Done Return Metronome battle to ranked format

[Ivy]

Metronome doesn't really have any ownership apart from PS administration, so I figure this is the place to request this—we've been looking to gather usage statistics for Metronome battles, and the only thing preventing this is the lack of a rated format. Marty's already un-blacklisted it from the stat tracking. The format seems to be popular enough at this point that this would be sustainable and give some interesting insight to the meta.

 

[Anubis]

Moved this from Other Admin Requests since we'd like to see support for this idea.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

I support this.

 

[fwqef]

I support this a million times over. I’ve been asking for this for months and the lack of any action was infuriating to say the least. I really hope this suggestion goes through.

 

[Ancient_Heaven]

I agree, I want to play metronome battles in a ranked ladder.

 

[pre]

Just react to the OP.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

Just react to the OP.

That's less impactful. It's the difference between signing a petition in protest of something and holding a physical protest right across the street.

 

[pre]

That's less impactful. It's the difference between signing a petition in protest of something and holding a physical protest right across the street.

That's not how this subforum works.

 

[POKEBOSSS]

I support this a quadriple times, change my mind.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

I agree, I want to play metronome battles in a ranked ladder.

I support this a quadriple times, change my mind.

Okay but also like the first post. pre is right that it's the most important thing.

 

[bonk]

Pls gimme points

I support this

 

[doipy hooves]

This thread has been tagged as "Done" for at least 10 hours. I find this misleading, as no action has been taken and Metronome Battles are still unranked at the moment.

 

[HoeenHero]

This thread has been tagged as "Done" for at least 10 hours. I find this misleading, as no action has been taken and Metronome Battles are still unranked at the moment.

No idea why, nothing has been done.

 

[fwqef]

So is any action going to be taken? It’s been close to a month now.

 

[HoeenHero]

This isnt my call, it would be The Immortal's call.

 

[The Immortal]

The format seems to be popular enough at this point that this would be sustainable and give some interesting insight to the meta.

As there's no stats for unranked formats, I've been observing the number of live Metronome Battles on PS. It is between 0-6 at any time of the day. This is neither popular nor sustainable. Currently, it might seem popular because you'd be instantly matched against one of the other two people searching. This is due to it being unranked, however. As a ranked format, you'd generally be waiting 5-10 minutes to find a game, similar to other unofficial formats. While I do not play this format frequently, it is obviously for the fun and enjoyment. Waiting to find a game takes away part of that enjoyment. So, would you rather have an unranked format where you instantly find games? Or ranking a fun format and not finding instant games? I really don't see the benefit of being ranked but feel free to convince otherwise.

 

[doipy hooves]

I will point out that this suggestion is to return Metronome Battle to ranked, as it was from the start. As someone with over 7000 confirmed battles in Gen 7 (/rank flametix, gen7metronomebattle) from 1000 to #2 and back again, I can say from experience that search time wasn't a big deal, even being common to juggle multiple games at a time. I would say the ladder actually made it easier for me to find enjoyable battles.

I have noticed that team quality and consistency is really the main difference between the ranked and unranked state. The game hasn't changed for people who use uninvested vanilla mons like Clefable and Togepi, but many former players took the game seriously thanks to the ladder giving it meaning. A cool ~175 people have a bottomed 1500/1499 elo. I believe making Metronome Battles ranked again would bring some of that popularity back and increase the playerbase. Would OU be more enjoyable if it was just about pummeling random Ash teams, or losing from the other side? Even if someone has no idea about the meta, today they still have a solid chance to win against a meta player because the teambuilder maxes out EVs automatically. More recent QoL features include showing every legal mon/item/ability and not marking Metronome as illegal.
These features lower the 'information ceiling' for people, and the thing is that these didn't exist for most of ranked's existence. People managed to have fun back then, and it's only gotten easier to play since.

Personally I've never seen the ladder dead; there's always someone on at every time of the day. I would say this makes Metronome Battle more popular than a dead ladder, or at least popular enough for me to get a game whenever I want. When checking the battle counts around the start of writing this post/reading the reply, I usually caught the battle count at about 8-9 with a peak of 12, with plenty of unique users. Even back as a ranked format, the worst experience would be like getting a 1000 player after half a minute of waiting, and that's more about the 1500s and/or if you've just finished a battle and everyone else is occupied. I believe there is a feature that tries to pair you up with a similar rating at first, but expands the boundaries after some time. It also helps that it's an easy format for the average person to get into, being simple to learn and popular on YouTube.

screenshot battle counts

To sum it up, Metronome Battle is currently in good shape with a consistent audience, helpful teambuilder features, and historical precedent for success as a ranked format. I believe that having a ladder would lead more to play and add enjoyment from its existence without any serious tradeoff.

 

[Ivy]

Forgive me if this sounds condescending, but it appears to be at least as played as the rotational pet mod slot.

 

[fwqef]

As there's no stats for unranked formats, I've been observing the number of live Metronome Battles on PS. It is between 0-6 at any time of the day. This is neither popular nor sustainable. Currently, it might seem popular because you'd be instantly matched against one of the other two people searching. This is due to it being unranked, however. As a ranked format, you'd generally be waiting 5-10 minutes to find a game, similar to other unofficial formats. While I do not play this format frequently, it is obviously for the fun and enjoyment. Waiting to find a game takes away part of that enjoyment. So, would you rather have an unranked format where you instantly find games? Or ranking a fun format and not finding instant games? I really don't see the benefit of being ranked but feel free to convince otherwise.

I agree with the others that this is not a very good argument. Look at how many games the other OMs have besides balanced hackmons. M&M has 2, AAA and STAB have no games, while Metronome Battles has 6 at the time of posting.

Even Balanced Hackmons has barely a number above that and it is plenty sustainable and it is easy to find matches unless you get REALLY high which is likely not happening in Metronome Battles.

 

[MetropolitanMuseum]

As there's no stats for unranked formats, I've been observing the number of live Metronome Battles on PS. It is between 0-6 at any time of the day. This is neither popular nor sustainable. Currently, it might seem popular because you'd be instantly matched against one of the other two people searching. This is due to it being unranked, however. As a ranked format, you'd generally be waiting 5-10 minutes to find a game, similar to other unofficial formats. While I do not play this format frequently, it is obviously for the fun and enjoyment. Waiting to find a game takes away part of that enjoyment. So, would you rather have an unranked format where you instantly find games? Or ranking a fun format and not finding instant games? I really don't see the benefit of being ranked but feel free to convince otherwise.

With all due respect, a few counterpoints:
1. Instantly finding games is not necessarily as gratifying since you may be matched with what would be a considerably low-elo player or newbie that isn't very fun to play with in the first place, so I, and some others, would probably prefer to wait for a real match rather than waste time playing against a poorly matched opponent.
2. I think the lack of popularity can also be partly attributed to the lack of a ranked ladder. I know that two of my friends and I used to play metronome very regularly and very often back when the ranked ladder existed, but the lack of a ladder makes it frustrating to play with no goal in mind and no difficult opponents to face. As somebody who was previously ranked in the top of the metronome ladder, I would encounter many of the same dedicated players, but haven't encountered many, if any, of them nowadays now that the ladder is gone.
3. I think the idea of it being "for fun and enjoyment" is a little bit discrediting to the effort and time that can be put into it. Other "for fun" formats such as 1v1 have become more competitive due to the amount of traction that they gained over time. I think that maintaining a competitive ladder will support further advancement of the format, therefore improving the competitiveness of the format.

As an advocate for the format, I'd love to further discuss the matter and be informed of any complications in implementing the format that I may not be aware of. Because the metronome ladder existed previously, I don't quite understand why it was removed in the first place. Although I have no numerical evidence either, I can only say from experience that it seems that the number of games has decreased with the removal of the ladder. I can understand if there were complications with the existence of the ladder, but I do firmly believe that the ladder should be re-introduced.

 

[Jerry the great]

I support this myself. Metronome battles really should be rated battles. "But Jerry! It's luck based!" I hear you say. Well, so are crits, gen 1 freezing, and Togekiss and Jirachi having their flinch hax strategies. Besides, it's a really cool format. And there's also things that prevent such a meta from just dying. For instance, that BST limit and the steel ban. There's also really cool combinations you can use to make things extra creative, like the life orb + magic guard combo I love using. Sometimes, I use pokestar giant just to get some laughs. But that's a story for another day. But honestly though. Not like a whole bunch of luck is a bad thing. Besides, it'd help separate the not so serious people who just use stuff like missingno and M (which you get by making missingno shiny), folks who are serious but at the same time not like me who just uses stuff like two pokestar giants, and those who REALLY are and use stuff like mega sableye with magic bounce.

 

[fwqef]

Time for TI to ignore this thread for another month

 

[The Immortal]

Actually, I was going to say we'll give it a test run for the month of May to judge the activity of the ladder. Based on my experience with ladders, I believe that 10k is the line between good and bad. If you're above 10k, there's no question that it should be ranked as wait time is minimal on average. If you're lets say closer to 5k, the wait time for a game is going to be high. I've laid forth standards so I hope everything is clear.