honestly it doesnt matter broIK that. It was just worded somewhat strangely.
honestly it doesnt matter broIK that. It was just worded somewhat strangely.
Now I have to get to top three to deal w/ you? Also revoking Ban EGhttp://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/monotype-331362658 -Betathunder
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/mixandmega-331367382 -P1101560
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/almostanyability-331371914 -P1101560
P1101560's snow warning- all hail the new imposter champion
why revoking that? Do you not want it to count, or do you not want TEG banned?Now I have to get to top three to deal w/ you? Also revoking Ban EG
Don't want EG banned. Don't hate ferrogod it's perfectly viable. Just allergic to firefighterswhy revoking that? Do you not want it to count, or do you not want TEG banned?
Yes Om Room. Pick GaF imo, so I can beat up ferrogod ez.
Yeah, Ik. Not perfectly viable, but best grass god. I just like beating it. You should nom it for c.Don't want EG banned. Don't hate ferrogod it's perfectly viable. Just allergic to firefighters
Also I'll probably just be used smogon if I do.
Actually having one month cycles would be too short for the laddering challenge to work persay, I'd reccomend 1.5 months tbhAlright, I wanted to bring this up for a while ever since it was introduced. The new system of “challenging the champion” makes absolutely no sense. The whole purpose of this competition is a laddering challenge, so why can somebody erase my progress just because I am in the lead by a simple best-of-3? The system doesn’t encourage people to win; it encourages people to just challenge the champion rather than work their way up to the top. This defeats the purpose of the entire challenge, making it an endless cycle of challengers with no champion. It’s completely unfair that I out-laddered everybody and then get instantly dethroned because I lost a best of 3 series in which my opponent knew my ENTIRE TEAM before he even started the battle. I was set up to fail by the system and I did, but realistically, it was completely undeserved.
In comparison, Jeran won star 3 months in a row. Nobody said then that they could challenge Jeran and he would suddenly lose all his progress – they set up cycles. Why don’t we do that for ILC? Set up monthly periods for the challenge, then have a champion at the end of each month and have the cycle reset, everybody starting from zero. There is no point in our current system, since we are basically asking the champions to fail by allowing counterteams, and worse, negating their progress every time they lose, causing this to become a race to get beaten at the top by somebody who may not have laddered half as much as you did, and is likely not as deserving.
The point isn't how long the cycle is, it's that we need a changeActually having one month cycles would be too short for the laddering challenge to work persay, I'd reccomend 1.5 months tbh
To be fair, I didn't know your team, only the mons- which you knew as well. I couldn't even change my team or majorly alter sets (ie different formes, etc). The only way to cteam in a way your opponent cant beat is to purposefully lose some weeks in order to challenge with them later, which again only works if there are forms being offered (and might not even help).Alright, I wanted to bring this up for a while ever since it was introduced. The new system of “challenging the champion” makes absolutely no sense. The whole purpose of this competition is a laddering challenge, so why can somebody erase my progress just because I am in the lead by a simple best-of-3? The system doesn’t encourage people to win; it encourages people to just challenge the champion rather than work their way up to the top. This defeats the purpose of the entire challenge, making it an endless cycle of challengers with no champion. It’s completely unfair that I out-laddered everybody and then get instantly dethroned because I lost a best of 3 series in which my opponent knew my ENTIRE TEAM before he even started the battle. I was set up to fail by the system and I did, but realistically, it was completely undeserved.
In comparison, Jeran won star 3 months in a row. Nobody said then that they could challenge Jeran and he would suddenly lose all his progress – they set up cycles. Why don’t we do that for ILC? Set up monthly periods for the challenge, then have a champion at the end of each month and have the cycle reset, everybody starting from zero. There is no point in our current system, since we are basically asking the champions to fail by allowing counterteams, and worse, negating their progress every time they lose, causing this to become a race to get beaten at the top by somebody who may not have laddered half as much as you did, and is likely not as deserving.
I think cycles are probably the best way to go about it, no disagreement there. My suggested length is two months.The point isn't how long the cycle is, it's that we need a change
I'm not saying you did cteam, I'm just saying it's something that could possibly happen in the future. Also, you said it yourself, you had little incentive. Why then should someone who doesn't care as much be rewarded with the top spot?To be fair, I didn't know your team, only the mons- which you knew as well. I couldn't even change my team or majorly alter sets (ie different formes, etc). The only way to cteam in a way your opponent cant beat is to purposefully lose some weeks in order to challenge with them later, which again only works if there are forms being offered (and might not even help).
My issue with this logic, however, is that it makes a lot of unfair comparisons. First of all, with Jeran, He kept winning because he was amazingly skilled. Anyone better could unseat him- not enough people were. With you, all you had to do (not that you did) was come in third every time. Om room and I could completely outladder you, do better in every way, and still not ever overtake you. I'm not saying that's what was happening, but it could. I have very little incentive to top ladders or reach high placing, because it doesn't matter.
I think cycles are probably the best way to go about it, no disagreement there. My suggested length is two months.
incentive isn't how much you care, its how much effort is rewarded.I'm not saying you did cteam, I'm just saying it's something that could possibly happen in the future. Also, you said it yourself, you had little incentive. Why then should someone who doesn't care as much be rewarded with the top spot?
if there was no point in doing so, why do you keep trying to do it? This is just a fun little laddering challenge to get a cute little CT and you repeatedly insulting everyone whenever they sign up with a PURPOSELY sarcastic name isn't very good for attracting more people to do this. Even if you "don't care" about laddering to first or whatever, you quite obviously care about the position. There shouldn't be "cycles" or whatever for who is the champion, if you're doing that you might as well give everyone who has laddered highest three times the same "I am the Imposter Champion!" ct, because rotation guarantees it at some point or another. If this is a true laddering contest, there shouldn't be a "get to the top only to be defeated" scenario. Whoever's the champion should stay the champion for the reason that they got it until someone ladders better than them.incentive isn't how much you care, its how much effort is rewarded.
Incentive: a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something.
I would have laddered to first, but there was literally no point in doing so. Also, I think I just explained how it was impossible/extremely difficult to cteam.
Yes, I owe you and Om Room both apologies for that. I didn't mean it be offensive, but I probably totally was.if there was no point in doing so, why do you keep trying to do it? This is just a fun little laddering challenge to get a cute little CT and you repeatedly insulting everyone whenever they sign up with a PURPOSELY sarcastic name isn't very good for attracting more people to do this.
My problem is that even if you ladder better than them, unless you somehow ladder so much better than them by always fighting them and being on whenever they are on and never letting them get a win, they can stay literally forever in second or third. There is nothing you can do.Even if you "don't care" about laddering to first or whatever, you quite obviously care about the position. There shouldn't be "cycles" or whatever for who is the champion, if you're doing that you might as well give everyone who has laddered highest three times the same "I am the Imposter Champion!" ct, because rotation guarantees it at some point or another. If this is a true laddering contest, there shouldn't be a "get to the top only to be defeated" scenario. Whoever's the champion should stay the champion for the reason that they got it until someone ladders better than them.
The issue with that, again, is that from the start this wasn't set up in the right way for that. Yes, I was totally lazy in the first two weeks and didn't get on the scoreboard, and yes I haven't pushed myself enough to pass beta, but even if I did, if I missed a week or just had bad luck with hax, I might never catch up no matter what I did.Also I agree with Betathunder with the whole challenging the current champion thing. If this is a laddering challenge, what does a battle to keep your title have to do with it? It's literally the same thing as if someone got highest score in the daily tours to get player and if one person beat them they lost their star. It just doesnt fit in with the type of contest that this is.