Discussion TLG Feedback Thread

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Life Orb is a yes, Rocky Helmet is a bit iffier. I don't remember whether a conensus had been attained or a ruling edicted.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Tiebreaker rules have been added to the TLG OP, under Format. Feel free to ping if these rules go against balance, and to that end I'll be tagging JJayyFeather
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
I like the idea of a fixed rotation schedule, because that way people can know when the next rotation is coming up well in advance and decide if they want to go for the current pool or wait for the next one. There are 4 pools for TLGs right now, so I think a 3 month rotation period would work well, because that gives people time to complete one match and start another at the cost of not being ready to jump into the next rotation immediately, or just complete one match and then wait for the next rotation. Additionally, this ensures that all of the currently available TLGs will come up within a year, which seems like good variety.
It's slightly more flexible! You can decide "this time the tlg will stay for 1 month" if you want to, for instance. But yes it is very similar to "rotation every two months" and I prefer the set time option to the option where we squeeze them as small as they need to be to ensure every legend comes up yearly.
I think I'll tentatively address this by enabling a 3-month time limit for trios and 2-month time limit for duos.
Thoughts?
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
As of now the item meta in TLG is basically Eject Button and Sticky Barb to counter Eject Button.
And that's no fun at all, so I want to look at that more closely.
How could TLG get a more diverse and flourishing item meta? Bans sound too drastic of a solution.
 
At this point I’d try just banning Eject Button (possibly Red Card and that other phazing item too) and see how things develop.
 

Mowtom

I'm so meta, even this acronym!
is a Community Contributor
How about "It takes two hits to proc an Eject Button"? Lets you avoid it by using Protect~Attack~Protect and lets slower mons Knock it Off or otherwise remove it.

EDIT: Wait idk what drugs I was on writing slower mons, it only activates when you attack it. I feel like there was an important speed related thing there but I can't tell what anymore.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I'm not convinced there is a good solution here. Eject Button and Red Card (with Eject Button being the much worse offender) are so common in TLG because matchup control is way more important than in normal matches as a result of the first KO wins rule. If you significantly nerf or ban Eject Button in TLG, then that forces people to bring mons with pivoting moves (although this is already kind of forced anyway imo by the availability of Sticky Barb as a counter), which kills mon diversity, which I'd argue is much more important than item diversity. If a mon has pivoting anyway it generally doesn't need EButton and I generally won't equip it (out of 4 or 5 Swampert sendouts I think I've equipped EButton once). Even with the prevalence of matchup control items, I'm of the opinion that bringing a mon without matchup control in its movepool to TLG is straight up trolling (hence why I've been pretty vocal in discord that I won't bring Heracross to TLG even after I get Mega Heracross) and nerfing Eject Button will make that worse. I think once people (myself included, at least to some extent) stop relying on EButton to try to cover the fact that they're teambuilding for normal matches and not TLG when they're sending in to TLG the item centralization will get a lot better. EButton will still see use of course, but it won't be nearly as prevalent.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
If TLG wasn't our only form of competitive PvP battling; this wouldn't be an problem. As it stands, we have this issue because there's nothing else for people to fight each other for, and every other hard battle is either a rare tournament match or a PvE facility.

What this "problem" actually indicates is a need for other PvP circuits. That mainly requires coming up with a reward that nothing else gives, for each PvP circuit. You could, in the meantime, have tlg seasons that aren't first KO wins. But that seems to go against the spirit of the facility, so my recommended course of action is to do nothing for the time being.
 
On an unrelated note, what do you all think about adding an alternate victory prize to TLG, something like a large amount of RC (such as 25)? I ask because it can be hard to find four people willing to challenge a legend, especially if it's unpopular (Calyrex) or already has a high distribution (Floette-E). Having an alternate reward might help fill pools a little easier.
 
Let's just take elements of LouisCyphre's and Maxim's points and create a second TLG-style circuit with a different format and a different prize pool of Legendaries, and then give a winner in either facility the chance to take a large sum of TC in lieu of the Pokemon. There are currently several suitably powerful Legendaries (such as certain Ultra Beasts, the Regi trio, the Galarian Birds, Chromera, etc.) that would be otherwise denied to our playerbase by the cyclical manner in which the TLG is retracing its old arenas, and TC has become sufficiently scarce to serve as a valuable alternative to an exclusive Pokemon. Therefore, we can provide players tired of the Legend Gauntlet metagame with an equally rewarding experience that follows in the Gauntlet's success in encouraging competitive battling.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but full-scale premade solutions aren't quite what we're looking for, but instead a discussion on the pressures that are shaping the format.

Dropping an entirely new battle facility on us (with rewards and even a mission statement assigned already), is much like telling your physician what you have and what they'll be prescribing you. What room for response is there?
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Then I will simply wait for now and see how it develops.

Next question: is it better for the successive TLGs to keep their order, or to be shuffled randomly (still having to go through them all before a TLG can reappear)?
 
I think it's better for TLGs to keep their order so that we reliably know when the TLG we want is coming, plus it prevents a TLG from being rolled at the start of one cycle and the end of the next for a huge gap between when we see that TLG, and it also prevents a TLG from being rolled at the end of one cycle and the start of the next so that it sticks around for way longer than normal.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
On the above issue: letting it lie for now. It's still in the back of my head, though.

New issue!
I've seen discussion pop up on Discord about letting the loser of the previous match decide whether they want first or second sendout, and would like to formalize said discussion.
 

F Amadon

formerly Florina Liastacia
is a Pre-Contributor
please do so, being sent into a losing situation by losing the first round is not pleasant
I know it won't get implemented for my current TLG but send help
 
I'm the one who brought this up on discord (at least this time, I know others have brought it up previously) so I might as well chime in.

I think this is a really good change tbh. Second sendout in TLG has a pretty big advantage right now, since it gives both pokemon counterpick and the ability to answer your opponent's item (which honestly I would argue is even more of an advantage than pokemon counterpick right now unless your opponent messes up their teambuilding or first sendin). Right now if you roll first sendout game 1 and lose, you get first sendout in game 2 as well, meaning that if you get first sendout in game 1 you have to win a game from the worse starting position in order to force a game 3. That being said, I think most people would choose second sendout every time with the TLG meta as it is now, so the more I think about it the less sure I am how necessary this change is, because let's look at what happens before and after the change:

The player who wins game 1 currently gets second sendout in game 2, and if they lose that then they get first sendout in game 3. Then either they need to win game 2 with second sendout or game 3 with first sendout again. However, after this change, they would get first sendout in game 2 and second sendout in game 3 if it happens. Thus, in both cases the player who wins game 1 gets 2 opportunities to win, one with each sendout position. This change effectively just means swapping games 2 and 3 in this case, so while it might change a 2-0 into a 2-1 or vice versa, it shouldn't actually materially change the result.

However, although this change won't materially change the result of the TLG in theory, this doesn't account for player morale or how it feels to be in this position. It feels really bad to be put in a disadvantageous spot game 1 and then, upon losing, be put in a disadvantageous spot again. Consistently playing from a deficit is not fun and, even though there's not actually any material change, it feels a lot better for each player to be guaranteed to start in the advantageous position at least once. Thus, the change might be worth it from a player feel perspective.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
As a bit of a design point, as well as match flow point, taking second order R1 is contrasted with not being the one that selects the arena. That'd also have to be mirrored in this change. Meaning that, if you opt for 2nd order R1, you do also give over the arena selection cycle to the opponent.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Expect implementation of the above in some way once I wrap my head around the correct wording/flow.

Meanwhile, I would like to know what people think are the lowest and highest impact arenas for Keldeo, Virizion and Cobalion in particular (because they're coming up) but the question applies to all TLGs so feel free to discuss them.
 
Last edited:

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
The OP of the TLG thread has been updated to:
New rule for Games 2+ said:
Games 2+:
- The loser of the previous match decides whether they want to be T1 or T2 (if T1, the next step is done in the same post)
- T1 strikes one arena
- T2 picks one of the remaining arenas
- The round is played on the selected arena
- T2 is first sendout
This should alleviate some of the concerns raised in this thread. If something feels dysfunctional, please ping me asap.
This change is effective for all TLGs starting from now, not the ones currently ongoing.
 

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

Top