-
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!
Complaints regarding the current rule about forming player lists
- Thread starter Earthworm
- Start date
And when you have a tournament with 128 participants that ratio expands to:
64 FCFS
32 Hand Picked
32 Random
32 hand picked participants is a ridiculous amount no matter what way you cut it. Even 16 is way too many, the result of a standard 64-man tournament. Combine that with the fact that the host's peers have a heads up to sign up postings, and the result is a large chunk of participants being predetermined. I don't like the idea of our tournaments boiling down to (essentially) the same participants every time, where popularity reigns over equality and the system can (and will) be gamed. Instead of a ratio between those three selection methods, I'd rather have Hand Picked not be relative to pool size, but a set number (like 4 or 6).
I do like the idea of posting the tournament sign up times in advance in the tournament listings thread, but that breeds new issues that'll need addressing (won't bother bringing up until we decide on this). I have qualms with every other selection system besides 100% FCFS, 100% random, or 50/50 between the two (with a couple hand picked if we must). Addressing all of them is pointless but if another method is favored I'll post more.
64 FCFS
32 Hand Picked
32 Random
32 hand picked participants is a ridiculous amount no matter what way you cut it. Even 16 is way too many, the result of a standard 64-man tournament. Combine that with the fact that the host's peers have a heads up to sign up postings, and the result is a large chunk of participants being predetermined. I don't like the idea of our tournaments boiling down to (essentially) the same participants every time, where popularity reigns over equality and the system can (and will) be gamed. Instead of a ratio between those three selection methods, I'd rather have Hand Picked not be relative to pool size, but a set number (like 4 or 6).
I do like the idea of posting the tournament sign up times in advance in the tournament listings thread, but that breeds new issues that'll need addressing (won't bother bringing up until we decide on this). I have qualms with every other selection system besides 100% FCFS, 100% random, or 50/50 between the two (with a couple hand picked if we must). Addressing all of them is pointless but if another method is favored I'll post more.
That doesn't address any of the concerns of people opposed to the idea. Even if there are regular spots, there is still an edge for players who are more well known, popular, etc. and that is inherently non competitive.
I have hosted two tournaments on Smogon. Most recently was the Kind of a Big Deal Tournament, where 32 players were invited to compete. Only one battle was not done on time. These were all high caliber, active players as evidenced from their tour records. A couple of years ago I hosted the Stop the Rocks tournament, which was 64 FCFS. However, the winner and loser had to submit both their team and the log so that I could come up with relevant data. In this tournament, I had to constantly remind players to submit their teams / logs and get their matches done - and still there were a few who did not do so.
Basically, my point is that different tournaments might need different set ups. For example, my Stop the Rocks tournament would have really benefited from more competitors like the Big Deal tournament - players that would get their matches done on time while also submitting the proper materials. In these types of tournaments it is hard to trust a newcomer to that standard.
I entirely agree with Aldaron - anyone who has hosted a tournament should be able to agree. What you get from "good" players is not just increased competitiveness, it is activity. It is a secure feeling knowing that the battle will be done. I think this is much more important than worrying about being "non-competitive" as Chris is Me has put it.
Smogon is your definition of competitive where it counts - the Tour, Smogon Tournament, SPL, World Cup, etc. I completely agree we need to give everyone a chance there. I made a name for myself in Tour 6. But for normal tournaments, they need to go as smoothly as possible. The more "good" players, the better chance of that happening.
I don't really think there NEEDS to be a "standard" format for hosting a tournament, as it should really be up to the host. As long as it gets approved by the TDs, that is.
Basically, my point is that different tournaments might need different set ups. For example, my Stop the Rocks tournament would have really benefited from more competitors like the Big Deal tournament - players that would get their matches done on time while also submitting the proper materials. In these types of tournaments it is hard to trust a newcomer to that standard.
I entirely agree with Aldaron - anyone who has hosted a tournament should be able to agree. What you get from "good" players is not just increased competitiveness, it is activity. It is a secure feeling knowing that the battle will be done. I think this is much more important than worrying about being "non-competitive" as Chris is Me has put it.
Smogon is your definition of competitive where it counts - the Tour, Smogon Tournament, SPL, World Cup, etc. I completely agree we need to give everyone a chance there. I made a name for myself in Tour 6. But for normal tournaments, they need to go as smoothly as possible. The more "good" players, the better chance of that happening.
I don't really think there NEEDS to be a "standard" format for hosting a tournament, as it should really be up to the host. As long as it gets approved by the TDs, that is.
So because some new and unknown members aren't that skilled and miss matches means we should discriminate against any new and unknown player? I thought we had a system for banning barriers who ditch matches and never show up.
Also for what it's worth I've hosted a tournament on Smogon before. It wasn't exactly a success though, so that's not worth much.
Also for what it's worth I've hosted a tournament on Smogon before. It wasn't exactly a success though, so that's not worth much.
As I said, every new and unknown player has every chance to make their mark in our official tournaments - the tournaments that matter. In our unofficial tournaments, it is much more important to make sure that they run smoothly and finish in a timely manner. New and unknown players throw that into jeopardy in the early rounds.
There is no problem with giving out Wild Cards for an unofficial tournament for the sake of making the tournaments more competitive and smooth. The application process for a tournament should include what kind of sign up system should be used. If there is a problem with the one presented by the host, the TDs can work out a solution.
There is no rule banning new players. Wild Cards should only be given to a few players per tournament - the ratio suggested by locopoke is a bit ridiculous. Five, maybe ten at the absolute most should be used. Again, this should be taken care of in the application process.
There is no problem with giving out Wild Cards for an unofficial tournament for the sake of making the tournaments more competitive and smooth. The application process for a tournament should include what kind of sign up system should be used. If there is a problem with the one presented by the host, the TDs can work out a solution.
There is no rule banning new players. Wild Cards should only be given to a few players per tournament - the ratio suggested by locopoke is a bit ridiculous. Five, maybe ten at the absolute most should be used. Again, this should be taken care of in the application process.
It is not more competitive in any sense. It's just more practical.
I also just generally disagree with everything Fabbles said. I do not see any reason why we should consider unofficial tournaments unimportant, for one thing. Even if we did, though, I don't see how one can draw a line between that and "so, therefore, it's okay to make them unfair in the name of practicality." Seems to me that winning still matters in unofficial tournaments, and reputation still matters, and everything that matters in official tournaments still matters in unofficial ones for the most part. Maybe the player who wins a mono-type tournament doesn't get the same accolades as the player who wins the Smogon Tournament, but there is really no fundamental difference here either. There is no reason to suddenly stop seeking fairness, or to suddenly consider practicality to the host as the most important factor.
You are really overblowing this whole issue - AT MOST, Wildcards are going to be given to only a few players per unofficial tournament. I never said unofficial tournaments did not matter. But surely no one is going to argue that they are more important than the official ones. In these cases, there is absolutely no harm in sacrificing a slight amount of what you call "fairness" for more speed and smoothness. Again, this is only affecting a few spots per unofficial tournament - and there are plenty of unofficial tournaments.
It is pretty obvious to me that you have never hosted a tournament. It is not just practicality to the host - it is practicality for the tournament they are running. If matches do not get done, it affects the next round and drags down the tournament's pace.
Again, I am not sure why this is an issue at all. Tournament hosts should have the ability to decide what is best for their tournament - if they think that having a few active, known players will benefit their tournament, I don't see the problem.
As I have said multiple times, this will be taken care of in the applications process. There does not need to be any standardized sign up format to which all hosts must adhere to. Any combination of FCFS, random, and Wild Cards (in a small amount) is fine.
It is pretty obvious to me that you have never hosted a tournament. It is not just practicality to the host - it is practicality for the tournament they are running. If matches do not get done, it affects the next round and drags down the tournament's pace.
Again, I am not sure why this is an issue at all. Tournament hosts should have the ability to decide what is best for their tournament - if they think that having a few active, known players will benefit their tournament, I don't see the problem.
As I have said multiple times, this will be taken care of in the applications process. There does not need to be any standardized sign up format to which all hosts must adhere to. Any combination of FCFS, random, and Wild Cards (in a small amount) is fine.
Honestly, it sounds like you're trying to come up with problems in order to implement this solution, rather than seeing if there is a problem at all. We started by saying our tournaments weren't competitive enough, and now we're saying unless we admit a class of battlers who (1) aren't online enough to get guaranteed spots (2) are well known pokemon greats (3) despite #1 preventing them from getting spots normally they're always online to get battles done, the inevitable result is tournaments that lag behind with matchups that never finish. I have a lot of trouble believing that adding 5 or so of these to a tournament will suddenly fix this problem (if one at all, I am not sure), and I feel we shouldn't be trying as hard as we can to rationalize this change with a variety of different reasons.
I also don't think tournament hosts should be given complete free reign. It's a Smogon tournament, and we have to maintain some level of quality control to the stuff we attach our name to, and I'd rather not attach the name "Smogon" to "tournaments where a the player list is rigged toward players the TD knows well and feels are good" as that's not very fair or inviting to the community at large.
I also don't think tournament hosts should be given complete free reign. It's a Smogon tournament, and we have to maintain some level of quality control to the stuff we attach our name to, and I'd rather not attach the name "Smogon" to "tournaments where a the player list is rigged toward players the TD knows well and feels are good" as that's not very fair or inviting to the community at large.
How many times do I need to say it? This situation is really getting way overblown. I have suggested nothing new - Wildcards have been around in unofficial Smogon tournaments forever. It is you, on the other hand, who is suggesting unnecessary solutions. Wildcards are not needed or mandatory - I have never said this. But if a few good, active players want to play, there is really no reason not to let them, other than this facade of trying to keep "fairness."
"I'd rather not attach the name "Smogon" to "tournaments where a the player list is rigged toward players the TD knows well and feels are good" as that's not very fair or inviting to the community at large."
Really? That is the best argument you can come up with? Assuming you meant host instead of TD (if not your point is completely moot), Wildcards, if they would be used at all, would be affecting at most 5 spots. I am not sure how this is affecting "the community at large."
Seeing how this is just me posting the same points over and over again that have yet to be met with a reasonable argument, I'll make this really simple.
- There is nothing wrong with the current tournament system. There are so many unofficial tournaments that any player, known or not, has their shot, not to mention the opportunities granted by official tournaments. Considering most tournaments now are 128+, it is really just ignorant of someone to say that giving away less than 5% of the spots to well known, active players is somehow making us discriminate against all players.
- Hosts should be able to decide what is best for smoothness and speed for their tournament. Any combination of FRCS, randomization, and Wildcards (~5 at most) is fine. In the application process, this will need to be specified and agreed to by the TDs.
- I do not agree with Locopoke's 2:1:1 plan - 32 handpicked is definitely too many.
- The facades of trying to uphold "fairness" and Smogon's name are extremely overblown.
I don't have anything more to say other than what I have already stressed multiple times. If it is decided that we do want a standardized sign up list, the ability for hosts to offer Wildcards should be an option.
"I'd rather not attach the name "Smogon" to "tournaments where a the player list is rigged toward players the TD knows well and feels are good" as that's not very fair or inviting to the community at large."
Really? That is the best argument you can come up with? Assuming you meant host instead of TD (if not your point is completely moot), Wildcards, if they would be used at all, would be affecting at most 5 spots. I am not sure how this is affecting "the community at large."
Seeing how this is just me posting the same points over and over again that have yet to be met with a reasonable argument, I'll make this really simple.
- There is nothing wrong with the current tournament system. There are so many unofficial tournaments that any player, known or not, has their shot, not to mention the opportunities granted by official tournaments. Considering most tournaments now are 128+, it is really just ignorant of someone to say that giving away less than 5% of the spots to well known, active players is somehow making us discriminate against all players.
- Hosts should be able to decide what is best for smoothness and speed for their tournament. Any combination of FRCS, randomization, and Wildcards (~5 at most) is fine. In the application process, this will need to be specified and agreed to by the TDs.
- I do not agree with Locopoke's 2:1:1 plan - 32 handpicked is definitely too many.
- The facades of trying to uphold "fairness" and Smogon's name are extremely overblown.
I don't have anything more to say other than what I have already stressed multiple times. If it is decided that we do want a standardized sign up list, the ability for hosts to offer Wildcards should be an option.
It is affecting the community at large by lowering the number of fairly-determined signups by five. This is strictly bad, so I don't care if we lower the number to four or two or one, or "one, but we flip a coin, and if tails, we determine that particular signup fairly after all." These are all strictly worse than just determining all signups fairly.Fabbles said:
The problem is that you are rewarding players for things that have nothing to do with being good at Pokemon. We should always strive to avoid this if possible, and, like Chris is Me, I'm skeptical as to whether having 1-5 unfair signups would show any significant improvement in the smoothness and speed of running a particular tournament.
Ok, let's say we kept the current system. (this post ties in with the topic)
The current set of rules has no rules about subs and it is at the discretion of the host to organise them how they want (if they do something weird or unfair, TDs can step in), though it is generally known that they should usually only happen in the first round of a tournament. Right now, people are free to put whoever they want as the first subs, and they usually put the (subjectively perceived) good / active players as the top subs. Obviously it is important that subs are active (they often have a considerably smaller period of time to complete their match), and right now it is a useful way to get good, active players who missed out due to randomisation into the tournament over inactive players and dropouts.
I think we do need some guidelines about substitutes, but is there any opposition to basically keeping the current substitute system as it is?
The current set of rules has no rules about subs and it is at the discretion of the host to organise them how they want (if they do something weird or unfair, TDs can step in), though it is generally known that they should usually only happen in the first round of a tournament. Right now, people are free to put whoever they want as the first subs, and they usually put the (subjectively perceived) good / active players as the top subs. Obviously it is important that subs are active (they often have a considerably smaller period of time to complete their match), and right now it is a useful way to get good, active players who missed out due to randomisation into the tournament over inactive players and dropouts.
I think we do need some guidelines about substitutes, but is there any opposition to basically keeping the current substitute system as it is?
No opposition to subs from me, but I would enjoy a rule that only subs are allowed in the first round. If the host is active enough, there should be no need for subs after that.
If Wildcards are deemed as detrimental to the rest of the players, then at the least good / active players should be able to take the first substitute spots, because now one can not argue that activity is not an important part of the process.
If Wildcards are deemed as detrimental to the rest of the players, then at the least good / active players should be able to take the first substitute spots, because now one can not argue that activity is not an important part of the process.
I'm fully in favor of wildcards being permitted, but if not, Subs should DEFINITELY be preferential, considering that these are users selected to ensure activity in a tournament when those that are procedurally selected fall short.
This thread has gotten off track a bit and I would like it back to focus. This post outlines my thoughts:
In terms of subs, the rule should always be the host can sub in whoever he wants I think, whatever the host feels will be best for the tournament.
These signups arent filling up like smogon tours here... I have never had problems getting into a tournament, and I don't see how anyone can.
However, I also like Hipmonlee's idea. I think if we combine what Aeolus has said together with setting an exact date for the signups to begin in the Tournament Listing thread, it will be incredibly fair and even easy to get into a tournament.
In terms of subs, the rule should always be the host can sub in whoever he wants I think, whatever the host feels will be best for the tournament.
These signups arent filling up like smogon tours here... I have never had problems getting into a tournament, and I don't see how anyone can.
I agree with everything Jackal said. There are dropouts in nearly every tournament, so if someone misses out then they can apply to the host to be the first sub and have a very good chance of making it in, along with all the benefits they might bring to the tournament (increasing level of competition, increasing activity and match completion rates, etc). This should solve all the issues brought up.
I personally would rather there be a higher % for FCFS then randomised, I think the players who actively check the tournament section should be somewhat favoured over a randomisation.
37.5% random | 62.5% FCFS in conjunction with:
seems like the best option to me. There are obviously cases where a different method is better ("This Tournament is Kind of a Big Deal" is the best example I can think of) but for general tournaments I'd prefer this.