Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [Volcarona Banned]

  • saying someone shouldn't have the right to vote in any context is kinda yikes
I say this as someone who's played smogon for 10 years, tried and failed to make reqs countless times.
Not everyone should have the right to vote. This isn't the government, this isn't a human rights issue, it's just attempting to balance a game. Usually >150 people make reqs everytime which shows its not impossible. These people prove they're the most informed and skilled, and therefore the most qualified to make an informed choice. Even I admit I can get a bit biased against pokemon that play well into my style. The requirements mean you HAVE to push beyond low ladder, if they were any easier there'd be a lot of people getting lucky on low ladder with enough attempts, and getting to vote even without any idea of what's happening
 
The requirements mean you HAVE to push beyond low ladder, if they were any easier there'd be a lot of people getting lucky on low ladder with enough attempts, and getting to vote even without any idea of what's happening
bull fucking shit. the proposed alternate paths to reqs don't allow for "getting lucky on low ladder". no one "gets lucky" all the way up to the 1800s. this is just giving a new opportunity to those of us who are tired of single losses ruining our runs, and for some reason this idea terrifies people. why are you guys so fucking scared of elo meaning something?

also, i really have to wonder how much better this proposal would have been received if any other user had started this conversation and i was against it. how much of this is just hatred of me personally as opposed to the ideas i support? because i guarantee the answer isn't "none"
 
Last edited:
I hope April fools is really funny this year like something like Lugia and Chi-Yu being OU for the day


Anyway, I wonder what is gonna drop to UU and rise to OU. I think we finally see Pex and Iron Crown drop to UU tomorrow and the return of treads in OU
 
bull fucking shit. the proposed alternate paths to reqs don't allow for "getting lucky on low ladder". no one "gets lucky" all the way up to the 1800s. this is just giving a new opportunity to those of us who are tired of single losses ruining our runs, and for some reason this idea terrifies people. why are you guys so fucking scared of elo meaning something?
If 1800 elo was required to vote, then I would have qualified by now. But having said that, if you get to 1800, have 2 weeks off while dlc drops, you only need maybe 2 battles to offset the elo decay, and you'd have no clue what was going on. You may not even encounter a new pokemon. So that hardly makes you qualified. Unless you mean working up to 1800 on a new account during the suspect? 1800 is about top 200 on the sv ladder so there would not be THAT many extra voters, it's really not much easier doing that in 10 days than getting current reqs
 
bull fucking shit. the proposed alternate paths to reqs don't allow for "getting lucky on low ladder". no one "gets lucky" all the way up to the 1800s. this is just giving a new opportunity to those of us who are tired of single losses ruining our runs, and for some reason this idea terrifies people. why are you guys so fucking scared of elo meaning something?
Having a swarm of people in the 1700s fighting for reqs sounds fun.

by far the biggest source of my failed reqs runs is other people's reqs runs
maybe.

Maybe some other people might dislike the fact they have fight good people though.
 
I hope April fools is really funny this year like something like Lugia and Chi-Yu being OU for the day


Anyway, I wonder what is gonna drop to UU and rise to OU. I think we finally see Pex and Iron Crown drop to UU tomorrow and the return of treads in OU
I've only seen one pex in my reqs run and it was on stall, I can see Dnite and serp dropping as well.
 
1800 is about top 200 on the sv ladder so there would not be THAT many extra voters, it's really not much easier doing that in 10 days than getting current reqs
yeah, but it eliminates the bullshit factor of "oh lmao i got sniped 9 games in, it's pointless to continue, better restart", which is the aspect of reqs that i have a problem with. instead, you can choose to continue on that account and grind for 1800, or restart if you'd rather do it the gxe way. what's the risk in having more options?
 
Unless you mean working up to 1800 on a new account during the suspect? 1800 is about top 200 on the sv ladder so there would not be THAT many extra voters, it's really not much easier doing that in 10 days than getting current reqs
That's exactly the point, yeah. Not only is it not much easier, debatably it's not even easier at all! Like has been mentioned both in this thread and on twitter, most good players hit reqs well before 1800. Adding the ability to grind out reqs won't meaningfully change how many people are voting, but it might allow suspects to cast a wider net while also discouraging something that even many of the game's best acknowledge is a problem.

No, not two people meeting low-ladder (though it will help with that) -- players who can easily qualify throwing in the towel after 2 or 3 resets.
 
0 SpA Roaring Moon Hydro Pump vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Glimmora: 118-140 (38.4 - 45.6%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
0- SpA Roaring Moon Hydro Pump vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Glimmora: 106-126 (34.5 - 41%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
it was literally 0 spA, potentially even negative nature hahaha
very funny that you can't EV roaring moon to get the spA boost even if you make it 0 attack IVs modest
 
Since the reqs topic is up: My one major criticism is that a reqs run is mostly about dunking on mid ladder players opposed to playing the best people consistently.

If I’m gonna vote to ban X, I’d ban it because it’s overpowered at the highest level of play and not because the mid ladder players I faced during my reqs run didn’t bother to prepare for it or know how to adequately play against it. Thus, a reqs system depending on elo > gxe could potentially fix this.

That being said, I think most voters are skilled players and base their vote on their entire playing experience and not just their reqs run.

I like the reqs requirements as they are now because you need to be adequately skilled to achieve it, it’s open and easy for anyone to attempt a reqs run, and it requires some time and dedication but not an overbearing amount. However, considering a system based on elo has some merit
 
you know what? since expanding people's options for reqs seems to be an unpopular opinion, maybe we should go in the opposite direction: people should only be allowed a single reqs account each. if you drop a game before 10 wins and gxe growth becomes impossible, tough shit, no vote for you, git gud. where's the skill in being able to try over and over again after failing with no consequences? this would also solve the "running into other suspect alts in low ladder" problem because nobody would even bother to try
 

Finchinator

-OUTL
is a Tournament Directoris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending OU Circuit Championis a Two-Time Former Old Generation Tournament Circuit Champion
OU Leader
I personally do not feel we need to change voting reqs currently. I think a lot of the arguments for change were made in good faith, but would be steps backwards or misapplications altogether.

I am open to discussion because keeping an openmind should be an obligation of anyone in a position of power regardless of their own stances. However, voting reqs are designed to be challenging to an extent due to the importance of the vote and the method of attaining them is intended to be as accessible as possible. This is not reflected in some of the proposals I see here.

Suspect tours have been disasterous in most cases and I urge us not to go down this path again. You need a host, you can only cater to certain timezones, and now there is a way for some people to get reqs after 3-4 games total rather than 30+, which is not really fair regardless of the stakes. This does not even mention that with our shorter suspect model, you need to organize it all within 24-48 hours to give people enough notice to have it happen during a peak time such as a weekend; if a suspect starts on a Tuesday or Wednesday and only includes one weekend, then you would need to have the tournaments on Saturday or Sunday, giving little time and lots of room for error.

In general, we divorced voting requirements from tournaments (there also were tournament reqs) in CG OU years ago and going back would be a step backwards to me. The method of obtaining requirements to vote being uniform is a huge plus in my eyes.

One thing I will resonate with: You can easily argue the amount of games required or amount of GXE needed can vary incrimentally from the status quo; I have had a ton of people approach me asking it to be higher after earlier tests and lower after recent tests, for example. Truth be told: I view the current as very attainable and it is intended to exclude some people who cannot reach it. I am sorry this is the case and I have personally been working with numerous people who are close and asking for tips on teams, approach, etc., but not everyone is going to get reqs everytime as otherwise it would be too easy.

I think an ELO cutoff is an ok idea, but it would be a misapplication of the suspect process and I think it sends the wrong message just for the sake of including a few more people (if even). Suspects are intended to gauge competency as opposed to duration of time spent. There is supposed to be disproportionate punishment for losing earlier on or less derailment for losing to someone later on in if they rank highly, which is true in terms of GXE scaling and not in terms of ELO scaling beyond the first handful of games when an account opens. This means that a large part of the competency test is proving that you can regularly beat worse/lower ranked players by design, but not that you can go neutral against slightly better players for a longer sample only to eventually find one streak to hit a certain ELO threshold. Playing a larger quantity of games does not always mean you are more competent and this only has potential to dilute the quality of the voter pool.
 
you know what? since expanding people's options for reqs seems to be an unpopular opinion, maybe we should go in the opposite direction: people should only be allowed a single reqs account each. if you drop a game before 10 wins and gxe growth becomes impossible, tough shit, no vote for you, git gud. where's the skill in being able to try over and over again after failing with no consequences? this would also solve the "running into other suspect alts in low ladder" problem because nobody would even bother to try
In today's edition of Smogon Nightly:
Suspect test ends on schedule with a surprising turnout of 0 voters. Council asked for comment.
Toxapex remains OU for the 5th consecutive month of staying exactly on the usage percentage required to not drop.
Kingambit still legal, despite allegations of fraud and misconduct.
 
This means that a large part of the competency test is proving that you can regularly beat worse/lower ranked players by design, but not that you can go neutral against slightly better players for a longer sample only to eventually find one streak to hit a certain ELO threshold. Playing a larger quantity of games does not always mean you are more competent and this only has potential to dilute the quality of the voter pool.
The most important part!
 
In today's edition of Smogon Nightly:
Suspect test ends on schedule with a surprising turnout of 0 voters. Council asked for comment.
Toxapex remains OU for the 5th consecutive month of staying exactly on the usage percentage required to not drop.
Kingambit still legal, despite allegations of fraud and misconduct.
In today's edition of Smogon Nightly... Continued.
Landorus-T stays up.
Tornadus-T overtakes Zapdos.
Kingambit is elected as President of the United States, despite having lost the last election and being accused of trying to start a coup.
MagneCorp Stonks increasing, hitting a all-time stock-price high.
 
Last edited:
I know this will never be implemented and Idk if it's been suggested but what about opening suspect tests to everybody regardless of ELO with a registration thread with a very limited time window (to avoid sabotage) and unqualified voters have 1/10th or 1/20th of a vote? Low/mid-ELO players are considered in tier shifts and surveys, some people don't have the time, skill or dedication for getting reqs and I feel hearing more voices is never a bad thing. I for one know that don't have the consistency or drive to get reqs but I'm active in meta discussion and have above-average understanding of viability and problematic presences, and I know many others here fall under the same category. I will not cry over this bc the system seems to work fine as is, but now that the can of worms is open...
 
I know this will never be implemented and Idk if it's been suggested but what about opening suspect tests to everybody regardless of ELO with a registration thread with a very limited time window (to avoid sabotage) and unqualified voters have 1/10th or 1/20th of a vote? Low/mid-ELO players are considered in tier shifts and surveys, some people don't have the time, skill or dedication for getting reqs and I feel hearing more voices is never a bad thing. I for one know that don't have the consistency or drive to get reqs but I'm active in meta discussion and have above-average understanding of viability and problematic presences, and I know many others here fall under the same category. I will not cry over this bc the system seems to work fine as is, but now that the can of worms is open...
In a way they sort of use this system already for surveys, which determines potential suspects and bans
 
Gonna be honest and say that Best of 3 is a bad idea for a ladder. It’s a ladder. Games are supposed to be quick and you move onto the next one.
Not only that, but if you want it so your opponent doesn’t surprise you with some out of left field option, why not support open team sheets, something Showdown already has and doesn’t require players to play multiple games just to get Elo and GXE once.
 
I hope April fools is really funny this year like something like Lugia and Chi-Yu being OU for the day


Anyway, I wonder what is gonna drop to UU and rise to OU. I think we finally see Pex and Iron Crown drop to UU tomorrow and the return of treads in OU
This generation is not ready for April Fools.
And maybe SV already is one. :psycry:
 
One thing I will resonate with: You can easily argue the amount of games required or amount of GXE needed can vary incrimentally from the status quo; I have had a ton of people approach me asking it to be higher after earlier tests and lower after recent tests
This part is funny because yeah you're absolutely right - during the Tera suspect, people thought it was too easy to get reqs, you had people brigading that certain YouTubers were forcing there fanbase to vote one way and that the reqs should be higher to avoid that and now almost a year later, we're full circle saying that it potentially needs to be lowered?

I have no real horse in this race, I always try to get reqs and fail, I don't rly care, I just need people to provide actual good reasons for lowering the reqs aside from "it's too hard/time-consuming" because honestly as various people have said already, if you're finding it THAT difficult then it probably just isn't for you, better luck next time.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 12, Guests: 44)

Top