TLR's Lore, Legends, And More Action (LLAMA), brought to you by ASBet — Round Two

[Texas Cloverleaf]

"If we are going for Top 2, we wouldn't have needed a Swiss in the first place. We could have as well gone for a single elimination. "

This makes zero sense. There's 36 participants, hence 6 pools of 6. Single elimination drops you to 18 people. So does Top 3 cut because 3 is half of 6. Top 2 cut drops us to 12 participants.

Top 12 delays scheduling annoyances. If you go top three into single elim you have 36 -> 18 -> 9 (pain in the ass round robins) -> 6 -> 3 (round robin)
Top 2 into single elim goes 36 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3 (round robin)

It saves an entire round of time. Plus you're already being given the chance to come back. If you lose your first match, win your next two to get in.

Honestly I don't think you have any argument to stand on here, Top 2 rewards good battling better (winning consistently, winning two in a row to comeback), prevents negative records from qualifying, keeps the round robin relevant, eases ref stress, and makes the tournament less convoluted.

It's all positive. Top 3 cut to me just seems like a cop out way to try and get more people to the second round for no benefit. Keep in mind we're already something like 4 months in and we're not even 2/3rds the way through the first round. And have people dropping out of the tournament who've already been eliminated.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Well Tie-Breakers becomes a lot more important this way.

Pool A: Texas Cloverleaf (2-0), Elevator Music (1-0), ZhengTann (0-1), deadfox081 (1-1), Rediamond (1-1), smashlloyd20 (0-2),

Pool B: S0L1D G0LD (2-0), Imanalt(2-0), Avnomke (0-1), rickheg (1-1), Vrin (0-1), Mulan15262 (0-2),

Pool C: Canis Majoris (2-0), Eternal Drifter(1-1), Maxim(1-0), AOPSUser (1-1), akela (0-1), Redew (0-2)

Pool D: Frosty(2-0), The Wanderer (1-0), Geodude6 (1-1), Matezoide(1-1), P2X7 (0-1), Complications (0-2)

Pool E: Birkal(2-0), Leethoof(1-1), Engineer Pikachu (1-1), zarator(1-1), Its_A_Random (1-1), SubwayJ (0-2)

Pool F: TSRD(2-0), waterwarrior (1-1), Deck Knight(1-0), Gale Wing Srock (1-0), Rainman Legends (0-2), Mowtom (0-2)

I have only two problems with Top 2:

1) The change from Top 2 / Top 3 and then back to Top 2. What this means is that, folks might have relaxed after winning their first battle or those who lost the first one were relaxed that if they win the next two then they have a chance. But when you make it Top 2 again, they would have had to concentrate on the Damage Dealt and Stuff too. Which I am sure they wouldn't have, considering Top 3. I feel that we shouldn't change rules back and forth unless absolutely necessary.

2) Those who were paired against an opp with a considerable diff in skill in the first two rounds of swiss, would be in an advantageous situation in the Tie Breakers. As, even if they manage to lose a close battle. They could qualify to the next round via Tie Breakers.

Folks in Green would usually make it past the swiss unless they Choke really hard in their final battle. And the ones in Blue would have to work really hard to get a win and a better Tie Breaker score.

Then again, for battles that have forfeited or DQ'd players, the Tie Breaker score wouldn't change from first round of swiss. This again leaves a few folks in a disadvantageous situation.

Imo, if we have chosen a longer route for the tourney, we might as well go with it. And keep the changes in mind for future tourneys. And I still feel, LLAMA tour hosts did the best in going for Swiss and Top 3. Because it gives more folks a taste of the tourney and helps them get into the competitive side of ASB. Just to make the tournament end quickly, we shouldn't make certain players lose hope before their final game.

 

[Its_A_Random]

There is no extra round if its Top 2 or Top 3 because 18 goes into 9 goes into 3 by only having the top player in each round robin at the 9 stage advance to the final round. Just because round robin does not mean it has to be top 2 advance.

Leaning towards Top 2 but ppl need to get their facts right.

 

[Saleem S]

prefer top 3 cut I suppose

Also I could take my place in POOL E again, if needed

 

[waterwarrior]

Yeah, I have to throw my hat in for the Top Three advancing as well basically through Gale's logic. If three people end up having records of 2-1, it's rather unfair that being kicked out of the tournament due to the other person's opponent making a misplay or a random miss somewhere that creates a 20 HP spread or whatever instead of being eliminated due to, well, losing.

I would easily support top 2 if we do a sudden death match with 1 Day DQ from the start but eh that's probably not gonna be done.

There... there IS gonna be a round 3 with the same pools, right? Honestly I'm a bit confused on that point.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

On phone so no quote post

1) so what you're saying that we're forcing players to pay attention to details and play at their best level to advance? Sounds fair and competitive to me

2) this doesn't change whatsoever between top 3 and top 2


I feel like people need to look at this more objectively as opposed to arguments based on emotion. The arguments I've presented so a clear benefit to going with a top 2 cut at a little cost. The arguments that 'oh it sucks to get out on a tiebreaker' and 'oh let's get new people more matches' are purely emotion based arguments and shouldn't have any bearing on this decision.

(incidentally, the former is refuted as tiebreakers will occur in either format, the latter refuted as all players are already guaranteed three games AND the next round should have roughly half the participants consisting of newer players. For reference tsrd, canis, gold and imanalt are already highly likely to advance).

To restate my post at the top of this page, a top 2 cut rewards good and consistent battling better, eases ref stress, keeps the round robin actually relevant, prevents negative records from qualifying, and makes the tournament less convoluted.

Top 3 fails to do any of those things and in fact acts negatively on them, all for the sake of pandering to misguided feelings of fairness. It's a tournament, not a play date. You want to win? You play such that you deserve it. There can be no arguments of exclusivity when new people like TSrD are proving they deserve to advance the only way that matters, by winning

 

[Frosty]

I agree so much with the above post that the like button isn't enough.

Seriously, see the ref thread for this tournay. In Every round IAR is begging for refs. And this is on every tourney. We have 3 tourneys going on, if one tourney keeps needing so many refs, its gonna overload the system as we don't have many refs available. When SiCK ends and the next tourney begins (and it should next month), we will need a crapload of refs. If we have this tourney needing refs like it is Round 2 for fucking Round 4 and for Round 5 too we are bound to have problems (a R2 of a common single elimination tourney needs 8 refs for 16 matches. R4 of llama will need 9 refs for 18 battles and R5 will need the same 9 refs for 9 battles, which is absurd given the ref shortage we have). To the point of me strongly suggesting that we go with top 2, so we don't waste our ref force just so people don't feel bad leaving due to tiebreakers. Those were well estabilished rules and I don't remember anyone complaining about them. Now its just time to apply those rules. So apply them we should and not find ways to not need them so "everybody is happy" or some other emotional argument like that, like Texas well said.

 

[waterwarrior]

While I can't exactly disprove Texas' points, in my opinion measuring tiebreakers by the ratio of damage dealt/damage taken is more of a measure of skill of the opponent than a measure of your skill.

Your opponent doesn't sub for D/E moves? That can create a significant spread, not much real skill needed
Got a Dragonite? Well hot damn you have Multiscale limiting the damage you take for you! How do you break Multiscale to stop this from happening? Well, there's Stealth Rock, which is set up by, well, the opponent
Your opponent is already going to lose, but then their Focus Blast misses just to add insult to injury? That's not exactly skill-related.

If we use the system where two people advance, we're kicking out players who won a close match for players who won matches practically be default because the opponent played like shit.

Yeah, chalk this up to "life is unfair" and the fact that this situation only arises if 2 or more of the top players in a pool have a 2-1 record as opposed to two players having 3-0s (which I don't think is possible with the system we're using), but imo the system we'd use to break ties is kinda screwed up and I just don't see it promoting "consistent better battling" as Texas argues, but lucking out against a shitty opponent (although there is the obvious counterpoint that I'm not going to deny that, well, I don't exactly have a better system of tiebreakers outside a tiebreaker match which just drags things out)

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

I agree to Waterwarrior, Imo the reason for Swiss was to give every participant an equal number of battles to prove themselves and to keep Hax out of the game if possible. An unlucky first round KO of a big player from the tournament, is one of the point why Swiss is preferred. It also tells the standings of a group of players, which is cool too.

Talking about ref availability:
1) Why are we obligated to start another Tourney next month?
2) Before starting this tourney, we didn't have an idea of how many ref's would be needed? If we are short of refs, we as a community should work towards solving the problem. Rather than trying to modify a tournament rules to incorporate it. We will be short of refs in every tournament, So shall we stop having tournaments? I don't think so.
3) Changing rules of a tournament because nonavailability of refs or to start a new tournament is probably a bad way to think about it. Why are we rushing into more tournaments if we don't have the ref force to finish one completely?
4) We need to respect the decision of the Tournament hosts and think of a solution to solve the problem. Top 2 does solve the problem. But not if you are doing Top 2 to make another tournament feasible next month. It would be better if we finish the starting rounds of a tournament properly and then start the next tournament around the quarterfinals or Semi Finals of the current one.

Just my two cents.

 

[Frosty]

There is no way in hell I will postpone a tourney because one decided to go overboard on the number of matches and the ref power needed to make it happen. It's not a matter of "not having enough refs for 3 tourneys" but more of a "llama is needing too many refs for the state it is in" (round 5 is usually finals, needing 1-3 refs. With top 2 llama will need 3 and with top 3 it will need fucking 9). I am not going to be nice to 6 players and postpone something that can benefit 32. It is more likely that I intervene and force a rule as tourney director than to postpone a tourney. Not saying I will do so, at least for now. But I may. Especially considering that if I were to wait until the end of Round 3 to start the signups of a new tourney, so 6 players can get an extra match, then we would reach the mark of 6 months without a tourney signups. There is no way I will fuck up the schedule I have planned (including the next official tournament) and deny the opportunity for the players that joined in that time-lapse to enter a tournament just because of 6 players that want to play at least one more match.

Also, I don't think you guys get it, so let me be crystal clear here: The standard format is single eliminations. Single Eliminations mean that hax = you are screwed, pairing = you are screwed, misclick = you are screwed etc. "Oh but Multiscale" "Oh but bad pairing" "oh but *insert whining*" are all nice and dandy, but they aren't valid arguments for ASB Tournaments. Simply because if you are to apply it, then we won't play pokemon. We will play something else. And we won't play tournaments, we will play on a ladder. Luck, and risks and pairing and all that shit are risks that come on the package of the asb tourneys. We may use mini-round robins or swiss or whatever other format to minimize that a bit, but it still part of the package. The Swiss did what it was supposed to and gave players a second chance after a R1 loss, but the players will need to achieve that playing by the rules.

EDIT @ Gale below:

Considering how much time (and patience) I wasted here I will just sum all up here:
a) If I were to be "patient" with tournamens without an outstanding marvelous reason (read: surely not the ones provided here), llama wouldn't exist to begin with.
b) Tournament experience involves losing to tiebreakers. So if the 6 players feel bad or anything like that due to those tiebreakers, my answer is "grow the fuck up".
c) Bottom line: Top-3 will represent, at best, an increase on the overload of our refs for (imo) selfish reasons. I haven't seen any actual good technical argument defending top 3 tbh. If "don't make them feel bad" is your entire argument please refer to the answer from "b".

 

[Pallas Athena]

I think the issue that some people are taking is less that HAX/misplays/matchup suck and can end your tournament run and more that someone else messing up in a match that has nothing to do with you can end your chances and sort of neutralize the point of having a swiss. Almost every group would need to rely upon a tiebreaker as things are currently looking to decide between #2 and #3. Given that there are many objections to the nature of the tie-breaker formula, largely because really bad players can lose by a lot but even moderately good players are likely to keep matches relatively close and thus if one person in the tie-breaker played the bad player they were basically guaranteed to move on if they could win one other match, I think a lot of people would rather just forgo the tie-breaking system in most cases and go with the people who went 2-1, which in most cases will be the top three in a group. Tie-breaker might need to be used in a few cases then, but it would be much rarer.

But from a logistical standpoint, I can see why this might be opposed. Although now I tentatively lean towards 3 because I'm not certain that the tie-breaking method represents the skill of the winner as much the skill of the loser since most big gaps will come from a really bad player. Even moderately decent players can keep it close against the best since they keep the worst mistakes at bay. It's the noob mistakes that can cost you a match 130-0.

EDIT: Am not proposing anyone who goes 2-1 advances. Advocating top 3. Just saying this before someone leaps at an ambiguous sentence to tear my throat out. But most of the time top 3 will mean people who went 2-1.

 

[Its_A_Random]

While I can't exactly disprove Texas' points, in my opinion measuring tiebreakers by the ratio of damage dealt/damage taken is more of a measure of skill of the opponent than a measure of your skill.

Your opponent doesn't sub for D/E moves? That can create a significant spread, not much real skill needed
Got a Dragonite? Well hot damn you have Multiscale limiting the damage you take for you! How do you break Multiscale to stop this from happening? Well, there's Stealth Rock, which is set up by, well, the opponent
Your opponent is already going to lose, but then their Focus Blast misses just to add insult to injury? That's not exactly skill-related.

If we use the system where two people advance, we're kicking out players who won a close match for players who won matches practically be default because the opponent played like shit.

Yeah, chalk this up to "life is unfair" and the fact that this situation only arises if 2 or more of the top players in a pool have a 2-1 record as opposed to two players having 3-0s (which I don't think is possible with the system we're using), but imo the system we'd use to break ties is kinda screwed up and I just don't see it promoting "consistent better battling" as Texas argues, but lucking out against a shitty opponent (although there is the obvious counterpoint that I'm not going to deny that, well, I don't exactly have a better system of tiebreakers outside a tiebreaker match which just drags things out)

First point: How about you come up with an appropriate tiebreaker method that is objective, deals with the DQ problem, and rewards skill of the player enough to your satisfaction? I can guarantee you probably could not. This was probably the best method I could find though dmg difference could have been better but whatever; they are very similar to each other so does it really matter?

D/E moves: One could also argue that it also rewards skill because you found a hole in the opponent's orders. Perhaps the opponent was faster than you to the point that D/E wasnt necessary due to better subs? Screw with speed stats and then make them pay!
Dragonite: And this is relevant because? Again, you could use Dragonite yourself and abuse the Multiscale turn to widen the damage gap. It goes both ways.
Focus Blast: Well that is their fault for using Focus Blast in the first place; they took the risk and the risk backfired. Also this isn't relevant to the argument being made.

The kicking out point: Or maybe we are kicking people who won close matches for players that performed significantly better and destroyed their opponent no matter their skill level??? It goes both ways mate.

Last point: Refer to first point. And in what way is the tiebreaker screwed up? Just because you are on the short end of the stick after getting your ass handed to you Round One?

Right. And yes it does reward consistently playing well hahaha.

I agree to Waterwarrior, Imo the reason for Swiss was to give every participant an equal number of battles to prove themselves and to keep Hax out of the game if possible. An unlucky first round KO of a big player from the tournament, is one of the point why Swiss is preferred. It also tells the standings of a group of players, which is cool too.

No it is because of the whole setting up a team only to be knocked out R1 thing as well as experimentation.

---

Also with the way Pool E has wound up, if Birkal and "SubwayJ" win R3, then we will have had someone advance on a 1-2 record. lol.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Frosty, as you are the Tourney Director, I have one request that if you would be a little patient with LLAMA, we would know exactly how to plan tournaments in the future. If I am not wrong, there have been tournaments that have taken their time to completion in the past? LLAMA is definitely not looking like one of them, and like SIC(K), it is well driven. If we are not patient with Tourney hosts, then folks would be scared to host medium sized tournaments due to ref unavailability, in the future.

I understand that you have a schedule in mind that you would like to see through. But sometimes, we need to alter our plans a bit for something good to happen. I agree to your point that being good to 6 people in a running tournament < giving the opportunity to 32 people to sign up for a new one. But I am concerned about the tournament experience that these 6 players would have. Would they be interested to sign up for the next tournament?

Thinking from an objective stand point, this may seem irrelevant to you. Six people not signing up for a tournament may not be a concern for you as Tourney Director and it may not be a concern for the new Tournament host(s), but if interest on the new tournament keeps dropping this way, then we may end up with more refs and less signups (Obv exaggerating, but you get my point).

As for your point on LLAMA needing 9 Refs in the finals, we can plan something out for it. It depends on two points: 1) No. of signups for the next tournament. 2) How many refs would be approx. needed by the next tournament when LLAMA is running its finals. It is difficult to predict the signups for the next tournament, but being experienced as you are with Tournaments, I am sure you would get an approx number and we would be able to decently predict the # of refs needed by both tournaments at that point in time.

What we are doing is: we are creating temp fixes by changing the rules of tournaments to minimize ref requirement. This is, in a way, a disrespect to both the Tourney host and for you as Tourney Director. Although, you are the boss; you can decide as you want and we would follow. But I feel this needs to be fixed in a different way. So that we don't have to do the post signups fixing up of tournament rules, to manage ref availability.

Just my point of view and I mean no disrespect. I still like Top 3 Cut for LLAMA for the reasons that were discussed, but would take no offense if Top 2 was implemented. Cheers ^_^

 

[ZhengTann]

Short post because I can't help myself, mods can delete this if they find it inappropriate.

'Kay allow me to pull the co-host card. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING COUNTERARGUMENTS IN THE THREAD. If you haven't voiced out your opinion, please do so; if you have, we got you the first time. Just base your arguments on the pros and cons between Top 2 and Top 3, and please don't stealth-edit your current posts to counter arguments from the opposing camp. I'll list arguments for and against each option in the morning, if IAR hadn't by then.

 

[Birkal]

Top 2. Having Top 3 makes these last few months kind of a waste of everyone's time. For those cut by this, better luck in the next tournament, which will come significantly quicker with Top 2. This should be a no brainer.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I should not do this but I cannot help myself but to respond to this post which has ground my gears enough.

Frosty, as you are the Tourney Director, I have one request that if you would be a little patient with LLAMA, we would know exactly how to plan tournaments in the future. If I am not wrong, there have been tournaments that have taken their time to completion in the past? LLAMA is definitely not looking like one of them, and like SIC(K), it is well driven. If we are not patient with Tourney hosts, then folks would be scared to host medium sized tournaments due to ref unavailability, in the future.

I understand that you have a schedule in mind that you would like to see through. But sometimes, we need to alter our plans a bit for something good to happen. I agree to your point that being good to 6 people in a running tournament < giving the opportunity to 32 people to sign up for a new one. But I am concerned about the tournament experience that these 6 players would have. Would they be interested to sign up for the next tournament?

Thinking from an objective stand point, this may seem irrelevant to you. Six people not signing up for a tournament may not be a concern for you as Tourney Director and it may not be a concern for the new Tournament host(s), but if interest on the new tournament keeps dropping this way, then we may end up with more refs and less signups (Obv exaggerating, but you get my point).

As for your point on LLAMA needing 9 Refs in the finals, we can plan something out for it. It depends on two points: 1) No. of signups for the next tournament. 2) How many refs would be approx. needed by the next tournament when LLAMA is running its finals. It is difficult to predict the signups for the next tournament, but being experienced as you are with Tournaments, I am sure you would get an approx number and we would be able to decently predict the # of refs needed by both tournaments at that point in time.

What we are doing is: we are creating temp fixes by changing the rules of tournaments to minimize ref requirement. This is, in a way, a disrespect to both the Tourney host and for you as Tourney Director. Although, you are the boss; you can decide as you want and we would follow. But I feel this needs to be fixed in a different way. So that we don't have to do the post signups fixing up of tournament rules, to manage ref availability.

Just my point of view and I mean no disrespect. I still like Top 3 Cut for LLAMA for the reasons that were discussed, but would take no offense if Top 2 was implemented. Cheers ^_^

The first paragraph is a shitty emotion-based slippery slope argument that has no base whatsoever and tries to inject fear in our minds. I have hosted one of these before. I know what it is like to be in this position. I know full well what I am doing and I am certain Frosty is as well. Yes it does not matter which way we go down since both routes will have the same ETA, the issue is logistics, something that you evidently have not been able to grasp. Our active playerbase atm is like 50-60 users and not 100+ like other places and out of those, not everyone can referee competently. Furthermore, not everyone wants to referee tournaments either because of IRL issues, they have other things to deal with such as zarator with him maintaining a full-blown roleplay almost exclusively by himself or too much on their plate, they do not think they are ready or just do not want to do it. And of course this is not the only tournament going on at the moment. Imagine if this tournament was still in the group stages and two new tournaments just started. I can guarantee all hell may break loose, especially when we would be requiring 9 referees for the two rounds after the group stages.

The second paragraph is baseless, emotion-based dribble similar to the first paragraph. It is not working mate. lol the third paragraph. The fourth paragraph is in no way relevant. Again it is logistics. Why have 18 referees for two rounds when we can halve it and not take away from other tournaments? Who knows what the next tournament entails and maybe that tournament is popular enough to get 48 participants or something? You do not know and it is generally better to play it safe especially given how taxing this tournament already is from a logistical perspective, what with 54 matches in an expected time-frame of four months?

Fifth paragraph: Well I received enough backlash from people who want to remain anonymous save Texas after confirming Top 3 to the point that it made sense to be open minded and gauge the public to know which route to take in the future. The issue is that those campaigning to keep it a Top 3 are using shitty logic—you in particular—to justify their arguments and of course this is why I am swaying towards changing the rules to a top 2 cut. Frosty was not the one instigating this. I was the one who opened up this discussion in the first place. Obviously those for a Top 2 Cut have made their case and the Defence have not been able to refute. You have no idea how much effort I have put into this tournament from ironing out the concept to approving 180 Pokémon profiles to setting everything up to getting referees. This is not a Sunday Drive in terms of effort either, this is like hosting some race meet for an important car racing series.

All in all if you cannot understand the concept of logistics and cannot use proper logic then no one is going to take your posts seriously.

And heed Zt's post please everyone.

 

[Mowtom]

(I haven't posted about this yet)

I support Top 2 as well. 3 battles is enough for everyone to have had a good shot, and while the fact that there will be a bunch of tiebreakers sucks, it's better than wasting significant referee power.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

This is not related to the tournament, But I felt very bad after reading post #66.

I would like to clear a few things:

• I do not try to appeal to emotions of people. I am sure we are all rational people and emotional arguments stand no ground on their own. It is just the way I think and talk.
• I will refrain from arguing on any tournament related issues from hence forth.

This post is not a contempt of Zt's post. It is only in response to the mentioned post, which is quite incapacitating.

 

[ZhengTann]

Apology accepted Gale.

Okay, I've waded through and came good with my promise (its 11.59am here). The image below shows what (I thought were) relevant points for and against each option:

Reasons for certain argument's I've discarded:

1. "Simplifying the tournament" is not an issue, IMO. 12 - 6 - 3 and 18 - 9 - 3 is still 3 rounds, and given that we do enforce the 1-day-DQ rule, both formats should take pretty much the same time.
2. "Changing the rules nilly-willy" is a misguided opinion. IAR and I never decided on a final cut, to be honest. We debated Top 3 over Top 2 because we considered the possibility of having one 3-0 and two 2-1 participants being the norm in pools, but we never finalised our decision, and IAR did say he was gauging public opinion - by which he meant we'd still make the final decisions as hosts.
3. "But it'll be unfair" and "Grow a pair" are rhyming reasons that are both, to me, emotional based. Although the first arguments somewhat represent this already.
   
4. "Tie-breaker rules are not representative of skill" has been refuted by IAR. It goes both ways, and this issue will still arise if we go Top 3 and end up with 4 2-1s in the same pool.

So, to me as a host, the most compelling reason to decide which cut I'll choose (I don't represent IAR, but I think he'll agree) is Referee manpower. If we can prove that we actually have a surplus of capable tournament referees, willing to shoulder the workload, then personally I would not mind a Top 3 cut. But given the current trend... I'm not seeing anything indicative of that possibility.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Top 2 Cut it is then.

Idk which nerdo started this whole Top 3 business :p
Anyways, I apologize for all the commotion. I just wanted to voice my opinion. Which I wouldn't be doing in future instances. No Hard feelings. Cheers ^_^

 

[waterwarrior]

Eh I need the UC anyways plus I'm relatively free these days PLUS I still want Top 3, so I'm willing to sacrifice myself and go full akela and ref every match that needs a ref, even if it means reffing half the damn tournament.

 

[ZhengTann]

Gale wins over Deck

Gale dealt 290 damage, Deck 155 damage

 

[Elevator Music]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/llama-round-2-pool-b-avnomke-vs-vrin.3530181/

Avnomke wins over Vrin

 

[Rainman Legends]

Elevator Music wins a close one over ZhengTann

 

[Birkal]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/llama-round-2-pool-c-maxim-vs-akela.3530216/page-2#post-6162562

Maxim takes out akela
the stage is yours, Its_A_Random