Removing "Obviously" BL Pokemon Before the End of a UU Test Period

[reachzero]

As those of who who play UU have doubtlessly noticed, Cresselia has made a major impact on the UU metagame. Its incredible defensive ability combined with its ability to boost its Special Attack with either Calm Mind or Charge Beam have allowed it to dominate UU in such a way that it has forced virtually every team to make major adjustments to deal with it, and even so Cresselia is distressingly difficult to kill. As such, JabbaTheGriffin and I would like to give Cresselia a "quick hook"; give it BL status based on how it has tested so far and how overwhelming the outcry against it is from virtually all players of UU at this point. However, since giving any Pokemon a "quick hook" is controversial, I felt it wise to post here in PR first, giving anyone with objections, theoretical or practical, a chance to do so. I recognize that at times it takes a relatively long period of time for people to recognize how to adapt to a major threat (in this case, primarily a defensive threat), but under the circumstances it seems unreasonable to think that players will suddenly find reasonable ways to handle Cresselia when they have not up until this point.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I'm going to have to agree with this.

There's precedent with something like Deoxys-E in OU being removed rapidly, and I think that given how Cresselia is not only next to impossible to kill AND disgustingly powerful after a CM or 3 (not hard with those defenses) that it would probably be a good idea to give it the boot quick.

(also i tend to disagree with characterising cresselia as a defensive threat because its real threat is the fact that it can cm forever and slay everything in its path)

 

[TAY]

I think this is a bad idea. A whole lot of people are complaining that Cresselia is ruining UU ( or something along those lines), but offensive teams are still not only viable but even more consistent than stall (or "defensive") teams.

Just because there's a big change doesn't mean it's for the worse. I think UU is a lot more balanced in terms of viable team types than it was before Cresselia dropped down.

I haven't found Cresselia to be necessarily more threatening than other powerful UU sweepers, and the wall versions are far from unbeatable. I say wait for people to stop complaining about having a big wall to deal with and start actually finding good ways to beat it. The suspect tests were chosen to last a month for exactly that reason.

 

[eric the espeon]

If a Pokemon can prove itself to be Uber without going through a full suspect process, and it is currently causing problems for players I don't think it is a good idea to force it upon players who think it is broken until it has passed through extended testing. If something is questionably broken, but not obviously then as much testing as is required to be convinced one way or the other makes sense. However, keeping something that is clearly broken in a metagame risks losing the trust of players in the process's efficiency and makes it a less fun game to play until the Pokemon is removed which would likely lead to reduced activity. So yes, I would think that banning a Pokemon without extended testing is justified in some cases.

Maybe it would be better to hold a vote (without a pre-set testing period) to confirm without any shadow of a doubt that a large majority of players think it is clearly broken than to just remove it based on public outcry? I can't comment on whether Cresselia is broken or not, but unless a ban has practically unanimous support some form of vote is generally a good idea.

 

[franky]

Just because there's a big change doesn't mean it's for the worse. I think UU is a lot more balanced in terms of viable team types than it was before Cresselia dropped down.

Well in this case, I think this 'big chance' made the UU tier worst. Big changes came when you look at the previous metagame: Alakazam, Rhyperior, Honchkrow, Gallade, Froslass, Raikou. Unlike Cresselia, the threat that Cresselia presented was pretty obvious to most UU players. The former six took time to understand how they would fare in the metagame, while Cresselia was obviously a huge defensive threat in this metagame right after it was brought down.

i agree with this quick boot, the defensive calm mind set is just too centralizing to handle now. You almost have to beat it with a dark-type physical attacker or a bug-type physical attacker to succesfully bring it down. even then, a number of those physical attackers end up losing to cresselia regardless. For defensive Pokemon, you almost need to PP stall it all the time. I don't know one defensive Pokemon that can reliably beat it to the punch without resorting to PP war. Chansey comes close to this, but most of the time you'll be pp warring with it.

 

[Philip7086]

Maybe it would be better to hold a vote (without a pre-set testing period) to confirm without any shadow of a doubt that a large majority of players think it is clearly broken than to just remove it based on public outcry? I can't comment on whether Cresselia is broken or not, but unless a ban has practically unanimous support some form of vote is generally a good idea.

This is what I was going to suggest earlier, but I was in class, so I didn't have time to post. I definitely think there should be a "preliminary vote" with a predetermined threshold required to ban a suspect to BL without further testing. It should not be too hard to come up with a rating requirement and just have a quick vote. I would say if something like 90% of qualified users believe a suspect is "obviously broken" then a full test should not be necessary. This is an arbitrary percentage that can be debated, though. If a suspect is "obviously broken" then it should have no problem passing a high threshold vote to not be tested. If it does not pass, then it is, by definition, not "obviously broken" and should go through a full test.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

We don't have to hook it out. We could just grab ratings in a certain threshold, not require paragraphs and just require a supermajority of voters to vote that it's bl, which is the way I'd prefer to go.

So what Phil and ete said but i'd say supermajority would be the best way to go.

 

[TAY]

Well in this case, I think this 'big change' made the UU tier worst.

Well that's cool. I don't. We can vote on it after the suspect testing period, when we will actually have a good amount of experience with the suspect.

Big changes came when you look at the previous metagame: Alakazam, Rhyperior, Honchkrow, Gallade, Froslass, Raikou. Unlike Cresselia, the threat that Cresselia presented was pretty obvious to most UU players. The former six took time to understand how they would fare in the metagame, while Cresselia was obviously a huge defensive threat in this metagame right after it was brought down.

The obviousness of the threat has nothing to do with it; I never said we needed to take time to identify the threat. What I did say is:

wait for people to stop complaining about having a big wall to deal with and start actually finding good ways to beat it.

i.e., we should wait for players to work out new solutions.

i agree with this quick boot, the defensive calm mind set is just too centralizing to handle now. You almost have to beat it with a dark-type physical attacker or a bug-type physical attacker to succesfully bring it down. even then, a number of those physical attackers end up losing to cresselia regardless.

Uhhh have you been avoiding using Taunt, Substitute, Trick, Haze, Encore, Explosion, Perish Song, Pursuit, Toxic, Roar, Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, and Leech Seed? You might want to give some of those a shot if you're having trouble with CM Cress! There are powerful options for both offensive and defensive teams here, and some of them provide extremely strong answers to almost any Cresselia set (seriously what is it doing against your Taunt or Haze?).

Cresselia is seldom used in OU because it is easy to set up on and it lacks powerful utility moves. That is still the case in UU.

For defensive Pokemon, you almost need to PP stall it all the time. I don't know one defensive Pokemon that can reliably beat it to the punch without resorting to PP war. Chansey comes close to this, but most of the time you'll be pp warring with it.

So your argument here is that it makes the game take too long? Since when does that matter at all?

I have seriously had very little undue trouble with Cresselia. Am I really the only one?

This is what I was going to suggest earlier, but I was in class, so I didn't have time to post. I definitely think there should be a "preliminary vote" with a predetermined threshold required to ban a suspect to BL without further testing. It should not be too hard to come up with a rating requirement and just have a quick vote. I would say if something like 90% of qualified users believe a suspect is "obviously broken" then a full test should not be necessary. This is an arbitrary percentage that can be debated, though. If a suspect is "obviously broken" then it should have no problem passing a high threshold vote to not be tested. If it does not pass, then it is, by definition, not "obviously broken" and should go through a full test.

This sounds fine as long as the majority is 90% or higher and there are a significant number of voters. If the percentage gets much lower you start to undermine the suspect test.

 

[eric the espeon]

If a quick vote goes ahead a great deal depends on what question is asked of the voters, not in what happens if the majority is reached but in how people are likely to vote. The two main options I see are:

Do you think Cresselia is BL?
This would be the obvious choice, and I think incorrect. Many people may thin that Cresselia is indeed Uber, but not so Uber that it should skip the full suspect procedure. If this was the question asked a fairly high majority should be required (though the >90% that TAY suggests seems excessive to me). A normal majority or even standard supermajority could leave a significant number of people feeling that it was banned without appropriate testing.

Do you think Cresselia does not deserve further testing in the current UU metagame?
This is my preferred option, it means that people who think it is broken but deserves further testing don't need to vote against themselves (voting UU when they think it is probably BL). I'm not sure what the majority required for negating full testing should be, but an argument could be made for requiring more than a standard supermajority. Again, 90% seems too high.

 

[franky]

Well that's cool. I don't. We can vote on it after the suspect testing period, when we will actually have a good amount of experience with the suspect.

Yeah some players prefer the quick boot, while some players prefer to play an ample amount of games with Cresselia to have a clear picture of what Cresselia's placing in the tier is. But its pretty obvious that Cresselia has proven itself to be bothersome in the UU tier, which is why this 'quick boot' was brought in Policy Review in the first place.

Uhhh have you been avoiding using Taunt, Substitute, Trick, Haze, Encore, Explosion, Perish Song, Pursuit, Toxic, Roar, Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, and Leech Seed? You might want to give some of those a shot if you're having trouble with CM Cress! There are powerful options for both offensive and defensive teams here, and some of them provide extremely strong answers to almost any Cresselia set (seriously what is it doing against your Taunt or Haze?).

No, I didn't forget those of course! I'm well aware that those moves are available. I have tried them and I'm sure a lot of players have. The moves are far too general, you have to look closely on who uses these moves.

So your argument here is that it makes the game take too long? Since when does that matter at all?

The point I was trying to cross is that it shouldn't have to go down to a PP war. A defensive-Pokemon should never be taken down by depleting their PP, it generally makes the tier unstable.

I have seriously had very little undue trouble with Cresselia. Am I really the only one?

May I mind asking what you do to stop it? I know its not impregnable, but i'm just curious.

 

[panamaxis]

I'm with TAY, I haven't had that much trouble with Cresselia, you just need to pack something to beat it (if you're relying solely on absol-like pokemon to beat it well...that's not a good idea).

May I mind asking what you do to stop it? I know its not impregnable, but i'm just curious.

I've personally been running a resttalk raikou, specially-defensive drapion and specs mismagius (some other sets would probably beat it too) which deals with it pretty fine, but there's also stuff like haze milotic and curse spiritomb just off the top of my head that works. You can even use stuff like quagsire to encore it and then send in absol, so I guess what I'm saying is get creative because there are definitely ways to beat cresselia.

So, I'm agreeing with TAY, i think we should wait out the month.

 

[Veedrock]

Notice: I do not play UU.

it has forced virtually every team to make major adjustments to deal with it

Most people are stuck with the mentality that either A) the metagame should be (or was presession) perfectly (and permanently) stable, and if teams need overhauls it's the system's fault; or B) Cresselia isn't worth adapting to because policy reviewers will ban it prematurely. Both problems fall back onto the previous examples, in that the game should not be adapted to the player because they refuse to change alongside it. Looking at the quotes here:

I have seriously had very little undue trouble with Cresselia. Am I really the only one?

I haven't had that much trouble with Cresselia

TAY and panamaxis are examples of players adapting to the metagame, rather than having the metagame adapt to the players. This is how the test should be approached.

--
Several other pokemon have caused certain (constant) complaints and such, they fit in two different categories actually. The first is the starter UU pokemon. Several early gripes and rants were towards Raikou, Crobat, and Froslass. Crobat avoided damnation once but was caught second time around (was his lack of a sooner ban also the system's fault?). The latter were banned right away (Froslass was controversial), but made recent returns after secondary testing. Should secondary testing have been passed up, they would still be banned; now apply this to the Cresselia issue at hand. If two formerly BL pokemon are back in UU (one was voted BL by a large majority), how can early dismissal of Cresselia be anymore justified?

The second group of pokemon are OU dropouts, namely Alakazam, Rhyperior, and Dugtrio. All 3 caused quite a stir and large amounts of theorymon. I don't know their initial impact since I don't play but I imagine that people tried to (ab)use them. Pretty soon they dropped off the immediate radar. Did people adjust? Probably to some degree; every knew they'd be used, so why not pack a counter? This goes to an above point; 'why adjust when there's some ray of hope for an early ban?' A lot of less experienced players have this ideal that OU pokemon are too powerful for UU, which is where a lot of the mentioned cries from the community come from.
---

The UU testing process, when started, was understood to be a long and drawn out process to get the purest results and most balanced metagame obtainable. It was established that all OU dropouts would bypass BL straight into UU. Now with the mindset that some are too powerful for UU right off the bat, the expected results cannot be achieved because we theorymon how we want it to be or what we expect to be broken. See: old UU. This leads to my next point:

There's precedent with something like Deoxys-E in OU being removed rapidly

This isn't exactly applicable. When the decision to remove Deoxys-E from Stage 3 was made, that's all there was; Stage 3. Further stages of testing weren't determined by that times. Leaving Deoxys-E would have detracted from observations of the other Suspects, possibly messing the end results up drastically. Now this doesn't fit firmly in UU for two reasons: 1) UU has no suspects to observe, so you can't argue that Cresselia affects any observations (she could be checking other potential or theorymon'd suspects, and if they're not sticking out then perhaps she's affecting the metagame positively), and 2) UU is a elongated process, no harm is going to come from leaving her present at the end of the day.

I don't support any kind of poll for this or preemptive action; no evidence has been provided thus far (mass outcry is not supporting data), and when it is presented is it really valid (see: Salamence PR thread examples).

 

[ToF]

Unlike Cresselia, the threat that Cresselia presented was pretty obvious to most UU players. The former six took time to understand how they would fare in the metagame, while Cresselia was obviously a huge defensive threat in this metagame right after it was brought down.

Well, no duh lol. It's not like you're just gonna sit there and abuse Cresselia offensively as soon as it's brought down. Of course people are going to abuse its defenses, just like people (tried to) abuse Alakazam and Rhyperior's offensive attributes. What's the fun in playing a stagnant tier anyway? I think Cresselia added a bit of flavor to the tier, and its not like things that it's suppose to counter don't hit it hard. Blaziken still does 45% with Fire Blast, and Swords Dancers still hit it damn hard. It's not this 'insurmountable wall' like Giratina might be or something...

Edit: Another thing, I don't want to really hear this bullshit about having to change 'team styles' due to Cresselia either. Offensive teams still work and are more prevalent on the ladder now, as TAY said. Also, I've used just about the same team I did for my tour games, and that team has had no problems with Cresselia. It's just an offensively wall, deal with it like an offensively weak wall. For all the times I've heard "CM Cress is broken" I could just as easily say "Curse Registeel is broken" for the same reasons.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

I'm really not good with UU at all, but my first run with Cresselia in UU snagged me 10th on the leaderboard...

I'm in support of bumping her to BL. If we aren't going to do that I'm in support of a preliminary vote as well.

 

[reachzero]

Let me be clear on this point: if there isn't virtual unanimity (>90% of the good players) with regard to Cresselia, we aren't going to do anything here, and this'll go the normal route.

 

[RBG]

Frankly, what we should be doing here is not saying if Cress is or isn't broken. We should be coming up with a process to use for any other potential obvious BL pokemon.

 

[obi]

I disagree with labeling any Pokemon as "obvious". The tests are a certain length for a reason. They are long enough to force people to adapt to it, but seriously, a few months isn't some ridiculously long amount of time. If we go by things that are "obviously BL", the entire UU process would never have come into existence. I don't think there should be a way to bypass the testing process.

 

[Stallion]

I haven't had much of a problem at all with Cress in this metagame, although like Infinity it was a huge part in helping me snag the top 10 on the leaderboard (I pretty much agree with ToF's sentiments on how to deal with it.) I also agree with obi's point to a degree. I would not disagree with labelling any pokemon as obvious; for example if we dropped Salamence to UU for whatever reason tomorrow it would get banned straight away as it is obviously broken. Having said that, if the example isn't that ridiculously clear cut (which applies in this case with Cress imo), I agree with obi on the point that the tests are a certain length for a reason. I don't think that 2 weeks is really enough time to vote on a suspect even if the eligible battlers are all top quality, because Cresselia is not clear cut broken and all the battlers (not just the top ones) need time to adjust to the changes before a decision is reached, to assess its true impact on the metagame.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I just wanted to chime in and say that "quick hooks" (or quick vote) should be an alloted tool regarding UU, considering it is supposed to be balanced and yet is at the mercy of OU's usage. In the case of OU, changes at the top only come from suspect tests that start on an alternative ladder. Thus, you don't force players into a certain game or risk losing their trust as per Eric's point (which I fully agree with).

While I agreed with a lot Obi had to say when we were devising the BL system and fully agree that UU pokes like Cress/P-Z should drop straight to UU, the risks connected to that practice (that could could potentially amount to something along the lines of dropping Kyogre into OU) should be mediated by having the potential (emergency) tool of quick hooks/quick votes. Because of UU's "vulnerability" to the shifts of OU, I think as long as they are done with tact and restraint (as well as at least a week or so of play) quick hooks should be considered as a reasonable practice.

I can put it this way: sometimes common sense > logic

I will also remind of the similar situation where Rotom-A was quick-hooked out of UU after its release in Platinum and *obvious* over-power. Rotom-A only lasted on the UU ladder a few days before an obvious outcry had it kicked off.

As for Cresselia itself, I personally have to slightly raise an eyebrow (really? this thing?)-- but my opinion on the pokemon has nothing to do with my opinion of the practice of quick-hooking.

@Obi-- "A few months" is not a short amount of time when considering the objective of even having a metagame: creating a game that the players can enjoy. Forcing hundreds of players to deal with a situation that no one is happy about for months just because of some "lofty philosophy" is pretty unreasonable.

If it were on an alternate ladder, that would be different but as it is the number of UU players makes that difficult.

 

[Aeolus]

I disagree with the people who say that nothing can be "obvious". Jump and I yanked Deoxys-E because it made sense to do so to anyone who was paying attention. If it similarly makes sense to yank Cress, then I think that is the best choice.

 

[Erazor]

We should be coming up with a process to use for any other potential obvious BL pokemon.

I'm bumping this thread because I think that this is an important issue, especially in the light of recent OU usage trends - Heracross, amongst others, seems poised to drop down any time. We don't want 4 weeks of utter destruction, do we?

So how do we really gauge whether a pokemon is "obviously BL"?

1) Precedent: If a similar pokemon has already been banned, then there's really no need to give this pokemon the full 4 weeks. A good example would be Heracross and Gallade. Gallade and Heracross are strikingly similar, both having Swords Dance, STAB Close Combat, identical Attack, and middling speed. Gallade has already been banned (twice) in UU. Is there really any reason Heracross would be less dangerous?

So, one guideline would be precedent. Unless a convincing argument can be made to test a similar pokemon, they should be quickbooted.

2) This one is a bit more difficult - if a huge portion of players(say >80%) think it's broken, then there's something wrong. There was a huge hue-and-cry over Cresselia, and it ended up being banned by a ~82% majority. So Cresselia was "clearly" BL.

However, how do we measure this? Cress' vote took place after the whole testing period. We can't just put up a poll in Stark - there are too many people who would vote for selfish reasons without good arguments, and there are a lot of noobs who can just vote Suspect X BL because "ZOMG he beat me".

So what I propose is this: the suspect gets dropped into UU as usual. A "quick boot debate" thread is opened immediately. This serves as a sort of bold vote thread - you back up your stance with good arguments. Then after about a week or 10 days of playtesting, the valid votes are counted, and we have our quickboot if >80%(or any arbitrary number) of the votes are pro-quickboot. We wouldn't need rating requirements, and we don't really need SEXP either(although if possible, you can pull SEXP numbers after 5 days or so), because arguments that show that the poster has never used Suspect X ever are easy to identify and throw out.

We essentially just skip to the voting phase, which saves us a lot of time and headache.

Opinions?

 

[Tleilax]

I agree with the general idea of Erazor's post. While we do need to be aware of kneee-jerk reactions of people that cannot adapt, there needs to be some sort of safeguard in place to prevent the metagame from becoming too broken. We can sit and say all we want that we need to follow protocol and wait until the voting period, but that means that people are stuck playing a metagame that is simply no fun for the majority. Then the voting process doesn't really matter, since people will likely vote it out for sheer frustrations sake.

I believe that if enough legitimate argument can be made attesting to the overpowering nature of a Pokemon within the tier, then a "quick-hook" vote should be up for proposition. If the high-ups of the site agree, then the vote is cast. We use paragraph explanations and only good explanations as to how the suspect adversely affects the metagame. If a large majority, give or take 70% or so, feel it needs to be banned then it's banned. To prevent knee-jerkers from banning it simply due to bad first impressions, give it a minimum of two weeks before a quick-hook is possible. These are enough safeguards to ensure that new additions are not voted out too quickly for their impact to be measured, while allowing leeway for cases where the majority feels that something needs to be done.

 

[Heysup]

1) Precedent: If a similar pokemon has already been banned, then there's really no need to give this pokemon the full 4 weeks. A good example would be Heracross and Gallade. Gallade and Heracross are strikingly similar, both having Swords Dance, STAB Close Combat, identical Attack, and middling speed. Gallade has already been banned (twice) in UU. Is there really any reason Heracross would be less dangerous?

So, one guideline would be precedent. Unless a convincing argument can be made to test a similar pokemon, they should be quickbooted.

Unless the two Pokemon are essentially the same, I don't see how this is fair.

You really cannot say "they share a type and attack stat therefore...close enough" as a valid reason for banning a Pokemon.

Let's look at your Heracross/Gallade example.

There are many benefits Gallade has that cannot be ignored, which include Shadow Sneak as a perfect-coverage priority attack that literally takes out half of it's would-be revenge killers (Alakazam, Espeon, Mismagius, Rotom, (Roserade), Dugtrio etc). It also has ridiculous Special Defense.

So, yes Heracross has Megahorn and is faster, but it should still not be "banned on site" as if it is > Gallade, because they are not the same Pokemon, especially when you consider that their checks are almost completely (minus Swellow?) different.

(this particular topic is probably better handled in the UU thread, but this is just using Erazor's example)

Therefore banning Heracross "by precedent" is a completely flawed process.

This would be different if you were comparing Garchomp to Flygon, since (as far as I know) Garchomp is just "better" than Flygon. So if somehow Flygon was banned, Garchomp could be banned "by precedent" (assuming it was not banned for Levitate or U-turn).

In this case, we would have to spend time deciding "which Pokemon are actually identical" which is a far more complicated task than deciding "is this Pokemon broken".

However, how do we measure this? Cress' vote took place after the whole testing period. We can't just put up a poll in Stark - there are too many people who would vote for selfish reasons without good arguments, and there are a lot of noobs who can just vote Suspect X BL because "ZOMG he beat me".

So what I propose is this: the suspect gets dropped into UU as usual. A "quick boot debate" thread is opened immediately. This serves as a sort of bold vote thread - you back up your stance with good arguments. Then after about a week or 10 days of playtesting, the valid votes are counted, and we have our quickboot if >80%(or any arbitrary number) of the votes are pro-quickboot. We wouldn't need rating requirements, and we don't really need SEXP either(although if possible, you can pull SEXP numbers after 5 days or so), because arguments that show that the poster has never used Suspect X ever are easy to identify and throw out.

We essentially just skip to the voting phase, which saves us a lot of time and headache.

I think it would make much more sense to just have a bold vote to "shorten" the process for a Pokemon in particular.

Essentially having nominations as our "votes" is not much better than having a poll. What would stop people from voting something BL because "ZOMG he beat me"?

Nominations, unfortunately, are quite easy to bullshit because of the "low-ish" expectations. It's really easy to make a nominations without actually using the suspect. For example, do you really need to use Heracross to know why it would be broken? This would make it too easy to ban something. If nominations were valid as votes, then we wouldn't even need paragraphs for the regular testing process.

So instead why don't we just have a bold vote to "vote on something early". Of course then we need to work out who gets to vote, maybe a mini-requirement would work.

EDIT at below: Our nomination threads are "bold votes", which is what you suggested (I bolded it in my quote).

 

[Erazor]

I think it would make much more sense to just have a bold vote to "shorten" the process for a Pokemon in particular.

Nominations, unfortunately, are quite easy to bullshit because of the "low-ish" expectations. It's really easy to make a nominations without actually using the suspect. For example, do you really need to use Heracross to know why it would be broken? This would make it too easy to ban something. If nominations were valid as votes, then we wouldn't even need paragraphs for the regular testing process.

That is what my point was. A quickboot thread in which you bold vote. If I came off as saying "nominations", then sorry, my bad. Of course we would have a strict standard for bold votes.

 

[franky]

The problems with quick boot threads is that they essentially turn into a short-cut "nomination" process. Its just a nomination thread without the testing and long paragraphs and I would think that people would just bold vote random threats that they feel is broken. Further, how are we going to determine who is illegible enough to vote the BL out without collecting the server stats? In my opinion there is nothing you can really do about it but to play out the round. My only suggestion is that we should just shorten the time of these rounds so if an "automatic-BL" has dropped in UU, we can determine its tiering in only a short amount of time, while still avoiding to play with it for 6 weeks or so. I personally feel like 6 weeks is too long and I think it should be shortened to 4 weeks. This still gives the players a sufficient amount of time to get a clear picture of the suspects.