Jump to content

PSL Season 8 General Thread


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, BlackJovi said:

It would make the event longer tho, and that takes away some of the competitive aspect...since you know people start going inactive / not caring about their matches when their team can't make playoffs or because they simply don't want to

 

You could just increase the number of players required per team, does the same thing in theory 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, kevola said:

Is it primarily something for a select few individuals though? I always thought it was a community based event that tried to get as many people involved. Everyone was encouraged to signup in previous seasons etc. 

 

20% less players means like 3 or fewer inactivties ( think that's a more likely outcome, haven't checked ) I'm not sure if that's worth it 

 

It's true each decision has its pro's and con's but it just seems like this one has more of the latter

i do not agree with your premise that the inactivity wins were due to a high number of players. jj wasnt hard on players who missed matches and season 6 it happened and no one i can recall got in big trouble ect. people have lives and things to do and sometimes that clashes with pokemmo tournaments and as more and more people misses matches for this that and whatever and didnt get banned for the year or benched or what have you more and more people thought it was ok to miss matches. if you do not beleive your team is going to win then whats wrong with missing a match? if you believe you are going to win regardless and you wont get penalized next year or loose money then why bother when you could go to that party? not everybody has honor and good sportsmanship and so rewards and punishments need to be in place and need to be strong enough that even a 12 year old 4chaner will think twice about missing a match.

 

Link to comment

Another incentive to play your matches and not be a shithead will be the very real possibility that you don't get drafted the next season. That's what making psl a little more exclusive will do - those who are good enough to get chosen will take it a little more seriously than they otherwise would have, since merely being chosen to play will carry some prestige with it 

 

We modeled this whole thing after smogons SPL, one of the most exclusive events on that entire site, so this is definitely not unprecedented. I personally think it's a change for the better, but it's not like this is irreversible foe future season's either 

Link to comment
Just now, Gunthug said:

Another incentive to play your matches and not be a shithead will be the very real possibility that you don't get drafted the next season. That's what making psl a little more exclusive will do - those who are good enough to get chosen will take it a little more seriously than they otherwise would have, since merely being chosen to play will carry some prestige with it 

 

We modeled this whole thing after smogons SPL, one of the most exclusive events on that entire site, so this is definitely not unprecedented. I personally think it's a change for the better, but it's not like this is irreversible foe future season's either 

in theory yes, but in practice how many managers will actually bother to check the activity history of everyone they bet on? some of the psl threads cant even be veiwed anymore.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

i do not agree with your premise that the inactivity wins were due to a high number of players. jj wasnt hard on players who missed matches and season 6 it happened and no one i can recall got in big trouble ect. people have lives and things to do and sometimes that clashes with pokemmo tournaments and as more and more people misses matches for this that and whatever and didnt get banned for the year or benched or what have you more and more people thought it was ok to miss matches. if you do not beleive your team is going to win then whats wrong with missing a match? if you believe you are going to win regardless and you wont get penalized next year or loose money then why bother when you could go to that party? not everybody has honor and good sportsmanship and so rewards and punishments need to be in place and need to be strong enough that even a 12 year old 4chaner will think twice about missing a match.

 

What do you mean exactly? From previous psl seasons we can get an average percentage of matches that had problems with activity, regardless of who's fault it was, if anybody's. For sake of argument lets say 2% of the matches ended up with inactivity issues. Now if there were 500 matches being played in total, there would 10 matches that had problems, however if there were 400 matches being played, there should theoretically only be 8 matches that have problems. Regardless of what the numbers are, there is a high probability that there will be fewer activity decisions having to be made if there are fewer matches being played... 

 

Never-the-less my point is that this is the only reason I can think of that supports the idea of reducing the roster from 10 to 8 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

in theory yes, but in practice how many managers will actually bother to check the activity history of everyone they bet on? some of the psl threads cant even be veiwed anymore.

I mean, if you are willing to be a good manager, you gotta be close to the community and actually know people. Whoever does this knows who gets their matches done and who tries to wait until sunday to get their matches done, to see if they matter or to fish for activity wins etc. 

Edited by BlackJovi
added a comma
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, kevola said:

What do you mean exactly? From previous psl seasons we can get an average percentage of matches that had problems with activity, regardless of who's fault it was, if anybody's. For sake of argument lets say 2% of the matches ended up with inactivity issues. Now if there were 500 matches being played in total, there would 10 matches that had problems, however if there were 400 matches being played, there should theoretically only be 8 matches that have problems. Regardless of what the numbers are, there is a high probability that there will be fewer activity decisions having to be made if there are fewer matches being played... 

 

Never-the-less my point is that this is the only reason I can think of that supports the idea of reducing the roster from 10 to 8 

if you talking 2% of 400 vs 2% of 500 then yea your right it's going to happen probably. a crit is a small chance until you launch 100 attacks then it's near guaranteed. i thought you meant it would somehow be exponential.

however on your devils argument i would counter that some activity win/losses will happen regardless of the number of players and it should not be an attributing factor in the decision because 2% is 2%. make them loose a % of the winning pot and after say 2 or 3 missed matches ban then for X number of games(not seasons) so if it is late in the season the ban will last to part of next season. and will make it harder to even get recruited season 9. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, BlackJovi said:

I mean, if you are a willing to be a good manager, you gotta be close to the community and actually know people. Whoever does this knows who gets their matches done and who tries to wait until sunday to get their matches done, to see if they matter or to fish for activity wins etc. 

i'll give you a comma



jk love ya jovi and yea thats the right thing to do. speaking the gospel, but we are surrounded by unbelievers and relying on managers to do their research to be part of the punishment system for missing matches isnt a good idea imo because that punishment is both hard for players to see and feel as they might not know why they didnt get bet on, and if one manager doesnt do the research then the punishment goes away.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fredrichnietze said:

if you talking 2% of 400 vs 2% of 500 then yea your right it's going to happen probably. a crit is a small chance until you launch 100 attacks then it's near guaranteed. i thought you meant it would somehow be exponential.

however on your devils argument i would counter that some activity win/losses will happen regardless of the number of players and it should not be an attributing factor in the decision because 2% is 2%. make them loose a % of the winning pot and after say 2 or 3 missed matches ban then for X number of games(not seasons) so if it is late in the season the ban will last to part of next season. and will make it harder to even get recruited season 9. 

Even going from 80 to 64 players will lead to a reduction in a few activity decisions though. Not many, but still a few. Of course there will be some activity decisions which will happen regardless (Likely to be 3 or less, couldn't be bothered to work it out exactly) which is why I said that it's really not worth reducing the roster from 10 to 8. This is precisely why I don't understand the decision to do it 

Link to comment
Just now, kevola said:

Even going from 80 to 64 players will lead to a reduction in a few activity decisions though. Not many, but still a few. Of course there will be some activity decisions which will happen regardless (Likely to be 3 or less, couldn't be bothered to work it out exactly) which is why I said that it's really not worth reducing the roster from 10 to 8. This is precisely why I don't understand the decision to do it 

following that logic if we place activity decisions as the most important factor then you are left with 2 players. ty for playing devils advocate btw

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, kevola said:

Even going from 80 to 64 players will lead to a reduction in a few activity decisions though. Not many, but still a few. Of course there will be some activity decisions which will happen regardless (Likely to be 3 or less, couldn't be bothered to work it out exactly) which is why I said that it's really not worth reducing the roster from 10 to 8. This is precisely why I don't understand the decision to do it 

I think Nik had a post in last season's championship thread (or maybe general thread?) which outlined why I feel its a good decision, and it doesnt have that much to do with activity decisions either. Lemme dig it up

 

found it

 

I honestly don't know how salty my post sounds like, but I needed to be honest over here. This experience deters me from signing up for further PSLs because it's hard to expect a certain commitment from everyone. Maybe I expected too much or I take this game too seriously but if I put effort or time into something, then yes I do take it seriously. I propose that future PSL tiers be limited to 6 or 8 because that's then 32 or 16 (respectively) bad players that don't get drafted. I know our community is large and all, but I truly do believe that only the best should be able to play in this competition. If anything, certain players just don't belong here and it's important that they finally earn their spot instead of actually trying to fill in a vacant one.

 

I like the concept that you have to earn your spot in PSL. I do think that a reduction in team size means we should definitely have a farm league for PSL - essentially a PSL style event running alongside the top tier for anyone who didn't get drafted. Tough to coordinate but could be fun

Edited by Gunthug
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I think Nik had a post in last season's championship thread (or maybe general thread?) which outlined why I feel its a good decision, and it doesnt have that much to do with activity decisions either. Lemme dig it up

 

found it

 

 

well this is a question of what we want the psl and the community to be. do you want it to be a small elite group with the majority of the players not allowed to participate in? a master of master as it were. or a big open community tournament where everyone plays. @BurntZebra thoughts? i would say put it to a vote, but we know what the results would be and the results of the vote isnt what decides.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, fredrichnietze said:

following that logic if we place activity decisions as the most important factor then you are left with 2 players. ty for playing devils advocate btw

Firstly - That makes no sense what so ever. I never once said that it was the most important factor. All I said that It was the only reason I could think of that would lead to the alteration of the rule. Regardless of what you misunderstood in my previous few posts, let me make this clear, I want more people to play, not less. 

 

Secondly - You're being rather ignorant. You said you disagreed with my premise, and I simply stated why you were most likely incorrect, you then proceeded to argue, as you are doing so now. Aside from your initial posts, you're the one playing devil's advocate 

Edited by kevola
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I think Nik had a post in last season's championship thread (or maybe general thread?) which outlined why I feel its a good decision, and it doesnt have that much to do with activity decisions either. Lemme dig it up

 

found it

 

 

 

I like the concept that you have to earn your spot in PSL. I do think that a reduction in team size means we should definitely have a farm league for PSL - essentially a PSL style event running alongside the top tier for anyone who didn't get drafted. Tough to coordinate but could be fun

Yeah that would be perfect - the best of both worlds

 

In regards to Nik's reasoning I'm not sure if there's a positive correlation between how good a player is and how dedicated they are to playing. I would like to think that the manager should weigh both these aspects when getting a player anyway. But I do understand where he's coming from, just not sure if reducing the roster is the best way to go about things 

Edited by kevola
Link to comment
1 hour ago, fredrichnietze said:

well this is a question of what we want the psl and the community to be. do you want it to be a small elite group with the majority of the players not allowed to participate in? a master of master as it were. or a big open community tournament where everyone plays. @BurntZebra thoughts? i would say put it to a vote, but we know what the results would be and the results of the vote isnt what decides.

Reducing the number of PSL players per a week from 80 to 64 isn't a huge leap in how difficult it is to get drafted, but it's still something. I mean back in  season 1 of PSL, there were only 6 tiers and 6 teams, which meant at the minimum, there were only 36 players playing each week, and I somehow still found a spot, even though I didn't have much official success at the time. Unless you're totally inactive, or unknown, and have no good runs in officials, then you have a decent chance of getting chosen by some manager, especially if you make yourself known to them. 

 

I will say the reduction of tiers will make UU and NU much more selective and competitive, as there is only one NU/UU (maybe) slot on each team, so you will have a harder time proving yourself to managers that you're worthy of a UU slot, when there are 25 other capable people in the auction that could be the UU player as well. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, OldKeith said:

Maybe the tier selection should actually be done AFTER player sign-ups, depending on what is played or not. Also recommending player sign-ups to be based on one main tier and as many secondary ones. Helps the players and the managers.

Ideally we get enough sign ups to have a competitive environment for SM OU/LC, but if we don't get enough, I don't have a problem substituting them out for a UU2 tier, which will be more competitive than an SM OU tier where managers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get an SM OU player for their team. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, BurntZebra said:

Reducing the number of PSL players per a week from 80 to 64 isn't a huge leap in how difficult it is to get drafted, but it's still something. I mean back in  season 1 of PSL, there were only 6 tiers and 6 teams, which meant at the minimum, there were only 36 players playing each week, and I somehow still found a spot, even though I didn't have much official success at the time. Unless you're totally inactive, or unknown, and have no good runs in officials, then you have a decent chance of getting chosen by some manager, especially if you make yourself known to them. 

 

I will say the reduction of tiers will make UU and NU much more selective and competitive, as there is only one NU/UU (maybe) slot on each team, so you will have a harder time proving yourself to managers that you're worthy of a UU slot, when there are 25 other capable people in the auction that could be the UU player as well. 

season one we had around 80 sign ups. season 7 we had 190~ signups. ever reason to believe their will be 200 or more season 8. with 64 players this is going to turn into an elite of the elite thing. is that what you want?

Link to comment
Just now, fredrichnietze said:

season one we had around 80 sign ups. season 7 we had 190~ signups. ever reason to believe their will be 200 or more season 8. with 64 players this is going to turn into an elite of the elite thing. is that what you want?

why "elite of the elite?" It's just the elite, period, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Not to mention more than 64 people will get chosen, since you need subs

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

why "elite of the elite?" It's just the elite, period, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Not to mention more than 64 people will get chosen, since you need subs

the best part imo of the psl was it was a tournament for everyone. everyone donates and everyone mostly plays and the teams are mixed up with a few really good players and some not as good ones like any sports team. the team works together and works together as a team to make all their members better and lend comps and talk strategy and the community as a whole gets better and everyone has fun. your changing the spirit of the psl from a community event to a an elite event only some people can get into.

you want a reason? appeal to greed. people wont donate to a tourney they can only be spectators of. your pool of donators will shrink because players will assume they wont get in and you dont spend 10 hours grinding for a spectator sport. 

i rather appeal to peoples sense of fair play and fun and community. please dont turn this into master of masters teams version.

 

 

edit: and the idea of a second tourney for a pool of recruits is not a substitute for the psl for the 100 something people left out. that's an insult. "well take your money but we dont think your good enough to play here have a consolation prize"

Edited by fredrichnietze
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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