The difference between the ladder and tournaments.

[Hipmonlee]

I think the ladder should be changed so that you only select your team after it has assigned your opponent (Basically the battle window would open and the timer would start, and then you would load your team and the match would continue from there or whatever is easier to program I guess).

I've been saying for a long time that there is a slight but not insignificant difference in strategy between battling in tournaments and on the ladder. As yet, I dont recall anyone disagreeing with me, so I think most of the community accept this assessment. I always felt this was unfortunate, but I couldnt see a solution to this issue so I ignored it. But then during the best of three tournaments discussion thread, either someone suggested or I realised that the ladder could be played by loading your team after you are assigned your opponent.

There are a lot of reasons I think this is important. The main one though I just explained in the best of three thread, but I'm gonna repeat myself.

From the philosophy of smogon:

Smogon's major tournaments will almost always use the standard ruleset

It does say almost, but to me the word choice implies that we will always use the standard ruleset unless there is a specific reason for them not to do so. There is no specific reason not to do so on the ladder that I can think of.

What is the standard method of battling should be the best method of battling (with whatever definition of best we can come up with), because this is the method we expect people to play the most. It is essentially like a product, and it's the product our community is based on, and the strength of our community comes from the strength of that product.

The standard ruleset also needs to include anything that has any impact strategically. Team choice is a significant part of pokemon battling, and as such it should be a part of that standard ruleset.

So I think we should determine whether being able to metagame in your selection of team should be a part of the standard ruleset. And if it is, we should implement it into the ladder at the earliest convenience.

Honestly, I definitely think it should be. It adds all kinds of depth to the game (granted our philosophy doesnt mention depth).

The main issue I think people will have with this, is they will worry about being counter-teamed. To me the issue here is should counter-teaming be accepted as part of the standard ruleset. I think so, there are ways around counter-teaming, I've never had a problem with it at all.

But if you do think that we should attempt to prevent counter-teaming on the ladder, then unless there is a specific reason that the ladder is a special case, then I think you'd have to argue that counter-teaming should be prevented in the standard ruleset.

In that case I would strongly recommend that for the future, all tournaments should be played without team changes between rounds. Or possibly with team changes only allowed before the randomisation of pairings each round (this has the issue that in the final you will know your opponent anyway etc.)

Also, just for the ladder, we will probably have to be more strict about alts, but that is being planned anyway.

[edit] - obviously there are practicality issues with changing the ladder. Someone has to write the code and whatnot. I dont know how hard it would be, but yeah, it wouldnt be impossible, and I think it is worth aiming for at least..

Have a nice day.

 

[imperfectluck]

I don't believe that ladder should be about 'hey do I know this player's team I should change teams to one that might beat him better' but rather more about seeing how well one particular team stacks up against every single other team out there. That's just my two cents.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well it's pretty easy for the player you are up against to have two teams he can switch between..

But yeah, you seem to have missed the point. The ladder should be about whats standard. So if you want the ladder to do everything possible to prevent counter-teaming, then you need to argue that the standard ruleset for pokemon should do everything possible to prevent counter-teaming.

Or do you think the ladder should be a special case? Why should the ladder be about seeing how well one particular team stacks up against every other team out there? To me it is pretty clearly a case where the standard ruleset should be enforced, it's where people battle the most after all..

Have a nice day.

 

[Aeolus]

I agree that that the ability to change teams after you are assigned an opponent would be a nice option... though having a default team shouldn't be removed. If a player could have multiple teams loaded at once and simply select from an active list of team, I'm not sure what the problem with be with that other than coding complications on which I'm not qualified to speak.

 

[imperfectluck]

Why shouldn't the ladder be about how one team stacks up against other teams chosen at random, instead of how to counter other players' teams? In practically every major Smogon tournament, 'no scouting' is a pretty common ruleset, and there are always accusations of scouting and team countering flying about. I thought Smogon's ideal ruleset was 'no team countering?'

 

[Hipmonlee]

Because the philosophy of smogon says that the default option for official smogon battling should be the standard ruleset.

So if you want the ladder to be something other than standard, then you need to have a strong reason to justify that.

Also we strongly discourage scouting or counter-teaming, but it isnt actually against the rules. At the moment we have a bizarre situation where using knowledge of a player to try to select an appropriate team to face them with is acceptable, but actually seeking out that knowledge is not. Regardless of anything, that is still different to what we have currently on the ladder. So either that is what should be the standard method of battling or the current ladder situation should be the standard method of battling. We could allow people to select teams after seeing their opponent on the ladder, and still strongly discourage counter-teaming..

I dont think that you believe that using your knowledge of your opponent to help you select a team in a tournament should be banned. If so, do you agree that tournaments should be changed so that you cannot change your team in between rounds? Because if the ladder represents how you think the standard ruleset should be, then that is how tournaments should be run.

Furthermore, counter-teaming would actually still be very difficult on the ladder, since you would have to have built your teams before you find out who your opponents are. So unless you have thousands of specific counter-teams, you arent going to get to use them often..

Also, it's not hard to have two or three teams that you can switch between on the ladder.. It doesnt take much before counter-teaming becomes almost impossible.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

I like this idea (and Aeolus's post) because it makes the ladder more competitive.

However, there should be an option that disables this feature for people who just want to test their teams, or else it's just an annoying feature for users who dont want to use this feature.

 

[lilyhollow]

I think that the change itself is probably a good idea, but I disagree with the notion that there has to be one single standard method of play which our ladder and "most of our tournaments" have to abide by. In other words, I don't see why Smogon can't have more than one "product," or how that would necessarily hurt the community in any way. Obviously I believe that restricting ourselves to one "product" could potentially be harmful (see the Best of 3 tournaments thread) as well.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well we arent limited to one product. We have standard ou and uu and uber etc.

What is silly is to limit one product to the ladder, and a second product to tournaments. Or to have a product that is the standard for pokemon battling and not have either a ladder or tournaments dedicated to it.

Have a nice day.

 

[X-Act]

I would actually prefer for the ladder system not to pair the same players against each other on a frequent basis. For example, the ladder could be programmed so that two players would not be paired against each other if they have already played against each other in one of the previous 5 battles... or some other number of battles.

 

[imperfectluck]

Ladder is a test against any and all teams. Tournament is a test against another invididual player. That's how it's been ever since the beginning of the ladder. What's the problem? I don't find a 'separation of ladder and tournament' hypocritical at all, which is what you seem to be implying.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well aside from the fact that our testing is done on the ladder, which affects the rules for tournaments. And I think it is important that we test the rules for standard battling using the standard ruleset.

If one of these styles is more deserving of being considered the standard ruleset. Then there should be a way to play it in either a ladder or a tournament context. And if both are standard, then both should have ladders and tournaments.

The fact that one is played on ladder and one is played in tournaments is because at the moment we cant play the tournament style on ladder. Your argument that they should remain this way is entirely arbitrary. The ladder style can be recreated in tournaments, and the tournament style can be recreated on ladder, so why should one be used solely in one format and the other solely in the other.

If the ladder style is the standard then the official tournament should use it. Because that is the point of the official tournament.

If the tournament style is the standard then the official server should have a ladder using this style. Because this is the style we feel is the best, and we should want our ladder to be as good as it can be. Whether or not we should have a second ladder using the current format is a question of practicality. TBH I dont like the idea, but it would be acceptable to me, unlike the current situation.

If both should be standard, then there needs to be a second official tournament, or the ladder style needs to be included into the official tournament in some way. However I dont think both can be standard. Not just because of the practicality issues but because one of these is better than the other.. I mean its a contradiction to have two standards..

Have a nice day.

 

[imperfectluck]

I don't think it's a contradiction to have two standards... you're acting like it's a big deal that ladder and tournaments are different, and I think it's making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Philip7086]

Personally, I don't like this idea. Tournament and Ladder accomplishments measure different skill sets, and I see no reason why it shouldn't remain this way. The current differences in Ladder and Tournament play allow different types of players to excel in their comfort zones. To narrow down the types of players we reward would just diminish the diversity of legitimate competition.

To look at this proposal in terms of other forms of competition, it would be like eliminating all of the different running distances in Track events, because the judges believe one set distance truly demonstrates the "best" runner. I don't see any benefit in something like this at all.

 

[Flashstorm1]

I don't think it's a contradiction to have two standards... you're acting like it's a big deal that ladder and tournaments are different, and I think it's making mountains out of molehills.

In addition to this, if having the ladder reflect tournament rules as best as possible is a necessity, why couldn't we just have an option for "Best of Three" that you could just check before searching for a match on the ladder (assuming that we decide to make that the standard)? I also agree that the ladder and tournament serve different purposes, and it would not be fair to propose that the ladder reflect tournament rules because of that reason.

Ideally, the best compromise would be for the ladder to feature an option which allows for tournament rules, with the standard option being what it is now.

 

[Hipmonlee]

The ladder and tournaments only reflect different options and measure different skillsets because it hasnt been practical for the ladder to reflect the tournament option. Now it is.

For the ladder to continue to not reflect the tournament option is arbitrary. Why should the tournament style of battling not have a ladder? What reason is there that this style of battling which we consider to be (a?) standard, is basically not played except in tournaments?

And if the ladder style is a standard why doesnt it have an official tournament? Aside from the obvious fact that doing so will diminish the importance of our current official tournament. But if that is the argument then clearly the tournament style of battling is more important than the ladder style, which suggests to me that the ladder style shouldnt be considered standard.

Also you can test a team against all opponents using the tournament style ladder, and I think you can do that more effectively using the tournament style ladder. In that you will be able to face opponents who are using teams they feel are more specialised for facing you, whereas on the current ladder you cannot. Though to be fair doing this puts you at a disadvantage against people not doing this, but it can be done (you can do things like keep track of your success only against other people following this method).

Also there can be a lot done to prevent counterteaming. You can make it so teams have to be prebuilt. You can limit a person's choice of teams. Honestly there wont be room for genuine counterteaming under this system. At least not any more than there already would be with something like a person waiting for you to finish a match and immediately clicking find match with a counter team loaded..

Also tournaments havent been decided to be best of three. I dont think they will be. I certainly dont think we should assume they will be. But if they are, then yes I think we should do that on the ladder (this is assuming best of three without changing teams, otherwise it makes no appreciable difference to strategy that I can see).

To look at this proposal in terms of other forms of competition, it would be like eliminating all of the different running distances in Track events, because the judges believe one set distance truly demonstrates the "best" runner. I don't see any benefit in something like this at all.

I would suggest that it would be more like racing 100m in a time trial and 200m in a race, and never crossing over. There is no justification for this.

As I see it, the current tournament style is the standard. And the ladder should represent what is standard. This is because what is standard is best. The only argument I can see against this is that perhaps the current ladder style is better, but I will argue that later on if anyone claims that.

The current ladder style can still be played in tournaments. These would be unofficial tournaments (because this is not the standard ruleset) that perhaps one of you could host. You make it so that people arent allowed to change teams between rounds and you compete in that format that way.

I'm not opposed to the ladder style of battling. What I am opposed to, is the fact that our ladder represents a non-standard style of battling.

Have a nice day.

 

[imperfectluck]

It is just as arbitrary to change the ladder system to match the tournament system as it is to leave it as is. Also, if best of three gets implemented for tournaments (not saying it will be,) best of three on ladder is a ridiculous idea, becase ladder isn't like tournaments where you set up times beforehand to play a specific opponent, sometimes people just want a quick five minute match. I think that the ladder and tournament play should look to be serving different kinds of crowds and thus having different purposes from each other, therefore there is absolutely no problem with differentiating ladder and tournament play.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Ok, so lets say I was one of the tournament crowd, and I want just a quick match, why shouldnt there be a ladder for that?

The point is, the ladder and tournaments shouldnt look to be serving different kids of crowds. Why should they?

Also, when we have an arbitrary decision by default we go with standard. Tournament style is standard, so unless there is a good reason to do something else (which I have yet to see evidence of) then we should make this change.

Have a nice day.

 

[imperfectluck]

If you wanted a 'quick tournament,' host a 16 man OU/whatever tier tournament on shoddy or something. What I see here is you trying to pass your personal opinion off as 'the smogon standard.' We're not playing pure theoretical Pokemon here, I don't think the point of Smogon is to have everything perfect and conform to each other.

The point is, the ladder and tournaments shouldnt look to be serving different kids of crowds. Why should they?

Why shouldn't they? That is basically the gist of my argument here. You are trying to pass off your personal opinion as the be all end all of Smogon philosophy. It's like having two different interpretations of the law.

 

[Hipmonlee]

They shouldnt because smogon's philosophy document suggests that by default official smogon battling should use the standard ruleset. The ladder is official smogon battling and it therefore should follow what is standard.

They shouldnt because the rules for tournaments are based on the ladder.

They shouldnt because the differing crowds shouldnt be restricted arbitrarily in what formats they battle under.

They shouldnt just so we can have everything perfect and conforming. Which of course isnt the point of smogon, but when there isnt any reason not to it is still a positive.

The only defense you have made is that you like it this way. So as I see it, this is your personal opinion up against the philosophy of smogon.

Basically, we can have one OU ladder. It has to suit either the tournament crowd or the ladder crowd, both crowds I expect will want a ladder. And I think the fact that the tournament is the official ruleset for the official tournament suggests that it is what smogon considers the standard method of battling and should have preference.

Have a nice day.

 

[imperfectluck]

I don't deny that it is my personal opinion, I never have. What I am saying is that you are interpreting the 'philosophy of smogon' in a different way from how I am. But I think that my 'personal opinion' is in the majority when weighed up against you and 'your own version of the philosophy of Smogon.'

This argument is going back in circles and is endless, I would like to hear from an admin on this matter as obviously nothing will be resolved here.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I have to agree with IPL here. There is no reason that the Ladder (many battles over a long time against random opponents) should be arbitrarily required to adhere to the standards of "Tournaments" (single/bo3 battles against predetermined opponents), when the playstyle of each is not only vastly different, but the objective of ladder play (use a team that covers the most threats and will win against the most players reliably) is completely different from tournament play (Use a team that works (possibly under the specific rules of the tournament) that is likely to beat the team of the specific opponent you are matched up with). For example, if I'm facing Eo Ut Mortus in a UU tourney, I'm likely to go with a stallbreaker-heavy team. Yet if I'm on the ladder, I'm less likely to, because stallbreakers get wiped hard by heavy offense. Also, I'm more likely to play in a risky fashion on the ladder because I know that a loss means a lot less on the ladder than it does in a tournament, where mostly conservative play dominates.

TL:DR - Don't try to combine two COMPLETELY different playstyles simply because you have some kind of issue with how the official "smogon tournaments" are run. The ladder is the ladder, tournaments are tournaments. They cater to different crowds, have different playstyles, and have no business being "integrated" in any way.

 

[Tangerine]

That doesn't matter though, if you make Hip's suggestion a feature that can be triggered on and off.

 

[Philip7086]

That doesn't matter though, if you make Hip's suggestion a feature that can be triggered on and off.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by this the first time around. Are you suggesting two different ladders, one for users who want to choose teams after seeing their opponent, and one for users who prefer the classic style of laddering? Or are you suggesting a feature that just turns off the team selection window that would otherwise pop up after your opponent is selected? Because I don't think the objection to this suggestion has to do with the hassle of selecting your team every time. Rather, we just don't feel it's a necessary or beneficial step for Smogon to take. However, if you are suggesting the former, then that's an interesting idea, and I wouldn't mind discussing it further.

They shouldnt because smogon's philosophy document suggests that by default official smogon battling should use the standard ruleset. The ladder is official smogon battling and it therefore should follow what is standard.

Maybe instead of changing the fundamentals of a perfectly legitimate competitive play style, we should be looking into rewording Smogon's philosophy then. The way I see it, we're currently considering changing the rules of the ladder just to follow a philosophy that probably never had the ladder in mind to begin with. Hell, I doubt whoever wrote the philosophy even considered the idea that this issue would arise. I don't see why we should abide by this philosophy if it isn't clear in any way that the philosophy was meant to be applied to this scenario in the first place. I do not, however, see any issues with rewording the philosophy accordingly to better capture the currently implemented system, where tournaments reward one style of play, and ladder rewards another.

 

[Tangerine]

Because I don't think the objection to this suggestion has to do with the hassle of selecting your team every time. Rather, we just don't feel it's a necessary or beneficial step for Smogon to take.

Let's put it this way.

We do nothing - people who believe that tournaments should be like ladders are unhappy.

We force the team toggle on everyone - people who believe tournaments should be like ladders are happy, other people are not.

We give them a choice - they are both happy - they can play either way they want.

I don't see how this is a problem - does it really matter that much?