OPEN DISCUSSION - Gym Concerns and Issues

[Gale Wing Srock]

Guys, I was discussing a few things on IRC and we feel something needs to be done about our current way of treating past Gym Leaders.

IRC Discussion

[15:06] <Gale> I was thinking we need an Old Gym Leaders Hall of fame or something to keep the records
[15:06] <Gale> Like just a post in Gym League Thread
[15:06] <Gale> May be when we make a new one
[15:07] <Gale> Like not the small one or two battle records
[15:07] <Gale> But those Gym Leaders who have been around for a while, like an year or so
[15:08] <Gale> Kind of like a tribute to past Gym Leaders
[15:08] * Texas (~Texas@Texas.Smogon) Quit (Ping timeout: 183 seconds)
[15:08] <Gale> Pwnemon and Texas fall into that category I think
[15:09] <Gale> Will probably post about it when we are planning a new thread for the Gym League
[15:10] <Gale> Or may be have a separate ASB History thread
[15:10] <Frosty> you should probably bring it up now. Decision about previous gym leaders should probably be made, especially regarding if they get to keep their badges. Previous gym leaders removed from their positions lost the respective badges and I personally find that to be too restrictive.
[15:10] <Frosty> being forced to be forever a leader is iffy
[15:11] <Rainman_Legends> Wait really? .-.
[15:11] <Gale> That is sad man :/
[15:11] <Frosty> that is precedent yeah
[15:11] <Gale> Cool let me put up a post in the Gym Feedback
[15:11] <Rainman_Legends> So if I theoretically got flying gym, then take a hiatus, and have to leave, I don't get flying badge anymore?
[15:11] <Gale> Although, my record for getting shot down is pretty high
[15:12] <Frosty> atheno, jas, comp, kaxtar and many others lost their badges
[15:12] <Rainman_Legends> And I have to give up whatever reward I get for that badge level?
[15:12] <Gale> If you retire as a Gym Leader then you may not retain them I think
[15:12] <Rainman_Legends> Wtf, that's some new levels of bullshit
[15:12] <Frosty> the prize isn't affected. You just lose the badge
[15:12] <Frosty> I had to challenge and win vs pwnemon or I was risking losing the grass badge I got from winning qualifiers
[15:13] <Frosty> vs pwne
[15:13] <Frosty> -_-
[15:13] <Frosty> the issue is that qualifiers bypass the regular gym queue, so maybe not winning a badge forever if you beat them is justifiable
[15:13] <Rainman_Legends> Can we like change this seriously
[15:13] <Frosty> but I don't feel that is logical if you defend your badge for a long time
[15:14] <Rainman_Legends> I think winning quals good enough to keep your badge
[15:14] <Frosty> leet lost his badge too
[15:14] <Rainman_Legends> Well leet went mia for like 9 months
[12:14] <Frosty> the ones I listed above left for good .-.
[15:16] <Frosty> Full list is: Korski, Lou, Kaxtar, Orcinus duo, Jas, Leethoof, C$FP, Complications, Athenodoros
[15:17] <Frosty> All bar leet left
[15:17] <Rainman_Legends> I still feel they should've kept their badges :/
[15:17] <Frosty> I agree <_<
[15:18] <Frosty> just saying that if going on hiatus is an argument, it applies to all
[15:18] <Frosty> Pwne, Objection and Tex now will probably join those ranks.
[15:18] <Rainman_Legends> Objection won quals then went mia right?
[15:19] <Frosty> I feel some ruling needs to be done about them (and the previous ones). Specially since I feel at least Tex may not leave entirely forever.
[15:19] <Frosty> he didn't "win" per se. More like "was the one contestant"
[15:19] <Rainman_Legends> Tex vs aops for dragon iirc?
[15:20] <Frosty> I meant obj
[15:20] <Rainman_Legends> Oh lol
[15:20] <Rainman_Legends> Wait there was seriously no other competition?
[15:20] <Rainman_Legends> Man I should've joined earlier lmfao

The concern mainly is that past Gym leaders who have been Gym Leaders for a considerable amount of time, and / or have been exceptionally good as Gym Leaders, but had to step down due to irl requirements or issues, should retain their Gym Badges at the very least.

I mean, they deserve it folks (Especially the ones who have contributed to the community extensively). It is a mark of respect that they were a successful Gym Leader once and we should remember them by it.

So I am proposing three things:

• We allow past Gym Leaders to retain their badges. [We need this please]
  
• We maintain a record of their W/L Ratio, Arena details and Sprites as a legacy of past Gym Leaders. (Probably a post in the Gym League thread).
• We could put (2) on a new thread along with rest of ASB's history like Past Council Members, Past Moderators and stuff like that. [This one is optional and least priority]

We all agree that if someone is busy irl, then they need to pass down responsibilities to others, so that things can run smoothly. But we should respect them for what they have done for us, by preserving their achievements in any small manner that we can.

P.s: Please consider this for a whole minute before shooting it down :/ (That is, if you are going to do it anyway.)

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Texas likes this

 

[Leethoof]

do i count :p

 

[Elevator Music]

My feeling on the issue is that it should depend on a) how long the leader has held the position (you can measure this in terms of actual length or # of battles completed, or both) and b) reason of departure. We can look at this on a case-by-case basis, obviously.

People that just disappeared after completing a couple of battles and had to have the gym forcibly removed (above poster) shouldn't get to keep the badge, but people that have put in many battles and posted they are stepping down (two posts up) should. These are of course the most clear-cut examples, but in general I feel like it should be easy to determine who gets to retain the badge.

Also, I'm all for having a topic to preserve the data for past leaders. We can work out the logistics later, but having that kind of data is always nice.

Anyways, moving back to the qualifiers topic:

It seems like its fine to move forward on this? I didn't get to respond to Red's post, and he raised a fair concern, but Frosty responded with what I would have (typical..). The only thing that needs to be hammered out now is how rentals will work (how much investment do they get, will a pool be available for show, etc). Does anybody have anything to say about the logistics of this? It's all thats left before we can wrap this up...

 

[Frosty]

Do you want to mimic the average challenger or the average dangerous challenger? The average challenger (includes dangerous challengers) will have around 40-50 moves or so per mons. The average dangerous challenger will be pretty close to maxed mons (above 60 moves). Personally I feel around 50 is a nice number, although a case can be made for 40. Below 40 I just feel its unrealistic.

As for the pool being available: please yes. Or else you completely remove (counter)teambuilding from the equation, and that is a crucial part of everyday challenges.

 

[ZhengTann]

I don't think movepool sizes are really that indicative of skill levels. They're just indicative of the amount of options that Pokemon has. The average dangerous challenger will be dangerous because if the way he/she plays, not because he/she brought a team with (arbitrarily bigger) movepools.

I'm more concerned about the time it takes to get a pool of rentals. We all know how much time it took for the RP facilities (even though, or rather, because the OP was like "slave and get UC!!!"). Maybe we could just steal the pools from Pike/Hall/LLAMA, touch them up a little, and get it going straight away. Yes, ww posted about this idea a page back.

For reference, R6 Hallmons have an average of 30-40 moves, because all Level-ups and 20 total of Tutors/Eggs/TMs. Gold Pikemons have basically full movepool. LLAMA is probably the go-to if you want EM-level movepools to go with EM-level skills.

Also yes to visibility, although personally I'd advocate for a wide enough selection of rentals.

 

[Pallas Athena]

I would go with full movepools just to remove another matchup-based factor from the method. Especially if by having EM play we're basically ignoring the average challenge difficulty entirely, or at least very poorly simulating it.

 

[Elevator Music]

I wouldn't be all that concerned with how long it'll take to create a pool. I'm envisioning a pool being around 8-10 Pokemon that have strong matchups for that gym type and/or are very good Pokemon that have neutral matchups. With any real effort put in I'd conservatively say it'd take a couple hours to do? I can see how people might see 8 as not being a wide enough pool, but to be honest I don't think most trainers even have that many Pokemon they'd consider bringing to a specific gym. IDK, other people have thoughts on what pool size seems appropriate?

Also, I've thought about it a little and somewhere around 40-50 moves per Pokemon seems fine. I think a lot of Pokemon don't need any more than that, though some may want a little over 50? But as long as it averages out to around 40-50 moves per Pokemon it's probably fine? EDIT: Though ofc full movepools also makes things easier to compile, and it's not like there's really much of a functional difference between ~50 and max for a majority of Pokemon.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Yeah 10 maxed pokemon that have strong matchups for the Gym Type under qualifiers should be sufficient. Visible profiles would be cool, since the Contender's pokemon would be visible to all of us too.

We may need some sort of grading system in place to make it easier to judge when things get really close (this wouldn't be visible to all, may be the Gym Committee can do the grading between them). Like, timely orders, pokemon choices, efficient combinations and what not. As a quantifiable grading system would ease the justification for a decision if there is a disagreement? (Although for experienced folks this would be quite apparent without grading, so I am not sure if we would need it at all)

So the format would be, bring 6 play 3 for both the contender and the Qualifier (I can't think of a better name +_+)? Or the format for every type can be decided by the Contender? Like if one Grass Gym Contender wants bring 7 play 4 Doubles and another contender wants bring 9 play 6 triples, would this be entertained? Imo, we should. But I can't say for sure.

 

[tavok]

Making it a fixed format makes it WAY easier to gauge skill levels.

Also, making this quantificable would be, imo, insanely hard and unnecesary. What is worth more, sub abuse or match up control? Choosing the mons that give the wannabe leader the best chance at countering whatever the challenger brings, or posting in time? I mean, like Frosty said, more often than not you can clearly see who played better.

And finally, if we want these quals to be what the leader will actually face, only the leader should bring extra mons. This has pros in being more flexible, and cons in being succeptible to phazing moves.

Also, let's remember that some mons just utterly destroy some types without arenas to help. So have that in mind while grading.

 

[Elevator Music]

Yep. I was planning on doing 3v3 singles where the gym candidates can bring 6. 3v3 singles is a relatively small format, so it won't be too time consuming, but it's also large enough that player skill plays a large part in determining the victor. I wouldn't be opposed to 4v4 singles if people would rather have that though.

In general I'd like to shy away from non-singles formats for qualifiers.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Hmm cool, so everything is set for qualifiers I think? Time to set the date for next qualifiers and make those profiles. I am willing to help for the profiles, if needed. Also I am willing to ref a qualifier, if required. Anything else that is pending discussion for the new qualifier format, Emma?

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

10 mins with a strong matchup is major overkill. The average challenger will generally have one or two gym 'counters' and several strongmons that get neutral matchups in their favour. Anything further runs the risk of overrunning the gym leaders. I'd rather see a team of something like (for flying for example) Cyclohm and 3 Starmie level mons than I would the explicit counterteams we've seen in the past. From a evaluative standpoint anyway.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Hmm, in that case since it is 3v3 with the Gym Leader bringing 6. Elevator Music, should have one strong counter and 2 neutral threats (Starmie level as in Rank B or Below). So the 10 pokemon squad could have say 3 strong counters for the type and 7 neutral threats. I agree to that yeah. When I mentioned 10 strong pokemon I didn't mean 10 counters though.

So 3v3 FE Singles / 4v4 FE Singles (NFE can be brought, if preferred)
Gym Contender brings 6 and plays 3
Elevator Music brings 3 from a set of predefined profiles (3 Strong Counters and 7 Neutral threats)
The predefined profiles have maxed moves.
Elevator Music can only bring one strong counter.
Toss determines send out
Arena is ASB Arena

Do we all agree to these rules? (If you do not agree, then please post the disagreement with some suggestions)

 

[Avnomke]

Honestly, many gyms are much more suited for doubles+ than singles, and I think it would be better to judge the candidates based on how well they play in their chosen format rather than 3v3 singles (unless 3v3 singles is the chosen format, obviously). Probably make the battle size equal to the number of pokemon out at one time+2 pokemon per battle.

Also, as far as mon pools, I would prefer there be some sort of spectrum, from (for flying gym) cyclohm (basically hard counter) to stratagem (strong pokemon with a type advantage) to aurorus (worse pokemon with a type advantage) to gardevoir (strong neutral). As you have it, the pool is 3 cyclohms and 7 gardevoirs, but it would be better imo if the pool were more like cyclohm/krilowatt/rotom/stratagem/weavile/aurorus/lapras/glalie/gardevoir/mawile or something. It would probably be best to say "these are the species you will have to deal with" and then just steal the profile from somebody who has one. I would also prefer it if emma could bring whichever pokemon he thought best to bring, as that's what the challengers will do.

 

[tavok]

[...] I would also prefer it if emma could bring whichever pokemon he thought best to bring, as that's what the challengers will do.

In that case then don't even bother making profiles for mons that are not optimal, since the stronger ones are obv going to be chosen -.-

The hole idea of having mons that don't absolutely destroy the gym is because challengers don't usually bring a team of all strong counters, but one or two strong counters and then some not-so-strong counters and neutral matchups (depending on how many mons are allowed obv).

 

[Avnomke]

I'd disagree with that statement. Many gym challengers (depending on the type) bring a team of nothing but type advantage. There are types it works well for (Dark, Grass, and Ice come to mind), and types it doesn't (such as Electric and Psychic). A gym leader needs to be able to prepare for both goodstuffs teams and counterteams.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Or just let the user conducting the qualifiers choose whatever they want to choose irrespective of matchup and not bother delving into what is best and what is not the best for a specific gym because players will bring whatever the hell they want to a gym. I also prefer if the squad used by the user be as consistent as possible with little variation (Five Pokémon is a comfortable number for a 3v3 singles) as to more objectively determine who deserves the gym and to reduce the matchup factor. If a player wants to be a leader then the only thing that should matter is how much effort they put in and how well they played no matter what the opponent brings; tenacity is the key factor. By having a minimal pool, the ability to determine who deserves the spot the most becomes much easier. Just because the user conducting the qualifiers dominates the match against all the candidates, does not mean no one is worthy of the leadership.

Basically we should have a small pool of Pokémon to increase consistency and objectivity and we should assume that the players fighting the gym will bring the best teams possible and are competent. Besides, what is average?

 

[tavok]

We should also decide what would we do if mayor hax strikes in such a way that it is not possible to determine if a player played better than the others.

 

[Elevator Music]

We should also decide what would we do if mayor hax strikes in such a way that it is not possible to determine if a player played better than the others.

It doesn't really matter if hax happens. Regardless of hax there are still good and bad plays you can make after. Either way, it's still a marginally better system than currently, because even if hax somehow puts you in a situation where you can't win, you can still "win."

As for non-singles formats, I don't necessarily disagree that some gyms where doubles+ works as well/better than singles. And, in theory it'd make sense to test in the format the gym will be in (since that's part of the point of this method of qualifiers). However, my biggest gripe with non-singles as a qualifier format is that I find non-singles to be inherently less skill-based. That's my personal opinion and I guess people can debate or disagree, but I don't think it's worth it to do non-singles if it significantly clouds the decision-making aspect of this method of quals (which I think it does).

Thoughts?

 

[Frosty]

Doubles+ have massive last-to-order advantage. Massive. To the point of surpassing small and medium gaps in skill.

While Singles also have issues with order advantage (arguably a last-to-send-out advantage, due to how matchup-reliant they are), those issues are nowhere near the advantages doubles+ give to one specific player due to a simple coinflip. Unless you can find a way to mitigate that, I highly suggest you stick to singles as the probability that it will have luck surpassing skill is much smaller than in doubles+.

If you want I can elaborate on why doubles+ have considerable last-to-order advantage.

 

[Gerard]

It's not that it's less skill but that the skillset is different in each case. Doubles rewards forward thinking, putting yourself in the situation that you lose the least by going second, negating your opponent second turns or leaving them to the point of death so that you can finish them quickly, or taunting / enforcing them, thus negating their best tricks.

In singles you can play more aggressively, and sometimes even mindlessly, because you only need to worry about one pokemon and one movepool, while in Doubles you have to consider the two of them and what tricks they could pull off at any given time. You have no idea how many times I had to rewrote subs because they were capable of being abused if my opponent did something like use bulldoze and then use protect (ally) next turn, so that his partner could safely endure or fire a combo.

On doubles your best skill is to think what are you gonna do next round where you don't order second, and try to put yourself in the situation where your worst case scenario is still better than watch ever your opponents gonna lose this turn when you order second.

However I will agree that Doubles is the environment that benefits the pokemon with the biggest movepools (and specially, with the best tricks), as the increasing options cause the things you have to sub to increase exponentially, which normally causes people forgoing dangerous options because the alternative was an even worst outcome.

 

[waterwarrior]

Basically just putting my thoughts I said on IRC in actual sentences.

The qualifiers should be whatever the potential leaders see their Gym as when they open. Dismissing Doubles because it's "too dependent on a coin flip" is almost comically missing the entire point of why we're having someone "challenge the Gym" instead of having a match between the two/three potential leaders. We started this whole idea in the first place to measure actual competence in the Gym and being able to beat viable threats to the Gym instead of just using mons that will never see play in real Gym matches to beat opponents of the same type.

If we just say "put all the qualifiers in singles," we're not actually measuring the competence of the potential leaders in the format of their choice- if you get stomped in Doubles because your orders going first are easily exploitable but you're great at singles, are you really the best choice for a Doubles gym? Besides, the coin flip advantage applies to actual Gym matches as well- yes there's a counter-argument that in real Gym matches the Leader can specify that they always go second, but if they're going to do that in the real Gym, shouldn't we do it in qualifiers as well, saying as the new qualifiers are to see how they would play in a real match?

 

[Elevator Music]

EDIT: In response to the above post, I kinda briefly alluded to this in my last post. Yes, of course it would make sense to test in the format people would use, however in doing so there's a trade-off. The ultimate intent of this method is to pick the most skilled candidate, but in doubles it's significantly more difficult to say who played better if you're looking at someone who started from ordering first and someone who started from ordering second.

Which is why as you'll see below, gym candidates have to start by ordering first :)

-----------

Honestly still not at all convinced, but if people really want to do doubles in their qualifiers then fine. Anyways, here's a full draft of how qualifiers will work if we go forward with this method:

Each candidate for the gym will fight against the examiner (idk what to call this, what's a good title for this position?), a user chosen by the gym committee.

The examiner's Pokemon will be from a pool created by the examiner and the gym committee. The pool will be 5 Pokemon if the qualifiers is singles, and 6 if the qualifiers is doubles. The Pokemon in the pool will have ~ 50 moves each, and will have varying degrees of effectiveness (ranging from Pokemon that strongly counter the qualifier type to those that have decent/neutral matchups against the qualifier type). This pool will be posted approximately one month before the official start of the qualifiers.

The format for the battle will be:

• 3v3 singles / 4v4 doubles
  • Gym candidates may bring up to 3 extra Pokemon.
  • The examiner's Pokemon will be chosen from their pool. The same Pokemon will be brought to each match in the qualifiers.
• The examiner will send out first.
• 2 recoveries / 5 Chills per Pokemon
• Items = On
• Abilities = All
• Switch = OK
• Megas = 1
• Subs = 3 (if singles) / 4 (if doubles)
• ASB Arena

To determine whether the qualifier will be singles or doubles, each candidate will give their preference. Whichever format has the majority will be chosen. If there is a tie, the committee will choose [it'll be singles].

Does anybody has a problem with this?

 

[Dogfish44]

I'll raise a minor objection to voting on the format chosen. If User A would run gym type X as Singles, but User B would run it as Doubles, then we run into a problem for testing people's skill on how they'd run their arena. That's just me though.

Anyway, I was thinking for the name, just pick a WoW Enemy and a latin word, and combine.