[PSL 8] Week Seven

[DestructX]

 

19 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

There is no right decision when you're the host. You'll always piss a group of people off no matter what you do. Anyone who thinks Nik didn't deserve that win doesn't know dpp, we should just be happy that the actual outcome was by far the most likely outcome had the shutdown not happened. 

You're right I dont know DPP but i still know a bad call when I see one. Nik would have won the first battle unless Kimi crit, that's just how it is and its very evident. But you have to understand the reason everyone is triggered is not because Nik won, it's because of the call, ESPECIALLY when it was neither Nik or Kimi's fault, it's showdowns fault for shutting down. The correct thing to do after that is simply having a rematch or making both people change their teams. The way i see it is, Nik basically said "nah i would have won so i refuse to rematch or change teams" and Zebra gave him full right to make that claim and FORCED Kimi to replicate a match even when so many things could have went wrong. Yet at the same time, If kimi said "Nah this call is BS so i refuse to play", then zebra would have given Kimi a red card instantly. 

 

Now I don't mean to cause any beef or escalate the situation since I'm cool with both sides of the party and Blazikens obviously didn't expect to win this week anyways. But this is the way i see things

 

 

[gbwead]

Zebra had really little time to handle the situation, so it's not surprising that many of us are upset with the rushed decision he made. It's over now tho, but a similar situation could happen again and it is probably best that we discuss what should be done next time.

[LifeStyle]

1 minute ago, DestructX said:

The way i see it is, Nik basically said "nah i would have won so i refuse to rematch or change teams" and Zebra gave him full right to make that claim and FORCED Kimi to replicate a match even when so many things could have went wrong. Yet at the same time, If kimi said "Nah this call is BS so i refuse to play", then zebra would have given Kimi a red card instantly.

This.

[Rigamorty]

Realistically it was safe to assume Nik was on the winning side of the first match, but that's just because we know what PROBABLY was. I'm just upset about the call because it operated under a lot of assumptions and really just looked stupid as it happened. Still doesn't feel like the right decision to me because if kimi felt like it he could've changed things and taken advantage of the situation, and making a call against him would not have been right because that call would've also been based on assumptions. 

 

Nik i just wanna say sorry for being annoying about it kinda AT you during the match. You didn't deserve me being a uguu.

 

Zebra your call was stupid you deserved me being annoying. 

[NikhilR]

Just now, DestructX said:

 

You're right I dont know DPP but i still know a bad call when I see one. Nik would have won the first battle unless Kimi crit, that's just how it is and its very evident. But you have to understand the reason everyone is triggered is not because Nik won, it's because of the call, ESPECIALLY when it was neither Nik or Kimi's fault, it's showdowns fault for shutting down. The correct thing to do after that is simply having a rematch or making both people change their teams. The way i see it is, Nik basically said "nah i would have won so i refuse to rematch or change teams" and Zebra gave him full right to make that claim and FORCED Kimi to replicate a match even when so many things could have went wrong. Yet at the same time, If kimi said "Nah this call is BS so i refuse to play", then zebra would have given Kimi a red card instantly. 

 

Now I don't mean to cause any beef or escalate the situation since I'm cool with both sides of the party and Blazikens obviously didn't expect to win this week anyways. But this is the way i see things

 

 

But how is that the correct thing for me? And why is replicating the scenario to original way it was the wrong decision?

 

@Rigamorty I apologize for losing my temper. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by NikhilR

[BurntZebra]

I understand my decision may have not been popular, but I still believe it was still fair to both individuals. At the time of the server shutdown, the odds were roughly 75% in favor of NikhilR and 25% in Kimikozen (roughly 4 chances to get a crit on clefable) (actually in the recreated replay, Kimikozen had 5 chances to get a crit, boosting his odds to 31.25%). The recreated replay kept these odds fairly decently, potentially skewed against kimi slightly since raikou may have had 1 extra chance to get a crit, but a crit from raikou would have only mattered if raikou got back to back crits on clefable, which is a low .39% chance

 

A match reset with new matchups is essentially in favor of Kimikozen who gains a 19.75% advantage for free based on a fluke (assuming they both have equal odds of winning with a new matchup anyways). 

 

The whole incident is quite rare and probably won't come up again, but hopefully people understand my reasoning for this decision. 

[Rigamorty]

Just now, NikhilR said:

replicating the scenario to original way it was

Spoiler

you're trying to trigger me aren't you

 

[LifeStyle]

Well I kinda regret doing that replicate match against Gary now since we seemed to have turn it into a trend

[Rigamorty]

1 minute ago, BurntZebra said:

the odds were roughly 75% in favor of NikhilR and 25% in Kimikozen

you had no good way of determining that with the info we had at the time. 

[gbwead]

2 minutes ago, BurntZebra said:

I understand my decision may have not been popular, but I still believe it was still fair to both individuals. At the time of the server shutdown, the odds were roughly 75% in favor of NikhilR and 25% in Kimikozen (roughly 4 chances to get a crit on clefable) (actually in the recreated replay, Kimikozen had 5 chances to get a crit, boosting his odds to 31.25%). The recreated replay kept these odds fairly decently, potentially skewed against kimi slightly since raikou may have had 1 extra chance to get a crit, but a crit from raikou would have only mattered if raikou got back to back crits on clefable, which is a low .39% chance

 

A match reset with new matchups is essentially in favor of Kimikozen who gains a 19.75% advantage for free based on a fluke (assuming they both have equal odds of winning with a new matchup anyways). 

 

The whole incident is quite rare and probably won't come up again, but hopefully people understand my reasoning for this decision. 

That's what bothering me the most. Why was a shit replication of the duel necessary when you can simply calc the odds of Nik winning and generate a random number reflecting that probability? The replication was stupid and made no sense, especially since both players could have easily cheated.

[BurntZebra]

1 minute ago, Rigamorty said:

you had no good way of determining that with the info we had at the time. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that clefable has some kind of attacking moves on a calm mind set, and that kimikozen only has 4-6 chances to crit vs clefable. Clefable was proven to not be sp def invested, leaving it only to be defense invested, special attack invested, or speed invested, . 

[DestructX]

Just now, NikhilR said:

But how is that the correct thing for me? And why is replicating the scenario to original way it was the wrong decision?

It's correct because you wanted to keep the teams and replicate the battle, while Kimi wanted to rematch or change teams. The reason the first battle didn't finish was neither of your faults and as a host i just feel like its zebras job to be neutral and making both parties change their team was easily the best solution. 

I do see why you were upset when you would have won the first time. But think of it like this, if I'm up 6 vs 2 at silph co vs someone and DC, do you think staff would care? Nah, They would DC me and keep things moving since it's a neutral decision. But in this case, if you were up 6 vs 2 and zebra was your referee, he would have given you full advantage

[Toast]

nobody posted the outcome but nik won gg

 

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen4ou-612803952

[BlackJovi]

1 minute ago, Toast said:

nobody posted the outcome but nik won gg

 

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen4ou-612803952

ur still trash

[gbwead]

1 minute ago, Toast said:

nobody posted the outcome but nik won gg

 

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen4ou-612803952

Wow, you uguu! I thought we all agreed to no longer spoil the outcome of showdown duels...

[Arimanius]

2 minutes ago, Toast said:

nobody posted the outcome but nik won gg

 

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen4ou-612803952

See, after 8 season toast knows the deal xD

[BlackJovi]

6 minutes ago, DestructX said:

It's correct because you wanted to keep the teams and replicate the battle, while Kimi wanted to rematch or change teams. The reason the first battle didn't finish was neither of your faults and as a host i just feel like its zebras job to be neutral and making both parties change their team was easily the best solution. 

I do see why you were upset when you would have won the first time. But think of it like this, if I'm up 6 vs 2 at silph co vs someone and DC, do you think staff would care? Nah, They would DC me and keep things moving since it's a neutral decision. But in this case, if you were up 6 vs 2 and zebra was your referee, he would have given you full advantage

and we thought that other guy was a biased host..

[DoubleJ]

Lmfao the level of salt was tasty

[NikhilR]

Just now, DestructX said:

It's correct because you wanted to keep the teams and replicate the battle, while Kimi wanted to rematch or change teams. The reason the first battle didn't finish was neither of your faults and as a host i just feel like its zebras job to be neutral and making both parties change their team was easily the best solution. 

I do see why you were upset when you would have won the first time. But think of it like this, if I'm up 6 vs 2 at silph co vs someone and DC, do you think staff would care? Nah, They would DC me and keep things moving since it's a neutral decision. But in this case, if you were up 6 vs 2 and zebra was your referee, he would have given you full advantage

But there's a difference between one person dc-ing and the server as a whole restarting. There's also the option of giving someone else the win win if it was clearly going to be a loss. You can't call Zebra a neutral host by allowing the change team decision because that wouldn't then favor me. The only thing you'd avoid calling him would be biased. I didn't claim I 100% won the game because of the crit factor alone. Also there's a set rule regarding dc's in MMO but not for a situation like this. If you were up 6-2 and the whole MMO server restarted, it would be hard to say what to do but you'd definitely want it to be from the position that you were in before. 

[DestructX]

3 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

But there's a difference between one person dc-ing and the server as a whole restarting. There's also the option of giving someone else the win win if it was clearly going to be a loss. You can't call Zebra a neutral host by allowing the change team decision because that wouldn't then favor me. The only thing you'd avoid calling him would be biased. I didn't claim I 100% won the game because of the crit factor alone. Also there's a set rule regarding dc's in MMO but not for a situation like this. If you were up 6-2 and the whole MMO server restarted, it would be hard to say what to do but you'd definitely want it to be from the position that you were in before. 

This has happened before and staff definitely continued the tourney on another day. And when that day came, they weren't like "okay guys, when facing your opponents, only bring the pokemon you had alive so we can continue exactly how the battle left off". I'm not discrediting your win at all, you obviously had it. 

I'm just saying from the staffs point of view, they shouldn't have sympathy for either side and they should only made decisions based off whats neutral to both parties, and that is not what happened today

[NikhilR]

Just now, DestructX said:

This has happened before and staff definitely continued the tourney on another day. And when that day came, they weren't like "okay guys, when facing your opponents, only bring the pokemon you had alive so we can continue exactly how the battle left off". I'm not discrediting your win at all, you obviously had it. 

I'm just saying from the staffs point of view, they shouldn't have sympathy for either side and they should only made decisions based off whats neutral to both parties, and that is not what happened today

If Zeb had forced us both to rematch with different teams, then it wouldn't be neutral to me right? 

[BlackJovi]

@Rigamorty for host next season. 

[DestructX]

1 minute ago, NikhilR said:

If Zeb had forced us both to rematch with different teams, then it wouldn't be neutral to me right? 

That or a rematch was the only overall approach to a neutral decision. Just because Kimi wanted it doesn't exactly mean zebra would be taking his side if he made that call

 

 

[DoubleJ]

All these Blaziken fan boys just scared they won't win the week after getting a 3 hax win handicap. Now they need to call zeb biased because he refused to void nik's insane match advantage. 

 

Ok.

[gbwead]

Just now, DoubleJ said:

All these Blaziken fan boys just scared they won't win the week after getting a 3 hax win handicap. Now they need to call zeb biased because he refused to void nik's insane match advantage. 

 

Ok.

You are welcome.