Rejected Block PMs Between People in Free For All Battles

In the new Free For All random battles format, a bit of a loophole is that players can PM each other to form "alliances" during the match. Some sort of system that blocked PMs between participants in FFA randbats would make the matches a lot fairer. Obviously, PMs would resume as normal once the match finishes.
 
Shouldn't working together be a part of FFAs? There's nothing wrong with forming temporary alliances. I see no reason why we should restrict PMs so players can't communicate.
How do you differentiate between boosting and alliances? How do you differentiate between helping and ghosting? restricting PMs would prevent a lot of these problems imo
 

DaWoblefet

Demonstrably so
is a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Community Leaderis a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Top Researcheris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnus
PS Admin
How do you differentiate between boosting and alliances? How do you differentiate between helping and ghosting? restricting PMs would prevent a lot of these problems imo
You could make these exact same arguments for a regular battle, right? But the thing is, both are much more difficult. Boosting is harder because instead of queueing up against your alt and forfeiting to yourself to immediately gaining points, you actually have to win the game. Sure, in theory it's a 2v1v1, but that's not foolproof. Ghosting with a random stranger is also unlikely to be as effective as working with someone outside the battle independently that you know, unless you're imagining two players who know each other and happen to queue up together. But if two players decide to form a temporary alliance and discuss their plays together, that isn't ghosting - imo that's how part of how the format should work. Ghosting is receiving help from an individual outside of the battle, but there's nothing wrong with asking an opponent for help during the battle. It's a free-for-all; even if their alliance succeeds, suddenly it's a 1v1 and one player is bound to have the advantage. So an alliance may be terminated early in order to avoid losing in that 1v1, but doing so too early may be risky, etc.

In the FFAs I watched on YouTube back in the day, it was 4 people constantly making and breaking alliances, working together only to immediately turn around and attack the ally. I just don't see the problem with players who are opponents communicating with each other.

There might be an argument to make about blocking PMs between allies in a multi battle though. At serious Multi Battle side events at live VGC events, players can't communicate by speaking with their partner at all. But I've personally never liked that rule much, because restricting communication with your ally in a format where you're already working together is kind of awkward. For Showdown, it would also be trivial to avoid such a PM restriction by using a third-party platform to discuss their moves (presumably you couldn't do this in a FFA, as you wouldn't know the opponents beforehand).
 
Last edited:
You could make these exact same arguments for a regular battle, right? But the thing is, both are much more difficult. Boosting is harder because instead of queueing up against your alt and forfeiting to yourself to immediately gaining points, you actually have to win the game. Sure, in theory it's a 2v1v1, but that's not foolproof. Ghosting with a random stranger is also unlikely to be as effective as working with someone outside the battle independently that you know, unless you're imagining two players who know each other and happen to queue up together. But if two players decide to form a temporary alliance and discuss their plays together, that isn't ghosting - imo that's how part of how the format should work. Ghosting is receiving help from an individual outside of the battle, but there's nothing wrong with asking an opponent for help during the battle. It's a free-for-all; even if their alliance succeeds, suddenly it's a 1v1 and one player is bound to have the advantage. So an alliance may be terminated early in order to avoid losing in that 1v1, but doing so too early may be risky, etc.

In the FFAs I watched on YouTube back in the day, it was 4 people constantly making and breaking alliances, working together only to immediately turn around and attack the ally. I just don't see the problem with players who are opponents communicating with each other.

There might be an argument to make about blocking PMs between allies in a multi battle though. At serious Multi Battle side events at live VGC events, players can't communicate by speaking with their partner at all. But I've personally never liked that rule much, because restricting communication with your ally in a format where you're already working together is kind of awkward. For Showdown, it would also be trivial to avoid such a PM restriction by using a third-party platform to discuss their moves (presumably you couldn't do this in a FFA, as you wouldn't know the opponents beforehand).
I totally get where you're coming from, I just think that PMs make the game a lot more uncompetitive. As you mentioned, players are not allowed to communicate with each other in official multi battles. Just thought that it would make the game more dependent on a player's skill instead of whether or not they were the first person to reach out in a PM. Plus, it would help make it a little harder for friends to team up without the other players knowing. After all, players could still team up; they'd just have to do it in the group chat, where everyone can see what their discussion.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a Site Content Manageris a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
Rejecting. It seems like more people like chatting than want it banned, and since banning it would be an enforcement mess (you can't prevent people from secretly coordinating off-site), I'd rather leave it unbanned.
 

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

Top