A New Direction for Other Metagames

Lcass4919

The Xatu Warrior
i had an idea for something we can perhaps try out. how about we give another "Reward" for official tour winners...something that actually solves EVERYONE's issues. but it kind of makes us have to eliminate something important...two things i see, is the removal of LCotM(as much as we love your choices, we also need to give the new POPULAR oms some love not just the forgotten ones), or one of the rotational ladders/Other Metagames. and we introduce "The Official...tour...Win...Thing..."name in progress. but basically, its like leaders choice...but the official tour winner gets to pick the meta. and EVERYTHING is fair game as long as its codable. this gives initiative to play officials, gives a reward for officials, and gives EVERY meta potential to become a ladder. you want stabmons? bam its there for a month. you want metagamiate? bam there for a month. you want some obscure meta nobody cares about? bam. its there. you want to self promote? bam self promotion. this nails 3 birds with one stone. solves this debate, gives Officials more initiative to play, and gives both old and new metas chances to shine. and the cooldown could be the same as OMotM so people dont just spam a meta to win.

also you all sound a bit immature right now, no offense. try to be a bit more calm so we don't scare out new OM room browsers. were trying to steer oms into a different, better direction...NOT the potential playerbase :P
 

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
You're literally describing the OM of the Month process.

1) giving the popular metas love
2) everything codeable is fair game
3) every meta has potential to be a ladder

Also, leader's choice isn't staying. It takes away from the rest of the OMs, including the OMotM, and giving dead/failed OMs a ladder goes against some of the new direction goals.

Note: LC may come back once we're settled into gen 7, but with different intentions. It might focus on selecting the most active meta on the forum in the month, for example, instead of focusing on unpopular OMs.

Edit @ below: Either way, it will be initially removed because SuMo threads won't be settled for a few months. What we do with it afterwards is still up for discussion.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that removing Leader's Choice is a good idea. In fact, I highly recommend not to do it. Many of us are happy with Leader's Choice existing because of reasons below:

1. For anyone who doesn't like the OMotM in a particular month, they can resort to play Leader's Choice as an alternative. Because admit it, there are many cases that a meta won because of bandwagoning but it turns out they are not doing well and as a result, Leader's Choice ended up having more plays than the OMoTM.

2. Please remember, we don't know that a particular meta is popular until it won either Leader's Choice or OMotM. Just look at Megamons. None of us even considering nomming it as OMotM and when it got selected as Leader's Choice, it become the meta with one of the highest plays among all OMotMs/LCotMs at more than 50k plays.

3. Dead OMs NEED attention because they can be hidden gems once selected as a Leader's Choice, because many people just don't know if a meta have good concept and they vote because of bandwagon. Besides the mentioned Megamons, there was Protean Palace and Type Reflector, who also did decently well (iirc Type Reflector has twice as much plays as Got Talent, the meta that was OMotM at the same time that Type Reflector was Leader's Choice).

In short, judging from experience, many dead OMs are overlooked because they don't get bandwagonned but when they got selected, they can be a hidden gem that surpass the popularity of the OMotM. That's why Leader's Choice is needed.
 
I would like to keep LC, but like TI said it won't be run for a few months while everyone gets adjusted to SuMo changes. We'll work on our choosing method though.

Also we have plans for the initial OMotM that I'm very excited about but no leaks!
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
Yeah, i find myself really enjoying some of these gem in the rough metas like megamons. And Im not going to have the stabmons balance argument. Good players playing it doesnt make it fully active or balanced.
 

Betathunder

alphalightning
this was an idea that some others and I were discussing in the room at one point that id like to put out just to see the reception, but once gen 7 is settled in, would it be possible to try and organize an om battle factory? The specifics can be sorted out later, I'm just interested to see if it's possible.
E: I'd be more than happy to help lead it
 
Last edited:

Josh

=P
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Mafia Champion
fwiw I would be fine with creating the docs with all the sets and all and heading that as long as someone could do the technical side of implementing it. I'll get some of whoever the better players are to help with the metas, especially ones I'm not familiar with at the time

If you can't tell if really support om bf

I feel I did a good job with regular bf even though slayer stopped it from actually getting implemented due to his activity, and we got a whole tier worth of sets done (doubles) successfully despite them never being implemented


Edit: rhythms said they can help with the code part
 
Last edited:
I am 10,000% in support of an OMBF, but I'll reiterate one of my concerns and suggestions I had in the room when we were discussing it.

In an effort to make the OMBF format more accessible to non-OM players and potentially draw them into the metas they are experiencing, there should be some method of explaining the meta to players when they queue into it. Whether it be a hyperlink specific to each meta that pops up in chat at the beginning of each battle, or a TLDR link provided to players before they queue into the OMBF
 
The appropriate /om link should display imo.
Yes but as I've said before, people are astoundingly oblivious and stupid at times. Also, I'd be surprised if even 1/4 of PS users know how to use the /om command. Would it be possible to automatically include the /om command at the start of each battle before Turn 1?
 
Actually I still don't understand why we couldn't implement Blind Voting for OMotM. The current voting system, while better than previous one, is still very prone to bandwagonning. And yeah, I keep complaining about bandwagons because I dislike bandwagonning. Bandwagonning prevents many people from voting objectively and they just vote for the most popular OM (or most voted one). It sounds dumb but it's what happened so far and I think blind voting prevents that.
 
hey all, im not coming back or anything, i just had some free time and i felt like doing this

Some of you might remember a few months ago when I discovered that metas on the second page of the OMOTM voting thread were receiving significantly fewer votes than those on the first page. In response to this, a notice was put at the end of the first page of each OMOTM voting thread instructing users to go to the next page to see more metagames. I was curious to see what difference this had made, so I went through the numbers for the past three months of OMOTM voting to find out.

So what difference has it made? Short answer: not a damn thing.

image.png

gre.PNG


spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iVyAT1ZjhlMmKpWR6X3u5ITRa_r1bS5iUc2CyE4pOgs/edit?usp=sharing

First page metas still receive notably more votes than second page metas, and interestingly the gap has been growing over the past few months. The average first page meta got around 81 votes, while the average meta on the second page got around 63. This means that over the last three months, metas on the second page have recieved about 23% fewer votes than those on the first, which is only a smidgeon better than before the change (used to be about 27%). The 'go to page 2' notice has hardly made a difference — to make the voting system truly fair and unbiased, something more needs to be done.

Yours truly,

#MAMPTHECHAMP

-----


jownage stop posting pics of that guys backsweat to ur snapchat story, shits gross af. also stop saying nigga all the time ur like the whitest guy i know

ti is a weenie

s/o chloe, grats on the name change :J
 

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
lol. Even if you change it to Z->A, page one will still have more votes. It has nothing to do with bias. There are simply more popular metagames on page one. Stop trying to fix a non-existent problem.
 
lol. Even if you change it to Z->A, page one will still have more votes. It has nothing to do with bias. There are simply more popular metagames on page one. Stop trying to fix a non-existent problem.
Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding something, but that makes absolutely 0 sense. Unless you are tryng to imply that all the popular metagames are in the middle (and with MnM being in the middle, I guess there is a case to be made), then reversing the order should put all the popular metagames on page 2.
 
Last edited:

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding something, but that makes absolutely 0 sense. Unless you are tryng to imply that all the popular metagames are in the middle (and with MnM being n the middle, I guess there is a case to be made), then reversing the order should put all the popular metagames on page 2.
No, I'm implying that there are always more OMs on page one, so there will always be more popular OMs on page one. Unless you randomize it such that more popular metagames are placed on page two, page one will always win.
 
No, I'm implying that there always more OMs on page one, so there will always be more popular OMs on page one. Unless you randomize it such that more popular metagames are placed on page two, page one will always win.
Why would that matter, though? It's an average, not a total. The only thing that matters is the ratio of popular metagames to unpopular ones, just how popular those popular metagames are, and voting habits.
 
lol. Even if you change it to Z->A, page one will still have more votes. It has nothing to do with bias. There are simply more popular metagames on page one. Stop trying to fix a non-existent problem.
Thing is, we don't know if page one gets more votes because it's in page one or not. What we want to solve is, people who are upset that their desired metas being in page two is the cause of losing, NOT because of their metas being unpopular or not bandwagonned. I think it's worth a try to randomize or reverse the order just to experiment if "do metagames have more votes BECAUSE it's in page one or not?"
 

DEG

degdeg
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I pretty much see no problem with page one getting more votes than page two. That's the case then so be it, we don't really know where the root of the problem comes so we cannot really fix it directly. People that votes for an OM to be OMOTM doesn't really look through every OM and cast their vote, they follow what they nominated or like from the origin know what they are going to vote, or just follow the bandwagon. The problem doesn't reside in the pages but it is due to the bandwagon as mentioned before. We have seen "Second pages meta" win before, or come close in winning such as "Trademark" and "XY weathers". The only way we can get equality between OMs is not inversing the order of the metas but to implement a blind voting. Thinking that being on page one gives OMs an advantage over page two OMs is just seeing numbers and deducting things without really studying the surrounding and catching the problem by its tail, OMs are victim of bandwagon and that's why there's no equality, that's it. No order, no page, nothing else.
 
I typed a whole thing really fast and was going to post until I realized that was really dumb and sadly, that's what most of us are doing here. I say us because I definitely contributed to this when I posted my one liner just because it was on my mind at the moment. This isn't a chatroom, so we can take a while to make proper posts after considering our options. Here's my attempt at that.

Problem 1: data shows that "metas on the second page of the OMOTM voting thread were receiving significantly fewer votes than those on the first page"
Problem 2: bandwagoning

Offered solutions for problem 1:
1. Randomizing order (mamp)
Rejection reason was provided in his suggestion; makes things hard to find [ctrl+f is a thing tho]. also doesn't solve bandwagonning.​
2. Changing between alphabetical and reverse alphabetical order (mamp)
Issue with it is also provided in his suggestion; middle metas stay the same so the overall effect isn't that different.​
3. Going reverse alphabetical for a few months to see if the page theory is BS or not (me in the post i never posted)
This was going to be the subject of my old post, but upon going back and reading the past conversation, it's really not different enough from the current system (middle metas staying the same means the variation isn't large enough) to be a metric to bust this theory.​
4. Increasing page capacity to 50(+) for every OMotM threads/capping at 25. (ev)
Requires xernforo manipulation + it's just for one thread every month? Yeah, not happening. TI doesn't like a 25 cap because first come first serve could lead to mostly metas disliked my the majority of the community being nominated due to the cap being as small as it is.​
5. Using smogon's polls (kit)
Not enough options iirc. Also, i assume checking people's joindate will be annoying. Idk shit about smogon polls.​
6. Randomly picking 24 metas from the ones nominated: (suggested by me in private months ago during omotm)
This eliminates first come first serve and is fair because rng. Rejected by evg because it could end up having an omotm voting up where the majority don't like the options.​

Offered Solutions to both:
1. strawpoll (mamp)
Easy to rig using proxies.​
2. Setting up a site like Smogon Awards (mamp)
Not possible.​
3. Something I just thought up which is probably how blind votings are done
Creating a new subforum like submissions and have users submit threads to vote. After deadline's over, the threads would be merged into one thread and votes would be counted.
Pros:
-Eliminates the probable page 1 bias, eliminates bandwagonning
-Definitely doable
Cons:

-It's a fuckton of work for the user counting and none for the voters. Workload consists of going through every single entry and noting down the votes in a spreadsheet, adding new columns for a new meta. Furthermore, finding and eliminating voters whose votes do not count. This is assuming 3 votes per person.
-Host would need project mods in said forum to be able to view it/merge threads, so adding new hosts is a pain.
Now you have all the options present. I personally think the only one even worth trying to get is option 3 from "offered solutions to both". However, I would not be looking forward to the workload at all and idk how willing others would be to host it. There's also going to be a need to vet and approve hosts.

Also, if you have other well thought out alternatives, please post them.
 
Last edited:

The Immortal

They Don't Want None
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Other Metas Leader
The proposed solutions to the supposed problem are not worth it. We don't need to make the process difficult for not only the hosts, but also the voters.

Again, I don't feel there's anything wrong with the current system. However, if you do have a better process without any downsides, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top