How to be an Intelligent and Responsible Suspect Voter

[Pimplup]

Hmmm, thanks for this reachzero, now I know whether it is smart for me to continue laddering or not. But, how do I find my deviation? It's kinda weird how people like Twash already know it...

EDIT: Wow, Shoddy isn't working for me again, 2nd day in a row. Last time it didn't work for 3 days, but that was in a storm, and then it started working when it was sunny. Now it's OK weather but still...

 

[haunter]

Hmmm, thanks for this reachzero, now I know whether it is smart for me to continue laddering or not. But, how do I find my deviation? It's kinda weird how people like Twash already know it...

to find your deviation: upper rating - lower rating : 2

EDIT: Wow, Shoddy isn't working for me again, 2nd day in a row. Last time it didn't work for 3 days, but that was in a storm, and then it started working when it was sunny. Now it's OK weather but still...

if by "not working" you mean that you can't see smogon server in the list, then you simply have to insert it manually

hope this helped

 

[Misa]

3. If you meet an obviously superior player twice or more in a row, take a break Nothing is more damaging to a would-be voter than getting repeatedly beaten down by the same opponent. I nearly lost eligibility this way in the closing days of the Latias test by losing repeatedly to Twist of Fate; if you find yourself getting "ToFed", wait for the other player to finish before you resume laddering. However, it might be a good idea to continue watching that player to see what he/she has been doing right: what aspects of his/her strategy allowed them to beat you?

The problem with this is that, how in the world do you know if you are going to face the same opponent that you've been losing to again, especially if all of the battles on the ladder are decided randomly? Sometimes, watching a specific player isn't really worth the time in a battle, since the same opponent might chance his/hear team, making your efforts to know the opponent's strategy inevitably fruitless.

 

[reyscarface]

The problem with this is that, how in the world do you know if you are going to face the same opponent that you've been losing to again, especially if all of the battles on the ladder are decided randomly? Sometimes, watching a specific player isn't really worth the time in a battle, since the same opponent might chance his/hear team, making your efforts to know the opponent's strategy inevitably fruitless.

If you battle him 3 times in a row, you are supposed (by logic) to think that you are the only 2 guys in the ladder.
Having a break in that case, makes more people go in, getting a chance to battle different guys and not the same expert always.

 

[Matthew]

This was well said, reachzero. But using the suspect doesn't mean you know what it can do better than everyone else. Say you're playing in CAP (personal experience) and your opponent brings in Stratagem, this isn't the first time you've seen Stratagem and you know (most likely) what its moveset is, and how to get around in. So you switch because you know what the pokemon is capable of. As long as you play against the pokemon enough and consistantly then you should know what it can and can not do.

 

[darkie]

Sure, you can learn about the suspect in question by seeing people use it against you, but it's definitely possible that you never see it (though unlikely). The easiest way to learn about the suspect is probably using it yourself (in different ways).

 

[Thorns]

Yeah, darkie's right. You can't really rely on other people to use Latios. If you want to see how it performs quickly, use it.

 

[animenagai]

The problem with this is that, how in the world do you know if you are going to face the same opponent that you've been losing to again, especially if all of the battles on the ladder are decided randomly? Sometimes, watching a specific player isn't really worth the time in a battle, since the same opponent might chance his/hear team, making your efforts to know the opponent's strategy inevitably fruitless.

It's pretty simple really, just wait till the other guy's playing in another battle before clicking the find button. If you wait a while and the guy still hasn't found him or herself a battle, then you can find a game yourself without too much fear that you'll play them again.

If they're doing the same thing or if you 2 are the only ones on the ladder, that's too bad, but nonetheless you can minimize this frustrating events from happening.

 

[panamaxis]

@animenagai, if you two are the only 2 on suspect ladder you could just quickly whip up a team that counters his/hers.

 

[iKitsune]

I think it should be stressed that one should attempt to build a normal team. Otherwise as soon as mence comes along then its gg without even trying suspect or the new metagame for that manner. My message: the game changes but not as drastically as one might think. Overcompensating will lead to your downfall.

 

[panamaxis]

I think this should be mentioned: Do not question the suspect administrators or their decisions involving the suspect voting. This is the easiest way to be denied suspect voting rights.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Nice thread rz, but you should probably also mention the characteristics of what we think is Uber just for the sake of completeness and to make sure people know what they should be paying attention for.

Maybe a link to the "how to argue" thread would be appropriate to, just so people don't vote things uber/ou based on "what Nintendo did".

This is basically common sense, but I guess it should help newer players.

You would be surprised. Just in my experience alone with the suspect tests, people can be quite ridiculous in coming up with explanations....

 

[Erazor]

(I hope that bumping this thread isn't an infractable offense, seeing as this is a sticky)

How would you go around doing this in UU? The UU method of testing suspects is different from Standard - suspects are all removed at the time, and the metagame is then tested without the suspects. So do you have any tips as to how you can be a responsible and intelligent UU suspect voter? This is particularly important seeing as the voting is going to happen any day now.

 

[panamaxis]

@Erazor: Most of what has been said here for OU applies to UU. (Ab)Use the suspects, this is the easiest way to gain knowledge on how they affect the metagame (like reach already said). Try out many sets, etc. so yes, what has been said in the OP would apply to UU.

 

[ToF]

(I hope that bumping this thread isn't an infractable offense, seeing as this is a sticky)

How would you go around doing this in UU? The UU method of testing suspects is different from Standard - suspects are all removed at the time, and the metagame is then tested without the suspects. So do you have any tips as to how you can be a responsible and intelligent UU suspect voter? This is particularly important seeing as the voting is going to happen any day now.

The best thing to tell you is that you have to participate in the test both when suspects are allowed and after suspects are removed so you have a clear idea of what impact they have on the metagame. It is not enough to simply play without the suspects, and base their tiering on what you believe their potential in the metagame is. First-hand experience with the suspects is in my opinion the most important characteristic to define what tier they belong to.

If you have played both when they were allowed and after they were removed, you should be competent enough to make arguments on their tier placement based on your experience. Quite frankly, if you didn't use them when they were allowed, you shouldn't have any right to vote on them.

 

[The SPrinkLer]

I never knew I was eligible until Flashstorm1 told me. I laddered in the suspect test for about 2 weeks then stopped. I didn't think I would be in it so I never looked into the suspect stuff.