I'm really just posting to try and get other people commenting on it since you know my opinion already, but...JabbatheDrunk said:Also, the downtime gives us a little bit of a chance to discuss the 4 week period (which seems highly likely to go into effect) and the upper requirements (which needs a tad more kink-work)
Speaking of "numerous"... I've mentioned before it doesn't bother me that we only have like 6-12 people voting on most items, but I wonder if we shouldn't knock down that bar I mentioned as the "higher end" to be a little more inclusive now that I think about it more. I don't want to budge on the deviation - I'd rather lower it than raise, it frankly, since we need people who are playing a large sample of games and playing the consistently for the free pass to make sense - but maybe dropping the rating to 1775 or 1750 to be more inclusive of the "best" players? I'm not exactly sure what we should aim for there.I agree 100%. It's always been my wish that we get numerous intelligent and good players voting.
The current "only paragraphs" system fails in "numerous" and unfortunately weeds out a lot of the good players. I feel like those two aspects itself introduce a higher "potential error" issue than the maybe 1 or 2 players who might achieve the higher bar and have "dumb reasons" for voting as some of my peers like to put it.
Lower, easier to reach bar for people who wish to express their intelligence and knowledge of the metagame through paragraphs. Higher bar + small tiny little explanation (jabba wanted this as an additional check against "idiots" who manage to qualify) to both increase the number of voters (and thereby increase credibility and reduce the potential error) and hopefully get more good players tuning in on a subject as significant as...the metagame.
Let's do this.
I suppose that's true. I think I got a little spooked by how many people were trying to toe the line at the end of the last period, since I question people struggling to get what was an awfully generous deadline last period... but if they struggle to hit it and have a "good enough" explanation I guess we're fine either way, you're probably right.aldaron said:EDIT: Regarding increasing the lower bar...if we have a higher bar I hesitate to do this only for one reason. We are already giving the good players a chance to "auto qualify," so that isn't an issue anymore. My issue becomes that a lot of people tend to experiment with various sets in a new metagame, and their account rating gets killed. Now we could just ask them to "make an alt" but I'm not sure if we should be encouraging alts :X
I think that's a good thing, though. I think there's a big difference in what we want and what we'd get from, say, requiring 1800/50 and getting people who power alts on the last few days vs. required 1750/40 and getting more people who played a lot throughout the period to keep that deviation down. It's still "doable" in one night, but I think it'd be a lot harder with the lower deviation because you'd have to be just absurdly consistent.50 deviation isn't "the same" at different ratings since getting 1650/50 is much much easier than getting 1800/50 even when you ignore the difficulty of achieving the rating i.e. you can probably get an account to like 1800/70 or something then lose a moderately high amount of your battles and end up with something like 1650/50 or so. I haven't done the math at all or considered the actual formula for how these are calculated in the context of this post but that seems to be how it works. 50 sounds good enough or maybe 45 but 40 seems a bit low (it is a CRE of 1640 for reference).
I had that in mind when I made my posts here ;) I think that's a strength rather than a weakness of making changes, alt use messes with ratings as it is since players gain/lose more points than they should relative to the actual skill of their opponent. The system we're using isn't designed for people to be using alts, less abuse of the system is a good thing.whistle said:some other things to think about
- I played way too much Pokemon this round but on separate accounts which meant I barely made the quals on one account. not that using separate accounts is necessary, but if the bar for deviation is set very low it would be harder for people that do use more than one account to qualify.
Quoting this again so more people see it but I don't really have much to say about it since the stats are what I'd expect them to be. I think we all have a pretty good grasp over how "hard" the bar would be to hit at each point (although it having not been a bar before is a huge variable), to me it is just a matter of how exclusive we want to be in regards to the easy vote. I don't think this feature does what it is intended to do if it is too easy to hit - it should probably be a bar that ends up being exclusive to the top 10/20/30/whatever we think is appropriate.whistle said:- out of 85 qualifiers for 1600/55 in the Yanmega metagame, there were 3 accounts that made 1800/40 (Dekzeh, Legacy Raider, and Bluewind) [lol Dekzeh made 1900/40 too], the same number that made 1800/45, 1 additional account that made 1800/50 (Eo), and 4 more accounts that made 1800/55 (Krack, Aldaron, CTI, and replay).
- out of 104 qualifiers for 1600/55 in the Gallade/Honchkrow metagame, there were 0 accounts that made 1800/40, 1 account that made 1800/45 (xianglongfa), 3 more accounts that made 1800/50 (IPL, Chii, and IronBullet), and 2 more accounts with 1800/55 (Huntofthelion and "Spirit Tracks").
I think this implies that a decent portion of the voters aim for the 55 deviation requirement, but that doesn't shed any light on how difficult it would be to aim for a 40 deviation.
if we drop the rating requirement down to 1750 it gives about three times as many qualified voters (approximating) so maybe if 50 deviation isn't "okay" with 1800, a 1750 rating requirement with a 45 or maybe even 40 deviation requirement could work.
this post is pretty wishy washy but then again so are rating qualifications afaik
Stall seems like it would be just as effective as pre-Cresselia and PorygonZ UU. Before Cress and Porygon were dropped, we had stall breakers like Blaziken and Rhyperior, and we still have Moltres + Spikes, all of which will be very common in this metagame just as they were before (with Cress gone, Blaziken will have a bit more fun). However, since then we have lost both Honchkrow and Gallade. It seems like stall always gets quite a few benefits every time the voting process comes around.Well, glad to see cress and p-z in BL, because even for a person like me who hardly plays UU knows how fucking incredibly bulky cresila was in the UU enviroment, and it was very hard to run a stall team with p-z around to spoil you're fun. Good to see them gone! Hopefully i can get better at UU and start making good teams. But, one question, will UU Stall be even more easier to work with now that p-z and cress is gone?