-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Implemented Keep RBY BO3
- Thread starter Sabelette
- Start date
- Status
somehow even more perplexing of a decision than just keeping it bo1. the excuse for forcing bo1 onto a community that doesn't want it was for "consistency" and this is just a much less consistent way of doing things?
this comes across as the TD team choosing to die on a very very strange hill for the sole purpose of preserving bo1 as the default. if you're going to do this and abandon all perceived notions of "consistency" anyways, i would like to know what the issue is with just letting the game be played the way people who actually play it want to play it and keeping things the way they are. i implore the team once again to rethink this decision
everyone on the last thread have literally been asking for one single thing (well now two, the second being the resignation of every single td and them not being able to hold a leadership position anywhere across the site anymore), but the first thing being for them to LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS. Is it that hard to hold a survey, or make a direct thread discussing it to gain input from the fucking people who would be affected by this? NO ONE is asking for a whole new tier to be added, people like BO3 let people play BO3, if both players like BO1 (the minority from what i gleamed) then let them if they are so desperate for it.
Honestly I should have known you guys would double down on your stupid decision considering the laughable first response that was made, I have seen sea cucumbers with better PR training. Dont die on this hill, I know you all have some sense.
Revert back to the status quo, apologise to all the players you pissed off, and resign.
Do better.
e: reposting this here with edits from the sabah thread since that got deleted
Honestly I should have known you guys would double down on your stupid decision considering the laughable first response that was made, I have seen sea cucumbers with better PR training. Dont die on this hill, I know you all have some sense.
Revert back to the status quo, apologise to all the players you pissed off, and resign.
Do better.
e: reposting this here with edits from the sabah thread since that got deleted
When the entire playerbase wants it to be best of 3, the default option should be best of 3. This isn’t rocket science.
Letting people mutually gentleman’s BO1 if they want is fine. Before any rule changes it was already possible. No one did it, but it was possible (because if neither player plays another game then you just go with the one won battle).
But letting people force one of the 99.99% of RBY players who prefer BO3 to instead play BO1 is still deeply asinine. It isn’t a compromise position. Banning gentlemanning before was indeed terrible, but here you’ve just taken the cherry off the top of the arsenic sundae and are still trying to force people to eat it.
Actually do what everyone wants you to do.
Letting people mutually gentleman’s BO1 if they want is fine. Before any rule changes it was already possible. No one did it, but it was possible (because if neither player plays another game then you just go with the one won battle).
But letting people force one of the 99.99% of RBY players who prefer BO3 to instead play BO1 is still deeply asinine. It isn’t a compromise position. Banning gentlemanning before was indeed terrible, but here you’ve just taken the cherry off the top of the arsenic sundae and are still trying to force people to eat it.
Actually do what everyone wants you to do.
Thank you for unlocking the thread so that I can say this here in addition to Discord.
This is a decision that punishes known skilled players by leaving their capacity to control for variance in the hands of their opponent.
This is a decision that artificially warps the metagame by allowing matchup fishing via leads, with favorable lead matchups leading to the advantaged player denying a Bo3 to retain advantage.
This is a decision without the slightest shred of precedent or common sense made hours before sign-ups following a period of prolonged public outcry at the abruptness of the previous ruling.
This is the most absurd ruling I have ever seen on this site, one that can only speak to obstinacy and complete disregard for the input of the players.
Resign.
Disregarding the absurd tone deafness of the rest of this post and prior, is this implying that the original decision will stick and the TDs plan to infract people in other tiers who agree to a bo3? Because honestly that is one of the more braindead decisions I've heard of. What exactly is the issue here besides some weird devotion to have everything be bo1 even when players are explicitly asking for other options?
Can't say I am a RBYer but this is a clown show. The communuty told you what they wanted overwhelmingly and you still refuse to give it to them. Why? This is an even less consistent approach to allow bo1 or bo3 too which completely undermines that supposed reasoning of wanting consistency to justify this decision.
TD team needs to resign or be completely overhauled at this point because it has become clear they do not want to serve the communtity they are meant to serve.
TD team needs to resign or be completely overhauled at this point because it has become clear they do not want to serve the communtity they are meant to serve.
I'm not gunna lie this is somehow worse than just sticking to bo1. I'm sure this will cause arguments and it also gives other tiers ammunition to push for gentleman's agreements (which I think the whole point of bo1 in the first place was to avoid this)
For the love of God either:
#1: make rby bo3
#2: nuke rby entirely and nuke sv 4 (10 slots)
#3: bo1
This ain't it
For the love of God either:
#1: make rby bo3
#2: nuke rby entirely and nuke sv 4 (10 slots)
#3: bo1
This ain't it
I'd like to keep this post short in light of the tremendous amount of chaos happening right now. I think there's a simple way to resolve this situation for now. Merritt mentioned the historical precedent as rationale for RBY to continue being a Bo3 slot; instead of making Bo1 the default for RBY, as it currently is for the other Gens/slots, let's make Bo3 the default. This would have continuity with the aforementioned historical precedent. Both players would then have to agree to a Bo1 contest instead of Bo3 in order to change from the default.
Many, many issues need to be sorted out and addressed with regard to this debacle, but from my perspective, this is the ideal means to move forward for this SPL.
Many, many issues need to be sorted out and addressed with regard to this debacle, but from my perspective, this is the ideal means to move forward for this SPL.
Absolutely wild. Bo1 be the default is not an improvement at all and is just generally stupid. All it takes is a handful of individuals to poison the well and fuck things up for the majority of the community. Also having bo1 be the default is liable to make a significant portion of people think it "should" be that way, setting up for conflict with the rest of the player base
I actually don't mind allowing gentleman's but ffs the default option should be be what literally EVERYONE wants.
Frankly I think the question should be why isn't every other format bo3? It's simply way more competitive and should be played unless there's a valid reason not to. Of course, for most gens there is a valid reason- my point is that bo3 really ought to be the default unless you can justify otherwise.
Why the fuck would you "fix" a system that isn't broken?
I actually don't mind allowing gentleman's but ffs the default option should be be what literally EVERYONE wants.
Frankly I think the question should be why isn't every other format bo3? It's simply way more competitive and should be played unless there's a valid reason not to. Of course, for most gens there is a valid reason- my point is that bo3 really ought to be the default unless you can justify otherwise.
Why the fuck would you "fix" a system that isn't broken?
So why not actually this?
This gives the DPPers what they want (allowing them to play bo3 against each other, should they want to) (it also frees tiers like ADV or BW from the bo1 coinflipping shitshow should the players want to do this) and allows RBY to return to the status quo! This really isn't much of a permanent solution admittedly, but I don't suspect that randomly enforcing an extremely heinous ruling on a community just before one of the supposed biggest tournaments of the year was supposed to be seen as a permanent one either. It gives you a temporary solution while we have the entire rest of the year to work it out afterwards. This would also free up the (frankly, nonsense) argument about prep being too overbearing or whatever, since it is an OPT IN by the players.
This is easily the worst response from the TD team that could have possibly been made. I barely even know where to begin with this.
This completely misses the forest for the trees. As can be seen by the numerous previous posts in this thread, the players are angry because they prefer bo3 to bo1; at the time of writing half of last years RBY players for SPL have said they aren't playing this year out of anger towards the format being changed to bo1. This wasn't just a communication issue, we know why you decided this, and we are against your conclusion.
I don't want to dwell on this, but while the individual numbers listed in D4's post are correct, their is fundamentally misleading and omits some very significant details which matter for this discussion, most notably how bo3 as compared to bo1 changes the overall probability that the better player in a set loses, and instead looks at just individual values which miss the bigger picture.
If 2 players, player 1 and player 2, are playing each other in a bo1 set, and the probability that player 1 wins over player 2 in an average game is listed as x, which we will assume to be constant over their match, then the probability they win their set, W(x), is just x. Whereas if they were playing a best of 3 set, the probability player 1 wins, which I will list as V(x), is instead 3x^2-2x^3. If we plug in the percentages that D4's post gives into V(x) and W(x) of 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.70, then we get the same changes in win probabilities mentioned in D4's post.
However, what their post neglects to mention is how the overall probability that the better player in the set loses changes from bo1 to bo3. This can be given as the sum of 2 different integrals involving V(x) and W(x) depending on whether player 1 is more likely or less likely to win in an average game. Computing these integrals gives a 25% chance that the better player loses in a bo1 set and a 18.75% chance they lose in bo3, which is a 25% reduction in the probability that the better player loses their set. This is an absolutely significant change in the amount of variability, and cannot be seen as just a slight change by any stretch.
If there was a significant amount of complaints over burnout or exclusion from RBY being bo3, then this would be reasonable as a line of justification. However as the posts by Isa has attested to, as well from my own experience in the community, can attest to, this is not the case for the vast majority of players in tournaments. So ultimately this is purely due to the desire to make the number of games uniform across tiers rather than following what the playerbase wants.
Just because the previous decision for RBY to be made bo3 was based on reasoning which has been proven untrue does not on its own mean that the decision should be reversed. As has been made abundantly clear by the posts in this thread and Isa's testimony, over the 9 years the tier has been in SPL, the decision to make RBY bo3 has been seen as a positive for the tier, the playerbase near unanimously has demonstrated they prefer bo3. Treating this as making RBY now equal and elevating it from its prior status as the only bo3 tier display a baffling amount of willful ignorance on the part of the Tournament Directors.
As I have said previously:
This completely misses the forest for the trees. As can be seen by the numerous previous posts in this thread, the players are angry because they prefer bo3 to bo1; at the time of writing half of last years RBY players for SPL have said they aren't playing this year out of anger towards the format being changed to bo1. This wasn't just a communication issue, we know why you decided this, and we are against your conclusion.
I don't want to dwell on this, but while the individual numbers listed in D4's post are correct, their is fundamentally misleading and omits some very significant details which matter for this discussion, most notably how bo3 as compared to bo1 changes the overall probability that the better player in a set loses, and instead looks at just individual values which miss the bigger picture.
If 2 players, player 1 and player 2, are playing each other in a bo1 set, and the probability that player 1 wins over player 2 in an average game is listed as x, which we will assume to be constant over their match, then the probability they win their set, W(x), is just x. Whereas if they were playing a best of 3 set, the probability player 1 wins, which I will list as V(x), is instead 3x^2-2x^3. If we plug in the percentages that D4's post gives into V(x) and W(x) of 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.70, then we get the same changes in win probabilities mentioned in D4's post.
However, what their post neglects to mention is how the overall probability that the better player in the set loses changes from bo1 to bo3. This can be given as the sum of 2 different integrals involving V(x) and W(x) depending on whether player 1 is more likely or less likely to win in an average game. Computing these integrals gives a 25% chance that the better player loses in a bo1 set and a 18.75% chance they lose in bo3, which is a 25% reduction in the probability that the better player loses their set. This is an absolutely significant change in the amount of variability, and cannot be seen as just a slight change by any stretch.
If there was a significant amount of complaints over burnout or exclusion from RBY being bo3, then this would be reasonable as a line of justification. However as the posts by Isa has attested to, as well from my own experience in the community, can attest to, this is not the case for the vast majority of players in tournaments. So ultimately this is purely due to the desire to make the number of games uniform across tiers rather than following what the playerbase wants.
Just because the previous decision for RBY to be made bo3 was based on reasoning which has been proven untrue does not on its own mean that the decision should be reversed. As has been made abundantly clear by the posts in this thread and Isa's testimony, over the 9 years the tier has been in SPL, the decision to make RBY bo3 has been seen as a positive for the tier, the playerbase near unanimously has demonstrated they prefer bo3. Treating this as making RBY now equal and elevating it from its prior status as the only bo3 tier display a baffling amount of willful ignorance on the part of the Tournament Directors.
As I have said previously:
All this response has done is prove my point. This decision is utterly indefensible and unreasonable, and at bare minimum it should be reversed and a very thorough overhall of internal policy should be done.
This is the strangest, absurdest, most arbitrary hill to die on. I am genuinely asking the TDs why they're continuing to pursue this. Really, just drop it; revert the decision and create a thread post-SPL deciding how metas should be played in a best of x format. You've heard what the community wants and the thread of consistency you've been touting has been tattered by your "attempts to renege" previous 'official rulings' in this thread.
Give it up, the initial ruling states that Subsequent attempts will result in a tourban. I don't want that for anyone can we just all get along
this decision, originally implemented to stunt dpp/other tiers from being able to vote on bo3 at rby's expense, leading to a double down with insane backlash on every front, then relenting with the stipulation that devs need to codify gentleman's agreements into the sim? for rby only? with bo1 as the default?
this has to be the worst, most unfathomable string of decisions taken by authority during my almost 6 years on this site. i hope higher ups seriously consider td team reconstruction after this is all over. not trying to shoot any messengers or shit on any tds independently for their actions, but as a collective unit the current td team is irredeemable.
this has to be the worst, most unfathomable string of decisions taken by authority during my almost 6 years on this site. i hope higher ups seriously consider td team reconstruction after this is all over. not trying to shoot any messengers or shit on any tds independently for their actions, but as a collective unit the current td team is irredeemable.
i support this wholeheartedly.
I want to start by stating that I take full responsibility for the previous conclusion posted in this thread. It was clearly not fully thought out, and for that I personally apologize.
For SPL XV, the RBY OU slot will remain a best-of-three series, considering its historical presence in previous years.
Additional discussion about the RBY OU slot in future editions will be held after this SPL concludes. The other generations will remain best-of-one series.
Thank you for your patience.
For SPL XV, the RBY OU slot will remain a best-of-three series, considering its historical presence in previous years.
Additional discussion about the RBY OU slot in future editions will be held after this SPL concludes. The other generations will remain best-of-one series.
Thank you for your patience.
Took longer than necessary, but it's at least done so thanks guys. I think in future it should be for either incredibly good reason (e.g. BO3 as full standard for less cheese being what decides etc) or to build upon what exists (e.g. allow BO3 as an alternative in gens A+ if both players agree, but otherwise BO1).
I'm going to bed at 4:43am, merry Christmas all.
I'm going to bed at 4:43am, merry Christmas all.
going to chime in as well and say that this would be a wonderful change.
it strictly makes the player experience better & as i understand as of current you cant gentleman's agree to play bo3 in bo1 tiers.
probably worth spinning this off into a different thread, might not have time for this discussion before SPL starts but would be good to see this in some smaller scale tournament (ADVPL is starting mid-march from a glance @ the ROA schedule - perhaps there? RBYWC in early march is another option. probably other choices too)
also dont delete this alltimer
look, im happy this awful decision got reversed but i hope we all still remember a few things:
1. the td team still unanimously came to this decision
2. they enacted it an entirely ridiculous manner with complete disregard for the RBY playerbase and integrity of tournaments
its clear to me that this decision was reversed more to save face than to actually make the right decision. its good that we as a community can force change by banding together but the td team has demonstrated their incompetence over and over again. on a more positive note, i find it really impressive that user sabelette led the charge against this mediocrity or malice (im not sure what to call it anymore) but its clear she cares much more about the rby community (and the dpp community from my understanding) than the current td team and thats the kind of representation we need. i think we need to see some resignations and sabelette (and those like herself) should replace them
1. the td team still unanimously came to this decision
2. they enacted it an entirely ridiculous manner with complete disregard for the RBY playerbase and integrity of tournaments
its clear to me that this decision was reversed more to save face than to actually make the right decision. its good that we as a community can force change by banding together but the td team has demonstrated their incompetence over and over again. on a more positive note, i find it really impressive that user sabelette led the charge against this mediocrity or malice (im not sure what to call it anymore) but its clear she cares much more about the rby community (and the dpp community from my understanding) than the current td team and thats the kind of representation we need. i think we need to see some resignations and sabelette (and those like herself) should replace them
I am glad the community got a win. Accepting feedback is not only important, but it's the best way to actively improve and grow your internal community members.
However. This entire topic has overshadowed an extremely important decision made just days ago within this community. And the corrupt DPP council is getting away with it as we speak.
We CANNOT let the cabal dictate DPP. #FreeFroslass
However. This entire topic has overshadowed an extremely important decision made just days ago within this community. And the corrupt DPP council is getting away with it as we speak.
We CANNOT let the cabal dictate DPP. #FreeFroslass
- Status