Frosty
=_=
Regarding 1: Everybody makes abuseable subs. But better players make subs harder to abuse. If you can do well vs a very good player, you can do really well vs an only decent player. Also when the player is winning solidly, the tendency is that they lower their guards and don't focus as much, which makes it worse to measure the potential of that player to the point of being able to distinguish small gaps in abilities. I personally find it best to face a better player because that way the candidate will be pretty much obliged to be on their toes the entire game.
But honestly, I don't really care as you would need candidates with really really close capabilities for that to make a difference. More often than not you can clearly determine who played the best.
Regarding 2: Treat them the same way as megas= more than 1? Allow only on special situations when the typing or arena warrants that. In the end you would get pretty much the same end result, but at least consistency?
Regarding 3: I do 6vs6 for a while now with DQ= 4 (trying 3 and 6 for whoever orders first now. Will check how it goes as soon as I have stable computer not at work for a change ;_;) and my matches hardly go over 2 months. Actually some of them do, but that is more due to me and/or my opponents being johns (/hides battle vs df) than because of the number of pokemon per side or DQ rules.
Personally I see no reason to stabilish a limit like that. 4vs4 on Poison Gym is slow as fuck, while on Ground Gym is super quick. Both Fairy and Ice Gyms have the same settings, but the former is considerably faster than the latter. There are offensive and defensive gyms and not every challenge has to be quick. I like gyms that can give a variety of tests to the challenger and a longer battle is a kind of test, as the strategies you apply there are different from the ones you use on shorter battles. And variety is good on a league or else it is boring to no end.
It is best to just have the committee put limits on a case-by-case basis, as they are doing right now. No need to put a single limit for everything, as: a) it is too restrictive; and b) 5vs5 singles is still bogus and 4vs4 triples is ridiculous. 3 days to order on singles is a lot, but while ordering first on doubles/triples it certainly isn't.
But honestly, I don't really care as you would need candidates with really really close capabilities for that to make a difference. More often than not you can clearly determine who played the best.
Regarding 2: Treat them the same way as megas= more than 1? Allow only on special situations when the typing or arena warrants that. In the end you would get pretty much the same end result, but at least consistency?
Regarding 3: I do 6vs6 for a while now with DQ= 4 (trying 3 and 6 for whoever orders first now. Will check how it goes as soon as I have stable computer not at work for a change ;_;) and my matches hardly go over 2 months. Actually some of them do, but that is more due to me and/or my opponents being johns (/hides battle vs df) than because of the number of pokemon per side or DQ rules.
Personally I see no reason to stabilish a limit like that. 4vs4 on Poison Gym is slow as fuck, while on Ground Gym is super quick. Both Fairy and Ice Gyms have the same settings, but the former is considerably faster than the latter. There are offensive and defensive gyms and not every challenge has to be quick. I like gyms that can give a variety of tests to the challenger and a longer battle is a kind of test, as the strategies you apply there are different from the ones you use on shorter battles. And variety is good on a league or else it is boring to no end.
It is best to just have the committee put limits on a case-by-case basis, as they are doing right now. No need to put a single limit for everything, as: a) it is too restrictive; and b) 5vs5 singles is still bogus and 4vs4 triples is ridiculous. 3 days to order on singles is a lot, but while ordering first on doubles/triples it certainly isn't.
Last edited: