Contest Competitiveness

I'm only gonna talk about Nervous, because I've wanted to express this for a really long time. Because there's nothing I hate more than bans and clauses, especialy Nervous Clause. That thing is the main reason why I started Active Stats testing, and one of two reasons why I'm not judging any more RSE until that thing disapears (the other being copies, which will also cease to be a problem once Nervous Clause is gone, since Nervous is what counters copies).

First things first, if you guys go back a few months ago when the Contest section was kind off in Limbo, you'll realize that the whole Nervous Clause only started because some people didn't like that finishing moves like Destiny Bond and combos like Growth + Petal Blizzard could be countered. Because when those two things weren't around, Nervous Clause was usualy turned Off. In fact, back in the day, whether Nervous Clause was turned On or Off was decided by vote, and those who had finishing moves/combos were always the ones that voted for the clause to be Off, while those who didn't have such things were usualy neutral about it, or in favor of the clause.

Secondly, although there's a 60% chance of it working, chances are that someone will avoid it, further increased by the fact that, when you turn Nervous Clause Off, almost everyone is gonna raise Condition one or two times, starting at the first round where you get the most from Condition moves. What happens next is that you wasted a turn (+2 is pretty much a wasted turn) and someone else got around 4 hearts ahead of you, and will probably get another +6 next for going first. At that point, good luck trying to catch up, especialy since the others you managed to unnerve the round before may want to go for revenge and startle you.

I've seen people more often than not losing contests for (ab)using Nervous, even more than those who rely heavily on copies. I'm talking about people who used Nervous literaly every time they went first. Spamming Nervous moves won't work well for you. There's a reason why you don't spam moves like Zap Cannon in battles: one of them is gonna miss and leave you in a bad situation. Most of the time, you're much better off using something more reliable, like one of those +6 when moving first. Yet Nervous moves are the ones labeled as "OP" and even have a clause to them. Nervous is there for when you expect copies, combos, or when the CM is already at 3 and you know someone else will most likely get it regardless of whether you lower or lock the CM. Even OP Combos can be countered by Nervous.

 

"at the cost of my own score and placement"

"Someone who knows they'll place last"

I should have been clearer - I don't condone going into contests to be a startle buddy for another coordinator, but if it comes to a point where you know you're not coming first and the decision to startle/lowball your appeal would not affect the outcome of your placing, then you really can't fault people for doing this if they so choose.

@Seppe;

 

It shouldn't be with the intention of helping a specific person win. If you see you can't win, yes you may startle others to improve your ranking.

 

Nervous Clause is turned ON in most contests nowadays because it is, quite frankly, unfun. In a format with limited turns, getting to do nothing because of variance is pretty backbreaking. And honestly leaving it ON has allowed for depth in play and counterplay which I'd rather have any day. Less rewarding mindgames when your opponents just cross their fingers and hope you get nervous.

 

I completely disagree.

You can fault people for doing that if they so choose. Just because the system of Contests allows for it doesn't mean that it's competitive in the slightest. That's why this thread exists - to discuss whether it's competitive or not. There's a reason the vast majority of online competitive PvP games do not allow friends to jump or queue into games against their friends; there's uncompetitive bias there that could sway the outcome of the match. This bias is present in many party- and FFA-style games that prioritize fun with friends over skilled competition. If someone is losing or has effectively lost, it is simple for them to sway the outcome of the match in favor of the person they like most or dislike least. And that is uncompetitive.

 

In the situation I described, what would you have that coordinator do? They have two options. Either they startle and possibly affect who wins, or they raise their own score but effectively change nothing. Is the latter somehow being more competitive than the first?

 

The issue is with starling others to make your friend win.

 

Which is again a problem (as I see it) only if it's arranged, in which case offenders need punishing. But in the scenario I was talking about the coordinator will be left to choose from the two decisions in my previous post. Should they be forced to not go for the startle and just do a throwaway appeal that will change nothing?

 

I haven't really seen any actual reasons why reducing the rate of nervousness from 60% to 20-40% wouldn't work?

Chance of being nervous two turns in a row is reduced from 36% to 9% if the current nervous rate is halved. This would also indirectly nerf copy moves which aren't overpowered but are exploitable enough to almost-always win, and this is the solution that changes the game mechanics the least.