SPL X - Commencement Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Menci wasnt a team cancer, he was just not very active. There wasnt anything malicious or overly negligent about it. He wasnt warned that he might be soldback and banned if his activity didnt improve. It's not even clear he knew his activity was a problem at all.

Also, this is just a terrible rule. It's completely unreasonable to have a team environment where its the sole responsibility of the individual members of the team to ensure their activity is high. If the team makes no effort to involve players you cant fault them for inactivity.

Plus to me it seems like a perfectly reasonable request to say "I am only going to put in the work to learn an entirely new gen that I didnt sign up for if I am definitely getting a starting spot".
 
Hikari said:
Some people have suggested going with "player aren't required to do anything, except play if they are starting or get subbed in". This is seemingly more black and white and easy to enforce, but it really is a lot more complex than that and can have a significant impact in how team tours work in Smogon. Using that definition would make team tournaments a lot more individualistic to the point the word team would hold no weight. The individual becomes the only focus, the success of the team is a secondary factor and managers only functions are drafting and sending lineups.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't think this would change the way team tournaments work at all. Right now, we're talking about "what's the bare minimum a player should do to avoid a tourban", not "what should a player do to be considered a good teammate".

The huge majority of subs are still going to be working hard for their respective team, simply because that's how they will prove themselves to be a useful presence and ensure that they will get drafted in future tournaments. If a sub refuses to do anything other than play if needed, I'd say fine, that's their prerogative. The consequence that they will have to deal with is that they will be labelled as an unhelpful team member and their chances of being drafted in future team tours will be lower.

What's stopping X player, who perceives their team as weak or simply doesn't like it, from saying: 'Trade me or I'm not playing unless you absolutely need me to sub in". This person would be within the rules, because, despite refusing to be a starter, they are willing to play if absolutely required. Do we give managers the power to force players to start? Because if we do, the definition no longer is "player = plays if needed". You do nothing about this and a single person can ruin a team, not only by not contributing but also by giving reasons for other members of the team to try to jump ship; not all players are 3K "disposable" members. Maybe we could add a "don't ask for trades" clause? I mean this could help with this specific example I gave, but what happens when the situation is more complex than "x player is literally asking for a trade"? At this point we are not talking in hypothetical cases, as this has happened multiple times in Smogon's history. The clearest example of this for me was SPL 3, when I saw this happen twice and one of those was me manipulating the dumb system to force BIGs into trading me without saying "I will not play for you" once. If I tried the same today I would get punished and I would deserve it, but if we go with the "new" definition that kind of behavior would be completely within the rules. You could add clauses and create new precedents, but you can't keep the ideal of "player = plays if necessary" if you start forcing players to contribute / play for teams they don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't think people should be allowed to refuse to start in a tier they signed up for, and I wasn't aware that they were either. Maybe it's just me, but if you sign up as a player you should be willing to play.

But if that's not something most people agree with, another option would be something like what sulcata says, and having 2 separate options in the sign-up form of "tiers played" and "tiers supported". That way, if someone doesn't want to start and wants to only be in a support role, they can leave "tiers played" blank and only fill up "tiers supported". Let people declare before the draft whether they're only looking to play, only looking to support, or whether they're willing to do both according to the needs of their team. Managers can then make their draft decisions accordingly.

With this, you will be able to decide if someone is a team cancer or not simply by holding them accountable to their signup post. Did they refuse to play in a tier they said they played? Then that's grounds for a tourban. Did they provide no help in a tier they said they supported despite being asked to by their team? Then that's also grounds for a tourban. I think that makes things a lot simpler.
 
Last edited:
XxAwesomePlayzxX said:
Player Name: XxAwesomePlayzxX

Tiers Played: USM OU (The only tier I can build) / USM NU / USM PU (the others need full support)

Time Zone: GMT +8


I removed UU because I haven't played much UU recently since like the January tier shifts and am not confident to play it in such a large-scaled tournament. I've been playing PU for some time but wasn't sure about my abilities back in the first signups.
Click to expand...

When now you have to explain everything in detail, thanks Raiders.
 
Rodriblutar said:
When now you have to explain everything in detail, thanks Raiders.
Click to expand...
When for moment I thought I posted it in the Commencement thread.

Just wanted to make sure the TDs know why I changed my choices if there's a rule against that, since I couldn't find one about that. Doesn't hurt to stick closer to the rules, which are already strict

E: also I just realized
 
Last edited:
Q9Vnale.gif
 
It seems to me, albeit a relative newcomer to SPL, that the problem with sellbacks is not that they exist in the first place, but that they're not punishing enough. I come to this as someone who's played in a few team tournaments before but never managed, so keep that in mind. As a player, it is demoralizing to have someone on your team who's going to go 0-9, or a teamslot that you can never expect to win. I understand that people want to punish managers for making poor managerial decisions, and I know that not every team can win. However forcing everyone who is drafted by a manager to be shafted for the entire season feels a little bit excessive, if an equitable sellback system can be created.

The problem that has been indicated with sellbacks and mids is that it is too advantageous sometimes to draft players at mids and that that's kind of silly. I agree that the current structure makes it too easy to pick people up at mids. I propose a few changes that, I believe, would make buying someone/selling someone back an absolute last resort and make mids accessible, but punishing.
1) You can only sign up at mids if you signed up for the original draft.
This one seems somewhat self-explanatory: everyone should have access to the same pool of people, and I think that it shouldn't be advantageous to save money to hope that someone really good signs up at mids so you can pick them for cheap. If players like BKC can join after being tourbanned at the start, or managers can drop out of managing, sign up and go undefeated, it is too advantageous to save money just in case you get someone nutty at mids. This seems bad for the tournament to me, but I'd be willing to entertain arguments on it.
2) Reduce the sellback value of players.
Currently, afaik, the sellback value is full value? In the team tournaments I played in, which had full sellbacks at mids, the players could be sold back for half value, which meant that 2 min value playes = any player at mids. I would propose 1/3 value, rounded down to the nearest .5k, which makes sellbacks really inefficient. To pick an example amusingly indicated above, Cased would go for 5.5k in a sellback, which brings me to my third point
3) increase the baseline cost of purchasing a player at mids
Make it 4 or 5 k. 3k is really cheap for a player at mids, considering how little one has to save at draft, or trade people for. Make it so if you want a new player, you have to really commit sellbacks, or really have a decent chunk of money saved up.
If a manager makes a risky pick that doesn't pan out in this model, the season isn't automatically over. However, they might have to decimate their team to fix it. If they set themselves up to be able to do that though, I'm ok with it.

Tl;dr the problem with sellbacks/midseason pickups are letting random people sign up and that it's too cheap. Let sellbacks happen if they're appropriately expensive, and if buying players at mids is appropriately expensive.
 
I think only allowing people who signed up at the beginning of the season to sign up for mids did enough to contain any sort of shenanigans that might've gone on in the past with teams getting insanely good pickups and all, and didn't we already srtart doing that this year? I don't see the need to restrict sellbacks any further than that.
 
Ezrael said:
2) Reduce the sellback value of players.
Currently, afaik, the sellback value is full value? In the team tournaments I played in, which had full sellbacks at mids, the players could be sold back for half value, which meant that 2 min value playes = any player at mids. I would propose 1/3 value, rounded down to the nearest .5k, which makes sellbacks really inefficient. To pick an example amusingly indicated above, Cased would go for 5.5k in a sellback, which brings me to my third point
Click to expand...

they're "full value" as in you get the minimum 3k back for any and every player. in your example sellbacks would actually be more advantageous for teams; in spl whateverthefuck when i had to sell back hugo right after auction, i spent 10.5k in auction and only got back 3 for a net loss of 7.5k & not having the starting BW player i bought at auction for 4 weeks. idk how much more inefficient you can make them without just eliminating them entirely (which is a horrible idea; if you want to play in a team tournament with little to no player movement then i'd suggest snake or wcop).
 
tennisace said:
they're "full value" as in you get the minimum 3k back for any and every player. in your example sellbacks would actually be more advantageous for teams; in spl whateverthefuck when i had to sell back hugo right after auction, i spent 10.5k in auction and only got back 3 for a net loss of 7.5k & not having the starting BW player i bought at auction for 4 weeks. idk how much more inefficient you can make them without just eliminating them entirely (which is a horrible idea; if you want to play in a team tournament with little to no player movement then i'd suggest snake or wcop).
Click to expand...
I don't think you should be able to sell back a player you got for 3k back for 3k. Perhaps you make buybacks 4k and the sellback value 1/3 or 3k, whichever is lower. The only reason I bring this up is that, to my understanding, in order to sell people back this year you have to get them tourbanned. I don't think you should only be allowed to sell back players if they're team cancers. I would prefer managers be able to sell back whoever they wanted. This is in one way a buff (you can sell back anyone without reason) and a nerf (make it more expensive to sell back cheaper players).
I'm just not sure why selling someone back currently requires them to be a team cancer
 
Ezrael said:
I don't think you should be able to sell back a player you got for 3k back for 3k. Perhaps you make buybacks 4k and the sellback value 1/3 or 3k, whichever is lower. The only reason I bring this up is that, to my understanding, in order to sell people back this year you have to get them tourbanned. I don't think you should only be allowed to sell back players if they're team cancers. I would prefer managers be able to sell back whoever they wanted. This is in one way a buff (you can sell back anyone without reason) and a nerf (make it more expensive to sell back cheaper players).
I'm just not sure why selling someone back currently requires them to be a team cancer
Click to expand...

Because if you sell players back who are active and contributing, you're basically saying "hey man you've been doing great but we're gonna sell you back, thanks for your help but you're out of the tournament through no fault of your own". It brings up way too many tricky and complicated situations; it's much simpler to say "if you're inactive or an asshole then you're out of the tournament". if you want to make changes to your team mid-season outside of a cancer sellback you can always trade / save credits.
 
It has come to my attention that there are still question marks around my name in terms of how proficient I'd be in SPL despite me saying I'd be willing to get back in spl 9 shape where I was using roughly 5% of my brain power despite having access to the other 195 of it, but I promise you I WILL be that guy.
J3ojOv4.jpg


Sad reacts only
 
tennisace said:
Because if you sell players back who are active and contributing, you're basically saying "hey man you've been doing great but we're gonna sell you back, thanks for your help but you're out of the tournament through no fault of your own". It brings up way too many tricky and complicated situations; it's much simpler to say "if you're inactive or an asshole then you're out of the tournament". if you want to make changes to your team mid-season outside of a cancer sellback you can always trade / save credits.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm comfortable with people saying that. No one deserves to get drafted, no one deserves to be on a team. If the team needs a different player, I don't know why players can't be sold back.
 
Hi!

I just wanted to say thank you to all the people who supported me.

I would have never expected so many people to even care about my weird situation, but damn you've proven me wrong. This community is fucking amazing. YOU were the ones who got me unbanned AND changed the rules that were just way too strict. I'm relieved I can still play tournaments on this platform. Let's hope there won't happen any more cases like this.

PS: I know I'm a little late on this, whoops
 
I am reading a lot of interesting posts here, about cancerteams, about unfair rules, etc...

But what matters right now is the Midseason Auction and I am really surprised that my name is yet to appear there. I can get that Triangles is an AGdv God and Adaam and Exiline must have some merits too ( although I personally don,t know them) but why buy a God just in Adv when you can acquire for (more or less) the same price a much stronger deity in all Tiers, who also helps with building and has made a pact with the Devil to have endless hax when its needed the most?

Yes, I understand that youprobably already got strong players such as Bro Fist, Lycans, and Empo, but can they get the Reqs to Ban Zygarde using a Poliwrath or win an important Tournament Battle with a Mega Abomasnow ( which I just did in the OST: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7ou-858600073 ) ? I doubt so.

In my opinion, this Community has a deep problem with discrimination. You only respect good an standart players and only they are considered successful enough to get picked in Team Tournaments. But what about the minorities known as Randoms and Haxors? We also win battles, just in a different way, yet we are treated as inferior beings because of not reaching the standarts that requires this oppressive society of Smogon elitists. In the XXIst century big progress has already been made towards the end of racism and discrimination based on sex and religion, yet I cannot see the same with the collective of Randoms and Haxors. These are unacceptable vestiges of an older world full of hate. I am pretty sure that all the Randoms and Haxors of this Forum will agree with me on this topic. Together we can build a much more inclusive environment on Smogon. Join my fight to get representation in the Smogon Premiere League! #RandomLifesAlsoMatter #AdoptAHaxor #StopTheDiscrimination

Last year I also signed up for the SPL in Midseason, but did not get picked. What happened in the end? You allowed the team with a bad, ugly Irene Noren lover known as Trosko to win the Tournament!! You are still on time to avoid such a tragedy again, you just have to spend 3K on someone who normally would deserve not less than 40.

Make your team invincible! Make your team an Eeveetoteam!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top