I think it's just a shame that there's no time at all to reconnect after disconnecting, it'd solve most of these issues. But yeah, I guess you have to go with the rules here and award the game loss, it just sucks all round that it happened. Tatsuya played the first two games so well, too.
@TechHog Of course it's more complicated. You were saying that automatically reconnecting would be impossible, so I suggested a way that would work with manual reconnection. I'm just presenting ideas for possible solutions, improving or simplifying ideas would be the next step before implementation.
@TechHog A log is literally how the Vs. Recorder saved battle replays in all the ds and 3ds games, though. It just hasn't been used for this sort of context. And about priority, I meant that adding disconnect protection would be low on the list, since they barely have the time to make a functional singleplayer. The multiplayer code uses the same battle code, and most of the multiplayer aspect is likely pretty standard or carried over from previous titles.
@dsproductions19 I can't think of a single game that does what you're suggesting. You also don't know enough about the underlying code of the game to say that a simple log can store the state of the game indefinitely. And multiplayer is a priority for them. A huge one in fact, or else they would have just dropped it by now.
@TechHog A buffer of a few seconds is all it would usually need. It's a game series with a huge official tournament scene, so at least some protection would be nice. Though, I don't see why it can't just save the log in the save file, then check if the next battle is with the same person, and if it is, then ask both players if they want to continue or start a new battle. I do understand that Game Freak is *always* rushed to finish these games by a certain deadline, so they have to prioritize, and multiplayer would not be the top of that list. However, I have enough programming experience to know that very little is actually impossible with enough time, so I have a hard time believing this is one of those rare instances.
If youre going to grant a win to the player who was most likely to win, anyone could just pretend to accidentally disconnect whenever they felt like they had high odds of winning but didnt want to risk the slim chance of them losing. Its just not a good solution imo
@Jaccobtw Yeah - or standardize hardware so that everyone can undock their switch across all regions and maintain connection...that would make everyone happy lol
You'd have to make an objective criteria for what constitutes as who's in a winning state. Match timer hitting 0 rules is a great example of how tiebreakers are handled with objective criteria, but to something like a disconnect you may want those terms to differ. What I fear more however is if we had a ruleset that did anything but fault the player who DCed there could be way more flexible ways to take advantage of that. You'd need strict criteria for what kind of scenario a player who DCs is not at a loss fault. One could argue that the discrepancies between JP and PAL/US are unfortunate but if one were to use that and weaponize that for an advantage how would we prove between accident vs clever intention?
@GoXDS i mean, it is certainly viable, there's a chance to that you have to try multiple times, but for a game in the top cut of Worlds i'd say that's a small price to pay.
I agree with your assessment. Giving the win to the player that looks like they'll win could start an extremely dangerous precedent. Imagine a scenario where one player has a 90% chance to win, but it's not guaranteed. Maybe they "accidentally" cause a disconnect to avoid the 10%, believing they deserve the win anyways. It's best to make sure such a scenario can never happen.
@Sparky67 That brings about the issue of round time. Each round is only allowed a certain amount of time and ties/do-overs wreak havoc on a tournament as this one match can delay the start of the next round. This could also easily lead to a bunch of ties if one player won round 1, then a disconnect after a long game two, then the third match goes to the time limit and the other player either wins or has more Pokemon/HP than the opponent when the round is called.
Alternatively, if a player is overwhelmingly likely to win and then they cause a disconnect, just nullify that match with no points on either side. That cannot possibly benefit the disconnector
This is the content I subbed for. I don’t begrudge you for making the changes you needed to make a living out of this but Im glad to see this style back.
This actually reminds me of the time where I was in a SSBU tournament and the power of the tv was accidentally disconnected for a couple of seconds while I was offstage, causing me to lose a stock at 30%. I wanted to restart the match, but the staff were short on time so they told me to just play the game out, and my opponent threw their stock at 110%. This ended up putting me at a huge disadvantage, but I was able to make a really close comeback. I didn’t even know tournament matches could even be controversial until that day. Competitive video games are really interesting. Since then I’ve actually retired from comp SSBU. Comp is too stressful and serious for me, even though I was good at it imo.
That sounds very stressful. Props to your opponent for throwing the stock (assuming they had a choice in the matter), but still that leaves you in a situation where you have lost your 80% advantage and then (through no fault of your own) the match was equalized. Unfortunate all around.
This made me think of the "chrono break" that is sometimes done in league tournaments. They basically restore the game state to a saved point before a bug occured. Now I obviously have no idea if this could be done in pokemon but it sounds doable and may be a great tool to solve a problem like this
@Madop67 I didnt want to bring attention to your hilarious analogy to be nice before but you seriously just implied that nintendo has intentionally made a device that has the classic ethernet cable rip ragequit as a standard advertised feature they show in ads. Lmao
@Madop67 Yes, and? In other competitive games when you disconnect you ask for a pause to let you reconnect, if pausing is not an option you just reconnect as fast as possible. The only reason pokemon forces a forfeit on disconnect is that their game is so incompetently made that reconnecting is not possible in the first place -- which is doubly egregious when said disconnect was caused by hardware design corner-cutting by an entity that partially runs the tournament. Even your average casual mobile game lets you reconnect to matches you dc from and tolerates short service interruptions. Guess nintendo is just such a small indie company it cant compete with mobile game developers :(
@Lilybun for the record this is more akin to forfeiting a lan match because you unplugged your lan cable or your router, they disconnected because moving the switch in the dock disconnected it from the dock which is where the lan cable is plugged in. it wasn’t explicitly because he moved the console edit: typo
So fun fact: This functionality has been in Pokémon games since Platinum. It's just that the game designers haven't applied the functionality to this context. The Vs. Recorder actually does exactly this: it recreates the Pokémon battle(including the RNG seed, I assume) using each move that each Pokémon used to create a new fight that plays out exactly like the original. Hypothetically, the game is already saving the moves, their targets, and the random elements of their attacks as they happen, so, on a disconnect, the game could prompt the players with something like "would you like to save the battle up to the disconnect?" and then save either all the past moves or the current game state to the Vs. Recorder(or maybe some other item). From there, a player with the game state could "host a fight using Vs. Recorder teams" that another player could connect to and then have the match resume either from where it left off or from the beginning where the game controls each move until the game catches back up to the disconnect. I assume one of the problems with trying something like this is if someone disconnects after a move is selected but before the damage is calculated, then the player who initiated the disconnect wouldn't be able to record any information about that turn, so their save would only go to the turn before. This wouldn't be too big of a deal unless a disconnect happens before the disconnecting player has selected their move. Depending on whether the game sends over and saves the move and effect(s) it does separately or at the same time, this could give their opponent a chance to redo the turn if they realized they made a mistake after inputting their move. It's a smaller thing that could probably be fixed by tournaments including a rule, but it could be a source of pain depending on how annoying the player wants to be about inputting the same move("It was a mis-input, I promise").
As much as it sucks that this happened, bending the rule in this case probably would open the avenue for less trustworthy players to try and do something to work around the rule and find a loophole. While I do think that something different might be able to be done, it could open a can of worms that might be too controversial to be closed.
I think the judge made the call they needed to make. That doesn't excuse the technical incompetency of pokemon's netcode for an eSports, nor the baffling difference in hardware across regions. Like could you imagine a game of League being lost because the game dropped one frame (which can happen even for the most perfect connection) and the entire client disconnected? unacceptable. But you know Nintendo and Gamefreak will never fix that.
I don't think any judge could have done anything different. The problem lies with the game's inability to handle DC's gracefully; no reconnect, no save state, no nothing.
I really like hearing your thoughts about different topics in this format more than the scripted and heavy edited videos and apreciate that now that it doesn't have a place in your main channel you have done this channel. Keep up with the great job you are doing
It was such a sad game to watch live. Really hope there's some sort of technical safety net put in place in ScVi. Would be cool to either have like a set amount of time to reconnect in a local match or a save state on each turn where you can continue a battle from the last finished turn.
@MR GOGOAT showdown timers and rules work differently, plus, all official tournaments of a international series like this is always going to play on the official hardware. Playing on showdown takes away half the point of the world championships since the entire concept of pokemon is centered around "go catch your favorites/the best and train them up and bring it here to compare your training to others". It may seem more streamlined but alot of people stay in competitive because of the breeding and training process in building their team that they enjoy prior to a tournament, and would make it rather pointless to spend any time at all in the game they want to sell when you could instead just play on a free online emulator that everyone has access to without paying for or even ever playing the game and still calling yourself the "best pokemon trainer"
@Nxvh Regardless of whether you believe the judges were wrong or not, adding an in-game safety net would mean the judges don't need to make a decision either way next time.
Nah the failure was with the judges and/or rules. Penalties should only be available for intentional disconnects, and this DC was clearly unintentional.
this type of stuff is why i don't really get playing comp on cart, shit like this can't happen on, say, showdown. Ideally, imo Nintendo would make their own battle sim type thing or smth
“So there I was…” Never have such words been uttered that the viewers both cheered and relaxed at the same time. Gonna miss these types of vids on the main NGL
I think most importantly, it would have set a bad precedent if they were to give Tatsuya the win. That would create a gap for bad-faith players to "accidentally" cause a disconnect and argue with judges that they would have won and deserve the point. Having a rigid rule like this can only ensure sportsman-like conduct so long as it is enforced.
Really interesting analysis. I had no idea that the disconnect happened because Tatsuya lifted his Switch (I think a disconnect happened in one of the regionals also?). I realised it must be a difficult decision on all sides, but I definitely agree that everyone took the best route possible. I’d love it if there was a small window for reconnecting in matches, since I used to get DCed all the time because of mediocre internet myself, like maybe just 60 seconds? I get that it opens the door to a degree of cheating (forcing that window of time to give yourself extra time to think, for example), but maybe the window can only activate once per match and multiple activations over a short period of time (like once every match over 10 matches) results in a temporary online ban, like trading does. Also, world championship or no, it’s still Pokemon so I don’t think that tiny window to reconnect would pose any issues. Oh and replace all docks used in tourneys with the one Japan used. Hopefully that’s something Play Pokemon Int is thinking about seriously lol.
Honestly I think it's a feel bad situation all over but I also think that you're right about the judges making the correct decision. I feel like maybe they could have done a replay of the second game, but that can interfere with tournament scheduling and timing. Ultimately in a situation where there is no way to resolve the issue that feels good for everyone it's best to just fall back on the rules that everyone agreed to when joining the tournament.
The only way is either the standard disconnect penalty or they'd have to make a save state tool exclusively for competitive Pokemon that I doubt anyone incharge would greenlight unless the competitive scene is as popular as FPS or MOBA. Theres only 1 game that has this and that tool isnt even used all the time.
replay ha another issue low and high rolls for example or crits or things like a burn or paralyze etc. so not realy an option unless it was almost at the start of the battle maybe
I think 'disconnect = game loss' is the best way of preventing intentional DCs in the game, otherwise you'll get more unsavoury members of the community intentionally DCing to get a replay of a game, or like here to secure a 99% won game without risking that 1%. Also again, how can you predict what the win rate is. There are so many variables at play.
@Jub This implies that they knew that someone would want to randomly mess with their Switch during a match... which isn't something they would be thinking about considering that every Switch outside of Japan disconnects when moved. I'm willing to bet that _you_ didn't know that Japanese docks were different until this event. Also, your bias is showing. Why does the team they were using matter in this conversation? They didn't disqualify him. They made him play one extra game. If he lost it, that is still on him.
@Ace clearly people noticed and cared. This small decision to cut corners because "it probably wont matter anyway since it hasnt happened *yet* " caused a drastic shift in the final stages of a tournament, going from a player who used unique pokemon and strategies almost entering the top 8 on a large winning streak to instead just being another standard cookie cutter team from the japanese meta that everyone at the tournament already came prepared to play around
I’d like to know if they’re careful to warn players that undocking can cause a disconnection in the first place since it’s not an issue everyone’s going to have with their own hardware. If they weren’t putting up big old warning signs before, I imagine they will be now.
@DaShiku Because it is unnecessary. The docks used around the world work just fine. Most International Nintendo tourneys don't use Japanese docks either. If nobody would have even noticed or cared, so why should they do such a thing? This conversation is only happening because a player intentionally did something they shouldn't have. Are tournament supposed to responsible for _every_ bad decision a player makes?
I personally feel like the golisipod player would have won that situation everytime. There would have been no way for the other player to click fast enough to knock out a pokemon at close to full and the golisipod at 2 hp. That being said it is in the rules for disconnects but usually there is a warning that is given especially when the players are used to different hardware.
@nousername191 I’m pretty sure Incin would’ve lived a crit high horsepower which would mean it’s 3 High horsepowers + incin has protect to stall timer a bit. I don’t know the spreads though so that might not be true. Theres really a nonexistent chance that Ko wins this, but I don’t know if that necessarily means he should forfeit the match.
@Leif 3GHP Ko had a win con. A miniscule one that I'd never bet on (1/24 chance of crit on a 95% accurate move), but a win con nonetheless; knock out Golisopod and crit High Horsepower the Incin. Pokemon is the kind of game where insane luck can turn things around at the last second and we can't take away chances to play just because the OPPONENT DC'ed by accident. As for the timer argument: Ko still had enough time to just mash High Horespower twice and pray, Golisopod was not living even a resisted hit. They agreed to the DC means loss rule when they signed up, that's how it has to go. Tatsuya got robbed by Pokemon's garbage infrastructure for competitive, but that's how it is.
Really loving this new channel. It's cool to see Wolfe thriving as a Clip-Sharer on his main channel, but it's super great to see him over here being a YouTubist again
Tough decision but i feel like you have to count the disconect as a loss. It Just opens up the opportunity for more weird situations to happen in the future.
Something like this actually happened in a grand finals during EVO, a few years ago. A hardware malfunction caused a pause that was neither player’s fault, but the player who’s fight stick had caused the issue was going to be DQ’d for it. The other player stood up and intervened, saying he didn’t want to win, that way, and the judges let them replay the match. Given the situation, being that the leading player was the one who disconnected, I feel like a rematch would’ve made more sense. But, rules are rules for a reason, and as much as it sucks to lose like that and have your mentality ruined, it’s just the way it is, sometimes
From the outside of VGC looking in agree with your assessment. They can’t reasonably draw the line somewhere new after something unfortunate like this has already taken place, especially when it’s accounted for in the rules. It would be nice if Tatsuya could be recognized or compensated in some other way though.
"That's the rules; he agreed to it," is terrible reasoning. Bad rules can exist, and enforcing bad rules is always wrong. That said, I think giving a game loss to the player who caused a DC is a good rule, given that Game Freak hasn't implemented a save state / auto-pause-and-resume feature for in-person versus matches (which should be a must for Gen 9).
Sure he knew dc equals game loss but was he warned that lifting the console causes a dc? Still a bit on the fence to not tell players how to avoid a dc, no?
I agree. I do think that it would be nice if the rules made it so that if it actively gives the player who DC'D disadvantage, you redo that game instead of issuing a loss.
I'm so glad you talked about this! I wish what had happened had been acknowledged during the tournament by the announcers - I was confused and wanted to understand how the disconnect happened in the first place! Like in sports games, when a call is being made, everyone discusses which way it might go and why - it should be the same in tournaments (although I'm sure it would be hard for anyone at that point to know so quickly in real time)!
I'd maybe put an exception in the rules for matches that are 100% guaranteed in someone's favour (like one attack that definitely outspeeds or opponent having no more attacking moves) but for tournament settings I'd definitely just add a sort of save state feature or find a way to simulate the battle
It is a shame what happend but the rules are the rules even if tatsu didn't mean to break it he did broke it, the specification of "disconect intended or not is a loss" is there for situations like this one and even though I personally wanted tatsu to win I still agree with the decision of the judges
It’s unfortunate that something like this happened, but at the end of the day, I have to applaud the judges for sticking to the rules for this. I just think it’s a bit odd that you wouldn’t get the same type of switch dock as the one you would typically use, in case something like this were to happen
THE OLD INTRO OMFG I GOT SO EXCITED TO HEAR IT!!!!! Thank you wolfey for making both of these kinds of content! I love the usual and the level of quality but the unscripted/ ramble is the best and I missed it
this is honestly why i wish there was a built-in way to start games in certain game states( weather with x turns left, Pokemon KO-ed, or - or+ stats) so if a disconnect happens late game, reconnecting and finishing was feasible. instead we get a player who played their best with a win that's tarnished and a player who lost due to no fault of their understanding or skill at the game. :(
When you're at Worlds and something like this happens, they should have the capability to reprogram everything, including timer, to it's original state before the disconnect. I think they made the right call, but this is also on Game Freak and should be heavily considered when formatting battle programming in the future.
I think that "where do you draw the line" is obviously an important question but I think it's one that has more value than just being rhetorical. You mention not knowing (EV) spreads, but I think there's a case to be made that you could actually develop a probability of winning based on current game state and best strategy for both players. Like, if the optimal path forward is known (which it is here: incineroar will flare blitz 3 times, rillaboom will tantrum/protect/tantrum), then it's easy to have both players tell an "independent tournament advisor" their spreads, then use burn chance/crit chance/other damage calcs to actually figure out how likely it is to win for either side. And then just set the threshold at something like 95%/99% chance to win = that player gets the win after a disconnect. Just an interesting thought experiment, not saying this would be possible for every event to implement or recommending that they do so.
The only reason I sided with Tatsuya is because I wanted to see that team continue, but the logic is sound. What lacks logic is the lack of reconnect feature, I think that part of the issue with "keeping a game state" is that it requires that the information of the whole team to be saved in the other switch, in order to recreate the match, so the system could be gamed to somehow access that information and expose the whole team, but that was something that should have been already possible with the replays in previous gens. A reconnect feature would be comprised of a way to recreate game states, therefore could be used for replays, in-story plot cutscenes, getting into an already started wild vs wild pokemon battle, or to do "lethal" or victory puzzles, so it isn't just for this.
I've seen something like this live at EVO aka Evolution Championship Series which is the largest fighting game tournament in the world (for those unfamiliar). In 2015 during the Grand Finals of Street Fighter Momochi and Gamerbee two of the top players in the world were embroiled in a heated battle when Momochi's controller malfunctioned causing the game to pause. They gave that round of the game to Gamerbee and found Momochi a replacement controller for the remainder of the set. Momochi ultimately won, but it really didn't sit well with a lot of the audience. The right call was made though at the end of the day, and it was a tough thing to happen.
Really appreciate the video. I remember watching this happen live and was super confused. I don’t remember the announcers being super clear on what happened either so I think that’s why it felt so weird to watch.
It would be trivial to implement some sort of battle save state or rollback feature, or even the most basic of basic disconnect timers that doesn't just immediately end the match if someone's connection gets interrupted. But I guess that's asking a lot from the company that literally prints cardboard worth its weight in gold
I think perhaps they could implement a rule that if a player with a clear and obvious lead accidentally DCs they could rule it a No Contest instead of giving them a loss. That way the losing player still has a chance at a comeback but isn't rewarded with a win and the next matches may play out differently with new information for each player
2 options:We're assuming they can both 1. Give the loss to Tatsuya to be consistent with official rules. 2. Reset the game, and play it out to recreate the state of the game prior to disconnect as accurately as possible (from the recorded stream.) I think scenario 1 is the better option. Scenario 2 would be the preferred option, but it can't realistically be done unless the game is being recorded in some manner. So unfortunately, this is not an option for all matches, and applying it only in matches where it's possible would be unfair.
unfortunate for sure but at the end of the day, tatsuya is the one physically causing the disconnect, you must be aware of the stage you’re playing at. if it was a “digital” disconnect it’d be much more debatable imo. i think a replay of game 2 would’ve been a valid decision too, given the overwhelming state of the endgame
this match is such a shame, i dont blame the judges or anyone involved - especially Ko for not throwing the next game - but i do wish tatsuya was able to win also at least it made me aware of the team and i had fun using it on the ladder while series 12 lasted
Unfortunate but settling it with the agreed rules is best since it was "agreed" upon to enter the tournament. I can only hope this brings up the issue and allows reconnecting to become a thing or if they don't want to fix that issue at least have a way to recreate the current match. Always struck me as weird that they can't recreate a turn based games slate. Real time combat I 100% understand being an issue to recreate but not turn based.
The only other option for me was that the match was voided and re-played. It was either Tatsuya takes the disconnect loss or Ko agrees to re-play the match. Never should Ko be given a loss because regardless of how slim a chance there was a chance to win and the loser of a game should be the one to decide to forfeit, never should be that decided by their opponent. While it sucks for the misunderstanding of tech, I hope that someone took the time to explain it to Tatsuya so that they would know in the future.
In this situation (or maybe in similar situations going forward), could they have replayed the match instead? Have the players choose the same 4 and the same leads and just played it out from there? I realize that takes out some of the guesswork and prediction since you now have more information about your opponent's team, but it still seems more fair to me than arbitrarily giving a win to one of the players. Obviously the hard part here becomes drawing the line between intentional and unintentional disconnect, but especially in this case where the player who was in a leading position caused the disconnect and therefore had nothing to gain from doing it, I feel like a redo of the match is a better middle ground. The end result might have been the same, Ko might have won the rematch, as well as game 3, but I feel like if I was Tatsuya, I would still rather lose like that, than automatically be given a game loss and then have to recover from that mentally for game 3.
Never played in an actual tournament, but I can say in just my online experience there have been soo many times I thought I had a game good as won then somehow the tables turn. As long as the element of chance exists there just isn't a good way to hash this out so I agree with sticking to the tournament ruling.
I agree that the judges couldn't have realistically done anything else. If I were in Ko's shoes, I probably would have forfeited, but I can't say for sure how I'd react if I was actually in that position since I've obviously never been a top contender in a Pokemon tournament. But I don't exactly blame him for taking the win by the rules either.
I missed some games and I was wondering what happened to the Golisopod team. Seeing that he lost like that is even more sad than I thought. I assumed they just lost, but they robbed themselves......
I think since it was an accidental disconnect and Tatsuya had more material in HP, and time, it would have been fair to rerun the second match as if it were a draw. If Ko had the material advantage I think it would feel a lot better to give him the win there.
I'm not familiar with competitive Pokemon and this tournament's rules, but it seems like there are more than just the two options if they all wanted it. They could declare no winner on that match, making them play another match to make up, or they could have them specifically use the same teams and start this match over. (Or I guess they could try to simulate the rest of the match but that feels like it would probably be a huge undertaking) I mean, I feel Ko deserves the win but that they could explore other options if Ko wanted to.
Intent is always important in these types of situations. That said setting dangerous precedence is also important. All that said you had me at needed 3 crits in a row to even stand a chance to win. I feel like restarting the match would have been a more fair decision all said
I feel like they could have just asked the players if they wanted to have a restart of that match and they only restart if they both say yes. While Ko does have a lot of reasons to say no, the match will go differently regardless so it's worth a shot to try again with a new stray like he was probably going to do anyway. And even Tatsuya has a reason to say no, such as not wanting to go through potentially a fourth match if he loses the re-match, and just wants it to be over with sooner than later, and he may have had confidence about winning match 3 anyway. The fault is with no one but the people that chose the non-japanese docks here.
Agree that the judges made the right call and this is a sad situation for both players, especially Tatsuya. I also think there is a very easy way to prevent this. 1. Better connection retention hardware in all Nintendo game systems or 2. An official Pokémon battle simulator where an official could create a new match with these EXACT conditions, and let them play it out. Obviously something like that would need to be reserved for things like national and world championships, but I still think it would be a great option.
Personally as someone who isn't in the competitive Pokemon space, I feel like in situations like this where disconnecting harms you a lot more than your opponent, I think it should cause a game reset. You don't lose instantly despite holding the significant advantage but you are still punished. If something like this were to become a rule significant advantage would need to be defined. Potential definition would be a less than 5% chance of winning even if you knew your opponent stats, items and move choice. If it gets to hard to calculate then the one who disconnects loses.
I’m so glad you’re posting these types of vids again, these just talking vids are why I started watching in the first place! Although the new content is great too
I think giving the judges ultimate authority to override the rules and restart an individual game would have helped in this case, and probably would have been the best outcome if it was possible. Other than that though, sticking to the letter of the law was the appropriate decision, as unfortunate as it was.
I feel like this is the sort of thing you have to be rigid on. Otherwise you risk people exploiting lifting the switch out to initiate a redo if they don’t like how things are going
Maybe they could have just made it a draw, kinda like how in chess if you run out of time when there is no way the opponent can win, it's considered a draw. It's not the same because Ko could have technically won but it was incredibly unlikely. Also I'm really happy to see you make these kinds of videos again I missed them a lot!
@DaShiku : And what about the cases before that, where a player has a high probability of losing, and decides to just go for an intentional draw instead? The certainties are easy to answer, it's the uncertain cases that are a problem.
@thebumpercar Pokemon is a game all about stats and calculations. There comes a point in the game where you can calculate if a player can still win or not. If it has reached that point, then that should be taken into account.
@Akshat Chugh of course it's an arbitrary number - any percent chance to win or lose is arbitrary here, I just figured 1% is enough leeway for a competitor to not be salty over losing that chance. Let's face it, any chance to win below 1% is pure luck and just praying to rng Gods, which is antithetical to the competitive spirit. If u think peeps will throw a fit at 1%, then lower the bar to 0.03%. Highly doubt anyone would complain about getting robbed of a 0.03% possible outcome. And if they do, hoes mad. They should have played better to not be in an almost guaranteed loss if they wanted to win instead of relying on extreme rng to save their ass. As for what's an "obvious" win at three turns or less, obviously this is gonna vary depending on the incident and judge's decision. A general rule for my hypothetical ruleset would be "any game state where the disconnector has a guaranteed win, with multiple options to win or a very clear option, in three moves or less, given that extreme hax of 0.03% does not occur." Is that arbitrary? Yeah ofc. The point of this exercise isn't to be perfect but to try to come up with a better solution than simply forfeiting a win even if the disconnector was not at fault. About your comment about peeps who might "accidentally" disconnect on purpose, why would anyone do that? Not only are they risking getting caught doing it on purpose and forfeiting the win, but even if the ruleset applies to their game, they still risk a HIGHER THAN 0.3% CHANCE for the enemy win become a guaranteed win in that scenario. Not to mention they would have to calculate that chance the enemy has in their head as they're playing under a time limit, somehow believe it's worth faking an accidental disconnect over playing with 99.7% odds in their favour, and then pray that they actually can guarantee a win in three moves or less with no 0.3% hax. So no moves that can miss, and depending on the judge, would need at least two paths of clear options to win, otherwise it's an automatic loss. No sane player would risk that If ur still not satisfied, we'll add even more incentives to not try and pull a fast one - when you request this ruleset after accidentally dc'ing, your spreads for your team are shared publicly if u are found purposely disconnecting as well as forfeiting that round. If it was a genuine accident, you are only allowed this ruleset one time in a tournament, since no player would ever make that mistake again. As for Showdown not being able to accurately simulate game states, yeah obviously not all of them. But for scenarios where the mons left are at full health and there's no status conditions or weather effects, it's the most fair way to settle it. In fact, you can make it so if the scenario is replayable on an accidental disconnect, it gets replayed then and there. And you CAN manipulate hp to be the exact amount if one or two mons require it. Just make it so the other team has an endeavour mon or two with the exact hp the other Pokemon had before disconnecting. Since you can adjust levels and ev's in Showdown, getting an exact hp value is easy. You make it so tournament staff set up the scenario and KO the endeavour mons beforehand, then hand over control to the players after and they play it out. Obviously this is a lot easier to do when weather and status conditions aren't in play, but imo it's the most fair way to do things so if those conditions aren't present, when an accidental disconnect happens they should make the players play on Showdown
@Akshat Chugh I think that making an on the fly calc that your 99% favored to win is not really reasonable and super risky to do. If you really are that likely to win it's best to play it out in case it was a slightly more than 1% chance to lose. The biggest problem with this thought process is that you can only calculate a percentage like this with optimal play in mind, and I think assuming optimal play is weird, since any player can misclick or make a mistake
It's sad but this is an official pokemon company tournament, they might feel the need to use only official hardware but there certainly is a way to connect each battle to a server to save game states so they can prevent this from happening. I doubt we'll ever get something like this in the future but they should definitely think about it
It's unfortunate but imo there was no other option than giving the disconnecting player the loss. How would you explain to the opponent that he lost when he wasn't even able to finish the game because of his opponent's mistake? It's like you said, making an exception might lead to problems in the future. They shouldn't open up the possibility to disbute the rules.
Seems pretty clear that the problem here is how delicate the platform they are playing on is. If someone can trip over a wire and it ruins the world championship, that is a flawed system. I understand there is no way of doing so currently, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to program some way to save the game state during the match so it can be reloaded from where you left off if there is a disconnect, or something like that.
Is there really much of a difference between a lucky crit/miss and a lucky disconnect? I agree that there is no need to demand the other player forfeit because things didn't look good. 1 in a million things do happen - it DID happen and the underdog got the win. It might feel different because its external to the game, but I don't think this is really any different to getting a lucky crit, a freeze, or your opponent missing or misclicking.
a question for me would be if tatsuya knew the difference between the docks well enugh, if they were repeatedly told for example, because if one is not used to the system then it's the duty of the orginizers to make sure they are as accustomed as possible in order to prevent such mistakes from happening because of habits. that sais the system should also be improved so to avoid the possibility in general
Given that accidents can happen and will happen, there should be a way to set up matches that have already been started, more importantly if there's prize money like how Pokémon is doing here. This way they could've continued the match right where they had left it before the unwanted disconnect.
haven't only watched the intro so far but wow i am so happy the less fully-scripted and perfectly-thought-through content has a home again. i missed this
It really sucks hearing about situations like this. I know people in the comments were talking about a reconnect grace period or a rollback system, however I think what needs to be done first (which I'm shocked isn't already the case) is to have all hardware for any official Pokémon tournament to be completely uniform. One countries/tournaments hardware shouldn't have any different features than the others since it ends up creating situations like this, no matter how small the change.
Considering golisopods incredible attack stat, and it having sucker punch (not aqua jet) and leech life. Which makes the chances of rillaboom winning so much less likely. Quite a sad loss
Personally, I think that in future to avoid this issue the judges should issue a “no removing the switch from the doc” rule so this doesn’t come up again and people are penalized for something that would be cooperative with certain hardware and non-cooperative on other hardware. Furthermore, perhaps a “Case Study” clause is justifiable where a player that has an obvious lead and experiences a disconnect for a reason they couldn’t know about prior, was unintentional, and doesn’t fall under any specific rule; then they can get the win, but this new form of disconnect is another rule to be added to avoid future disconnects and disqualified matches.
Is a lucky disconnect any different from a lucky crit or a lucky freeze? The real question is why are the switches able to be taken from their docks in a tournament anyway? Securing the Switches in their docks would have kept this from being a problem. I hope that from now on in Pokemon tournaments the switch can't be accidentally disconnected from the dock.
As much as I understand Wolfe doing what he's done with his channel to appeal to wider audiences, I reaaally miss this kind of content. Not dumbing anything down (he didn't explain First Impression for example, because he knows the og's don't need him to) and providing his expert analysis on some good old wee gee cee
oh - i've missed this type of content really bad !! i enjoy the new type of content but i really missed this non-edited ramble type of video. i hope you continue this type of content here
I think there is 100% a logic to both sides. Had it been a guaranteed win I'd say the disconnect shouldn't have been a match loss, however as you said, without knowing the spreads we can't say. If it wasn't a certain victory, I agree with the ruling.
I think the optimal option in the game would probably be to redo game 2. No option is perfect but I don’t think he should lose a game he most likely would of won.
Maybe they should have made the call to replay that one match. It would still punish the guy who already had the match won, but got the DC, it would also give his opponent the chance to earn the win. Then again, he sort of did, he did win the final match. Just a very difficult situation. I am sure that just giving the win to the person disconnecting would have been the worst call to make, so I think people can just appreciate that that did not happen.
Rules are rules and they should be followed, but yeah it's sad cause it could happen to anyone maybe it was the excitement for being sure to make it to the next round... What is really sad that you'll have to start the next game just seconds after the decision. It's hard to concentrate directly on the new game. Just give him a few minutes to calm down after this, eat/drink something before starting game 3.
I believe it's a tough but fair decision to put the loss on whoever causes the disconnect. Being lenient with that ruling would set a dangerous precedent.
I will say that, while you’re framing the rules as two mutually exclusive options of “give the player in the lead a free game win” or “give the player who pulled out the switch an instant game loss”, there is a third option of “replay the game” which, in this specific case, I don’t think either party could really complain about. The issue is, you can’t just replay the game every time someone pulls the switch out, bc you could easily abuse that to gain free information about your opponent’s team and then pull out the switch to reset the standings when you’re down. So it would also have to have a threshold, where only players in a high lead get that privilege, and that brings us right back to the “where to draw the line” problem u pointed out in the video.
It would be good if players were allowed to enter the play they would’ve made and then be able to calculate an outcome and give the proper win. But I believe in rules being rules and he disconnected.
I think, given the rules stated a disconnect was a loss, that is the correct descision. I think the only way that you might override is if you can 100% guarantee that it would have been a win to the player who disconnected. If there is even a 1% chance to win then it has to be up to the losing player to forfeit, not the judges to make them. I think the fact the judges took so long to consider and were clearly lookint at paperwork, the switches, and the laptops shows they were really considering the best way to handle it to make sure it was a fair as they could manage. What this really is though, is a huge sales point for the pro controller during competitions.
While I agree this was the right call I feel the bigger issue is the fact that there is no regulations about the gear used worldwide to prevent this exact scenario from happening because at the end of the day if all switch docks were the same globally this specific scenario wouldn't ever be an issue
This situation was awful but yeah, they followed the rules and that was the best they could've done. I think this would've been controversial either way.
I play a lot of Randbats on Smogon. I rarely forfeit. I’ll continue playing until all 6 of my Pokémon faint. I go off the slim chance the opponent either forfeits or runs out of time. I’ve seen opponents lose because they thought they couldn’t win even though I knew they had a 100% chance of winning.
Gaming
Its so comforting to see the intro back
How long did he not do this intro?
Instant skip for me due to the cringe
Wholesome af
I wonder if Panda didn’t want him to do it
Yes! Missed the old content format
I think it's just a shame that there's no time at all to reconnect after disconnecting, it'd solve most of these issues. But yeah, I guess you have to go with the rules here and award the game loss, it just sucks all round that it happened. Tatsuya played the first two games so well, too.
@TechHog Of course it's more complicated. You were saying that automatically reconnecting would be impossible, so I suggested a way that would work with manual reconnection.
I'm just presenting ideas for possible solutions, improving or simplifying ideas would be the next step before implementation.
@dsproductions19 I don't think that the log would be helpful in this context. It also sounds like it overcomplicates the issue.
@TechHog A log is literally how the Vs. Recorder saved battle replays in all the ds and 3ds games, though. It just hasn't been used for this sort of context.
And about priority, I meant that adding disconnect protection would be low on the list, since they barely have the time to make a functional singleplayer. The multiplayer code uses the same battle code, and most of the multiplayer aspect is likely pretty standard or carried over from previous titles.
@dsproductions19 I can't think of a single game that does what you're suggesting. You also don't know enough about the underlying code of the game to say that a simple log can store the state of the game indefinitely.
And multiplayer is a priority for them. A huge one in fact, or else they would have just dropped it by now.
@TechHog A buffer of a few seconds is all it would usually need. It's a game series with a huge official tournament scene, so at least some protection would be nice.
Though, I don't see why it can't just save the log in the save file, then check if the next battle is with the same person, and if it is, then ask both players if they want to continue or start a new battle.
I do understand that Game Freak is *always* rushed to finish these games by a certain deadline, so they have to prioritize, and multiplayer would not be the top of that list. However, I have enough programming experience to know that very little is actually impossible with enough time, so I have a hard time believing this is one of those rare instances.
If youre going to grant a win to the player who was most likely to win, anyone could just pretend to accidentally disconnect whenever they felt like they had high odds of winning but didnt want to risk the slim chance of them losing. Its just not a good solution imo
@Jaccobtw Yeah - or standardize hardware so that everyone can undock their switch across all regions and maintain connection...that would make everyone happy lol
You'd have to make an objective criteria for what constitutes as who's in a winning state. Match timer hitting 0 rules is a great example of how tiebreakers are handled with objective criteria, but to something like a disconnect you may want those terms to differ.
What I fear more however is if we had a ruleset that did anything but fault the player who DCed there could be way more flexible ways to take advantage of that. You'd need strict criteria for what kind of scenario a player who DCs is not at a loss fault. One could argue that the discrepancies between JP and PAL/US are unfortunate but if one were to use that and weaponize that for an advantage how would we prove between accident vs clever intention?
@Luigi Manzelli ..................you're completely underestimating the RNG involved................
@GoXDS i mean, it is certainly viable, there's a chance to that you have to try multiple times, but for a game in the top cut of Worlds i'd say that's a small price to pay.
@Luigi Manzelli damage rolls, crits, secondary effects. one extra turn of rain is also massively different. I don't see how this is viable at all
I agree with your assessment. Giving the win to the player that looks like they'll win could start an extremely dangerous precedent. Imagine a scenario where one player has a 90% chance to win, but it's not guaranteed. Maybe they "accidentally" cause a disconnect to avoid the 10%, believing they deserve the win anyways. It's best to make sure such a scenario can never happen.
@Sparky67 That brings about the issue of round time. Each round is only allowed a certain amount of time and ties/do-overs wreak havoc on a tournament as this one match can delay the start of the next round. This could also easily lead to a bunch of ties if one player won round 1, then a disconnect after a long game two, then the third match goes to the time limit and the other player either wins or has more Pokemon/HP than the opponent when the round is called.
Alternatively, if a player is overwhelmingly likely to win and then they cause a disconnect, just nullify that match with no points on either side. That cannot possibly benefit the disconnector
he shouldn't have been given a match point though
This is the content I subbed for. I don’t begrudge you for making the changes you needed to make a living out of this but Im glad to see this style back.
I mean, I both like the new and the old content, but the positive fun vibes of these intros always grab me
just sub to all 5 of his channels, the man works hard.
Found you 🍐
Same, the new content kinda sucks since he had to fit in with the Clip-Share algorithm which is really unfortunate.
Yeah I've missed this so much felt more relatable
This actually reminds me of the time where I was in a SSBU tournament and the power of the tv was accidentally disconnected for a couple of seconds while I was offstage, causing me to lose a stock at 30%. I wanted to restart the match, but the staff were short on time so they told me to just play the game out, and my opponent threw their stock at 110%. This ended up putting me at a huge disadvantage, but I was able to make a really close comeback. I didn’t even know tournament matches could even be controversial until that day. Competitive video games are really interesting. Since then I’ve actually retired from comp SSBU. Comp is too stressful and serious for me, even though I was good at it imo.
Same here
Pokkén Tournament DX Is Way Worse
You lose because of something out of your control
I just deleted it
That sounds very stressful. Props to your opponent for throwing the stock (assuming they had a choice in the matter), but still that leaves you in a situation where you have lost your 80% advantage and then (through no fault of your own) the match was equalized. Unfortunate all around.
This made me think of the "chrono break" that is sometimes done in league tournaments. They basically restore the game state to a saved point before a bug occured. Now I obviously have no idea if this could be done in pokemon but it sounds doable and may be a great tool to solve a problem like this
@Madop67 I didnt want to bring attention to your hilarious analogy to be nice before but you seriously just implied that nintendo has intentionally made a device that has the classic ethernet cable rip ragequit as a standard advertised feature they show in ads. Lmao
@Lilybun i don’t disagree with you about this not having a reconnect timer is crazy, i was just pointing that your analogy was actually terrible
@Madop67 Yes, and? In other competitive games when you disconnect you ask for a pause to let you reconnect, if pausing is not an option you just reconnect as fast as possible. The only reason pokemon forces a forfeit on disconnect is that their game is so incompetently made that reconnecting is not possible in the first place -- which is doubly egregious when said disconnect was caused by hardware design corner-cutting by an entity that partially runs the tournament.
Even your average casual mobile game lets you reconnect to matches you dc from and tolerates short service interruptions. Guess nintendo is just such a small indie company it cant compete with mobile game developers :(
@Lilybun for the record this is more akin to forfeiting a lan match because you unplugged your lan cable or your router, they disconnected because moving the switch in the dock disconnected it from the dock which is where the lan cable is plugged in. it wasn’t explicitly because he moved the console
edit: typo
So fun fact: This functionality has been in Pokémon games since Platinum. It's just that the game designers haven't applied the functionality to this context.
The Vs. Recorder actually does exactly this: it recreates the Pokémon battle(including the RNG seed, I assume) using each move that each Pokémon used to create a new fight that plays out exactly like the original.
Hypothetically, the game is already saving the moves, their targets, and the random elements of their attacks as they happen, so, on a disconnect, the game could prompt the players with something like "would you like to save the battle up to the disconnect?" and then save either all the past moves or the current game state to the Vs. Recorder(or maybe some other item). From there, a player with the game state could "host a fight using Vs. Recorder teams" that another player could connect to and then have the match resume either from where it left off or from the beginning where the game controls each move until the game catches back up to the disconnect.
I assume one of the problems with trying something like this is if someone disconnects after a move is selected but before the damage is calculated, then the player who initiated the disconnect wouldn't be able to record any information about that turn, so their save would only go to the turn before. This wouldn't be too big of a deal unless a disconnect happens before the disconnecting player has selected their move. Depending on whether the game sends over and saves the move and effect(s) it does separately or at the same time, this could give their opponent a chance to redo the turn if they realized they made a mistake after inputting their move. It's a smaller thing that could probably be fixed by tournaments including a rule, but it could be a source of pain depending on how annoying the player wants to be about inputting the same move("It was a mis-input, I promise").
As much as it sucks that this happened, bending the rule in this case probably would open the avenue for less trustworthy players to try and do something to work around the rule and find a loophole. While I do think that something different might be able to be done, it could open a can of worms that might be too controversial to be closed.
I think the judge made the call they needed to make. That doesn't excuse the technical incompetency of pokemon's netcode for an eSports, nor the baffling difference in hardware across regions. Like could you imagine a game of League being lost because the game dropped one frame (which can happen even for the most perfect connection) and the entire client disconnected? unacceptable.
But you know Nintendo and Gamefreak will never fix that.
I don't think any judge could have done anything different. The problem lies with the game's inability to handle DC's gracefully; no reconnect, no save state, no nothing.
I really like hearing your thoughts about different topics in this format more than the scripted and heavy edited videos and apreciate that now that it doesn't have a place in your main channel you have done this channel. Keep up with the great job you are doing
This channel is a blessing, thank you for bringing back your old style Wolfe - your new stuff is great but I've missed this!
This
It was such a sad game to watch live. Really hope there's some sort of technical safety net put in place in ScVi. Would be cool to either have like a set amount of time to reconnect in a local match or a save state on each turn where you can continue a battle from the last finished turn.
@MR GOGOAT showdown timers and rules work differently, plus, all official tournaments of a international series like this is always going to play on the official hardware. Playing on showdown takes away half the point of the world championships since the entire concept of pokemon is centered around "go catch your favorites/the best and train them up and bring it here to compare your training to others". It may seem more streamlined but alot of people stay in competitive because of the breeding and training process in building their team that they enjoy prior to a tournament, and would make it rather pointless to spend any time at all in the game they want to sell when you could instead just play on a free online emulator that everyone has access to without paying for or even ever playing the game and still calling yourself the "best pokemon trainer"
@Nxvh Regardless of whether you believe the judges were wrong or not, adding an in-game safety net would mean the judges don't need to make a decision either way next time.
Nah the failure was with the judges and/or rules. Penalties should only be available for intentional disconnects, and this DC was clearly unintentional.
this type of stuff is why i don't really get playing comp on cart, shit like this can't happen on, say, showdown. Ideally, imo Nintendo would make their own battle sim type thing or smth
Something any other modern game would do since connections aren't always stable. But Gamefreak gonna Gamefreak.
“So there I was…”
Never have such words been uttered that the viewers both cheered and relaxed at the same time.
Gonna miss these types of vids on the main NGL
I think most importantly, it would have set a bad precedent if they were to give Tatsuya the win. That would create a gap for bad-faith players to "accidentally" cause a disconnect and argue with judges that they would have won and deserve the point. Having a rigid rule like this can only ensure sportsman-like conduct so long as it is enforced.
Really interesting analysis. I had no idea that the disconnect happened because Tatsuya lifted his Switch (I think a disconnect happened in one of the regionals also?). I realised it must be a difficult decision on all sides, but I definitely agree that everyone took the best route possible. I’d love it if there was a small window for reconnecting in matches, since I used to get DCed all the time because of mediocre internet myself, like maybe just 60 seconds? I get that it opens the door to a degree of cheating (forcing that window of time to give yourself extra time to think, for example), but maybe the window can only activate once per match and multiple activations over a short period of time (like once every match over 10 matches) results in a temporary online ban, like trading does. Also, world championship or no, it’s still Pokemon so I don’t think that tiny window to reconnect would pose any issues. Oh and replace all docks used in tourneys with the one Japan used. Hopefully that’s something Play Pokemon Int is thinking about seriously lol.
Honestly I think it's a feel bad situation all over but I also think that you're right about the judges making the correct decision. I feel like maybe they could have done a replay of the second game, but that can interfere with tournament scheduling and timing. Ultimately in a situation where there is no way to resolve the issue that feels good for everyone it's best to just fall back on the rules that everyone agreed to when joining the tournament.
The only way is either the standard disconnect penalty or they'd have to make a save state tool exclusively for competitive Pokemon that I doubt anyone incharge would greenlight unless the competitive scene is as popular as FPS or MOBA. Theres only 1 game that has this and that tool isnt even used all the time.
replay ha another issue low and high rolls for example or crits or things like a burn or paralyze etc. so not realy an option unless it was almost at the start of the battle maybe
I think 'disconnect = game loss' is the best way of preventing intentional DCs in the game, otherwise you'll get more unsavoury members of the community intentionally DCing to get a replay of a game, or like here to secure a 99% won game without risking that 1%. Also again, how can you predict what the win rate is. There are so many variables at play.
@Jub This implies that they knew that someone would want to randomly mess with their Switch during a match... which isn't something they would be thinking about considering that every Switch outside of Japan disconnects when moved. I'm willing to bet that _you_ didn't know that Japanese docks were different until this event.
Also, your bias is showing. Why does the team they were using matter in this conversation? They didn't disqualify him. They made him play one extra game. If he lost it, that is still on him.
@Ace clearly people noticed and cared. This small decision to cut corners because "it probably wont matter anyway since it hasnt happened *yet* " caused a drastic shift in the final stages of a tournament, going from a player who used unique pokemon and strategies almost entering the top 8 on a large winning streak to instead just being another standard cookie cutter team from the japanese meta that everyone at the tournament already came prepared to play around
I’d like to know if they’re careful to warn players that undocking can cause a disconnection in the first place since it’s not an issue everyone’s going to have with their own hardware. If they weren’t putting up big old warning signs before, I imagine they will be now.
@Ace I mean they clearly don't if this happened lmao
@DaShiku Because it is unnecessary. The docks used around the world work just fine. Most International Nintendo tourneys don't use Japanese docks either. If nobody would have even noticed or cared, so why should they do such a thing?
This conversation is only happening because a player intentionally did something they shouldn't have. Are tournament supposed to responsible for _every_ bad decision a player makes?
I personally feel like the golisipod player would have won that situation everytime. There would have been no way for the other player to click fast enough to knock out a pokemon at close to full and the golisipod at 2 hp. That being said it is in the rules for disconnects but usually there is a warning that is given especially when the players are used to different hardware.
@nousername191 I’m pretty sure Incin would’ve lived a crit high horsepower which would mean it’s 3 High horsepowers + incin has protect to stall timer a bit. I don’t know the spreads though so that might not be true.
Theres really a nonexistent chance that Ko wins this, but I don’t know if that necessarily means he should forfeit the match.
@somehow viable I think we all wish that option was real.
@somehow viable Pokemon doesn't have rollbacks coded unfortunately.
@nousername191 what about just redoing that turn to see what might of happened excluding the timer
@Leif 3GHP Ko had a win con. A miniscule one that I'd never bet on (1/24 chance of crit on a 95% accurate move), but a win con nonetheless; knock out Golisopod and crit High Horsepower the Incin. Pokemon is the kind of game where insane luck can turn things around at the last second and we can't take away chances to play just because the OPPONENT DC'ed by accident.
As for the timer argument: Ko still had enough time to just mash High Horespower twice and pray, Golisopod was not living even a resisted hit.
They agreed to the DC means loss rule when they signed up, that's how it has to go. Tatsuya got robbed by Pokemon's garbage infrastructure for competitive, but that's how it is.
Really loving this new channel. It's cool to see Wolfe thriving as a Clip-Sharer on his main channel, but it's super great to see him over here being a YouTubist again
Tough decision but i feel like you have to count the disconect as a loss. It Just opens up the opportunity for more weird situations to happen in the future.
Something like this actually happened in a grand finals during EVO, a few years ago. A hardware malfunction caused a pause that was neither player’s fault, but the player who’s fight stick had caused the issue was going to be DQ’d for it. The other player stood up and intervened, saying he didn’t want to win, that way, and the judges let them replay the match.
Given the situation, being that the leading player was the one who disconnected, I feel like a rematch would’ve made more sense. But, rules are rules for a reason, and as much as it sucks to lose like that and have your mentality ruined, it’s just the way it is, sometimes
From the outside of VGC looking in agree with your assessment. They can’t reasonably draw the line somewhere new after something unfortunate like this has already taken place, especially when it’s accounted for in the rules. It would be nice if Tatsuya could be recognized or compensated in some other way though.
@nousername191 Yeah, even if impractical most of the time a constant save state is a need
The answer here is that Pokemon needs to fix their infrastructure for competitive to allow a player to reconnect or save states if a DC happens.
I agree with you Wolfe. This situation is clearly ruled in the rulebook, so while it sucks for Tatsuya that is the way he agreed to play.
"That's the rules; he agreed to it," is terrible reasoning. Bad rules can exist, and enforcing bad rules is always wrong. That said, I think giving a game loss to the player who caused a DC is a good rule, given that Game Freak hasn't implemented a save state / auto-pause-and-resume feature for in-person versus matches (which should be a must for Gen 9).
Sure he knew dc equals game loss but was he warned that lifting the console causes a dc? Still a bit on the fence to not tell players how to avoid a dc, no?
@Donutthepop I am aware, I just wish it worked that way for fairness reasons. But, yeah, I get why they don't do that.
@vivecanada1 that screws up tournament times though and can have the tournament going late
I agree. I do think that it would be nice if the rules made it so that if it actively gives the player who DC'D disadvantage, you redo that game instead of issuing a loss.
I'm so glad you talked about this! I wish what had happened had been acknowledged during the tournament by the announcers - I was confused and wanted to understand how the disconnect happened in the first place! Like in sports games, when a call is being made, everyone discusses which way it might go and why - it should be the same in tournaments (although I'm sure it would be hard for anyone at that point to know so quickly in real time)!
Love this channel already. Nice to see the old school content come back
I'd maybe put an exception in the rules for matches that are 100% guaranteed in someone's favour (like one attack that definitely outspeeds or opponent having no more attacking moves) but for tournament settings I'd definitely just add a sort of save state feature or find a way to simulate the battle
It is a shame what happend but the rules are the rules even if tatsu didn't mean to break it he did broke it, the specification of "disconect intended or not is a loss" is there for situations like this one and even though I personally wanted tatsu to win I still agree with the decision of the judges
I sincerely hope there's a reconnect feature in the next games. Something like this happening at the biggest stage of competition is a huge bummer.
It’s unfortunate that something like this happened, but at the end of the day, I have to applaud the judges for sticking to the rules for this. I just think it’s a bit odd that you wouldn’t get the same type of switch dock as the one you would typically use, in case something like this were to happen
THE OLD INTRO OMFG I GOT SO EXCITED TO HEAR IT!!!!! Thank you wolfey for making both of these kinds of content! I love the usual and the level of quality but the unscripted/ ramble is the best and I missed it
this is honestly why i wish there was a built-in way to start games in certain game states( weather with x turns left, Pokemon KO-ed, or - or+ stats) so if a disconnect happens late game, reconnecting and finishing was feasible. instead we get a player who played their best with a win that's tarnished and a player who lost due to no fault of their understanding or skill at the game. :(
When you're at Worlds and something like this happens, they should have the capability to reprogram everything, including timer, to it's original state before the disconnect. I think they made the right call, but this is also on Game Freak and should be heavily considered when formatting battle programming in the future.
These were such interesting games. I would love a competitive analysis of the actual gameplay. Such good plays by both players
I’ve been very much enjoying the bonus videos and the fact that you’ve been doing them so often gives me life.
I think that "where do you draw the line" is obviously an important question but I think it's one that has more value than just being rhetorical. You mention not knowing (EV) spreads, but I think there's a case to be made that you could actually develop a probability of winning based on current game state and best strategy for both players.
Like, if the optimal path forward is known (which it is here: incineroar will flare blitz 3 times, rillaboom will tantrum/protect/tantrum), then it's easy to have both players tell an "independent tournament advisor" their spreads, then use burn chance/crit chance/other damage calcs to actually figure out how likely it is to win for either side.
And then just set the threshold at something like 95%/99% chance to win = that player gets the win after a disconnect.
Just an interesting thought experiment, not saying this would be possible for every event to implement or recommending that they do so.
The only reason I sided with Tatsuya is because I wanted to see that team continue, but the logic is sound.
What lacks logic is the lack of reconnect feature, I think that part of the issue with "keeping a game state" is that it requires that the information of the whole team to be saved in the other switch, in order to recreate the match, so the system could be gamed to somehow access that information and expose the whole team, but that was something that should have been already possible with the replays in previous gens.
A reconnect feature would be comprised of a way to recreate game states, therefore could be used for replays, in-story plot cutscenes, getting into an already started wild vs wild pokemon battle, or to do "lethal" or victory puzzles, so it isn't just for this.
You should do random match reviews from worlds tournaments throughout the years. I love these kinda videos from you
I've seen something like this live at EVO aka Evolution Championship Series which is the largest fighting game tournament in the world (for those unfamiliar). In 2015 during the Grand Finals of Street Fighter Momochi and Gamerbee two of the top players in the world were embroiled in a heated battle when Momochi's controller malfunctioned causing the game to pause. They gave that round of the game to Gamerbee and found Momochi a replacement controller for the remainder of the set. Momochi ultimately won, but it really didn't sit well with a lot of the audience.
The right call was made though at the end of the day, and it was a tough thing to happen.
I think it was ultimately the right call in the end, though it’s still sad to see Tatsuya loses considering his team was so cool 😢
Really appreciate the video. I remember watching this happen live and was super confused. I don’t remember the announcers being super clear on what happened either so I think that’s why it felt so weird to watch.
I've always liked Golispod, what was Tatsuya's team (moves/EV spread)? Cuz I'd like to try it out, Golsipod has very good defensive stats AND typing
It would be trivial to implement some sort of battle save state or rollback feature, or even the most basic of basic disconnect timers that doesn't just immediately end the match if someone's connection gets interrupted. But I guess that's asking a lot from the company that literally prints cardboard worth its weight in gold
I think perhaps they could implement a rule that if a player with a clear and obvious lead accidentally DCs they could rule it a No Contest instead of giving them a loss. That way the losing player still has a chance at a comeback but isn't rewarded with a win and the next matches may play out differently with new information for each player
2 options:We're assuming they can both
1. Give the loss to Tatsuya to be consistent with official rules.
2. Reset the game, and play it out to recreate the state of the game prior to disconnect as accurately as possible (from the recorded stream.)
I think scenario 1 is the better option. Scenario 2 would be the preferred option, but it can't realistically be done unless the game is being recorded in some manner. So unfortunately, this is not an option for all matches, and applying it only in matches where it's possible would be unfair.
unfortunate for sure but at the end of the day, tatsuya is the one physically causing the disconnect, you must be aware of the stage you’re playing at. if it was a “digital” disconnect it’d be much more debatable imo. i think a replay of game 2 would’ve been a valid decision too, given the overwhelming state of the endgame
this match is such a shame, i dont blame the judges or anyone involved - especially Ko for not throwing the next game - but i do wish tatsuya was able to win
also at least it made me aware of the team and i had fun using it on the ladder while series 12 lasted
Unfortunate but settling it with the agreed rules is best since it was "agreed" upon to enter the tournament. I can only hope this brings up the issue and allows reconnecting to become a thing or if they don't want to fix that issue at least have a way to recreate the current match.
Always struck me as weird that they can't recreate a turn based games slate. Real time combat I 100% understand being an issue to recreate but not turn based.
The only other option for me was that the match was voided and re-played.
It was either Tatsuya takes the disconnect loss or Ko agrees to re-play the match. Never should Ko be given a loss because regardless of how slim a chance there was a chance to win and the loser of a game should be the one to decide to forfeit, never should be that decided by their opponent.
While it sucks for the misunderstanding of tech, I hope that someone took the time to explain it to Tatsuya so that they would know in the future.
In this situation (or maybe in similar situations going forward), could they have replayed the match instead? Have the players choose the same 4 and the same leads and just played it out from there? I realize that takes out some of the guesswork and prediction since you now have more information about your opponent's team, but it still seems more fair to me than arbitrarily giving a win to one of the players. Obviously the hard part here becomes drawing the line between intentional and unintentional disconnect, but especially in this case where the player who was in a leading position caused the disconnect and therefore had nothing to gain from doing it, I feel like a redo of the match is a better middle ground. The end result might have been the same, Ko might have won the rematch, as well as game 3, but I feel like if I was Tatsuya, I would still rather lose like that, than automatically be given a game loss and then have to recover from that mentally for game 3.
Never played in an actual tournament, but I can say in just my online experience there have been soo many times I thought I had a game good as won then somehow the tables turn. As long as the element of chance exists there just isn't a good way to hash this out so I agree with sticking to the tournament ruling.
I agree that the judges couldn't have realistically done anything else. If I were in Ko's shoes, I probably would have forfeited, but I can't say for sure how I'd react if I was actually in that position since I've obviously never been a top contender in a Pokemon tournament. But I don't exactly blame him for taking the win by the rules either.
I missed this format so much, so glad to see it back
Your pfp is goated
@PkmnTrainerEmerald I think they meant the ad libbed format of this video
Wrd I love this format felt like the yearly formats not the same length exactly but very close
I missed some games and I was wondering what happened to the Golisopod team. Seeing that he lost like that is even more sad than I thought.
I assumed they just lost, but they robbed themselves......
I think since it was an accidental disconnect and Tatsuya had more material in HP, and time, it would have been fair to rerun the second match as if it were a draw. If Ko had the material advantage I think it would feel a lot better to give him the win there.
I'm not familiar with competitive Pokemon and this tournament's rules, but it seems like there are more than just the two options if they all wanted it. They could declare no winner on that match, making them play another match to make up, or they could have them specifically use the same teams and start this match over.
(Or I guess they could try to simulate the rest of the match but that feels like it would probably be a huge undertaking)
I mean, I feel Ko deserves the win but that they could explore other options if Ko wanted to.
Intent is always important in these types of situations. That said setting dangerous precedence is also important. All that said you had me at needed 3 crits in a row to even stand a chance to win. I feel like restarting the match would have been a more fair decision all said
I feel like they could have just asked the players if they wanted to have a restart of that match and they only restart if they both say yes. While Ko does have a lot of reasons to say no, the match will go differently regardless so it's worth a shot to try again with a new stray like he was probably going to do anyway. And even Tatsuya has a reason to say no, such as not wanting to go through potentially a fourth match if he loses the re-match, and just wants it to be over with sooner than later, and he may have had confidence about winning match 3 anyway.
The fault is with no one but the people that chose the non-japanese docks here.
With these things, you have to follow the rules when it comes to making a decision. Otherwise you bring the game/tournament into disrepute.
Agree that the judges made the right call and this is a sad situation for both players, especially Tatsuya.
I also think there is a very easy way to prevent this. 1. Better connection retention hardware in all Nintendo game systems or 2. An official Pokémon battle simulator where an official could create a new match with these EXACT conditions, and let them play it out. Obviously something like that would need to be reserved for things like national and world championships, but I still think it would be a great option.
Personally as someone who isn't in the competitive Pokemon space, I feel like in situations like this where disconnecting harms you a lot more than your opponent, I think it should cause a game reset. You don't lose instantly despite holding the significant advantage but you are still punished. If something like this were to become a rule significant advantage would need to be defined. Potential definition would be a less than 5% chance of winning even if you knew your opponent stats, items and move choice. If it gets to hard to calculate then the one who disconnects loses.
I’m so glad you’re posting these types of vids again, these just talking vids are why I started watching in the first place! Although the new content is great too
I think giving the judges ultimate authority to override the rules and restart an individual game would have helped in this case, and probably would have been the best outcome if it was possible. Other than that though, sticking to the letter of the law was the appropriate decision, as unfortunate as it was.
I feel like this is the sort of thing you have to be rigid on. Otherwise you risk people exploiting lifting the switch out to initiate a redo if they don’t like how things are going
This is the style of video I love the most from you, glad to see it returning
Maybe they could have just made it a draw, kinda like how in chess if you run out of time when there is no way the opponent can win, it's considered a draw. It's not the same because Ko could have technically won but it was incredibly unlikely.
Also I'm really happy to see you make these kinds of videos again I missed them a lot!
@DaShiku : And what about the cases before that, where a player has a high probability of losing, and decides to just go for an intentional draw instead? The certainties are easy to answer, it's the uncertain cases that are a problem.
@thebumpercar Pokemon is a game all about stats and calculations. There comes a point in the game where you can calculate if a player can still win or not. If it has reached that point, then that should be taken into account.
@Akshat Chugh of course it's an arbitrary number - any percent chance to win or lose is arbitrary here, I just figured 1% is enough leeway for a competitor to not be salty over losing that chance. Let's face it, any chance to win below 1% is pure luck and just praying to rng Gods, which is antithetical to the competitive spirit. If u think peeps will throw a fit at 1%, then lower the bar to 0.03%. Highly doubt anyone would complain about getting robbed of a 0.03% possible outcome. And if they do, hoes mad. They should have played better to not be in an almost guaranteed loss if they wanted to win instead of relying on extreme rng to save their ass.
As for what's an "obvious" win at three turns or less, obviously this is gonna vary depending on the incident and judge's decision. A general rule for my hypothetical ruleset would be "any game state where the disconnector has a guaranteed win, with multiple options to win or a very clear option, in three moves or less, given that extreme hax of 0.03% does not occur."
Is that arbitrary? Yeah ofc. The point of this exercise isn't to be perfect but to try to come up with a better solution than simply forfeiting a win even if the disconnector was not at fault.
About your comment about peeps who might "accidentally" disconnect on purpose, why would anyone do that? Not only are they risking getting caught doing it on purpose and forfeiting the win, but even if the ruleset applies to their game, they still risk a HIGHER THAN 0.3% CHANCE for the enemy win become a guaranteed win in that scenario. Not to mention they would have to calculate that chance the enemy has in their head as they're playing under a time limit, somehow believe it's worth faking an accidental disconnect over playing with 99.7% odds in their favour, and then pray that they actually can guarantee a win in three moves or less with no 0.3% hax. So no moves that can miss, and depending on the judge, would need at least two paths of clear options to win, otherwise it's an automatic loss. No sane player would risk that
If ur still not satisfied, we'll add even more incentives to not try and pull a fast one - when you request this ruleset after accidentally dc'ing, your spreads for your team are shared publicly if u are found purposely disconnecting as well as forfeiting that round. If it was a genuine accident, you are only allowed this ruleset one time in a tournament, since no player would ever make that mistake again.
As for Showdown not being able to accurately simulate game states, yeah obviously not all of them. But for scenarios where the mons left are at full health and there's no status conditions or weather effects, it's the most fair way to settle it. In fact, you can make it so if the scenario is replayable on an accidental disconnect, it gets replayed then and there.
And you CAN manipulate hp to be the exact amount if one or two mons require it. Just make it so the other team has an endeavour mon or two with the exact hp the other Pokemon had before disconnecting. Since you can adjust levels and ev's in Showdown, getting an exact hp value is easy. You make it so tournament staff set up the scenario and KO the endeavour mons beforehand, then hand over control to the players after and they play it out. Obviously this is a lot easier to do when weather and status conditions aren't in play, but imo it's the most fair way to do things so if those conditions aren't present, when an accidental disconnect happens they should make the players play on Showdown
@Akshat Chugh I think that making an on the fly calc that your 99% favored to win is not really reasonable and super risky to do. If you really are that likely to win it's best to play it out in case it was a slightly more than 1% chance to lose. The biggest problem with this thought process is that you can only calculate a percentage like this with optimal play in mind, and I think assuming optimal play is weird, since any player can misclick or make a mistake
@Junya Also what do you do when people start 'accidentally' disconnecting when they're 99%+ to win and turn those into 100 percenters?
It's sad but this is an official pokemon company tournament, they might feel the need to use only official hardware but there certainly is a way to connect each battle to a server to save game states so they can prevent this from happening. I doubt we'll ever get something like this in the future but they should definitely think about it
It's unfortunate but imo there was no other option than giving the disconnecting player the loss.
How would you explain to the opponent that he lost when he wasn't even able to finish the game because of his opponent's mistake?
It's like you said, making an exception might lead to problems in the future. They shouldn't open up the possibility to disbute the rules.
Please do more old style videos, this kind of storytime videos are sooo suited for a full cam unedited one take
I love this style of Wolfe videos adlibed and scuffed it's so authentic.
I’ve missed these videos thanks for bringing it back Wolfe
Seems pretty clear that the problem here is how delicate the platform they are playing on is. If someone can trip over a wire and it ruins the world championship, that is a flawed system. I understand there is no way of doing so currently, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to program some way to save the game state during the match so it can be reloaded from where you left off if there is a disconnect, or something like that.
lets go the content burst! i love your videos and your gettin me so hyped for scarlet and violet! itll be my first attempt in the vgc space!
Is there really much of a difference between a lucky crit/miss and a lucky disconnect? I agree that there is no need to demand the other player forfeit because things didn't look good. 1 in a million things do happen - it DID happen and the underdog got the win. It might feel different because its external to the game, but I don't think this is really any different to getting a lucky crit, a freeze, or your opponent missing or misclicking.
a question for me would be if tatsuya knew the difference between the docks well enugh, if they were repeatedly told for example, because if one is not used to the system then it's the duty of the orginizers to make sure they are as accustomed as possible in order to prevent such mistakes from happening because of habits. that sais the system should also be improved so to avoid the possibility in general
Given that accidents can happen and will happen, there should be a way to set up matches that have already been started, more importantly if there's prize money like how Pokémon is doing here. This way they could've continued the match right where they had left it before the unwanted disconnect.
haven't only watched the intro so far but wow i am so happy the less fully-scripted and perfectly-thought-through content has a home again. i missed this
Oh how I've missed your intros. I've missed the most real intros of all time. Just keep doing what you've always done. We're all here for you!
It really sucks hearing about situations like this. I know people in the comments were talking about a reconnect grace period or a rollback system, however I think what needs to be done first (which I'm shocked isn't already the case) is to have all hardware for any official Pokémon tournament to be completely uniform. One countries/tournaments hardware shouldn't have any different features than the others since it ends up creating situations like this, no matter how small the change.
Considering golisopods incredible attack stat, and it having sucker punch (not aqua jet) and leech life. Which makes the chances of rillaboom winning so much less likely. Quite a sad loss
Personally, I think that in future to avoid this issue the judges should issue a “no removing the switch from the doc” rule so this doesn’t come up again and people are penalized for something that would be cooperative with certain hardware and non-cooperative on other hardware. Furthermore, perhaps a “Case Study” clause is justifiable where a player that has an obvious lead and experiences a disconnect for a reason they couldn’t know about prior, was unintentional, and doesn’t fall under any specific rule; then they can get the win, but this new form of disconnect is another rule to be added to avoid future disconnects and disqualified matches.
i'm living for this big wave of content wolfey this channel is my new fav on the website
Is a lucky disconnect any different from a lucky crit or a lucky freeze?
The real question is why are the switches able to be taken from their docks in a tournament anyway?
Securing the Switches in their docks would have kept this from being a problem. I hope that from now on in Pokemon tournaments the switch can't be accidentally disconnected from the dock.
As much as I understand Wolfe doing what he's done with his channel to appeal to wider audiences, I reaaally miss this kind of content. Not dumbing anything down (he didn't explain First Impression for example, because he knows the og's don't need him to) and providing his expert analysis on some good old wee gee cee
Ngl love the old Wolfe content. Also I love how much of it we are getting
im so glad you made this channel, i missed this style of content
oh - i've missed this type of content really bad !! i enjoy the new type of content but i really missed this non-edited ramble type of video. i hope you continue this type of content here
Finally Good Wolfe videos again! This is so much better than the new stuff.
I think there is 100% a logic to both sides. Had it been a guaranteed win I'd say the disconnect shouldn't have been a match loss, however as you said, without knowing the spreads we can't say. If it wasn't a certain victory, I agree with the ruling.
I really agree with you here, it'd be awesome if Pokemon had some sort of reconnect feature for accidents like this.
I think the optimal option in the game would probably be to redo game 2. No option is perfect but I don’t think he should lose a game he most likely would of won.
Love the newer script written content but seeing classic Wolfey content again warms my soul
Maybe they should have made the call to replay that one match. It would still punish the guy who already had the match won, but got the DC, it would also give his opponent the chance to earn the win. Then again, he sort of did, he did win the final match. Just a very difficult situation. I am sure that just giving the win to the person disconnecting would have been the worst call to make, so I think people can just appreciate that that did not happen.
Rules are rules and they should be followed, but yeah it's sad cause it could happen to anyone maybe it was the excitement for being sure to make it to the next round... What is really sad that you'll have to start the next game just seconds after the decision. It's hard to concentrate directly on the new game. Just give him a few minutes to calm down after this, eat/drink something before starting game 3.
I believe it's a tough but fair decision to put the loss on whoever causes the disconnect. Being lenient with that ruling would set a dangerous precedent.
I will say that, while you’re framing the rules as two mutually exclusive options of “give the player in the lead a free game win” or “give the player who pulled out the switch an instant game loss”, there is a third option of “replay the game” which, in this specific case, I don’t think either party could really complain about.
The issue is, you can’t just replay the game every time someone pulls the switch out, bc you could easily abuse that to gain free information about your opponent’s team and then pull out the switch to reset the standings when you’re down. So it would also have to have a threshold, where only players in a high lead get that privilege, and that brings us right back to the “where to draw the line” problem u pointed out in the video.
A lot of us really like the unscripted content! This channel is a great idea! Thanks wolfey
It would be good if players were allowed to enter the play they would’ve made and then be able to calculate an outcome and give the proper win. But I believe in rules being rules and he disconnected.
I think, given the rules stated a disconnect was a loss, that is the correct descision.
I think the only way that you might override is if you can 100% guarantee that it would have been a win to the player who disconnected. If there is even a 1% chance to win then it has to be up to the losing player to forfeit, not the judges to make them.
I think the fact the judges took so long to consider and were clearly lookint at paperwork, the switches, and the laptops shows they were really considering the best way to handle it to make sure it was a fair as they could manage.
What this really is though, is a huge sales point for the pro controller during competitions.
While I agree this was the right call I feel the bigger issue is the fact that there is no regulations about the gear used worldwide to prevent this exact scenario from happening because at the end of the day if all switch docks were the same globally this specific scenario wouldn't ever be an issue
This situation was awful but yeah, they followed the rules and that was the best they could've done. I think this would've been controversial either way.
I play a lot of Randbats on Smogon. I rarely forfeit. I’ll continue playing until all 6 of my Pokémon faint. I go off the slim chance the opponent either forfeits or runs out of time. I’ve seen opponents lose because they thought they couldn’t win even though I knew they had a 100% chance of winning.