i beat OG Wanka http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225335215
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Iron Chef: Smogon UU Edition - Teambuilding Competition, R10 - Cantata! (See p#595)
- Thread starter Hogg
- Start date
- Status
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225335215
confirming the loss. I had the game, over thought and massively choked zzz, gg christo
confirming the loss. I had the game, over thought and massively choked zzz, gg christo
Won VS Hairy Toenail http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225338895 , GG
played like ass, gg man
Last edited:
i beat daedalus1103 http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225348968
Confirming, Gg
Should ladder W/L records (not the ELO rating) be considered as well for the effectiveness of the chef's team? It should also be pointed out as to how teams chefs are "cooking" fare well to the rest of the players in the ladder, not just the Iron Chefs. Well, my two cents.
I submitted my team to Hogg and would like to challenge Christo The Gr8.
Edit: can i make a suggestion for the next iron chef secret ingredient?
Edit: can i make a suggestion for the next iron chef secret ingredient?
OK, so, I meant to respond to a lot of this last night, but didn't get a chance to really sit down at a computer. Anyhow, here are my thoughts. I'll try to hit some of your points one by one as well, Mazz.
Let me start by saying that overall I like the idea of +2/-1 and the potential for multiple challenges instead of +3 for only a single challenge. I'm not sure I'm thrilled with dropping effectiveness as a judging category entirely in favor of basing it off of victories or W/L, though. I do have a few concerns in general that I would want to consider before making the move, though.
1. Disadvantaging contestants who aren't on as much. I like the idea of having the option to challenge multiple Iron Chefs, but in the end I want someone who can only manage to schedule a game with a single Iron Chef to still have a chance of succeeding. With time zones and availability as factors, I don't want to complicate things in a way that prevents people from participating, or makes people who can only manage to schedule a single battle feel like there's no way they can win against people who have the time to schedule four games. I tried to pick Iron Chefs who are regularly on, but still, it's tough.
2. Overburdening the Iron Chefs. So, with three days still left in teambuilding, we've had 13 matches so far. I also have 3 people that have submitted teams to me but have not yet scheduled matches. Even if no one else submits a team this week, that means we should still expect a minimum of 16 participants. With four Iron Chefs that's not so bad - four matches a piece or thereabouts depending on scheduling. It also means that a chef doesn't have to drop everything and battle any time a challenger is on, since usually someone else can. But if we're not just allowing but encouraging multiple battles, we'd be talking about sixteen battles a pop for each Iron Chef. That's... a lot to schedule in a week. I have a feeling that it would be pretty hard to retain good, competitive Iron Chefs if they were expected to battle so much. It's especially true because a lot of the best battlers are already involved in several other projects (for example, every single Iron Chef is currently involved in at least some capacity with UUPL, and most of them have multiple other projects they're working on as well).
3. Overcomplicating things. The point of this is to have fun, and to get people involved. On the one hand I like the idea of a really exact mechanism to determine which team is the best. On the other hand, things are pretty simple right now: PM me a team, battle an Iron Chef, post a replay. Any potential judges have it pretty simple as well: read the team and watch the replay, pick a number based on how well they did, add a sentence or two explaining their vote. It's not the end of the world to make things more complicated, but I'd like to keep it relatively simple so that people still have fun with it.
Anyhow, onto some specific points...
Honestly, my first thought had been to base 100% of the scoring off of judging, since I was originally inspired by the Iron Chef show. The Iron Chef battles were just to add a fun, competitive element and let the contestants show off their teams. From talking to the Iron Chefs and some other folks about the idea, though, it was decided that there wasn't really any incentive for beating an Iron Chef. So after some back and forth, I decided on 3 points - high enough that it's a big advantage for anyone who wins their battle, but low enough that it's not a guarantee.
I'm not sure I love this measure of effectiveness. For one, it means HO teams are at a disadvantage, since they tend to play "closer" (ie, saccing mons to avoid losing momentum instead of pivoting out, so that the final score is usually closer even if they never lost control throughout the match). For another, it means that there's no real way to give someone a bonus or penalty for something that didn't come up in their matches. For example, let's say a hypothetical team is mega-weak to Chandelure. If none of the Iron Chef battles feature a Chandelure, then the competitor more or less lucks out in that he won't get penalized for it. By allowing judges to vote on effectiveness (and provide reasoning for their vote, like a brief RMT), though, things like that can be caught, and the team can be improved. Finally, as you mentioned, part of the goal of having scored judging instead of just having people pick their favorite team is so that teams and teambuilding can be improved. Taking away effectiveness as a scored category means we're taking away feedback on what, to me, is the most important thing to provide feedback on.
Makes sense, but see above concerns with over-complicating things and removing effectiveness as a scored category.
True - it was arbitrary, in that I made it up :P And yeah, I agree that it's difficult to solely assess a team's effectiveness based on a single match. I'm hoping that judges think about other matchups, common threats, etc., when providing scoring.
As of right now I'm pretty happy with my Iron Chefs. They've provided some excellent battles, remained active on the thread, and stayed consistently available for match-ups. They're also available across a wide variety of times of day, which is a concern. And they're all well known in one way or another, which makes it fun to challenge them for most users.
That said, there IS a mechanism built in already to keep the Iron Chefs competitive: anyone who makes it into the Hall of Fame twice can choose to become an Iron Chef.
My plan is to provide a few sentences on why I give each score, whether good, poor or mediocre. I don't plan on doing a full RMT or anything, but I do want to provide actual feedback.
Because I want to encourage as many judges to participate as possible, I didn't make it a requirement to provide a ton of info on the scoring, but instead planned to lead by example. Hopefully that will work out, but it'll be tough to say until we actually get to the scoring portion of the contest.
Let me start by saying that overall I like the idea of +2/-1 and the potential for multiple challenges instead of +3 for only a single challenge. I'm not sure I'm thrilled with dropping effectiveness as a judging category entirely in favor of basing it off of victories or W/L, though. I do have a few concerns in general that I would want to consider before making the move, though.
1. Disadvantaging contestants who aren't on as much. I like the idea of having the option to challenge multiple Iron Chefs, but in the end I want someone who can only manage to schedule a game with a single Iron Chef to still have a chance of succeeding. With time zones and availability as factors, I don't want to complicate things in a way that prevents people from participating, or makes people who can only manage to schedule a single battle feel like there's no way they can win against people who have the time to schedule four games. I tried to pick Iron Chefs who are regularly on, but still, it's tough.
2. Overburdening the Iron Chefs. So, with three days still left in teambuilding, we've had 13 matches so far. I also have 3 people that have submitted teams to me but have not yet scheduled matches. Even if no one else submits a team this week, that means we should still expect a minimum of 16 participants. With four Iron Chefs that's not so bad - four matches a piece or thereabouts depending on scheduling. It also means that a chef doesn't have to drop everything and battle any time a challenger is on, since usually someone else can. But if we're not just allowing but encouraging multiple battles, we'd be talking about sixteen battles a pop for each Iron Chef. That's... a lot to schedule in a week. I have a feeling that it would be pretty hard to retain good, competitive Iron Chefs if they were expected to battle so much. It's especially true because a lot of the best battlers are already involved in several other projects (for example, every single Iron Chef is currently involved in at least some capacity with UUPL, and most of them have multiple other projects they're working on as well).
3. Overcomplicating things. The point of this is to have fun, and to get people involved. On the one hand I like the idea of a really exact mechanism to determine which team is the best. On the other hand, things are pretty simple right now: PM me a team, battle an Iron Chef, post a replay. Any potential judges have it pretty simple as well: read the team and watch the replay, pick a number based on how well they did, add a sentence or two explaining their vote. It's not the end of the world to make things more complicated, but I'd like to keep it relatively simple so that people still have fun with it.
Anyhow, onto some specific points...
Honestly, my first thought had been to base 100% of the scoring off of judging, since I was originally inspired by the Iron Chef show. The Iron Chef battles were just to add a fun, competitive element and let the contestants show off their teams. From talking to the Iron Chefs and some other folks about the idea, though, it was decided that there wasn't really any incentive for beating an Iron Chef. So after some back and forth, I decided on 3 points - high enough that it's a big advantage for anyone who wins their battle, but low enough that it's not a guarantee.
I'm not sure I love this measure of effectiveness. For one, it means HO teams are at a disadvantage, since they tend to play "closer" (ie, saccing mons to avoid losing momentum instead of pivoting out, so that the final score is usually closer even if they never lost control throughout the match). For another, it means that there's no real way to give someone a bonus or penalty for something that didn't come up in their matches. For example, let's say a hypothetical team is mega-weak to Chandelure. If none of the Iron Chef battles feature a Chandelure, then the competitor more or less lucks out in that he won't get penalized for it. By allowing judges to vote on effectiveness (and provide reasoning for their vote, like a brief RMT), though, things like that can be caught, and the team can be improved. Finally, as you mentioned, part of the goal of having scored judging instead of just having people pick their favorite team is so that teams and teambuilding can be improved. Taking away effectiveness as a scored category means we're taking away feedback on what, to me, is the most important thing to provide feedback on.
Makes sense, but see above concerns with over-complicating things and removing effectiveness as a scored category.
True - it was arbitrary, in that I made it up :P And yeah, I agree that it's difficult to solely assess a team's effectiveness based on a single match. I'm hoping that judges think about other matchups, common threats, etc., when providing scoring.
As of right now I'm pretty happy with my Iron Chefs. They've provided some excellent battles, remained active on the thread, and stayed consistently available for match-ups. They're also available across a wide variety of times of day, which is a concern. And they're all well known in one way or another, which makes it fun to challenge them for most users.
That said, there IS a mechanism built in already to keep the Iron Chefs competitive: anyone who makes it into the Hall of Fame twice can choose to become an Iron Chef.
My plan is to provide a few sentences on why I give each score, whether good, poor or mediocre. I don't plan on doing a full RMT or anything, but I do want to provide actual feedback.
Because I want to encourage as many judges to participate as possible, I didn't make it a requirement to provide a ton of info on the scoring, but instead planned to lead by example. Hopefully that will work out, but it'll be tough to say until we actually get to the scoring portion of the contest.
And, in more relevant news, three more challengers have come up against our Iron Chefs!
Chef OG_Wanka filled his plate with offensive threats such as Life Orb Tangrowth, CB Infernape and Draco Plate Dragalge, hoping to overwhelm Iron Chef Christo the Gr8. He also brought Assault Vest Slowking as a specially defensive pivot, something we have not yet seen this competition. Tangrowth in particular put in an incredible amount of work for Chef OG_Wanka, coming in multiple times throughout the match to take out threats such as Forretress and Snorlax. However, with no real way to stop Chandelure once his Krookodile was taken down, Iron Chef Christo was able to break down OG_Wanka's team and let his Mega-Sceptile bring things home for the Iron Chef.
Chef daedalus1103 also challenged Iron Chef Christo the Gr8, and was the second chef to bring a Trick Room team to Kitchen Coliseum. His dish had some interesting ingredients, such as Toxic TR Cresselia and specially defensive Arcanine, but Iron Chef Christo's ability to pivot between Slowking and Umbreon to keep his team healthy proved to be too much for daedalus1103 to break. Iron Chef Christo proved victorious once again.
Finally, Chef vexyyyy became the first chef to fell Iron Chef Hairy Toenail. Chef vexyyyy cooked a balanced dish involving Scarfmence and Specs Future Sight Reuniclus. That Reuniclus in particular proved troubling for Iron Chef baenail, who found it difficult to switch around vexyyyy's threats with the constant worry of taking Future Sight damage - and indeed, nearly from the beginning, that Future Sight proved powerful enough to fell a fully healthy Abomasnow on its own. The Iron Chef managed to pull himself back into the match after those early losses, turning the match into quite the nailbiter, but could not quite fully recover in the end.
Please do! I've already got a list of 8 or 9 potential secret ingredients, but I could definitely use more.
Chef OG_Wanka filled his plate with offensive threats such as Life Orb Tangrowth, CB Infernape and Draco Plate Dragalge, hoping to overwhelm Iron Chef Christo the Gr8. He also brought Assault Vest Slowking as a specially defensive pivot, something we have not yet seen this competition. Tangrowth in particular put in an incredible amount of work for Chef OG_Wanka, coming in multiple times throughout the match to take out threats such as Forretress and Snorlax. However, with no real way to stop Chandelure once his Krookodile was taken down, Iron Chef Christo was able to break down OG_Wanka's team and let his Mega-Sceptile bring things home for the Iron Chef.
Chef daedalus1103 also challenged Iron Chef Christo the Gr8, and was the second chef to bring a Trick Room team to Kitchen Coliseum. His dish had some interesting ingredients, such as Toxic TR Cresselia and specially defensive Arcanine, but Iron Chef Christo's ability to pivot between Slowking and Umbreon to keep his team healthy proved to be too much for daedalus1103 to break. Iron Chef Christo proved victorious once again.
Finally, Chef vexyyyy became the first chef to fell Iron Chef Hairy Toenail. Chef vexyyyy cooked a balanced dish involving Scarfmence and Specs Future Sight Reuniclus. That Reuniclus in particular proved troubling for Iron Chef baenail, who found it difficult to switch around vexyyyy's threats with the constant worry of taking Future Sight damage - and indeed, nearly from the beginning, that Future Sight proved powerful enough to fell a fully healthy Abomasnow on its own. The Iron Chef managed to pull himself back into the match after those early losses, turning the match into quite the nailbiter, but could not quite fully recover in the end.
Please do! I've already got a list of 8 or 9 potential secret ingredients, but I could definitely use more.
Trust me, that's on the shortlist :P
I'll post recaps of the most recent matches later today. In the meantime, I want to remind everyone that teambuilding ends tonight! If you are interested in entering this round, be sure to PM me your team by 11:59 GMT.
Also, Patrick1088 and Kreme , I have your teams but you still need an Iron Chef battle. The chefs tend to hang out in the Underused room on PS or in #xyuu on IRC. Please make sure to get your game in! (Iron Chef xMarth has only had two challengers, by the way... You guys aren't scared, are you?)
Yeah I'll try to get mine in as soon as possible but I already knew who I was going to try and slay this round anyway, and it isn't Marth :P
Lost to Marth in a gg
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226036598
Tricking Specs onto Queen= bad idea...
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226036598
Tricking Specs onto Queen= bad idea...
Got slayed, decided not to waste everybody else's time and challenge the only Iron Chef on at the time. GG Marth. http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226526088
Won vs Marth. Gg.
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226530163
Hogg it's ok if i challed 2 iron chefs ?
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226530163
Hogg it's ok if i challed 2 iron chefs ?
Last edited:
I think its ok next time but this week its only one
As I told Mazz, you can use the replay against additional Iron Chefs to help out for judging, but I'm limiting things to one challenge for bonus points this round. That said, I am considering changing the rules for future rounds to allow for multiple challenges, with an adjusted bonus system of +2 points for winning and -1 point for losing.
And that's all of our battles! I've sent a few of you PMs regarding missing descriptions on your team submissions; once I get those, I can post everything up for judging!
So, we're just waiting on team descriptions from the following contestants: vexyyyy LilOuOn Patrick1088
Please send this over to me via PM, so that we can move on to the judging phase of the contest. Thank you!
Edit: vexyyyy and LilOuOn have both sent theirs in, and Patrick1088 promises to have his sent today or tomorrow morning. I'll have everything updated shortly.
Please send this over to me via PM, so that we can move on to the judging phase of the contest. Thank you!
Edit: vexyyyy and LilOuOn have both sent theirs in, and Patrick1088 promises to have his sent today or tomorrow morning. I'll have everything updated shortly.
Last edited:
It was, though, I just forgot and I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the other 2.
- Status