np: Latias - Don't Do the Dew! (NOTE: explanation of Skymin's fate within)

[Veedrock]

(Reposting for the sake of recognition and possible discussion, though I don't have an apparant solution. It really is an issue the whole community should recognize =/)

Are you going to try and explain why you think this is the case, or did you just come in here to complain without apparent reason?

Actually, I will take a stab at this, though I expect it to be shot down without fail. While I don't think the requirements are "atrocious," I think they are flawed to an extent (just hear me out before making accusations).

I'm not a good team builder, so I haven't been able to get my rating up there. I play and play and I seem to hit a certain barrier in the rating where I can't go any further. I edit my team and press forward again, but it still stops me cold. This barrier prevents me from making rating, yet I still play and try, gaining experience with the suspect all the same as the eligible voters (I've been playing literally all month).

I'm 1536.5/43.5. My deviation is hella low (lower than any current qualified voter) and still dropping as I play. Every win (if I win) nets me about 3 points if it's a decent player around my rating (I've actually dropped 10 after winning against a low rated player). With the swarm of leaderboard players rushing to meet deviation, I'm jammed (really, I can't beat them or I'd be on the leaderboard myself), yet I have just as much (if not more) experience with the suspect than them.

Now, why/how does this make me any less qualified to vote than a "good" player? I'm not here to argue or cause conflict, . I'm not saying this for the sake of complaining or expecting some miraculous change; I'm simply throwing it out there. If I can get some decent explanation, I'll drop it right here and question no further.

I realize that this is may be to weed out players with little battle experience or knowledge of the metagame from better, more informed players, but what about the middlemen like me? (I don't like the term middleman, but I can't think of something else). I hate throwing this out there because it makes me look like a bad battler and it also sounds like I'm bitching (which is not the point to this post), but it's a risk I've got to take to bring this up because I really am in a jam (and I may not be the only one).

I use parentheses a lot =/

 

[Scofield]

Well, Veed, I'll try to explain it the best I can the way I understand it. Understand that I'm not trying to be insulting in anyway. I think that not meeting those qualifications flatly means you aren't as experienced in the suspect game as those who meet the requirements. Anyone can just click on the find tab and leave, thus lowering their deviation (not saying you do this). What the rating means is that you know how to win in the suspect metagame. The theory being that if you know how to win in the suspect metagame, you are knowledgeable about it and able to determine whether or not the suspect is uber or not. Now, why can't you be knowledgeable without winning? If you can't apply your knowledge of the metagame to a point where you can build a team that can achieve the needed ratings, your concept of the metagame (and thus knowledge) can't be all too accurate can it? Let me put it this way, using an analogy. When I was in high school, I had a Calculus BC teacher who taught it in a college style, ie fast paced and 90% of the grades were based on tests (highly unusual for high school). I'm not going to lie, I got a D in this class. At the time, I thought, I understand calculus, I know this shit, how the fuck did I get a D? Well, when I got to college, I took all kinds of calculus classes as an engineering major, getting high marks in all of them. It was then that I realized that I did not understand calculus in high school. If I couldn't apply my knowledge of Calculus to get a mark of at least a C, how well did I really understand it? Yeah, you can play a ton, but if you don't know how to win, does that really mean that you understand the game as much as you think you do? And that is exactly what the 1650 rating is in the suspect game. An assigned value to determine basic understaning. Yeah, it could be lowered slightly, but then some other user would just ask, why isn't it 100 points lower? And the cycle would continue. What I'm trying to say is, there aren't any middlemen. You're either qualified or you're not.

 

[Veedrock]

I guess you missed the "bad team builder" part o.o; But you make a good argument nonetheless. However, your comparison isn't a perfect match.

Now as TAY and a few others tried to argue, the suspect metagame is different from standard, which is true for the most part. From my observations it evolved over the month. It hasn't been entirely consistant. While you might be right that if I understood, I could make rating (though I'll get to that later), what's this show about me playing all month? Surely as it changed, I didn't keep up 100%. Tyranitar was huge at the start, and he died off rather quickly and was replaced. It shifted, and being slower than the community I suffer losses here and there. So, what's to say that these voters didn't grab their requirements in one time frame rather than spreading it out (like what should be done, and the bold system will hopefully weed out some of those players)? Wouldn't this make them, despite their rating, less knowledgable?

Now, I personally don't think that team building (which I'm pretty bad at, as mentioned) has any bearing on one's comprehension of the system. I'm perfectly capable of knowing what's common, what works, what carries this or that for this reason, and all of that jazz, without knowing how to beat all of it. Sure, it shows that I don't understand every possible combination of threats out there, but it doesn't say anything about the big picture. As my rating shows (I'm like 13 points from being on the leaderboard, but this is suspect afterall), I didn't just sit around or been losing intentionally. I try to win every match like any player should, but mistakes happen. Embarrasingly, I burned a Heracross purposely and didn't recognize the mistake until after the match. Does this show bad knowledge of the metagame? Not exactly.

I'm not using my deviation alone as the standard for my argument, because you are correct that somebody could simply join and quit until it's there. I entered the month with full intention of making rating, but as losses racked up my deviation fell and it only becomes harder to actually rank up, hence the "barrier" that I can't break through.

 

[Scofield]

Actually I did notice the "bad team-builder part" but decided against putting it into the post, but I should explain anyways. Yes, team building is an essential part to the metagame. Being able to build a proper team should most certainly factor into eligibility. Since you mentioned TAY, I'll use him as an example. His team that he used, focused entirely on dragons and steels. Now, his entire argument of Latias as an uber was based around the fact that Latias overcentralized around steels and dragon typings. How did he arrive at that conclusion? Through his team building process. Team building is an integral part of any metagame and everything is kind of interrelated when it comes to the rating and process.

As for the change in the metagame throughout the month and how those people are more qualified than others? Well, that is two-fold. First, that's the entire point of the deviation. I qualified for voting on the first day, but there was no way my deviation would hold for a month. Secondly, for those who met the lower threshold of voting (most of all voters) part of the paragraph that must be submitted includes when you tested and how frequently, etc. Those who only tested on one day and barely met the requirements could be rejected voting rights.

As for your barriers, learning to win consistently is just something that you kind of have to practice. Yeah, hax happens to everyone. People make stupid mistakes. Both happen to me all the time. Just hope that those stupid mistakes only happen every once in a while and the hax will come back around on your side, and both should happen. Any player can beat any other player in any given match. But at the end of the day, good players can manage to win consistently. If that is something that you're having problems with, just keep at it and you'll probably get there eventually, it might just take a little time.