The difference between the ladder and tournaments.

[Philip7086]

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?

The people that don't want their reputation or public knowledge of their teams to preclude their opponent's team choice will still be unhappy, which I think is the core of this debate. Theoretically, someone can save a log versus every player they have ever faced, reference them, and then counter team accordingly when they get matched up in the future. Of course, I'm aware that both players are given the opportunity to change teams if they want, but there are a significant number of players who use the ladder for the sole purpose of testing teams. Why should they be at an instant disadvantage because they want to test their team?

This also brings up a key difference that would arise in Ladder and Tournament play should this new system be implemented. When you get matched up versus someone in a tournament, you can attempt to counter-team, but the odds are you won't be successful because good tournament players try to keep their tournament teams under wraps as much as possible. However, if you attempt to counter-team someone on the Ladder, the odds are more in your favor that you will succeed, seeing as you have a higher chance of running into someone that's testing the same team over and over on the ladder.

Overall, I don't think this new system should be implemented. If the issue is with following Smogon philosophy, then I strongly suggest that instead of changing the Ladder, we should focus on changing the philosophy.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Your issue actually seems to be with what should be the standard method of battling not with the philosophy.

But some more points: people wont have time to build teams after a battle selection has gone through, and we can make it so they dont even get the choice, that they have to use preloaded teams. So they would have had to have built a counter-team for you already.

You can make people preload a restricted number of teams, making counter-teaming even harder still.

If you are testing a team, how much testing will you have to have done before people enough people know it that they will have built preloaded counter teams.

If you are testing a team that doesnt necessarily mean you need to use it in every battle. In fact testing sets of teams makes more sense considering any context you are testing for this is a superior way preparing a team.

You dont need to use the ladder to test teams. It's rating is in fact misleading because you are testing it in a different context than the one it will be used (unless you are testing it for use in the ladder in which case there wont be a problem because the ladder will change).

Being able to metagame against your opponent is depth added to the game. It is, as far as I am concerned a much better game with this aspect added. Honestly, the effort required to prevent counter teaming is actually pretty small.

Furthermore the fact that our rules are based on the ladder with its non-standard team selection method is another serious issue you have all glossed over.

And even if we have two completely separate playstyles that cater to two completely separate groups of people. You still havent explained why the group who like the first playstyle should only play on the ladder, and the group of people who like the second playstyle should only play in tournaments. And if we are only going to offer one ladder, then it should be the "better" style of battling, which is the tournament style.

This doesnt mean the current ladder style will be completely unplayed. If you want to play in that style then you can host a quick 16 man tournament without changing teams between rounds..

I feel like you guys are ignoring about half of the points I'm making..

I dont see how this could be a feature that could be triggered on and off. You'd have to explain it to me, but I dont think it's gonna work.

Ok I'm gonna repeat a couple of points here:
-The ladder determines the rules for tournaments. Our tournaments are more prestigious than the ladder as evidenced by the fact that there are trophies based on them. Our most prestigious competitions should use what we consider the standard and best ruleset for pokemon. Because this is what we expect people to play the most and because if we dont our tournaments will lose their prestige. If our ruleset is based on some other style of battling I do not see how we can expect our tournaments to have the standard and best ruleset.

-Why should style a be played only on tournaments when we can offer it on the ladder, and style b be played only on ladder when we can offer it in tournaments? If it is practical then both should be offered because I am certain that the players of both groups would like to play in both styles. If both cannot be offered (which I feel is the case with the ladder) then the default should be the style we consider to be the best. If you wish to argue the current ladder style is the best then please do so. But be aware that if that is the case, then that suggests our tournaments should be changed. If you can argue that one is better suited to the ladder context while the other is better suited to tournaments go ahead, but seriously I cant see it..

Even if the philosophy of smogon is wrong. Which, I dont think it is, you are still representing this as an arbitrary choice in which you prefer one option. You havent given any reasons other than the fact that you like it this way.. IF you are interpreting the philosophy of smogon in a manner different to how I am, could you go into detail about how you are interpreting it?

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

The people that don't want their reputation or public knowledge of their teams to preclude their opponent's team choice will still be unhappy, which I think is the core of this debate. Theoretically, someone can save a log versus every player they have ever faced, reference them, and then counter team accordingly when they get matched up in the future. Of course, I'm aware that both players are given the opportunity to change teams if they want, but there are a significant number of players who use the ladder for the sole purpose of testing teams. Why should they be at an instant disadvantage because they want to test their team?

If they're testing a team, they should be happy that they'll be disadvantaged because it gets them practice and gives very good suggestions for one's team.

 

[panamaxis]

I agree with IPL. I don't have much more to say than that.

 

[lilyhollow]

Yeah a similar argument has come up in the Bo3 thread and my position was/is pretty much identical to IPL's as it pertains to whether ladder play and tournament play should follow the same standard. Again though, the actual change Hipmonlee is suggesting we make to the ladder is something that I'm not against, and I think Tangerine's suggestion of incorporating them both could work well.

 

[imperfectluck]

How would incorporating both work? Would there be two separate 'leaderboards?'

 

[mtr]

Being able to metagame against your opponent is depth added to the game. It is, as far as I am concerned a much better game with this aspect added. Honestly, the effort required to prevent counter teaming is actually pretty small.

Perhaps we can use the Ubers ladder to foresee the results of such changes. Oftentimes, there are only two people on the ladder. Let us have a case in which one player is using, for simiplicity's purpose, the Ubers Starter Guide Team, while another is using Twash's Ludicolo Team. After the first match, the former player decides to throw in a Groudon/Rayquaza to screw up the weather plans of his opponent, giving him a better chance of victory, despite the fact that it messes up the original synergy of his team and gives him weaknesses to certain threats.

Here's perhaps a better case that actually happened when I was learning to play Ubers Stall. I came up against Theorymon, who was testing DDMence at the time. He defeated me twice. On the third match, I metagamed him and substituted out my Latias for Lugia, which let me win quite easily. If you had surveyed the subsequent team, you would have called me quite inexperienced for the fact that my team would probably be 6-0ed by a SpecsOgre simply spamming Water Spout.

Basically, I don't such "sideboarding" would enrich the game, as you suggest. In a tournament, perhaps I should be rewarded for counterpicking my opponents, but not on the ladder. I would tend to agree with IPL that the ladder should at least try to reward team that have consistent success rather than memorizing your opponent's teams and warping your team to fit them.

 

[Mr.E]

There's a fundamental difference between a Ladder structure and a Tournament structure. (Furthermore, there's also a difference between a round-robin, Swiss, and our more standard elimination format.) A minor difference in the logistical part of the ruleset, solely to accomodate the alternate format and having no direct effect on the actual course of a battle, is no big deal.

 

[Hipmonlee]

And yet it exists for no reasons. It might not be a big deal to ban butterfree in tournaments. But there is no reason to do it so we dont.

Honestly this hasnt been an argument, this has been me suggesting why we should do this and then you guys responding with "but why should we do it?"

Here's perhaps a better case that actually happened when I was learning to play Ubers Stall. I came up against Theorymon, who was testing DDMence at the time. He defeated me twice. On the third match, I metagamed him and substituted out my Latias for Lugia, which let me win quite easily. If you had surveyed the subsequent team, you would have called me quite inexperienced for the fact that my team would probably be 6-0ed by a SpecsOgre simply spamming Water Spout.

But you did this on the ladder as it already is. Why would you assume that Theorymon would use the same team 3 times in a row had he been able to change. Knowing that you can change it would have been rather naive of him to do that. It doesnt really help his testing to rematch you with the exact same team each time, so under my system this almost certainly would not have happened.

And I am not talking about sideboards. I dont think anyone is.

Have a nice day.

 

[mtr]

But you did this on the ladder as it already is. Why would you assume that Theorymon would use the same team 3 times in a row had he been able to change. Knowing that you can change it would have been rather naive of him to do that. It doesnt really help his testing to rematch you with the exact same team each time, so under my system this almost certainly would not have happened.

And I am not talking about sideboards. I dont think anyone is.

Have a nice day.

I was using the term "sideboard" in a loose sense, by which I meant repicking/changing your team. Many players have multiple renditions of the same team, eg: where Version X has a Scarf Palkia and a MixDialga, Version Y reverses their roles. If you lost to your opponent's SDRay the first time, you'd undoubtedly use Version Y the second.

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).

Well, I don't suppose it will make a difference in Ubers, where this happens de facto to good extent anyways. As others have said, the reason it is a prickly topic is that many players prefer ladder play to the heavily metagaming nature of tournament play, and rather than change the ladder and have that be the end of it, I would also rather see smogon's philosophy to correspond with ladder play. But perhaps we could offer a separate ladder for players who prefer your option, as I can see many players doing.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well, I don't suppose it will make a difference in Ubers, where this happens de facto to good extent anyways. As others have said, the reason it is a prickly topic is that many players prefer ladder play to the heavily metagaming nature of tournament play, and rather than change the ladder and have that be the end of it, I would also rather see smogon's philosophy to correspond with ladder play. But perhaps we could offer a separate ladder for players who prefer your option, as I can see many players doing.

Yeah this is an entirely separate issue though. In that case what you should be arguing is that the ladder style should be standard. IE official tournaments should follow the same select a team and use it for the whole tournament format that the ladder does.

Then people could still have tournaments with the current rules, but that would not be the way official tournaments are run.

Most people however are stopping short of arguing this point, because I think that they realise that the tournament ruleset is the better one, but they just happen to like the ladder one. Maybe I am wrong, but they are strongly resisting making that case, and I dont really understand it otherwise.

Have a nice day.