even top 50... but top 10.... no way.  once ur elo is high 1 win =+3 elo... 1 loss = -5 elo... you really need to maintain more or less a 60% win rate bare minimum to stay within the top 20.

 

I was just trying to explain the overall idea of the ladder that +50% win rate will get you to the top. Which gives room for lots of average players.

 

But yes. You're right about the fact that at top 20ish you more likely face players with lower ELO than yours making maintaining the ranking a bit harder, yes.

 

Quote

If anyone needs more education about how and why ranked is important, I can teach this lesson most effectively as I play vs. you in a tournament. 

If you think officials don't mean anything battle me right now xdd 

 

Yeah, not really an argument.

 

In all fairness, I'm actually surprised that you take so much time to defend a ranking system that is clearly so hard to use as a source for any exterior rankings. If anything I could see you argue that officials aren't actually "that" big of a deal, considering all you need to do is win 6-7 matches in a row. And they really aren't. These lists were never made to argue that x and y are actually the best players in the game, just to show how well did certain players do in officials. It's just easier and more exciting to call it "Best of 2017" than "The best placed players in official tournaments in 2017" just so no one would get their jimmies rustled.

 

I have no idea why you're having such a massive crusade against a thread that's supposed to be for fun and...

 

18 hours ago, Murcielago said:

GJ on the list @LifeStyle looking forward to you adding me to it..

Ah okay.

 

Edited by OrangeManiac
Link to comment
9 hours ago, gbwead said:

However, this is the first time staff puts a reserve tournament in the hall of fame

I don't think it should be, I'll talk to some people and see if it was an accident or maybe somebody was unaware.

Link to comment

I'm not defending anything or on a crusade orange.

 

look up the following words in the dictionary:

 

wrong, incorrect, misinformed 

 

they all apply to your statements regarding matchmaking.  

 

Im simply pointing out the statements u made about mm that are wrong....  

 

 

Link to comment

I think these days, both matchmaking and officials are bad.

 

I remember back 1 year+ ago when officials were fairly competitive and it was rare to see randoms in semis+, especially back in the silph co days. Nowadays I look at brackets and see randoms scattered all across the board and I'm never surprised to see one or even two randoms in the finals. Then again, I check first round and struggle to find many known good players so it probably stems from that.

 

The glory days were Silph Co days, the most competitive era.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, KaynineXL said:

 I'm never surprised to see one or even two randoms in the finals. Then again, I check first round and struggle to find many known good players so it probably stems from that.

I'm adressing this because I'm always surprised by this term. They're not randoms, they're people who are making teams, pokemons, and who are fighting. Just because they're not in biggest teams, or cause they're not so active on forum, or it doesn't mean they can't be good. With new pokemons incoming we might see new "randoms" taking place of old players in leaderboards in both matchmaking, and in "Best of new meta".

 

Many known good players won shinies they desire and are not taking part in tournaments because of that or because of boredom. We can see new players rise,heck, in last Team Tournament a lot old players were asking "who is this random team in TT bracket"

 


And this "random" team went to finals. 

 

 

Edit: don't read it as attack toward you Kay, as it wasn't intented to be attack towards any single player, just saying that I don't like this term :P

Link to comment

It's very typical for old players always to consider the old days being the most competitive. Back in 2014 all the old players went on about how "people used to be actually good back in the old days" referring to the metagame which was 3v3/4v4 and half of the moves in the game didn't work properly. Just because a few big names decided to stop playing doesn't mean the overall level has gone downhill because new names can and will pop up constantly.

Link to comment

Noobies won't improve if their metagame reference point is when they compete against other noobies. They will teambuild and train thinking the metagame is something that it isn't. It is important for new players to face old ones, so that they can learn what's up. It is also important for old players to face new ones in order to get a reality check that will help them think outside the box, but that is another story. If old players don't compete against the new players before they leave, some metagame knowledge will be lost. It's the destruction of Rome all over again basically. The level of gameplay will surely fall and the remaining old players might not even care to compete in such a messy noobie heavy metagame, which will make everything worse.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bearminator said:

I'm adressing this because I'm always surprised by this term. They're not randoms, they're people who are making teams, pokemons, and who are fighting. Just because they're not in biggest teams, or cause they're not so active on forum, or it doesn't mean they can't be good. With new pokemons incoming we might see new "randoms" taking place of old players in leaderboards in both matchmaking, and in "Best of new meta".

 

Many known good players won shinies they desire and are not taking part in tournaments because of that or because of boredom. We can see new players rise,heck, in last Team Tournament a lot old players were asking "who is this random team in TT bracket"

 


And this "random" team went to finals. 

 

 

Edit: don't read it as attack toward you Kay, as it wasn't intented to be attack towards any single player, just saying that I don't like this term :P

I don't read it as an attack, no worries, but I did say "known good players", that doesnt mean I think randoms are bad, but I can definitely tell you from experience by watching these finals the quality is definitely not as good as it used to  be a lot of the time, not all of the time.

Link to comment

@gbwead

 

nah, the old players are not needed at all... its true.

 

Many of the "known good players" as the small forum echo chamber crowd refers to them as... are not even that good.  It has been postulated that they only were ever considered good because back in the day no one good actually played.

Edited by Murcielago
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Murcielago said:

@gbwead

 

nah, the old players are not needed at all... its true.

 

Many of the "known good players" as the small forum echo chamber crowd refers to them as... are not even that good.  It has been postulated that they only were ever considered good because back in the day no one good actually played.

Well the old players are surely needed here if you want to compare new players to old players.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Murcielago said:

@gbwead

 

nah, the old players are not needed at all... its true.

 

Many of the "known good players" as the small forum echo chamber crowd refers to them as... are not even that good.  It has been postulated that they only were ever considered good because back in the day no one good actually played.

These "known good players" arent just the popular spammers on the forums with 1 CC official to their name.. I'm talking about those who have won a large amount of officials which made these players known to be good.

 

They have more to go by than some random who is 20th in ranked and lost in a finals this one time. I just don't think you have any stats behind you to decide who was better.

Link to comment

@KaynineXL - Thats fair.  Not sure why your so mad about this... and you think your good but you personally cannot get above rank #75 to save your life...

 

IMO:

 

Beating frags 3x in a row as he intentionally ques against you with counter teams and has Aw back him to force the match (in ranked)  >> winning official 6 mo ago.

 

Winning official event w/o any help >> Winning official event with the backing of established team.

 

At the end of the day:

 

Superior player = smashes inferior player

 

It shouldn't matter the format.

 

If you actually read my posts you will notice I make no claim (in this thread at least?) who is actually good at the game.  Certainly, in the past, I have not censored my beliefs that i am better than many of these "top ou players" but this should be neither here nor there.

 

I am of the sincere belief that @LifeStyle is doing us all a favor by putting this list together.  But thats all it is, a list.  Just like Ranked leader board is just a list.  In order for it to mean anything you need to take its pulse and understand the players and who is doing what...

 

 

 

 

Edited by Murcielago
Link to comment

The PokeMMO competitive scene has gone to shit, both in tournaments and in matchmaking.

 

Are there more players today than there were before? This is highly debatable, but I can say the competitive scene is surely less exclusive. Is there more opportunity for the vast number of players to compete with others? Yes, the matchmaking system has offered that. Is the matchmaking system a collection of the most talented players? Certainly not. I would argue that only in the Top 15 do you see truly competitive matches, and even then you run into players spamming the same team over and over and over again. Prior to the Top 15, you have what I like to eloquently call "randoms" throwing OU teams together without regard. Their IVs are shit and their plays are worse. Do talented players lose to players like this? You bet your ass they do. And why? Simply because you can't predict a random like you can predict a Walpayer or an Aerun. Their plays are unexpected because they don't know what the right play is. 

 

Matchmaking has the potential to be great, but as stated so many times in this thread (#repeatsyndrome#forf#oopsnamedrop) there really is no incentive to play. The leaderboard tournaments are nice, but grinding for a month does not equate to a small tournament with a meager cash prize. I would highly suggest making a massive rework on the matchmaking system, since the top players really only use it as an easy BP grind. Namely, I would suggest wiping the entire board and forming a new prize system. I would love to see weekly cash awards to the Top 10 players, with an effective depreciation system that ensures you don't see Frags sitting on top without ever playing just because he racked up 200 wins. After that, the monthly leaderboard tournament should offer a decent shiny prize, something slightly better than what we see in our pleb tier tournaments. This is a month long event, why not award dedication? The crazies that play ranked are there almost every session, trying to maintain their shit 50% win percentage. That's more grind than I've ever seen in this game. 

 

@Darkshade @Munya @Noad

 

Regarding tournaments, I really don't know what happened along the way. Oh right I know what happened, it was the transition to automated tournaments. Sure it's nice to have a tournament you can just log on and play without much effort, but what made PokeMMO great was the community and these automated tournaments absolutely fucked that. We used to gather by the 100s in Silph Co just to play and spectate the best players in this game on a weekly, hell almost daily, basis. Now, the prizes are weak, the tiers are stale, and the best and most creative players refuse to play because it just isn't the same. There is no glory in winning an automated tournament other than having your name posted in our extensive replay list. I would recommend one massive Silph Co tournament per month and build the HYPE! Offer a good prize and stick it on a weekend so everyone can try and play. 64-man. And if you want to make a connection, how about only allowing players that are ranked in the Top 100 of matchmaking to participate? Bam, connections and a mind blowing way to ensure both systems get used. 

 

 

Now as for all this bickering, stfu mates. This game sucks, you likely suck, and we should all probably be playing a battle simulator if the competitive scene stays the way it is. 

 

@LifeStyle from one person who made a dank rankings list to the next, keep up the good work my son. Yes u. 

Link to comment

When ppl bring amount of officials win, it somehow triggers me.

I mean, that amount of wins in officials prove how good a player is, but you can´t ever compare it to newer players.

Saying player A is a random( with often a negative conotation) just because he only won 2/3 officials in his entire play, is completely poop.

Of course a newer player won´t have as near as many wins as older players because they didn´t play that many also.

For me, Quality> Quantity. A player with, let´s say, 3 finals in 4 officials entered, has much more potential than one with 30 finals in 350 officials entered.

Of course the error in such statement is much bigger for the first case, since you don´t have a wide statistical stuff bla bla bla.

My opinion here is that "random" term is abused and often misleaded.

I have no doubt that players like frags are among the best players this game ever had, but he, unlike a lot of other players some ppl refer as good old players, have both several wins in officials and also an amazing effectiveness in the officials he entered.

There are some names that are gradually emerging, which most of them don´t get the credit deserved cause of this.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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