Ok, after many long discussions in #insidescoop, we defined how we want to go about the test. These are the steps:
1) Implement a Garchomp free ladder on the Smogon Shoddy Battle server for one month.
2) Invite eligible users to cast a vote... finally putting the issue to bed.
The trouble came in defining eligible. After extensive debate, it was determined that using a numeric value based on ladder data (rating & deviation) as a threshold to earn a voice in the poll was the most objective way of ensuring a few things:
We also recognized that there are individuals (and I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning him), like Jumpman16, who don't have the time or inclination to claw their way up a ladder, but are clearly well versed enough on the issue to have a vote in the poll. An application to vote, and be exempted from the ladder threshold requirement, will be made available to accommodate these people. The applications will be judged extremely harshly and I don't expect many will be granted votes... but people agreed that the mechanism should be in place.
The very last thing to iron out is the actual numeric value(s) that will serve as the break point in voting. This is where I'm looking for the input of people like X-Act, Doug, and anyone else really REALLY understands the mechanics of the rating system to indicate the numbers that will guarantee the truth two bullet points listed above.
I'd like that to be the primary discussion in this thread rather than other possible amendments to the process.
#insidescoop discussion below:
1) Implement a Garchomp free ladder on the Smogon Shoddy Battle server for one month.
2) Invite eligible users to cast a vote... finally putting the issue to bed.
The trouble came in defining eligible. After extensive debate, it was determined that using a numeric value based on ladder data (rating & deviation) as a threshold to earn a voice in the poll was the most objective way of ensuring a few things:
- That those invited to vote actually participated in the test.
- That those invited to vote are well versed enough in the game to be able to cast an informed vote.
We also recognized that there are individuals (and I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning him), like Jumpman16, who don't have the time or inclination to claw their way up a ladder, but are clearly well versed enough on the issue to have a vote in the poll. An application to vote, and be exempted from the ladder threshold requirement, will be made available to accommodate these people. The applications will be judged extremely harshly and I don't expect many will be granted votes... but people agreed that the mechanism should be in place.
The very last thing to iron out is the actual numeric value(s) that will serve as the break point in voting. This is where I'm looking for the input of people like X-Act, Doug, and anyone else really REALLY understands the mechanics of the rating system to indicate the numbers that will guarantee the truth two bullet points listed above.
I'd like that to be the primary discussion in this thread rather than other possible amendments to the process.
#insidescoop discussion below:
Code:
[20:20:46] <@Aeolus> Jump and I were talking... and we think going ahead with a vote on Garchomp based on a numeric ladder threshold is an acceptable course of action
[20:20:49] <@Jumpman16> pokemon
[20:21:23] <@Aeolus> yes, pokemon.
[20:21:26] <+Hipmonlee> so would it be solely your numeric ladder rating
[20:21:28] <@Jumpman16> DJD said "yes" yesterday
[20:21:31] <@Jumpman16> idk what the next steps are
[20:21:32] <@Aeolus> no
[20:21:34] <+husk> so when'll the new ladder be up?
[20:21:40] <@Jumpman16> he asked me if we needed a leaderboard and i said "sure"
[20:21:42] <+JabbaTheGriffin> next steps are fun times of awesome no garchomp play!
[20:21:47] <@Aeolus> there would also be an application available to people who don't want to ladder their way in
[20:21:49] <@Jumpman16> yeah
[20:21:51] <@Jumpman16> im tired of it
[20:21:53] <+aldaron> man I'm excited
[20:21:55] <@Jumpman16> it's so dumb and gay
[20:21:57] <@Jumpman16> me too
[20:22:17] <+Brawley> I cant wait for no garchomp play
[20:22:19] <+husk> conviniently my current ou team doesn't have garchomp =)
[20:22:20] <+JabbaTheGriffin> playing without garchomp might possibly be better than sex!
[20:22:21] <@Aeolus> now, we need to discuss the logistics of the threshold
[20:22:25] <+Hipmonlee> some other ideas
[20:22:31] <+Hipmonlee> I think I suggested this before
[20:22:33] <+JabbaTheGriffin> then again my ex was pretty bad so it's not really a fair comparison
[20:22:39] <+Brawley> lol
[20:22:45] <+husk> someone is sore
[20:22:50] <+Hipmonlee> but you could have a vote of top ladder rated people, a vote of bsdge holders and a vote of everyone els
[20:22:51] <+Hipmonlee> e
[20:22:55] <+Hipmonlee> and weight them evenly
[20:23:08] <+aldaron> please not CRE it is too undependable a number, some threshold of mean rating based off of deviation would tell us more about the experience on that ladder
[20:23:14] <+Brawley> I really think we should look at unbanning ubers before garchomp,but thats just me
[20:23:14] <@Aeolus> I don't get the logic of weighting those votes evenly
[20:23:17] <+Hipmonlee> that way you get everyones opinion with a bias toward higher level players
[20:23:25] <+Brawley> and stealth rock before chomp
[20:23:33] <+Brawley> but just my opinion
[20:23:40] <+Hipmonlee> everyone feels like their vote gets heard
[20:23:44] <+JabbaTheGriffin> well your opinion was noted
[20:23:48] <+JabbaTheGriffin> when everyone voted on it
[20:23:50] <+husk> do the "higher level players" get to vote with "everyone else" also?
[20:23:51] <@Aeolus> everyone has the opportunity to earn a voice
[20:23:54] <+Hipmonlee> but we still end up with the top level being more important
[20:23:56] <+husk> and badge holders as well...
[20:23:58] <+JabbaTheGriffin> you're the overwhelming minority :/
[20:23:59] <+husk> if they happent o have them
[20:24:06] <+Brawley> :<
[20:24:07] <+husk> to*
[20:24:27] <+Brawley> well we could always unban garchomp so loss
[20:24:31] <+Hipmonlee> well I dunno if we should ignore the voice of the randoms entirely, it'd be nice if they all universally agreed garchomp was fine, that that was taken into consideration
[20:24:45] <@Aeolus> but they have just as much chance as everyone else to earn a vote
[20:24:49] <@Aeolus> they aren't ignored at all
[20:24:49] <+Brawley> I just wanna get to Lati@s
[20:25:33] <@Aeolus> Brawley, don't distract from the conversation
[20:25:39] <+Hipmonlee> im worried that if I were a random according to the deoxys vote, I would not have earned a say
[20:25:41] <+Brawley> sorry
[20:25:44] <+aldaron> lol brawley with the digression and I do not believe we want the random individual's input in establishing a metagame meant for experienced players
[20:26:05] <+Brawley> >_>
[20:26:08] <+aldaron> the number threshold gives us some sort of impression based on battle success so at least that tells us something
[20:26:10] <+IggyBot> lol
[20:26:13] <+Hipmonlee> well it is a pretty minor imput
[20:26:25] <@Aeolus> it also tells us who actually participated in the test
[20:26:27] <@Articuno64> we don't even need to read the random posts
[20:26:30] <@Articuno64> just make a thread for them to post in
[20:26:31] <@Aeolus> which is the most important part
[20:26:38] <+Hipmonlee> what would the number threshold be?
[20:26:39] <@Aeolus> jason, I like that
[20:26:46] <@Aeolus> that's what I want to talk about
[20:26:50] <@Aeolus> instead of alternate voting methods
[20:26:59] <+husk> top 10% of battlers
[20:27:11] <@Jumpman16> i thought it was "over 1400"
[20:27:13] <@Aeolus> no
[20:27:18] <@Aeolus> there was no threshold decided
[20:27:24] <@Jumpman16> ok
[20:27:30] <@Jumpman16> that's more fair
[20:27:30] <+aldaron> first we need to decide what number to use
[20:27:32] <+husk> aldaron is right in his thinking
[20:27:36] <@Aeolus> I agree
[20:27:46] <@Aeolus> other problem
[20:27:50] <@Aeolus> this will be a 1 month test
[20:28:00] <@Aeolus> do do you have to be in the top 10% at the end of the month?
[20:28:10] <+Hipmonlee> top 10% of which ladder
[20:28:11] <@Aeolus> or just achieve it at some point after week 1?
[20:28:15] <@Aeolus> the test ladder
[20:28:17] <@Jumpman16> non-chomp
[20:28:17] <@Aeolus> w/o garchomp
[20:28:18] <+husk> I think the end of month is more fair
[20:28:28] <+JabbaTheGriffin> then it becomes some sort of competition for votes
[20:28:29] <+husk> so each person there shows that they've worked for the whole month
[20:28:31] <+Hipmonlee> I think people in top 10% of non test ladder should have their say as well
[20:28:40] <@Jumpman16> however, we do need to take into account that people may not have played at all on the other ladder
[20:28:41] <+husk> or that they're extremely good I guess...
[20:28:42] <@Articuno64> the problem is that the ladder points are scaled back over time aren't they?
[20:28:43] <+Hipmonlee> or whatever
[20:28:45] <+JabbaTheGriffin> shouldn't someone who was competent enough to reach the top 10% have a say
[20:28:48] <@Aeolus> yes jason
[20:29:08] <@Aeolus> I think that just making the threshold at some point after week one should be good enough to get a vote
[20:29:13] <+JabbaTheGriffin> even if they were eventually forced out by more competent people
[20:29:18] <+Hipmonlee> like people in the top 10% of the test ladder are probably going to have a bias in favour of the test conditions
[20:29:19] <+JabbaTheGriffin> i agree
[20:29:19] <+husk> you can touch the top 10% in a day
[20:29:24] <@Aeolus> I dont want there to be a competition for votes
[20:29:25] <@Articuno64> maybe just take a leaderboard snapshot each week
[20:29:27] <+Hipmonlee> yeah 10% is easy
[20:29:28] <@Articuno64> and anyone who is in at any point
[20:29:29] <@Aeolus> I dont want to limit votes
[20:29:30] <+husk> that doesn't mean you know anything about the garchomp-less metagame
[20:29:38] <+husk> you've only played for a day
[20:29:40] <@Jumpman16> yeah
[20:29:48] <@Jumpman16> that's a good point
[20:29:50] <+JabbaTheGriffin> do they even have to know that much? that's still what i'm not getting
[20:29:51] <+aldaron> all this would be solved if we use deviation and rating
[20:30:04] <+husk> yeah
[20:30:09] <@Aeolus> I'm fine with that too
[20:30:18] <@Aeolus> the time issue is the main obstacle
[20:30:25] <+husk> the point in choosing people with high ratings is that they know what they're doing
[20:30:34] <@Aeolus> well
[20:30:38] <+husk> they "have to know that much" I think
[20:30:38] <@Aeolus> not entirely
[20:30:42] <@Aeolus> partially, yes
[20:30:52] <+aldaron> deviation goes down in correlation with number of battles so someone with a low deviation and high rating has to have experience and ability
[20:30:52] <@Aeolus> but also people who have high ratings have demonstrated participation
[20:30:59] <+aldaron> whereas the CRE would only tell us ability
[20:31:39] <@Aeolus> I dont know enough about the rating system I dont think
[20:31:46] <+Hipmonlee> he's right
[20:32:01] <+husk> (this is what I meant when I said aldaron is right in his thinking)
[20:32:02] <+Hipmonlee> cre doesnt really tell ability though
[20:32:25] <@Aeolus> ok, so let's define it based on rating and deviation
[20:33:03] <+Hipmonlee> but the other point, is someone who only battles garchompless, might not really have a good idea about the garchomp free metagame
[20:33:18] <@Aeolus> what do you mean?
[20:33:26] <+Hipmonlee> for instance if mre decided to play on chompless ladder to prove a point
[20:33:35] <+Hipmonlee> he hasnt played dp in about a year
[20:33:56] <@Jumpman16> yeah
[20:34:03] <@Jumpman16> i mentioned tha ta few minutes ago
[20:34:08] <@Jumpman16> you could throw me in there as well
[20:34:08] <+Hipmonlee> or you might get someone who plays on chompless ladder, and decides he hates it
[20:34:10] <+husk> the testing period is only a month...few people can be amazing at the chompless ladder and not know the current game
[20:34:14] <@Aeolus> if he makes the threshold though, that would denote at least a minimum level of experience
[20:34:30] <+husk> that's another thing though
[20:34:33] <@Jumpman16> maybe i should whore for two days to prove a point =(
[20:34:36] <+husk> people who like the chompless ladder will play it more
[20:34:40] <+Hipmonlee> yeah
[20:34:41] <+husk> people who don't like it won't
[20:34:43] <+Hipmonlee> that was my point
[20:34:49] <+husk> o
[20:34:52] <@Aeolus> and garchomp enthusiasts will play it earn the right to vote in the poll
[20:34:53] <@Jumpman16> "well then they dont get to vote"
[20:34:55] <+husk> sorry I'm a bit slow
[20:34:57] <@Jumpman16> and they will know that
[20:34:58] <+Hipmonlee> you should let people from both ladder play
[20:35:00] <+Hipmonlee> vote
[20:35:22] <@Aeolus> that's an interesting idea
[20:35:35] <+aldaron> from both inclusive right not one or the other?
[20:35:35] <+husk> if you haven't played the garchompless metagame it's hard for you to vote
[20:35:38] <@Aeolus> but voting rights would be more difficult to earn on the regular ladder
[20:35:46] <+husk> I'm certain people won't try to maintain a good ranking on both ladders
[20:35:52] <@Aeolus> yes, but I trust the top 10 people on the regular ladder
[20:35:58] <@Aeolus> that they know what they are talking about
[20:36:00] <+husk> so the quality of the main ladder drops as the top players play the garchompless one
[20:36:15] <@Aeolus> aldaron
[20:36:32] <@Aeolus> what do you think is a good rating/deviation level to define the voting threshold
[20:36:34] <+Hipmonlee> to be honest, I dont think testing is really necessary, so maybe I am just arguing for the sake of it
[20:37:00] <@Aeolus> or anyone else
[20:37:03] <@Aeolus> husk whoever
[20:37:16] <@Aeolus> define the rating/deviation threshold for the chompless ladder
[20:37:20] <+Hipmonlee> I'd say ask x-act
[20:37:28] <+husk> I'm not exactly sure what the mathematical relationship is
[20:37:29] <+Hipmonlee> I mean I understand the concept
[20:37:31] <+aldaron> I have absolutely no idea regarding the deviation since I'm not sure how fast it drops but rating can just be an arbitrary percentage like top 30% of all people with lower than X deviation or something
[20:37:32] <+Hipmonlee> but not the specifics
[20:37:38] <@Aeolus> ok
[20:37:42] <@Aeolus> then i'm going to ask x-act
[20:37:46] <@Aeolus> and we're going to use that
[20:37:55] <+husk> you'll have to ask doug I think
[20:38:05] <+husk> he'll know the actual numbers shoddy has
[20:38:14] <@Aeolus> we'll also have to have a tracking method
[20:38:15] <+Hipmonlee> xact knows them pretty well
[20:38:24] <@Aeolus> like a snapshot taken at the end of every day
[20:38:29] <+husk> oh I didn't know he was interested in that
[20:38:32] <+husk> nvm then!
[20:38:34] <@Aeolus> of all the people who meet the threshold
[20:38:42] <@Aeolus> and anyone who meets it 10+ times get a vote
[20:39:06] <+aldaron> o well if we use deviation and rating it should just be the rating at the end of the period of testing
[20:39:27] <@Aeolus> depends on how fast the rating deteriorates imo
[20:39:34] <+husk> the longer you give it the closer the rating reaches what you actually are
[20:40:03] <@Aeolus> ok, that's another thing i'm going to ask x-act about then
[20:40:28] <+husk> given that you're playing regularly
[20:40:28] <@Aeolus> so, 30 days after the ladder is in place
[20:40:34] <@Aeolus> invitations to vote will be distributed
[20:40:37] <@Aeolus> and we'll have an answer
[20:40:44] * darkie|away is now known as darkie
[20:40:49] <+aldaron> ok, so the testing period for each suspect will be one month?
[20:41:03] <+husk> 30 days seems long enough
[20:41:12] <+husk> it'll be hard to hold interest for too much longer than that
[20:41:42] <@Aeolus> Is 30 days too long?
[20:41:48] <@Aeolus> maybe...
[20:41:54] <+JabbaTheGriffin> i think a bit
[20:42:02] <@Aeolus> 2 weeks?
[20:42:04] <+JabbaTheGriffin> 20 days seems better
[20:42:04] <@Aeolus> too short?
[20:42:19] <+JabbaTheGriffin> 21 maybe for the full 3 week rotation
[20:42:21] <+aldaron> o lol I thought it was too short
[20:42:24] <+JabbaTheGriffin> 2 weeks seems too short
[20:42:35] <@Aeolus> i agree
[20:42:39] <@Aeolus> let's just stick to a month
[20:42:52] <+husk> there's stuff like this doublescreen deoxys idea that we're only seeing now, 3 months after it's unbanned
[20:42:52] <+JabbaTheGriffin> (1 day is too long)
[20:43:08] <@Aeolus> yes, but that is different husk
[20:43:11] <+JabbaTheGriffin> but in relation to banning garchomp
[20:43:14] <@Aeolus> we unbanned deoxys
[20:43:21] <@Aeolus> we are banning garchomp
[20:43:29] <+husk> I mean as far as what will be viable
[20:43:41] <@Aeolus> yes I understand
[20:43:55] <+JabbaTheGriffin> i don't think that matters in relation to garchomp's tier status though
[20:44:00] <@Aeolus> honestly, much longer than a month and people will lose interest
[20:44:04] <+JabbaTheGriffin> what DOES matter in relation to his tier status
[20:44:07] <+JabbaTheGriffin> during this test
[20:44:11] <@Aeolus> a week is an eternity on the internet
[20:44:16] <@Aeolus> a month is like..... forever
[20:44:17] <+husk> if other stuff becomes ridiculously good when garchomp is gone...
[20:44:18] <+JabbaTheGriffin> are people supposed to be looking for something?
[20:44:24] <+JabbaTheGriffin> then we ban them too
[20:44:29] <+husk> yeah I think 3 weeks to a month should be good
[20:44:30] <+JabbaTheGriffin> if they're uber
[20:44:36] <+aldaron> other stuff like Lucario >=)
[20:44:36] <@Aeolus> ok, a month it is
[20:44:39] <+JabbaTheGriffin> you don't leave ubers in OU to keep other ubers in check
[20:44:45] <@Aeolus> x-act will help define the threshold
[20:44:48] <@Aeolus> and we'll vote
[20:45:01] <+husk> it's like going from 1 pokemon that's tough to handle to 5
[20:45:08] <+husk> are you going to get rid of those 5 then?
[20:45:12] <+JabbaTheGriffin> yes
[20:45:16] <+husk> oh ok
[20:45:26] <+husk> so you weren't better off with that 1 unstoppable poke
[20:45:30] <@Aeolus> I'm going to post about this on the forums
[20:45:32] <+JabbaTheGriffin> nope
[20:45:39] <+JabbaTheGriffin> i've always been a proponent of this view
[20:45:41] <@Aeolus> If there are any serious objections... raise them now
[20:45:49] <+JabbaTheGriffin> you don't keep broken pokemon to check broken pokemon
[20:46:03] <+husk> well
[20:46:10] <+husk> hopefully we don't lose a lot of the ou tier then
[20:46:10] <+JabbaTheGriffin> it doesn't matter how many broken pokemon a single one keeps in check
[20:46:14] <@Aeolus> If there are any serious objections the method laid out in the chat, say so now
[20:46:23] <+husk> nope
[20:46:24] <+JabbaTheGriffin> the most we would even possibly come close to losing is i'd say
[20:46:25] <+JabbaTheGriffin> salamence
[20:46:32] <+husk> lucario too
[20:46:38] <+husk> tyranitar as well
[20:46:39] <+aldaron> Well husk that's the other purpose of this test, to determine exactly what the Suspect-free metagame is
[20:46:42] <+JabbaTheGriffin> eeeeeh i don't see it getting too much better
[20:46:53] <+husk> sd lucario...
[20:46:58] <+aldaron> yea I'd say Salamence, Dragonite, Lucario and Tyranitar will be the man Pokemon I am looking at
[20:47:03] <+JabbaTheGriffin> loses one pokemon that can outspeed and ohko
[20:47:05] <+JabbaTheGriffin> there are plenty more
[20:47:08] <+husk> you can't sd on your first chance because full health garchomp is nearly always there to stop you
[20:47:10] <@Articuno64> jumpman
[20:47:18] <+darkie> jabba do you want garchomp banned?
[20:47:19] <+Brawley> cress will get better imo
[20:47:21] <+JabbaTheGriffin> yes
[20:47:26] <+aldaron> Jabba SD Lucario gets a huge boost with no Garchomp on everyteam to stop it
[20:47:32] <+Hipmonlee> my only objection is the method of deciding whose applications to vote will be accepted
[20:47:32] <+darkie> ok cool
[20:47:33] <+husk> so you cc on the switch usually and your opponent can take advantage of that, etc.
[20:47:35] <+JabbaTheGriffin> well sacrificing 76% to stop it
[20:47:36] <+Hipmonlee> which I might have missed
[20:47:39] <+Hipmonlee> but I didnt see explained
[20:47:43] <+JabbaTheGriffin> is neutering your best sweeper
[20:47:55] * Joins: super_king (~BUBBRUBB@pool-96-229-32-223.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net)
[20:47:55] * ChanServ sets mode: +v super_king
[20:47:56] <+JabbaTheGriffin> and there are plenty of other pokemon you can let get neutered if you want to go that route
[20:48:04] <+husk> uh
[20:48:11] <+husk> that's after lucario has it's counters gone, you know
[20:48:17] <@Aeolus> does anyone know how I can copy all the text in this chat window?
[20:48:17] <+husk> there aren't too many other pokes who can do that
[20:48:31] <+JabbaTheGriffin> wait i don't even get this hypothetical situation
[20:48:38] <@Articuno64> aeolus: if you keep logs, just open your log file
[20:48:46] <+Hipmonlee> I couldnt figure out how to do it
[20:48:48] <@Aeolus> oh, that's a good idea
[20:49:07] <+darkie> it's probably a huge file though
[20:49:09] <+darkie> :\
[20:49:17] <+JabbaTheGriffin> salamence becomes more viable with garchomp out of the way
[20:49:18] <@Articuno64> lol probably not
[20:49:20] <@Aeolus> well, i'll have 3 years of logs
[20:49:24] <+JabbaTheGriffin> salamence is a better luke check than garchomp is
[20:49:25] <+darkie> yea..
[20:49:27] <@Aeolus> so, lots of small files
[20:49:30] <@Articuno64> it's just text
[20:49:38] <+husk> that's not really the point
[20:49:42] <+husk> but I guess we'll see
[20:49:44] <+darkie> it takes a little while to load
[20:49:59] <+JabbaTheGriffin> i guess i'm not seeing the point >_>
[20:49:59] <+JabbaTheGriffin> oh well
[20:50:15] <+husk> it's theorymon either way
[20:50:22] <+husk> when the ladder is in place we'll see what happens
[20:50:31] <+aldaron> Huh, Salamence isn't a better Luke check
[20:50:31] <+husk> obviously neither of us is 100% sure about what we're discussing anyway
[20:50:52] <+aldaron> HP Ice and Stone Edge both easily take care of Mence
[20:51:23] <+JabbaTheGriffin> unless it's faster
[20:51:23] <+Brawley> scarf tar is fun to take on luke with
[20:51:34] * Quits: +zerowing (~BUBBRUBB@bad.meets.evil) (Ping timeout)
[20:51:51] <+JabbaTheGriffin> which can still take extremespeed well with just max hp
[20:52:09] <+JabbaTheGriffin> but yeah whatever theorymon sucks when we have no clue at all what's going to happen
[20:52:24] <+aldaron> I'm excited for Dragonite to be honest
[20:52:29] <+Brawley> me too
[20:52:33] <+Brawley> ^_^
[20:52:38] <+Brawley> (shut up Iggy)
[20:53:12] <+JabbaTheGriffin> yeah dragonite is my 2nd favorite pokemon maybe i'll finally use it now!
[20:53:14] <+Brawley> dd outrage with adamant does a little less than sd jolly outrage
[20:53:23] <+JabbaTheGriffin> (maybe entei will become viable now too???)
[20:53:25] <+Brawley> Although I like dd roost nite sometimes
[20:53:26] <+JabbaTheGriffin> heh
[20:53:40] <+Brawley> just because I dont have to invest a lot in special defense
[20:53:56] <+Brawley> I also see gyarados usuage going down a little
