LCPL 5 Discussion

Mambo OP Melonz

I've been told to bitch you out but I'd rather you just read this thread. And since I know you won't do that, read this post:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/lcpl-5-discussion.3569060/page-6#post-6760532

It's basically telling you "why there's a good reason to change it" in the most plain and simple way I can (hopefully you've played Smash before).

Based on the lack of presence in the thread and failure to take into account relevant factors and using arguments that have been squashed by like 80 posts already, it kind of seems like you're arguing against DPP just because you can't be bothered. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you can't be AFK from this thread forever.
 

kjdaas

this girl rly slapped some letters together huh
is a Community Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
The main question I have about the numbers is whether or not you used the exact turn values I gave or the minimum actual turn values? This means taking into account the forfeits and disconnects that made the turn number lower than expected. BW only had one of these, the SLAM CLAM game, where it ended on turn 12 but would have actually finished on turn 15 due to Eternal Spirit having 3 OHKOed mons left. DPP and ORAS had more of these overall (3 in both DPP and ORAS) which should both boost their average up a bit, and actually helps out with the standard deviation since it means you no longer have the absurdly low minimum of 8 in ORAS and DPP only has one game at 11 turns rather than 2.

Overall though I was hesitant to do this kind of analysis due to the nature of different playstyles. HO vs HO results in drastically shorter games than Stall vs Stall, which is a large part of why there's so much variance and the longest games are so many times longer than the shortest ones. The most accurate way I could see to portray it fairly would be actually separate the games into groups based on what playstyle each team was using, but there's a subjective aspect of this that makes it difficult (also that would require looking at movesets and teams rather than just the last turn so it'd take much more time). Overall though I do like what you did with the numbers, and the values you got are interesting!
I used the minimum number of turns you stated when someone forfeited so I think this is the closest it can be! So when you say 14 but would end in 15 turns then I used the 15.
 

Melon

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Heysup

Sorry for not responding sooner, been quite busy.

I understand your arguments and where you are coming from, and wanted to state that I was never against BO3 DPP because I thought it was clearly a dumb idea, but rather that I was unaware of any reasons to make the switch other than the argument of mitigating the luck factor that is more meaningful in DPP due to the fast paced style of it. Frankly, I know very, very little about actually playing DPP and most of my support for BO1 was due to a lack of information about why BO3 would actually be the superior choice (No reason for this was given to me when talking with the other managers and I haven't been actively reading the LCPL discussion because of it's shityness.)

After partially reading the threads and their posts I can honestly say I don't give a fuck.

If it's really this big a deal to the DPP players and the DPPers agree on it, sure, go for it. It's not really my place to make a decision that won't impact me whatsoever, and DPP being BO3 won't change the fact that the Naughty Noibats are going to fucking destroy everyone else anyways, so whatever. Good luck in LCPL mate.
 
Last edited:

HANTSUKI

satan saves xmas
is a Pre-Contributoris a Past SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
RUPL Champion
Please, guys...stop counting turns and making "number of turns stats". C'mon, I know everyone is at least a bit weird for being in a pokemon forums, but lets not start doing those abnormal stuff for something that doesn't even matter for pokemon skill and stuff like that.

If you want bo3 for DPP LC, just say that you want it because you wanna play/see more matchas of this tier. Don't try to make it sounds like it's something rational :(
 

Berks

has a Calm Mind
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Please, guys...stop counting turns and making "number of turns stats". C'mon, I know everyone is at least a bit weird for being in a pokemon forums, but lets not start doing those abnormal stuff for something that doesn't even matter for pokemon skill and stuff like that.

If you want bo3 for DPP LC, just say that you want it because you wanna play/see more matchas of this tier. Don't try to make it sounds like it's something rational :(
Do you actually have anything to contribute other than "lol turn counts are dumb lol"?? Cause if you do I would love to hear it
 

tehy

Banned deucer.
Do you actually have anything to contribute other than "lol turn counts are dumb lol"?? Cause if you do I would love to hear it
1: the word matchas

:)

2: the assertion that this decision should be made more on the backs of what the people want, rather than a more logical basis, because the logical basis is always going to be a bit skewed one way or the other and kind of subjective no matter how you slice it

that's how i read it anyhow
 
  • Like
Reactions: PD

HANTSUKI

satan saves xmas
is a Pre-Contributoris a Past SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
RUPL Champion
Yeah, what that other guy said. The only logical argument that will work is the hax argument and if you apply to one tier, you should apply to all of them. Anything else is dumb shit and you can just say that you want to play/watch more matchas of that tier and ask for a votation without trying to argue because anything besides the hax argument doesn't matter skill-wise Oo

And when I say that turn count is dumb, I'm trying to help with your sanity. Really, guys...~TURN COUNT~. Trust me, I've been playing this game for so long and number of turns it's only useful to joke about GSC. Don't go insane, guys. Don't do that to yourselves :(
 

Merritt

no comment
is a Tournament Directoris a Site Content Manageris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host
Head TD
Yeah, what that other guy said. The only logical argument that will work is the hax argument and if you apply to one tier, you should apply to all of them. Anything else is dumb shit and you can just say that you want to play/watch more matchas of that tier and ask for a votation without trying to argue because anything besides the hax argument doesn't matter skill-wise Oo

And when I say that turn count is dumb, I'm trying to help with your sanity. Really, guys...~TURN COUNT~. Trust me, I've been playing this game for so long and number of turns it's only useful to joke about GSC. Don't go insane, guys. Don't do that to yourselves :(
The turn count thing I did partially to give actual numbers to the statement that DPP took significantly less time than BW or ORAS, and partially because it was fun to find out that stuff. I don't think anybody's going to base whether or not to make DPP bo3 purely on the number of turns, think of them as more verification of Heysup's analogy on page 6, although it turns out it's more of a 2 minute match compared to a 3 minute match than a 30 second to a 2 minute.

Besides, this isn't just the DPP bo3 Discussion thread but the LCPL discussion thread.

But I suppose I should say again, if that makes you happy, that the numbers that have come up are cool and all but don't let them be the sole basis of your decision.
 
I'm stupid and i won't stop posting even when macle tells me not to

Edit: i dont even remember what i said before macle raided my posts, think it was something about having people vote for bo3 or not
 
Last edited:

GOAO

Banned deucer.
I'm GOAO (you can call me Goao or goao if you're a friend). I am from Brazil. I am OP's assman. I don't like DPP best-of-three because it's gay. We should just play DPP best-of-one because it's not gay, unlike DPP best-of-three.
Go, Team! S Q U I R T L E S Q U A D
 
Mambo OP Melonz

I've been told to bitch you out but I'd rather you just read this thread. And since I know you won't do that, read this post:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/lcpl-5-discussion.3569060/page-6#post-6760532

It's basically telling you "why there's a good reason to change it" in the most plain and simple way I can (hopefully you've played Smash before).

Based on the lack of presence in the thread and failure to take into account relevant factors and using arguments that have been squashed by like 80 posts already, it kind of seems like you're arguing against DPP just because you can't be bothered. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you can't be AFK from this thread forever.
My life's been busy af recently. All the free time I've had to spend on mons has been going towards playing tour games, discussing this with other managers, prep'ing the auction bot that got scrapped, and reading this thread. I haven't really had the chance to post, but that's not that really relevant and I don't get why you seem to be riled up about that.

My current opinion on bo1 vs bo3 is that I wouldn't mind that much either way but I'm leaning towards bo1. Now, I've never played smash beyond casually messing around at a friend's house, but I interpreted your post as saying that dpp takes as much skill as oras, but there are turns that are more impactful due to the shorter games which leads to the game feeling less important and less hyped. I've never noticed anything like that in the past and I think that having three games instead of one just makes each individual game feel like it is 1/3 as important as the other games. You also referenced the dpp tour where everybody wanted it to be bo3 instead of bo1. People generally want bo3 for any tour as long as it isn't some sort of meme tour that you have to build a weird team for. I can't remember any standard tour recently that wasn't bo3 in some form other than that tour and live tours which obviously can't be bo3 because of time constraints.

The main reason I oppose bo3 is that I just don't see enough reason to move to it. The biggest argument I've seen for it is that dpp games are shorter and it's players may feel cheated out of some play & prep times. I don't think tripling those times so that it becomes at least double the other tiers is the solution, nor do I even think that's a problem in the first place. I, personally, would love to spend less time on prep'ing, especially in a team tour when you want to build with other people and have others look over your teams, which is already hard enough to get done consistently with just one team. Having a game be around 7 turns less on average is not a substantial enough of a difference to me to justify changing the entire format and then having about 15-30 turns more than the other tiers, depending on if the series goes to two or three games. Dpp games are long enough and require enough skill that doubling or tripling the current amount of turns isn't needed.

From a manager and teammate's perspective it's much easier to not have to worry about possibly drafting multiple dpp players or having to help them prep and test three different teams. I also think I'll just be less hyped to watch the games. I only watched my rby teammate play maybe once or twice, partly because I'm not a big fan of the tier, but also because each game just felt way less exciting. Having a bo3 in a team tour kills some of the fun elements for me and seems completely unnecessary to include for dpp.
 
My life's been busy af recently. All the free time I've had to spend on mons has been going towards playing tour games, discussing this with other managers, prep'ing the auction bot that got scrapped, and reading this thread. I haven't really had the chance to post, but that's not that really relevant and I don't get why you seem to be riled up about that.
Believe it or not that post was me trying to not sound riled up - I understand we are all busy but I'm sure you can see the communities frustration when the people that are opposing something for unknown reasons are all but ignoring the discussion happening in the thread and just speaking behind closed doors (which you do admit was happening).

Anyway I do appreciate the reply.

My current opinion on bo1 vs bo3 is that I wouldn't mind that much either way but I'm leaning towards bo1. Now, I've never played smash beyond casually messing around at a friend's house, but I interpreted your post as saying that dpp takes as much skill as oras, but there are turns that are more impactful due to the shorter games which leads to the game feeling less important and less hyped. I've never noticed anything like that in the past and I think that having three games instead of one just makes each individual game feel like it is 1/3 as important as the other games. You also referenced the dpp tour where everybody wanted it to be bo3 instead of bo1. People generally want bo3 for any tour as long as it isn't some sort of meme tour that you have to build a weird team for. I can't remember any standard tour recently that wasn't bo3 in some form other than that tour and live tours which obviously can't be bo3 because of time constraints.
I more so mean that it feels anti-climactic and weightless rather than more important. It counts as a win the same as the other tiers, so why wouldn't it be given a chance to have a chance to have the same level of weight given to that players prep?

And other LC forum tournaments are generally bo1, so I believe you are mistaken on that point. I honestly don't remember the last one that was bo3 (besides the DPP).

The main reason I oppose bo3 is that I just don't see enough reason to move to it. The biggest argument I've seen for it is that dpp games are shorter and it's players may feel cheated out of some play & prep times. I don't think tripling those times so that it becomes at least double the other tiers is the solution, nor do I even think that's a problem in the first place. I, personally, would love to spend less time on prep'ing, especially in a team tour when you want to build with other people and have others look over your teams, which is already hard enough to get done consistently with just one team. Having a game be around 7 turns less on average is not a substantial enough of a difference to me to justify changing the entire format and then having about 15-30 turns more than the other tiers, depending on if the series goes to two or three games. Dpp games are long enough and require enough skill that doubling or tripling the current amount of turns isn't needed.

From a manager and teammate's perspective it's much easier to not have to worry about possibly drafting multiple dpp players or having to help them prep and test three different teams. I also think I'll just be less hyped to watch the games. I only watched my rby teammate play maybe once or twice, partly because I'm not a big fan of the tier, but also because each game just felt way less exciting. Having a bo3 in a team tour kills some of the fun elements for me and seems completely unnecessary to include for dpp.
I think you're putting too much weight on the turn count. The turns take less time. You are not planning out 5990123 options because you have all of the opponents team. Sure, as the games wind down and the factors reveal themselves, I'll admit the turns take the same amount of time. But other than that I think it's a very misleading statistic. Even if the game playing times are different, it's the weight that matters. RBY games (which I know you have a subjective opinion about, but being purely objective) were generally longer than any ORAS games and still bo3 was needed just for the weight of the games, though it was for different factors than DPP.

I also think you're exaggerating when you say prep times are double or triple. I think it's unfair to still, after all of the testimony from people who play DPP (and I really have a hard time believing your experiences don't match it), to say that preparing for 1 DPP game = preparing for 1 ORAS. It isn't. I think your argument here (or dismissal of the DPP argument) is based on this false premise.

Finally, I don't think something being "easier" for managers to worry about not needing to draft more than one, or a good player is a valid reason in the least sense. Frankly, it's uncompetitive and generally a bad attitude to have towards tiers. Yea, it's just LCPL and managers have lots of discretion as to how this is run, I think this is crossing the line.
 
Last edited:
I more so mean that it feels anti-climactic and weightless rather than more important. It counts as a win the same as the other tiers, so why wouldn't it be given a chance to have a chance to have the same level of weight given to that players prep?
I found the fast paced nature and not knowing all of the team members makes dpp games feel the absolute opposite of anti-climactic. Again, I think adding more games would make each game feel more weightless, rather than making the whole series feel more impactful.
And other LC forum tournaments are generally bo1, so I believe you are mistaken on that point. I honestly don't remember the last one that was bo3.
Standard tours that have been bo3:
LC Championship
No-preview tour - not exactly standard, but you could just bring normal teams and be fine.
Ladder tour
Tri Attack - Was a "team tour" so each match was bo1, but the three matches in total gave a similar effect as having a bo3.

Tours that have been bo1:
DPP tour - which evolved into bo3 anyway
Live tours - time constraints
Lost Cave - where a crazy amount of games were played and it would have been torture for the "elite four" or whatever to play bo3s
Fuck BW2 Murkrow tour - Not sure why this was bo1, people hate bw?

Bo3 is preferred in normal tours when it's possible, it's not just because the tour was dpp that bo3 was wanted.

I think you're putting too much weight on the turn count. The turns take less time. You are not planning out 5990123 options because you have all of the opponents team. Sure, as the games wind down and the factors reveal themselves, I'll admit the turns take the same amount of time. But other than that I think it's a very misleading statistic. Even if the game playing times are different, it's the weight that matters. RBY games (which I know you have a subjective opinion about, but being purely objective) were generally longer than any ORAS games and still bo3 was needed just for the weight of the games, though it was for different factors than DPP.
How can I possibly be putting too much weight on one of the very few arguments advocating for bo3 matches? There was near a full page of discussion of people stating that dpp has less turns, so it should be bo3 to make it more up to par with the other tiers.

RBY isn't relevant other than it gives a precedent showing that bo3 is possible to include in team tours. RBY was made bo3 to mitigate the large amounts luck based elements in the game, and the general consensus right now seems to be that dpp isn't anywhere near luck based enough to warrant a bo3 for that reason. RBY wasn't made bo3 for the weight of the games or whatever.

I also think you're exaggerating when you say prep times are double or triple. I think it's unfair to still, after all of the testimony from people who play DPP (and I really have a hard time believing your experiences don't match it), to say that preparing for 1 DPP game = preparing for 1 ORAS. It isn't. I think your argument here (or dismissal of the DPP argument) is based on this false premise.
I didn't say prep times would be double or triple the length of prep'ing for oras nor did I imply that prep'ing for a dpp game is equal to prep'ing for an oras game. I think you misinterpreted my post completely.

Finally, I don't think something being "easier" for managers to worry about not needing to draft more than one, or a good player is a valid reason in the least sense. Frankly, it's uncompetitive and generally a bad attitude to have towards tiers. Yea, it's just LCPL and managers have lots of discretion as to how this is run, I think this is crossing the line.
All I was saying is that if dpp is bo3, it incentivizes managers to commit more credits/players than they otherwise would, disproportionately representing dpp in the draft. This isn't really a big deal to me and was more of a side comment, but apparently that's a poor attitude to have? I don't get it.

I'm just looking for significant enough reasons to make dpp bo3. Much of the discussion has shown that if dpp was bo3, then it would be fine, but not a whole lot has shown why it should actually change.
 
I found the fast paced nature and not knowing all of the team members makes dpp games feel the absolute opposite of anti-climactic. Again, I think adding more games would make each game feel more weightless, rather than making the whole series feel more impactful.
You're talking about the weight per turn I'm talking about the weight of the game within the Tournament. A shorter more variable game holds less weight than three do. Decreasing variability does not dilute the weight of the match, but it dilutes the weight of each turn.

Part of the reason of increasing this to a bo3 is to regulate the variability compared to other tiers.

Standard tours that have been bo3:
LC Championship
No-preview tour - not exactly standard, but you could just bring normal teams and be fine.
Ladder tour
Tri Attack - Was a "team tour" so each match was bo1, but the three matches in total gave a similar effect as having a bo3.

Tours that have been bo1:
DPP tour - which evolved into bo3 anyway
Live tours - time constraints
Lost Cave - where a crazy amount of games were played and it would have been torture for the "elite four" or whatever to play bo3s
Fuck BW2 Murkrow tour - Not sure why this was bo1, people hate bw?

Bo3 is preferred in normal tours when it's possible, it's not just because the tour was dpp that bo3 was wanted.
LC championship and Ladder tour are not forum tours - they are circuit tours (unlike the DPP tour which is a forum tour) and Tri Attack was team tour with bo1s, not bo1s (like LCPL). That leaves just one versus the 3 examples (not counting the DPP tour).

My point here clearly stands. It's not a regular thing for the forum tournaments (ie. non circuit, non team) to be bo3. DPP was changed by popular demand there specifically. Again, just read the posts. People called for it because it was over too quickly. There is a huge difference between people moaning about hax or losing in an ORAS tourny that's not bo3 when even the winners were calling for it in the DPP tour. Even people who were busy and missed the deadlines STILL wanted to have bo3. example example 2 example 3.

The last 5 games I played in about 30 minutes total. If you think you could play any more than 2 ORAS games safely in that time frame you're crazy.

How can I possibly be putting too much weight on one of the very few arguments advocating for bo3 matches? There was near a full page of discussion of people stating that dpp has less turns, so it should be bo3 to make it more up to par with the other tiers.

RBY isn't relevant other than it gives a precedent showing that bo3 is possible to include in team tours. RBY was made bo3 to mitigate the large amounts luck based elements in the game, and the general consensus right now seems to be that dpp isn't anywhere near luck based enough to warrant a bo3 for that reason. RBY wasn't made bo3 for the weight of the games or whatever.
That discussion was mostly just for fun I don't think anyone intended to actually commit that as "the main argument" for adding DPP.

I don't understand how RBY was note made bo3 for weight of the game. Of course it was. A game that is purely decided by someone getting lucky at the rate they do in RBY holds less weight than (ie. is more variable) if the hax is evened out over more games. It's basically analogous to the DPP situation but it's not variable because hax mechanics it is variable because of damage mechanics.

I didn't say prep times would be double or triple the length of prep'ing for oras nor did I imply that prep'ing for a dpp game is equal to prep'ing for an oras game. I think you misinterpreted my post completely.
You said:

"I don't think tripling those times so that it becomes at least double the other tiers is the solution"

I don't see how i misinterpreted this. I mean "becomes at least double the other tiers" - how else would you even read this?

So yea, I also think this point stands; that is not a good rebuttal for the current argument in favor of bo3 because it is based on this false premise that preparation time is equal (or close to) at this time.

All I was saying is that if dpp is bo3, it incentivizes managers to commit more credits/players than they otherwise would, disproportionately representing dpp in the draft. This isn't really a big deal to me and was more of a side comment, but apparently that's a poor attitude to have? I don't get it.

I'm just looking for significant enough reasons to make dpp bo3. Much of the discussion has shown that if dpp was bo3, then it would be fine, but not a whole lot has shown why it should actually change.
The increase to bo3 EQUALIZES the amount of credits/players committed to DPP.

The case right now, and why there is a problem with that attitude, is that DPP is MORE variable than those so you currently have to devote LESS credits/players because if it's only bo1 there is less incentive to get a "top quality" dpp if you want your "value" maximized. For example, you can spend 30k on a good DPPer and they'll win more than everyone else but the difference between that player and some random guy you get for 5k is not as big as in ORAS because of its variability. Right now, people are looking at spending less on DPPers in respect to other tiers, because you are more likely to be able to get away with feeding them teams and making a few good plays in a small sample size. Is it 'insignificant' to want managers to actually benefit from having a good player dedicated to DPP building/playing like they do with other tiers?

I'll clarify this one last time, the increase to bo3 is more than significant, but almost necessary to make this equal.

I mean shit look at last SPL you put me in ORAS every week when I was, relative to both DPP and ORAS players, FAR better at DPP than ORAS because you thought DPP was too variable for the $$ you spent on me to be put to good use. Is that not incredibly telling on its own?

And yea, I know this isn't as serious as usual LCPL because of the SPL inclusion but I mean we play to win still so shit like this should probably matter.
 
Last edited:
You're talking about the weight per turn I'm talking about the weight of the game within the Tournament. A shorter more variable game holds less weight than three do. Decreasing variability does not dilute the weight of the match, but it dilutes the weight of each turn.

Part of the reason of increasing this to a bo3 is to regulate the variability compared to other tiers.
I was definitely talking about the weight of the game within the tournament. Each game feels like it matters much less because it is only 1/3rd of the final result.

LC championship and Ladder tour are not forum tours - they are circuit tours (unlike the DPP tour which is a forum tour) and Tri Attack was team tour with bo1s, not bo1s (like LCPL). That leaves just one versus the 3 examples (not counting the DPP tour).

My point here clearly stands. It's not a regular thing for the forum tournaments (ie. non circuit, non team) to be bo3. DPP was changed by popular demand there specifically. Again, just read the posts. People called for it because it was over too quickly. There is a huge difference between people moaning about hax or losing in an ORAS tourny that's not bo3 when even the winners were calling for it in the DPP tour. Even people who were busy and missed the deadlines STILL wanted to have bo3. example example 2 example 3.

The last 5 games I played in about 30 minutes total. If you think you could play any more than 2 ORAS games safely in that time frame you're crazy.
If they were circuit tours they would have been held in the circuit tournaments forum and not in the LC forum. Your examples of people wanting bo3 are only one pairing of people where one didn't say why they wanted bo3 and the other said it was because of matchup problems and just wanting to play more, which applies to every tier. The third example is just me saying I won 2-1 lol?

I know those last 5 games didn't take 30 minutes because I was there, our games alone took almost 20 minutes and I think you're over exaggerating ORAS time lengths as well.
That discussion was mostly just for fun I don't think anyone intended to actually commit that as "the main argument" for adding DPP.

I don't understand how RBY was note made bo3 for weight of the game. Of course it was. A game that is purely decided by someone getting lucky at the rate they do in RBY holds less weight than (ie. is more variable) if the hax is evened out over more games. It's basically analogous to the DPP situation but it's not variable because hax mechanics it is variable because of damage mechanics.
If rby was bo1 it wouldn't hold any less weight that the other tiers. A win would be a win and the rby players would still be drafted for it. It was made bo3 because of its luck based elements, nobody really cared about it being more significant in the draft or anything of that nature.

You said:

"I don't think tripling those times so that it becomes at least double the other tiers is the solution"

I don't see how i misinterpreted this. I mean "becomes at least double the other tiers" - how else would you even read this?

So yea, I also think this point stands; that is not a good rebuttal for the current argument in favor of bo3 because it is based on this false premise that preparation time is equal (or close to) at this time.
That was talking about the amount of turns in a game, not prep time. But I don't think it's even unfair to state that building and testing three dpp teams can take double the time it takes to build and test one oras team. Just the time it takes to play that many test matches could cause that.

The increase to bo3 EQUALIZES the amount of credits/players committed to DPP.

The case right now, and why there is a problem with that attitude, is that DPP is MORE variable than those so you currently have to devote LESS credits/players because if it's only bo1 there is less incentive to get a "top quality" dpp if you want your "value" maximized. For example, you can spend 30k on a good DPPer and they'll win more than everyone else but the difference between that player and some random guy you get for 5k is not as big as in ORAS because of its variability. Right now, people are looking at spending less on DPPers in respect to other tiers, because you are more likely to be able to get away with feeding them teams and making a few good plays in a small sample size. Is it 'insignificant' to want managers to actually benefit from having a good player dedicated to DPP building/playing like they do with other tiers?

I'll clarify this one last time, the increase to bo3 is more than significant, but almost necessary to make this equal.

I mean shit look at last SPL you put me in ORAS every week when I was, relative to both DPP and ORAS players, FAR better at DPP than ORAS because you thought DPP was too variable for the $$ you spent on me to be put to good use. Is that not incredibly telling on its own?

And yea, I know this isn't as serious as usual LCPL because of the SPL inclusion but I mean we play to win still so shit like this should probably matter.
I put you in ORAS every week because we had Vermillion Project, the best performing dpp player the previous season and a guy unwilling to play anything else. I think the fact that I bought a dedicated dpp player on top of having you to help him out proves that I didn't spend any less on DPP. I don't plan on spending less on DPPers compared to any tier this year except ORAS because ORAS players can help out with the other two ORAS slots. I asked in the manager group chat and Melon and Levi echoed my statement, while I haven't received a clear answer from the other managers yet.

Your entire post relies on the assumption that DPP is a more variable tier than the others. If a tier is more variable, then the less skilled player wins more, but you've asserted in your posts (as well as it being agreed upon by many) that DPP takes just as much skill as the other tiers, meaning that the more skilled player wins the same amount as they do in other tiers.
 
I was definitely talking about the weight of the game within the tournament. Each game feels like it matters much less because it is only 1/3rd of the final result.
I thought you were strawmanning me earlier by taking what I said and just purposely redefining what weight I was talking about, but I guess I was wrong about that.

By definition, you're talking about the micro effect of each turn. Whenever you add a game, the overall impact per turn (and per individual game out of 3) lessens, but the variability decreases.

Now the weight I'm talking about is the same weight that applies to shit like NHL/NBA playoffs. The weight of the series is more than one individual game, which is what they do in the regular season. When you want something to matter more (ie. hold more weight), you want it to be a decrease in variability.

This doesn't mean that bo1 and bo3 wins will have a different scoring system, it just means that your DPP player beating another DPP player in a game that was decided in a less variable way - it did not just come down to who played better for one comparatively short game, but for 3. It matters more to the players, public, and should matter more to managers.

If they were circuit tours they would have been held in the circuit tournaments forum and not in the LC forum. Your examples of people wanting bo3 are only one pairing of people where one didn't say why they wanted bo3 and the other said it was because of matchup problems and just wanting to play more, which applies to every tier. The third example is just me saying I won 2-1 lol?
Sorry but you're wrong.
Rowan said:
Introducing the Official Little Cup Tournament Circuit

Hello, and welcome to the Official LC Tournament Circuit. This will be an annual cycle consisting of 4 LC Official tournaments, and an invite only tournament at the end of the year. The 5 qualifying tournaments are:

- The Official LC Tournament (to be hosted in the Tournaments sub forum)
- The Official LC Ladder Tournament- The Official LC OM Tour
- The LC Tour
That was my bad with example 3, but the point is people thought bo1 was inadequate, for whatever reason, and no they do not apply to other tiers. That's the point. No other tournament was changed to a bo3 and very few even started as one. DPP tournament was clearly unique.

I know those last 5 games didn't take 30 minutes because I was there, our games alone took almost 20 minutes and I think you're over exaggerating ORAS time lengths as well.

If rby was bo1 it wouldn't hold any less weight that the other tiers. A win would be a win and the rby players would still be drafted for it. It was made bo3 because of its luck based elements, nobody really cared about it being more significant in the draft or anything of that nature.
How on earth can you possibly know that? I don't think you're privy to that information or if your human psychology knowledge is that impressive that you know what managers are thinking or would have done.

That was talking about the amount of turns in a game, not prep time. But I don't think it's even unfair to state that building and testing three dpp teams can take double the time it takes to build and test one oras team. Just the time it takes to play that many test matches could cause that.
Well I guess I need to "care what you think" because you're a decision maker here, but frankly you're in the minority of that train of thought and I'm willing to say that even excluding myself, the majority of DPP people would think that it is an unfair statement to say that building/testing 3 dpp teams is easier than building/testing an ORAS team.

Your entire post relies on the assumption that DPP is a more variable tier than the others. If a tier is more variable, then the less skilled player wins more, but you've asserted in your posts (as well as it being agreed upon by many) that DPP takes just as much skill as the other tiers, meaning that the more skilled player wins the same amount as they do in other tiers.
I think the last line of your post is being presented as a fact when I don't think it's necessarily true. The nature of the skill is different. An ORAS player has many chances to recover from their mistakes, which I would say means you need less skill overall than DPP. However, the better player will generally win because you have a more forgiving metagame and a chance to recover from said mistakes that they made. The games are less variable - one mistake will likely not cost you the game. In DPP you do not have that luxury to recover from their mistakes - one mistake will almost certainly lose you the game. Level of skill required =/= best player winning.

There is a clear imbalance here, but if you don't see it now I don't think you ever will.

Star. preach on brutha
 
Last edited:

GOAO

Banned deucer.
SOOOOOOOOOO we mocked a draft today and I won, as always..!

[15:39:14] Obvious Botter:LOS GOAOS [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: goao]: fatty, dekzeh, sweep, flcl, kumiho, hantsuki, qsns, kratosmana, teal6, cased

starting lineup is:

oras lc: fatty
oras lc: sweep
oras lc: dekzeh
bw lc: hantsuki
tangma: flcl
dpp lc: kumiho

bench: qsns, anti, teal and case.


teams:
Nineage Numels [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: nineage]: 49, goao, sken, blarajan, tuo, thefenderstory, yourstupidity, rssp1, arifeen
LOS GOAOS [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: goao]: fatty, dekzeh, sweep, flcl, kumiho, hantsuki, qsns, kratosmana, teal6, cased
Surskit Squad [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: ggggd]: heysup, zorodark, aptget, vubon, p2, fapkingg, tomahawk, teddeh, dundies
Fiery Sweaty Slugmas [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: aerow]: purpledoosh, fran17, calloflochie, thecrystalonix, thatcrazyrussian, rzl, joltage, antemortem, tsunami, raseri, krubby, boo836, glassglaceon, prajpran, unfixable
GOAO Goomys [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: tahu]: fiend, trash, crashinboombang, eniigma, tazz, idiotfrommars, v, kushalos, fitzy72
Balloon Squad [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: alicekazumi]: vileman, quote, aerow, shrug, majaspic22, pearl, infamy, merritt, brazilianarmy, bughouse, theavalanches
Victorious Skens [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: sken]: ggggd, nineage, tricking, sparktrain, cheekpouch, atomicllamas, imanalt, sam, aladyyn, soldier
Galactic Gibles [Money: 0/100000 | Captain: vubon]: star, tahu, alicekazumi, hmberkeley, pikasohn, nudisto, confide, spl4sh, crystalites
 

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

Top