Baton Pass in ADV Ubers

[Fc]

Apologies yet again for the delay, been talking with both the tiering council and active people in this thread / the Ubers Discord to try and reach a solution, and I think there's a very simple one that can end this process soon. The idea is for a new tiering survey to be made, with weighted options based on preference. While in the last one banning the move won, it was close and didn't win out over all other options combined so it wasn't a true majority. The weighted survey will help solve that by giving people secondary options if they weren't confident their first choice would win or if they'd prefer a secondary option over what they picked rather than just the next highest voted (ex. someone who voted limit the users to 1 might rather banning the move rather than another complex option of the ingrain clause, and vise versa for full ban voters).

If anyone has input on this process I'll gladly hear out all opinions, we're closing in on this thread that admittedly I've been lackluster at running but the mistakes have been fixed and with community input we can come to a majority conclusion.

The result with the highest average placing will be what's suspect tested under the current idea.

It gives the most accurate "majority" option based on what people would settle for, and this realistically fixes all the problems I've heard with the initial survey. The final piece of input is whether or not to just remove the ninjask + bp clause option outright due to the incredibly low support, but it would never hurt to leave in, although the first stage could be considered a "run off" vote where the least popular one by a longshot got eliminated.

I plan on starting this within 1 week or sooner if there's no input, and then the survey would be up for again around 1 week with the vote following shortly after. Thanks everyone for their patience, and if this all goes smoothly this will be the solution that works best for everyone.

 

[Fc]

Hi, the final survey is now ready! Huge thanks to Aberforth for helping me set this up and the other contributors to the thread and the tiering council who I'd been talking to for a proper solution to this. As I mentioned, if a noticeable favourite comes out of this vote it will immediately be the target of the final blind voting. If anything else with the process draws concern please mention it now, but this should be solved within a short time. This survey will remain open for 1 week, until Tuesday, November 30th at 11:59 pm gmt-5. Happy voting!

ADV Run off voting (google.com)

e: apologies for the initial delay I sent the wrong link, this one should be uneditable and working

 

[Fc]

Hi, survey results! This is the final step towards the baton pass vote, as a vote will proceed after this given this survey gives enough data when combined with the first one, so let's get into it! First off as a disclaimer, some submissions were omitted from the vote due to both not following the format and impersonation of other users, so please don't do this, it helps no one and made things take longer. Luckily it was a small number, so thank you to everyone who answered with their full votes.

This is the graph for the general survey, with a total of 27 voters, coming close to the initial survey. As shown in the graph and the averages I listed down below, banning baton pass and limiting the users down to 1 were the clear ones ahead. The next closest was almost 0.4 average behind, so the most favoured responses are clear. Banning Ninjask from using Baton Pass is off the table, there's essentially no support for it here, in the other survey, or in the qualified responses.

Ban Baton Pass: 2.33
Limit Number of Users Down to 1: 2.48
Reinstate the Ingrain + Smeargle Ban: 2.85
Ban Ninjask From Using Baton Pass: 3.41
Do Nothing: 3.93

The qualified responses are slightly different, with a low turnout but that's to be expected with a smaller survey, so 8 isn't that bad. These aren't taken into account as much because of that, but it's fairly clear that the preferred option is to limit the number of users down to 1. Unlike the general responses, reinstating the Ingrain + Smeargle ban is the next favoured, but it's very few placings overall ahead of banning Baton Pass overall. The other 2 options again were completely unfavoured, no surprise there.

Limit Number of Users Down to 1: 2.375
Reinstate the Ingrain + Smeargle Ban: 2.625
Ban Baton Pass: 2.75
Ban Ninjask From Using Baton Pass: 3.125
Do Nothing: 4.125

Based on this, we have decided to put up a suspect in the coming days, where we will be doing a similar vote to the ADV OU Baton Pass vote. Based on these responses, ban Baton Pass and Limiting the users down to 1 are the options we will provide on the vote alongside do nothing. With the overall heavily favouring those 2 and the initial survey having all other options around 10% less favoured than these, they didn't have the support to make the final vote. Therefore, we will be suspect testing Baton Pass as a whole, implementing a teambuilder ban to limit number of users down to 1, or keeping Baton Pass as is. Huge thanks again to everyone who participated along the way and put up with the process, especially Aberforth and Lasen who helped me a ton as I moved from normal user to tier leader in the process of this so it was a little messy to start, as well as tiering help from Shiloh and our tiering council to finalize this. The vote will go up soon, with the format being a rundown one where the least popular first option is eliminated, votes go to their second option, and the preferred one of those last 2 will be implemented, stay tuned! If anyone has any more discussion to add the thread's open, but the vote will go up soon, thanks again!

 

[Hipmonlee]

If the goal is to eliminate chains without touching quickpass, I recommend at least considering the new ADV OU rule. It's complexity is more than made up for by the benefits of consistency. And it's a less restrictive option than a limit to one passer, that fully accomplishes the intended goal.

 

[Fc]

If the goal is to eliminate chains without touching quickpass, I recommend at least considering the new ADV OU rule. It's complexity is more than made up for by the benefits of consistency. And it's a less restrictive option than a limit to one passer, that fully accomplishes the intended goal.

The goal isn't strictly to eliminate chains and keep quick pass, given that banning baton pass fully was the most popular option among the surveys. If the complex bans were then this one may be something to keep in mind as a top option as well, but currently the idea with this test is to have the players decide whether or not they want to keep or remove quickpass with things like Ninjask and meanpass still existing, but also a lot of people liking those niches among others like Celebi and Shedinja's.

I personally feel like keeping it to a simpler clause that's already been discussed and voted on in the ubers community is fine, especially since a few grievances with meanpass and even just speedpass have been brought up that would lead people to want to vote specifically to remove it all as that ADV OU clause doesn't touch it. This idea will be considered, I'll bring it up with the rest of the tiering council, but I find it unlikely to really do much more aside from limit the viability of 1 more mon when compared to just limiting the users down to 1, that being Liechi Ninjask. Multiple BP users on 1 team is incredibly hard to fit aside from full chains, so it'll probably be unimpactful to keep those, but given it’s a proven clause it’s not harmful to just add it to the vote as an adv status quo sort of thing.

 

[Fc]

After discussing, given the precedent behind this clause being implemented in ADV to stop a similar issue of chains as well as Ninjask Liechi + Speed Boost passing, which was an option that alone wasn't popular on the surveys but may still be an issue people want gone, it will be added to the runoff vote. There's no real harm in having it in the vote, if it's not popular it'll get voted out and if it is then there's uniformity among the clauses in OU and Ubers.

If there are any major objections to this then I'll have this thread open for ideas for at least a day, but if nothing comes up then within 24 hours the blind voting will be up, I'll probably end up quadruple posting or something to keep it updated so stay tuned.

As for voting requirements, the ones highlighted here will remain in play, but for Ubers World Cup due to the pools format getting a higher game requirement is easier as subbing out in pools isn't as easy as just swapping slots around per game like in a weeks format, meaning most people got in 5 games which is more than the required for other team tours, so the idea is to have the requirement be 2 wins in the format. Again, if there are major objections this is open to quick discussion since it's fairly minor and only adds a few names to the voting pool, but otherwise tomorrow the vote will go up, thanks again!