-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
np: LC - Smells Like Teen Spirits
- Thread starter v
- Start date
- Status
Yes way. Agreeing with Zeph, the reqs should be raised to at least 1250.
Last round only 3 people passed this (ENZ0, Nails, and you). That's not enough to hold a vote. 1200 is a good mark because we still get a good voter pool, and its hard to make for somebody without experience. It will only add a few people more than last round, when only like two people were above 1200 and didnt make it.
And why do you think only 3 people passed that? It wasn't because they were incapable, it was either because they were too lazy or scared they would get haxxed down, so they basically parked. Also, this is a really important suspect test in particular because we will likely be voting on some very controversial Mons in Tite and Missy. Due to this, we want as much experienced players as possible, so I don't get why we should keep reqs low enough to allow any random to obtain voting rights. Furthermore, from what I've seen, contrary to popular belief, raising reqs won't deter people from playing LC. In fact, the heightened number of battles needed to obtain reqs should actually boost ladder activity. Just my opinion on the subject.
IIRC there were 17 voters last round, so I'm supporting the mark to remain at 1200.
yeah I just fucked around on the LC ladder for like 15 minutes and got to 1175 with a team i've never played before then lost a battle :(
might want to consider raising the reqs, it's probably not going to take much work to get to at least 1250.
I think a lot of it has to do with how on the OU ladder you get battles which usually have variations like +-27 at the most whereas here it's typically +-40 or so which makes it a lot faster
might want to consider raising the reqs, it's probably not going to take much work to get to at least 1250.
I think a lot of it has to do with how on the OU ladder you get battles which usually have variations like +-27 at the most whereas here it's typically +-40 or so which makes it a lot faster
Supporting both statements, it's not that easy. It requires skill nevertheless.
I'm sorry, you don't want anyone to vote?
SkyNet
MediEvil!
People who are good enough will be about to vote regardless of the voting requirements, isn't the point of having voting requirements to stop randomuser123 from voting with little-to-no experience.
1200 is 7 battles, any user can grab a team from the RMT section look at the threat list and hax their way up to 1200.
I support a raise to 1250, but 1300 is probably too high.
I would like to learn the LC metagame, but raising the mark past 1200 is a real turn-off, especially since there are so few people laddering and the ratings in general are very low.
EDIT: It's hard enough to get a battle on the ladder. >_> Above poster is right, you'd need to be on 24/7 to get your rating that high.
EDIT: It's hard enough to get a battle on the ladder. >_> Above poster is right, you'd need to be on 24/7 to get your rating that high.
Making the requirements a turn-off to people who don't understand the metagame is kind of the point. We want people who know which pokemon break or don't break the metagame to vote, not people who think it will be fun to luck their way to voting requirements. We don't want people to make an uneducated decision which would affect the metagame, especially if they would probably never play said metagame again after getting their neat checkmark badge.
If you want to learn about LC then play it, and if you don't get voting rights after your very first few battles of LC, that means the requirements are working. You should only be able to get the requirements once you are skilled or know enough to earn them.
If you want to learn about LC then play it, and if you don't get voting rights after your very first few battles of LC, that means the requirements are working. You should only be able to get the requirements once you are skilled or know enough to earn them.
Does it have to be a static requirement? I thought that the 10 + 15 thing was quite effective last round; I support moving it to 12 + 15 at the most but 15 + 15 is simply overkill. If it was 1300 CRE to make voting reqs it'd be EM and maybe SA but then many more people would be competing for "less" spots [1300 is near impossible on LC for PO; 1300 on Shoddy in the olden days would've been a joke, however]
Crux
Banned deucer.
OK. This is ridiculous. I think the people calling for higher reqs kinda need to wake up to themselves. The point of suspect test voting has always been to get the views of a cross-section of the community in order to decide what should and should not be banned. By raising the reqs to vote, we further restrict our already miniscule voting pool and make the vote more and more biased and nuanced like it was last round with the Vulpix ban.
The people who are calling for higher reqs seem to be holding an elitist attitude that should not be present in a metagame that is already scorned by many aspects of the site. We want people to join the little cup community we dont want to chase them away because we are all stuck up pricks.
I think people are understating the current reqs as well. 1200 is not easy to get and you have to have some basic understanding of the metagame to get there. To say that the people who will vote under these reqs dont understand the metagame is also ridiculous. LC is an easy metagame to learn, and in order to achieve reqs you have to have some knowledge. I would argue that the fresh perspective the new suspect voters bring is actually worth more than this ban happy, elitist mentality that a lot of the "veterans" seem to be fostering.
We should not change reqs, and the fact that you guys are arguing about reqs instead of the pokemon that you think are broken says quite a lot. This is a thread for suspect discussion, not suspect reqs discussion.
The people who are calling for higher reqs seem to be holding an elitist attitude that should not be present in a metagame that is already scorned by many aspects of the site. We want people to join the little cup community we dont want to chase them away because we are all stuck up pricks.
I think people are understating the current reqs as well. 1200 is not easy to get and you have to have some basic understanding of the metagame to get there. To say that the people who will vote under these reqs dont understand the metagame is also ridiculous. LC is an easy metagame to learn, and in order to achieve reqs you have to have some knowledge. I would argue that the fresh perspective the new suspect voters bring is actually worth more than this ban happy, elitist mentality that a lot of the "veterans" seem to be fostering.
We should not change reqs, and the fact that you guys are arguing about reqs instead of the pokemon that you think are broken says quite a lot. This is a thread for suspect discussion, not suspect reqs discussion.
I have to post that I agree entirely with this. The purpose of the test isn't to make sure that all the same people who already play LC are the only ones able to make reqs. At the same time, 1200 means that any new player still requires a good understanding of the metagame to qualify. If someone can reach 1200 on the ladder (barring any ridiculous hax), odds are they have an intelligent perspective on the metagame that we as an LC community should want in our voter pool. I don't understand where this "If he can't get to 1300 he's a scrubby loser" mentality comes from. Voting is not about being godlike aat every aspect of play, it is about being intelligent and having an understanding of the metagame. Higher reqs simply lessen the voter pool for no real reason other than the assumption that anyone who can't reach 1300 cannot possibly have an intelligent stance on the competitiveness of the metagame and its parts.
On the other hand, why would we make it comparatively easier to get requirements for Little Cup than it is for any other tier? For example, 1350 in UU is incredibly difficult, only about 10 people have the requirement and the round is over in 10 days. If we make it 1200 then the logical deadline would have to be in 10 days, then that's fine. If we give longer than that without raising the requirements we are saying "this tier is easier to vote in than other ones".
- Status