i beat OG Wanka http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225335215
specs reun is a lord
Confirming, Ggi beat daedalus1103 http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-225348968
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.Winning can only snag you 3 points, and I (as well as some others) are confused by this. Winning, by direct extension, is evidence of effectiveness. If your team does not win, your team is not effective, or not effective enough. While I understand that players with more skill can get more mileage on a less-effective team in comparison to a new user with that same team, wins and losses are the easiest and most direct way to measure a team's effectiveness.
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."Effectiveness" is now worth up to a bonus of 5 points and shall be based on the scores of matches. If the user is only winning matches by a hair, less or zero points are awarded. If the user blows the current Iron Chefs out of the water, then more or all 5 points are rewarded.
Makes sense, but see above concerns with over-complicating things and removing effectiveness as a scored category.The new point system would look like this: a-5-5-b, with "a" being any integer value between -4 and 8 (based on W/L record), and "b" being any whole number between 0-5 (based on user effectiveness).
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.EDIT: Essentially, the current process is very arbitrary. How do you judge a team's effectiveness based on one match? You must consider match-up, alternate threats, and even user effectiveness. That is mighty difficult to observe in one match, and allowing for more than one fixes this.
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.In order to keep users from racking up points, the current Iron Chefs must be better. I don't think the burden of not racking up points is to be put on the entrant here - these four players were chosen because they are a cut above the rest. It's time for them to step up and prove it. To alleviate your issue with players racking up points, it should be up to the four Iron Chefs to beat the user. If certain users prove to be too good for the current batch of chefs, it should be up to you, the chairman, to cut the weakest link and offer this better user a place among the Iron Chefs. Such a change would of course require new requirements for what it takes to be an Iron Chef, something you can iron out later.
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.EDIT 2: Also, in terms of evaluation by the Iron Chefs (and Chairman?), what will the evaluation look like? If a user gets a near-perfect to perfect score, I can see praise being thrown around, but what about those who fare poorly? Will the four Chefs provide teambuilding tips for the future and "rate" the team? This is something I'd like to see happen if this wasn't the plan, as it encourages better competition in later rounds.
Please do! I've already got a list of 8 or 9 potential secret ingredients, but I could definitely use more.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?
Trust me, that's on the shortlist :PHogg What about an ingredient so Hot and Spicy that it can melt your face off? I was interested in seeing how Sunny Day fare with these Iron Chefs.
:-)
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 :PTrust 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?)
I think its ok next time but this week its only oneWon vs Marth. Gg.
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226530163
Hogg it's ok if i challed 2 iron chefs ?
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.Won vs Marth. Gg.
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/uu-226530163
Hogg it's ok if i challed 2 iron chefs ?
It was, though, I just forgot and I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the other 2.If it wasn't a requirement to have descriptions sent in along with the team before fighting one of the four Chefs, it should be now. It's a pretty unnecessary holdup.