Jump to content


Photo

2015 L97 Metagame Revamp Official Discussion Thread


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1 penguinqwert

penguinqwert

    JN Loyalist

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 10:59 PM

**Before reading this post, I highly urge you to read the opening post of the previous discussion thread! http://www.jellyneof...showtopic=39581

---

We are starting up this discussion earlier than I wanted, but since early discussions have already emerged, we might as well get the discussions going in a formal manner. This thread will serve as the official venue for the 2015 metagame revamp for League 97. I promise to read all posts in their entirety made to this thread. I can make no guarantees that I will read or even see opinions posted on the Battledome Chat, so please urge your peers to post here. If a fellow L97 battler is too stubborn to post here, you can let them know that I will promise to read through any Neomails they send me, but I may not give a response. I will make my best effort to address every opinion posted here.

With that out of the way, let's introduce the matter at hand. I think most L97 participants could agree that the metagame is getting a little stale, and that we could add excitement to the league by adding or altering some rules. The first metagame discussion faded away, but we are now at a better time to actually implement changes. Any changes decided on now could be implemented in January or February prior to any official 2015 L97 tournament.

Below I will list potential ideas that myself and others have thought up in the past. I encourage you to share your opinion on each and every idea. The following ideas are all ideas that I would be willing to implement but by no means is the list below exhaustive. You are welcome to post your own ideas in addition to commenting on the existing ideas.

If certain ideas emerge as being exceedingly popular, we will take a formal vote. The formal voting process will also be up for debate, as we must decide what constitutes an eligible voter.

----

IDEAS FOR 2015 LEAGUE 97

Glowing Cauldron
1a) Glowing Cauldron is banned until/unless TNT fixes the turn-order glitch
1b) Glowing Cauldron may not be used more than five time in match. In addition, Glowing Cauldron cannot be used more than three times in any given battle during the match.

Offensive Icon Cap Raise
2a) Variable icon Multiple Use weaponry is limited to 13.0 offensive icons. Constant Multiple Use weaponry is limited to 12.0 offensive icons.
2b) Dual Duty weapons may not exceed 16.0 total icons.
2c) Once Per Battle weapons may not exceed 16.0 total icons.

Full Block Dual Duties
3a) Full block Dual Duty weapons are allowed. The full block component of a Dual Duty is treated as 10.0 icons towards the 16.0 total icon limit for Dual Duty weapons.

Abilities
4a) The Shhhhhh! ability is allowed in the Level 50 ability tier. No other Level 50 ability may be used.

Item Usability
5a) Single Use and Fragile items are allowed provided they do not violate any rules.
5.1a) Battlers may not equip more than one of the following: Thyoras Tear, Downsize Power Plus, Thick Smoke Bomb, Castle Defenders Shield

---

Before this discussion begins, I must make one more important note. I operate League 97 with my free time. I do so because I enjoy the battling this league has to offer, and I want my fellow players to have an enjoyable battling experience in the mediocre new Battledome we have been stuck with for two years. With that said, I am hoping to be as flexible as possible when it comes to altering the metagame to offer a slightly different battling experience. However, there are some ideas I would absolutely NOT support. If such ideas were to become popular, I would not stand in the way of them, but I would distance myself from this league. I hope that this does not happen, but it is important that I establish this fact now in the event that this does in fact happen. Thank you for your understanding.

#2 dafinsrock

dafinsrock

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 11:48 PM

For those interested, a similar discussion was held a while back and the weapons that would be affected by these changes are listed there. That thread is just a few slots below this one.

I am strongly on favor of all the proposed changes except for #5. Single use items would level the playing field considerably for those who don't own a TTear, but would also mean that those people -- already at a disadvantage financially -- would have to spend hundreds of thousands of np on Thick Smoke Bombs and the like. That wouldn't be a big deal in bracket play, but in pool play when one can easily participate in dozens of battles, it would be a problem.

I know the counter-argument would be, "they don't have to use one use items if they don't want to," but I don't believe that's valid. The affect of a Thyoras Tear on a battle are well documented -- it's very difficult to win consistently without one -- so if everyone who didn't have a tear used Thick Smoke Bombs, non-Tear users would have to do the same to stay competitive. That, as I said earlier, would mean throwing several hundred k down the toilet every tourney.

I believe a much better solution would be to ban TTear outright (this coming from a tear user, as most of you know). Although I realize that may not be the most popular option, I think that it is best for the metagame in order to maintain parity and the foster the sense that a winner could come from anywhere, which is part of what made L97 so exciting in its formative days.

Barring that, another solution could be to allow single use items only in the playoffs. That would keep the cost down while still giving financially restricted battlers a shot at making a miracle run. That said, I must admit that it's a bit off putting to consider using different rules in the playoffs as in pool play.

If we do allow one-use items, which, the more i think about it, may not be such a bad idea after all, I believe the rule should include a clause recognizing as valid and even encouraging a sort of "gentleman's agreement" to not use one use items if both battlers agree not to. That way, two non-tear users could save the 30k a piece on 3 tsbs or full healers for the set and just fight with their normal weaponry. That would reduce the cost for them while still helping them compete with the tear users.

Okay, I think I've talked myself into agreeing with 5.), albeit conditionally and somewhat reluctantly. I would still prefer a Tear ban though. I'm interested in seeing everyone else's take on this.

Also, how has GC still not been banned yet? That should have happened a long time ago. Nobody really even uses it anymore because we all despise it so much.
Sorry, had to slip that in at the end haha

Edited by dafinsrock, 17 December 2014 - 11:52 PM.


#3 penguinqwert

penguinqwert

    JN Loyalist

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 03:30 PM

Thanks for your input Nick. Yes, it is important that people read my opening post from the old discussion as it covers the weapons that would be allowed in 2a, 2b, and 3a.

I am no longer against allowing Single Use items in L97 play, but I believe if we do enable them we should go all the way in allowing near-full reign of Single Use items, aka allowing tactical weaponry such as Slippery Floor Potion and Potion of Concealment. Allowing all or nearly-all Single Use weapons would actually do a lot more to change the metagame than the Thick Smoke Bomb and Jade Elixir which immediately come to mind.

I didn't mention it specifically, but the outright banning of TTear would be one of the alterations that would cause me to leave L97. TTear contributes a great deal to the metagame, and I don't believe the metagame is enriched by removing it. I understand that some users feel they cannot win against TTear, but I believe this comes largely from the fact that these certain users lack adequate defensive options, which of course do not come cheap.

If someone battles 20-30 times in a tournament, he or she would likely spend 400k-500k on TSBs and JEs, no small amount. However, this amount isn't much when you consider LEV and Tear owners have lost tens of millions in some cases from deflation. I believe I paid 80m for my Tear and around 35-38m for my LEV. No one who buys TSBs and JEs for a few tournaments will come anywhere close to equaling my losses.

Now let's consider who would benefit from a rule change allowing TSB and JE:



Battlers at the bare bottom of L97 using Leaf Shield, Scroll of Knowledge and Jar of Brains would likely be unable to afford to purchase TSB and JE on a consistent basis. These people would essentially be booted out of the league based on financial constraints. However, there were few of these people and these people never really stuck around because they didn't win at all anyway.

People at the next step up with Barbat Throwing Star(s), perhaps F-Tab, and a few other low cost weapons but no SSYT will be at the biggest loss. People in this budget area are probably slow earners and cannot afford to keep buying TSB and JE.

People with SSYT and a few additional HT weapons are in pretty good shape. They only have to buy TSB, and these people may be able to squeak out extra wins against the classes above them. The cost of ~300k on TSBs each tourney probably won't impact them much. People in this class still won't be highly competitive because a full armoury of Shields and extra constants is what really separates the pack.

The people with everything but a TTear are the real winners of this rule. These people become equal with Tear owners, and these people probably don't care with throwing away a few hundred thousand a tournament.

Basically, the closer a nonTear owner is to having a complete armoury (minus the Tear of course), the more they benefit from this rule. Still, the allowance of TTear and JE could help create an illusion that everyone can be competitive with them.

#4 Da_Infamous_One

Da_Infamous_One

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 10:53 PM

I think they'ye all great ideas and i'm in favor of them... BUT that being said i don't think GC should be banned but have a strict limitation to it. for exapmle maybe allow it once per battle or even once or twice to a 3 set match. it only gets a bad rep when someone spams the weapon in battle. i've had it happen to me a couple time and it's really irriating. i have used one before in battle but only as a tactical weapon to turn a match around in my favor and even end a match quickly i.e (GC and CE)and i think only than it's worth using but you also have to remember it has a chance of failing which can cause the match to backfire and possibly cost the user the match. that's all i have to say but i really hope the rest of the rules fall in place it will make L97 much more interesting and i can't wait

#5 neoskulltula

neoskulltula

    JN Regular

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 20 December 2014 - 05:48 PM

I've brought up the x number of uses per fight/set for Glowing Cauldron before, and I support such a change before banning it outright.

For the whole TTear/TSB thing, I am fine with allowing both but I'd like to see a rule where you can only equip one of these once per set. Not only does it save TSB buyers a ton of moolah, it creates a layer of strategy not unlike the whole "Will they use it this fight?" thing CE has going on. Each turn in the BD is you trying to read your opponent. I like the idea of that sort of sizing up on a bigger, pre-fight level. We have it a bit with CE, and it would be nice to flesh it out some more. This move would also mitigate relatively bad battlers hiding behind TTear. And yes they do exist; I've seen them.

#6 penguinqwert

penguinqwert

    JN Loyalist

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 20 December 2014 - 08:30 PM

That's true Greg. In the first debate we proposed banning it, but as the debate progressed we arrived with the idea of limiting its use as stated in proposed rule 1b.

I will say that I'm not a huge fan of limiting the usage of particular weapons, but I do believe it is a better alternative to outright banning GC. I would not support the idea of limiting Tear/TSB use in the same fashion. I think TTear is a pivotal part of L97 battles, and there can also be some mystery as to whether or not Tear is equipped every battle. I know that I leave it out once in awhile. As to your comment about bad battlers with TTear, I find them pretty easily beatable, even without Tear. Owning a TTear is obviously a huge boost, but not so much that it can cover up poor strategy.

#7 dafinsrock

dafinsrock

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 23 December 2014 - 07:25 PM

Allowing Tear once per set seems like a reasonable compromise and would serve to shake up the metagame a bit, which is what we're trying to do if I understand correctly. It wouldn't necessarily be any better or worse, but it would be different, adding a new layer of strategy that wasn't there before. We need that.

Steve, I agree that Tear is an pivotal part of the existing metagame, but that metagame is stale. People are getting bored with it. We need to make a drastic change of some sort just to maintain interest, and Tear seems the most forthcoming option.

That said, I'm going to throw my support behind anything to assuages some of the disparity between Tear users and non-Tear users. The specifics of what that looks like -- one use items, restrictions, or an outright ban -- are not nearly as important to me, as long as something is done.

#8 penguinqwert

penguinqwert

    JN Loyalist

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 23 December 2014 - 10:07 PM

Thanks for your input Kevin and Nick. I'm hoping everyone is spreading the word that the debate has (unofficially) begun here on the forums.



I don't think TTear has made the metagame stale. I believe TTear is the most dynamic weapon in this league and removing it would make the gameplay far less interesting. I think adding TSB would help even the playing field for some players, although TTear is already pretty cheap now thanks to deflation. TSB would most benefit the users who already have multiple options for constants, duals, and shields, and I have feeling that a lot more of these people can now afford those 30m TTears.



Here are the items that I believe most contribute to L97 play getting stale. These are all multiple use weapons as I believe that it is the weapons that get used over and over again that make the play seem bland at times:

Rancid Battle Dung (Particularly when dual wielded)
Hobans Hat
Kaylas Hat
Kings Lens (Really only when it is paired with F-Tab and the user chooses to use them in unison nonstop)

I'm sure I am missing an item or two, but these are items in which I am most focused on balancing out. Shield of Pion Troect would be allowed in 3a) and would be a top-notch counter to dual RBD. Rusty Pitchfork would be allowed in 2b) and would punish excessive H-hat use. The 10-5 dual duties are some of the most powerful weapons in this league for obvious reason. An 11-5 dual duty like Rusty Pitchfork would be powerful as well, but Rusty Pitchfork has pretty lackluster icon types as well as a defense that really only deals with a handful of L97 weapons. I am not so sure what can be done about the K-Lens/F-Tab combo. This combo can only get shredded by dual Kilns; the problem is that there are no mass Air icon weapons. RBD and BTS are the best for Air icons, but these weapons feed the K-Lens with Earth and Dark icons.

#9 mopardude

mopardude

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 28 December 2014 - 04:29 PM

Leave it alone and see if jumpstart fixes the seeing glitch and move order before changing anything. Dont penalize the weapon, penalize the player who obviously stalls. It will be a lot less irritating and stale if you start holding players accountable for obvious stalling. I dont know whos bright idea it is to restrict weapons instead of player accountability. To me it just seems like some want the rules changed to conform to their style.

Maybe consider allowing TSB and JE.

The game should contain variables that anyone can potentially take advantage of. Not conforming the rules to suit ones whims and personal bias.

#10 drazzu

drazzu

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 02:38 AM

Just realized this thread was here.

1 and 4 seem to be definite yesses for me. No GC, Shhh is allowed.

Allowing single-use items, that one needs some discussion. I wouldn't call it as necessary as before given the deflation that has already occurred.

EDIT: Thought - with GC being banned temporarily that severely limits the counters available for TTear at an affordable budget. If this rule were to pass I would propose allowing TSB until the move order is fixed. This would be its own condition meaning its independent of allowing all one-use items that fit into the rules.

Also, What would the 16-icon dual duty limit mean for DFC? It has 15 dual duty icons but also has a weak reflect capability of 25% Dark. Before this was considered to put it over the 15-icon limit obviously because it was 15 + A little extra something. Does this little extra cause it to be considered above 16-icons?

Edited by drazzu, 30 December 2014 - 02:56 AM.


#11 penguinqwert

penguinqwert

    JN Loyalist

  • Retired Staffers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 03:17 PM

Dark Faerie Collar would still be banned under a specific rule.

I will also say that I personally prefer 1b) over 1a).

When contemplating the One Use items idea, also consider Slippery Floor Potion, Potion of Concealment, and Dark Nova, etc. Think outside the box of JE and TSB and consider how One Use potions could change gameplay.

#12 drazzu

drazzu

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 03:26 PM

I was considering those other one-use potions but wouldnt slippery floor potion break another rule? Fully locking an icon if it equals 10 icons SFPot would be 26 dual duty icons. Unless you want to make a special exception for SFPot since it can only be used once in a fight after all.

#13 mopardude

mopardude

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 03:27 PM

Delete post

Edited by mopardude, 30 December 2014 - 06:26 PM.


#14 drazzu

drazzu

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 30 December 2014 - 03:37 PM

However, there are some ideas I would absolutely NOT support. If such ideas were to become popular, I would not stand in the way of them, but I would distance myself from this league. I hope that this does not happen, but it is important that I establish this fact now in the event that this does in fact happen. Thank you for your understanding.


So its your way or the highway for ya?

At least acknowledge the seeing ability and include it in the L97 rules and FAQs, so all battlers are aware that potentially it could have a major impact on their battle. When L97 became an "outwait the other opponent in hopes to gain an advantage game" the weapon roster pales in comparison.

If you want to pretend it doesnt exist, thats your perogative, seems most everyone doesnt want to say anything, but when known stallers ruin the battle and appear psychic, then it should be addressed

I dont know why this isnt important.

Yes its not anyone but tnts fault the BD is this way now, but since it is, it could be addressed a little better for everyones benefit, then maybe you will have more players. Many probably dont bother because they think they arent good enough, when in reality they are being outwaited, their move being seen, and therefore are discouraged to play. I doubt Im the only one who can easily see L97 has lost its credibility and being competetive is impossible for many, unless the seeing ability/glitch isnt brought to light.

So then why is GC or any weapon modifications even being argued for or against when seeing others moves is a bigger hole and deciding factor in the metagame. In case this glitch/ability isnt fixed, time limit should be experimented with. May not work 100% but it could promote fairer play and player accountability.

Otherwise, I dont see how anyone can have true satisfaction of their actual ability

5 minute move or forfeit the battle, stallers can be screenshotted and submitted to confirm forfeiture


heres the thing though - how does one "screenshot" a staller? Its hard to get 100% confirmation of such an abuse. What I do is try to go first every single turn. That disables the ability for that glitch to be abused (for BOTH batlers). and with no GC, that becomes less of a sacrifice because then the only time move order matters is if a reflector is successfully used but also has a shield waiting for it at the other end which is more rare.

Edited by drazzu, 30 December 2014 - 03:39 PM.


#15 Pisha

Pisha

    Neophyte

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 December 2014 - 03:52 PM

I have been an advoacte of a time limit on moves since the waiting game began as well. I not only get annoyed, frustrated and loose focus when having to wait for another battler to move, but also get suspisious the other player is waiting to see my move. I realize the current lag complicates things even more, but if a rule is written, I personally will do my best to follow it, and hope most others will do the same.
if they break the rule, well then their honor and wins are shady and have no value. That is their choice.

When another battler moves long after me, and uses the perfect shield against my constants, my first thought is not 'good call!' anymore unfortunately. It is more often- well they saw that one.

This has ruined the value and competitiveness of the format for me.

I have seen moves, my friends have mailed me in many battles and told me they have seen my move, so this happens, but yet in the last few tourneys I have noticed no one is mailing me, saying we gotta redo that one, I saw your move. Has it just become a part of the format now?

My soluition. In tourney battles I throw a sticky note on my screen over the weapon pictures. This allows me to read the text, but never see anyones move before they make it.

it is a good practice to get into, if you would like to keep the format fair

also let the new guys know they should wait to move a minute or 2, this does seem to help reduce the incidents of seeing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users