1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to Pokemon Perfect, Guest!

    Our motto is Pokémon Practice makes Pokémon Perfect. We are a competitive-battling community that encourages the development of players and their ideas, and fosters positive and respectful attitudes. We love Collaboration (working together), Competition (getting stronger), and Communication (being informed).

    You are free to post everywhere, unless the thread explicitly states otherwise (usually in the case of a vote), and there are no private forums whatsoever. We just require you to not make multiple accounts. Let us greet you by posting a thread in the Introduce Yourself! forum.

  3. Tiers

    View Introduction to Tiers if you don't know what tiers are. Pokémon Perfect tiers are named differently to those on Smogon. A numeral followed by the letter U, e.g. 1U, 2U, 3U, represents a main tier on Pokémon Perfect – the '1' of '1U' representing the tier level. For a tier to be a main tier, it must be balanced (nothing is too powerful and game-breaking) and diverse enough (include a variety of Pokémon and strategies). A numeral followed by the letter P, e.g. 1P, 2P, 3P contain all Pokémon that are deemed overpowered in the respective 1U, 2U, 3U tiers. The 1st tier level allows Pokémon that are banned in the 2nd level, and this process continues down. Read the tier list, and in-depth explanations of the tiers naming system and tiering system. Also check out our analyses for all tiers.

  4. Tournaments

    RBY 1U Seasons and its master tournaments are responsible for starting up the community, and tournaments continue to play a big role in maintaining interest in the forums. Signups Open gives you a list of tournaments you can join, and Ongoing lists tournaments that you might want to follow. Additionally, you can tap to find out approximate Schedules for tournaments.

    For historical threads, check out Signups Closed, Finished tournaments and Results. We also have Nominations, Voting and Event threads for exhibitions – past and present.

Community Pokemon Perfect should change how gsc tournaments are ran.

Discussion in 'GSC OU Seasons' started by Roostur, May 27, 2017.

  1. Roostur

    Roostur Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    83
    So just now I asked Sabrina Ariel (I think that's it) why she didn't sign up for the master tournament and she said after competing in ppl she learned that first to twos can be brutal in gen 2. I agree. I played a game today and it lasted AT LEAST over two hours. Imagine having to play potentially 3 two hour games. That is ridiculous. We do have lives. So I propose that we do best of 1s for gen 2 and make it double elimination. That way our gen 2 players can actually haves lives while also being pokemon players, and also people won't be eliminated just by luck. If some lucky shit happens to them in their first game they will have a chance to redeem themselves in the loser's bracket. I see no reason not do this. I think everyone would enjoy this much better and maybe even more people would sign up.

    Hope I posted this in the right place.
     
    Ariel Rebel likes this.
  2. Ariel Rebel

    Ariel Rebel #1 rsutton23 Fan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2017
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    83
    Roostur, I appreciate your post. You've summed up my 2 cents on this quite nicely.

    I found BO3 to be an onerous commitment. First to 2 is even more onerous than BO3. Not only are there the games themselves, but the preparation leading up to the games can really stretch things out. With as many weeks as there are in these things, it can amount to a large commitment. Some weeks (like this one), I have all the time in the world to commit to competitive pokemon. Other weeks, I have the odd hour or two at most in any given day to play.

    I do understand the purpose of BO3 or first to 2 being that the better player will win more often since a single game can go out to RNG.

    The way I see it is that both ways of handling it have trade-offs. Convenience vs mitigating RNG. I do think that double elimination, which would ultimately add a week to the length of the tournament does an okay job at mitigating RNG. I would be much more likely to join if what Roostur is proposing were the format.
     
  3. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,480
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Okay, that's an interesting perspective. That being said, in later generations, we still consider ft2w reasonable, and in rby we play ft3w... sometimes RBY sets go over the 2 hour mark (I know one series that hit 3) but there is definitely not much burden of preparation for it.

    I oppose double elimination as a format; I believe the world championship format is superior if you want to do something with more sets than single elimination. This is because it takes a similar length of time to double elimination, however players are on equal footing throughout the tournament, rather than having separate winners and losers brackets.

    At the same time Peasounay makes the point to me that the format shouldn't be used too frequently: it can be quite a drag and take a long time (although the same can be said for double elimination).

    We've definitely seen a lot of experimentation in the tournaments format before, so I definitely think we could consider being bold and trying something new.

    Tell me what you think: do you like ft2w single elimination, or ft1w wc-style [maybe with ft2w in the semis onwards], or ft1w double elimination, or some other format?
     
    The Idiot Ninja likes this.
  4. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Huh. In my time playing GSC I never once felt ft2w/bo3 was particularly onerous. Although there's the potential for games to take ages, it's still really rare and playing a max of three games (usually) doesn't provide that many opportunities for this kind of thing to occur. Also citing a match you played today and asking us to assume that it's generally the case is totally unreasonable as it's both cherry picking and a small sample size.

    I also want to point out that in terms of prep it's not necessary to approach MTs the same way you approach PPL. Team tours generally tend to exert a pressure to scout your opponents and build new teams each week. With that level of involvement it's totally understandable to feel burnt out from playing Bo3s every week. However in MTs there's less pressure to make fresh teams and to scout. Sure it's a competitive edge but in my experience the difference is small enough that it's far from a requirement to be successful, so if you're too busy to really engage in it that's not the end of the world. So I'm not buying the whole prep thing, but then I've never really been one to prep for individual tours

    My opinion is that there's no way around the fact that pokemon matches will take an uncertain amount of time, and that the cases where it becomes too much are rare enough that it's not worth compromising the integrity of our tournaments.

    Having said that, if you were to compromise then the tour format I proposed (group stage followed by elimination stage) affords a lot of flexibility imo in that you can keep the high stakes matches ft2w, while implementing some other system in the group stage according to preference- it could be play 2 battles vs each opponent or something. Whatever the case, the group stage allows for much finer control over the number of matches played since there's no need for a series result for the tour to progress.

    But yeah, this is just my opinion, it should really be decided by the players and the host
     
  5. Ariel Rebel

    Ariel Rebel #1 rsutton23 Fan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2017
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    83
    The wc-style format as a BO1 looks appealing. I'd say even better than double elimination.

    Ortheore, ever since I got back into things in December, I've seen no shortage of games go beyond 200 turns. A good portion of these games are at a stalemate or one player has a slight lead at this point (there is no clear winner in sight). Even a single game being this length in a multiple game series is rough. It seems punishing for players who want to play a stall team.
     
    Roostur and Disaster Area like this.
  6. Ch01W0n5h1n

    Ch01W0n5h1n Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    116
    As stated in the Discord Chat, I think that bo3 is ideal for GSC, not too long and not too short. In Comparision with RBY, it is actually short (not taking the lenght of the games into account)

    Reducing it to a bo1 Double Elimination would make it more Luck Depending, as in: The player who got unlucky in one Single Battle is at a Disadvantage for the Rest of the Tour and required to not lose a single Battle, bo3, on the other hand, gives the Players a opportunity to even it out.

    Besides, GSC players know what they got themself into so I thought noone would actually question it as everyone knows how long GSC Battles can drag out (and for many players it is actually the reason to play this Tier).
     
  7. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Catto of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,480
    Likes Received:
    2,310
  8. sulcata

    sulcata Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    240
    GSC is just longer but it's not unbearable usually. If both players feel like not having win conds and they want to have extra free time that's their problem imo. Bringing Raikou/Suicune/Monolax/Starmie/Skarm/Dnite or anything equivalently passive literally won't win games. If 200-300 turn games are happening regularly then I'd say the team is probably pretty bad.

    If you're not running that, then even with stall games it should last like 80-100 turns maximum. I wouldn't count PP stall since that is much more mechanical and fast compared to the rest of the match. i.e. if the game is going to pp stall after turn 80, the next 40-60 turns will likely be less than 5 seconds of thinking so it'll feel like a lot less. Anything not stall will take 40-60 turns which in my opinion is absolutely fine.

    Strongly against any BO1 nonsense. It's extraordinarily hard to comeback from an unexpected crit kill or freeze. GSC tends to have a snowballing effect on mons which is why you see a lot of matches end in 6-0 even if they were close. BO3 is fine.
     
  9. Lojh

    Lojh Above Average GSCer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    97
    Longer is only worse if the game is mindless. Long games full of intricate switches and mind games are usually fun.
     

Share This Page