Jump to content

[PSL 8] Donations Thread - Poll Added for Tiers


Rule Changes for PSL 8  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Doubles be BO1 or BO3?

  2. 2. Would you rather see 8 tier lineups or 10 tier lineups?

  3. 3. What tiers would you like to see the most?



Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, TheChampionMike said:

If LC does get added will that also be bo3? Its not really that rng based but it's still very fast paced and people might actually not miss a match because its over after 5-10 minutes.

LC is incredibly rng based, for example my match vs orange in lc tourney 8, i lost due to a rs flinch turn one. While the match itself was like 15 turns orso. Therefore a bo3 would be prefered imo.

Link to comment

I personally think doing bo3 in doubles is fine but what if we did it somewhat like VGC where

you have to use the same exact team each time but u can change up your leads

 

it allows you to really test the strength of your team, knocks off most of that RNG factor 

and theres not really an issue with time in between matches cuz ur not really making a new team

Link to comment
6 hours ago, BurntZebra said:

Although I agree that ideally PSL should be for the "super"/elite, and we should somewhat strive for what Smogon's SPL is, a gathering of the top elite players, where you need to prove yourself before you can even be considered to be drafted for it, but unfortunately, this is Pokemmo with a much smaller playerbase and not as many dedicated players. A smaller number of total players would motivate people to try more leading up to the auction/draft, but after that, the motivation will likely drop again, since they are in the event now. For now, I haven't decided on whether it will be 8 tiers or 10 tiers yet. 

 

A smaller number of people on each team would likely mean more people at mid season, so if people are playing like trash they could easily be replaced, hopefully providing some motivation to try.

 

Slightly more dramatic but you could give prize money depending on win rate. People who don't have a positive win rate would receive that fraction of the prize while people who go positive split the remaining amount. For example if there is a 40mil prize to split among 10 players it would mean 4mil each. But if 1 player went 3:4 they would only receive 75% (3/4) of that 4mil, 3mil. The remaining 37m would be split evenly among the other 9 players who all went positive. 

 

Edit: I took out the part about doing the opposite after thinking i realize the opposite doesn't work, if someone went 10-0 they would get the pot.

 

Edited by DaftCoolio
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, DaftCoolio said:

A smaller number of people on each team would likely mean more people at mid season, so if people are playing like trash they could easily be replaced, hopefully providing some motivation to try.

 

Slightly more dramatic but you could give prize money depending on win rate. People who don't have a positive win rate would receive that fraction of the prize while people who go positive split the remaining amount. For example if there is a 40mil prize to split among 10 players it would mean 4mil each. But if 1 player went 3:4 they would only receive 75% (3/4) of that 4mil, 3mil. The remaining 37m would be split evenly among the other 9 players who all went positive. Alternatively you could do the opposite and give extra for people with positive win rates, so to reward winning instead of punishing losing. 

 

oh damn I really like this idea tbh

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, DaftCoolio said:

A smaller number of people on each team would likely mean more people at mid season, so if people are playing like trash they could easily be replaced, hopefully providing some motivation to try.

 

Slightly more dramatic but you could give prize money depending on win rate. People who don't have a positive win rate would receive that fraction of the prize while people who go positive split the remaining amount. For example if there is a 40mil prize to split among 10 players it would mean 4mil each. But if 1 player went 3:4 they would only receive 75% (3/4) of that 4mil, 3mil. The remaining 37m would be split evenly among the other 9 players who all went positive. Alternatively you could do the opposite and give extra for people with positive win rates, so to reward winning instead of punishing losing. 

 

But I like winning money

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LifeStyle said:

I feel like SM OU will be just like PSL7's VGC, watching players just signing up for it to get drafted without actually having played it before, which leads to stealing teams from Smogon threads and using them poorly. My reason to believe this is mostly just by looking at The Pokemon Showdown Thread, you can see people only post replays from either DPP OU or Gen7 randoms because that's honestly what most of MMO's playerbase only focus on.

Well I did buy more VGC players than I needed in PSL7 just so there would be less competition for my VGC player. Now that a lot of players have been exposed to VGC17, we would not have this problem anymore, but if we change the second showdown tier constantly we will never get good competition. Plz keep VGC17.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Well I did buy more VGC players than I needed in PSL7 just so there would be less competition for my VGC player. Now that a lot of players have been exposed to VGC17, we would not have this problem anymore, but if we change the second showdown tier constantly we will never get good competition. Plz keep VGC17.

I meant like "Lets only have DPP for a showdown tier"

Fuck everything else

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Well I did buy more VGC players than I needed in PSL7 just so there would be less competition for my VGC player. Now that a lot of players have been exposed to VGC17, we would not have this problem anymore, but if we change the second showdown tier constantly we will never get good competition. Plz keep VGC17.

I think theres some merit to this, the dpp competition has noticeably risen with every passing season 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, LifeStyle said:

I feel like SM OU will be just like PSL7's VGC, watching players just signing up for it to get drafted without actually having played it before, which leads to stealing teams from Smogon threads and using them poorly. My reason to believe this is mostly just by looking at The Pokemon Showdown Thread, you can see people only post replays from either DPP OU or Gen7 randoms because that's honestly what most of MMO's playerbase only focus on.

The learning curve for SM OU is much less than VGC for me personally. It's singles, so it's already a lot more intuitive than the more complicated 4 v 4 doubles format. People are also more experienced building teams for singles synergy, rather than doubles, since Pokemmos viable double Pokemon is like 15-20 and is pretty limiting. I also wouldn't assume anything based off the showdown thread we have on the forums. It's fairly inactive to begin with and the people that do like to share replays are usually just playing randoms since there's a fairly unique dynamic to it. I think there's already a decent chunk of players that have at least tried SM OU at some point, and those who haven't should at least try playing it. 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, BurntZebra said:

 

@gbwead

Your number one suggestion to the draft system pretty much invalidates the whole point of the draft. It is just a very indirect form of an auction and would accomplish nothing.

8b7ba7eaac74b41acc30028185d4cc63.png

The top 8 draft picks all performed fairly well and I think it's fairly safe to say, in an auction setting, there wouldn't be that much price variation between them, assuming they all went during the beginning of an auction when managers are more reckless with credits, which is why I considered giving all the draft picks (first round, if we do more than one round) the same value, allowing for trades, or just allow trades on them without putting an arbitrary value on them, and just use common sense on what trades should be allowed or not.

It is absolutely an indirect form of auction and imo that much better and more fair than having any determined order that do not reflect the value of the picks. The price variation between the players might not seem like much, but it is incredibly significant and it makes all the difference. Frags and Osuki were the top 2 picks because it was well known by all the managers that they would not only perform greatly, but they would also help their team in so many ways. I can't say the same about the others beside maybe you and Lkrenz, but to a much lesser apparent extent. It doesn't matter that all the 8 first picks have a positive win/ratio, their performance as draft picks goes way beyond that. If the order for the draft is arbitrarily decided by the host, I personally think this is not fair, as it only reflects your perception of what the value of the picks are rather than the actual value the managers would give to each pick. Trades regarding picks or drafted players is a secondary issue. It is imo always better if the host doesn't get subjectively involved in deciding whether or not a trade is allowed and that involves leaving no grey areas before the season starts. 

 

edit:

33 minutes ago, BurntZebra said:

The learning curve for SM OU is much less than VGC for me personally. It's singles, so it's already a lot more intuitive than the more complicated 4 v 4 doubles format. People are also more experienced building teams for singles synergy, rather than doubles, since Pokemmos viable double Pokemon is like 15-20 and is pretty limiting. I also wouldn't assume anything based off the showdown thread we have on the forums. It's fairly inactive to begin with and the people that do like to share replays are usually just playing randoms since there's a fairly unique dynamic to it. I think there's already a decent chunk of players that have at least tried SM OU at some point, and those who haven't should at least try playing it. 

I am not so sure about what I am about to say, but iirc last season there was a point where it seems that having one single showdown tier and one doubles showdown tier was better than having two single showdown tiers. Single showdown players would not be split between two single showdown tiers which meant that we had greater competition in DPP.

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment

People saying 8 tiers is better because of activity decisions, but most of the activity decisions were about people that would be in the top 64 players. So in my opinion 10 tiers is way better: I'm not a great player but ou seemed really competitive to me even with ou3. About activity decisions and people behaving like asses, I think the problem is somewhere else, like leaving so much about rules on activity decisions open to interpretations. I think working on better rules leaving less grey areas as possible is the way to go.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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