Ranked OU and UU tier rotation?

[Shekhar786]

Where is OU

 

[Crucifixuz]

people who say "no because you cant use freely all pokes" hahahaha wtf now you cant use any poke because chansey stall all there will be much more freedom in teams and more pokes to use with this

sepereate queueu would b e good yea but maybe later 

[Bash]

43 minutes ago, Crucifixuz said:

yes nice best no op mons and more freedom to use any poke u like without worry about chansey+1

But blissey. Dw, there is much good stall in UU.

[Crucifixuz]

yea blissey must be banned too haha nah stall is completely useless then trust me 

[Norex]

I feel like the permanent addition of a seperate UU queue is just better overall.

Introducing the UU queue would mean people have to build new teams for a whole different meta which requires a lot of different pokemon.

First of all I think thats very good as it gives people something to do in the game and could mean a huge upturn for the econemy.

However hunting and spending money on these certain UU pokemon could feel unworthy as people could only use them every 3-4 months which is an insane amount of time if you think about it. Not being able to use certain pokemon for even 1 month could feel unhealthy for some people and this would apply for OU pokemon too which could potentially lead to a worse econemy on the month the UU queue is present.

I think the problem about the potentially too small playerbase for two queues doesnt really apply here after thinking about it. While a UU queue might bring other players to play PvP, there would also be people not playing in that UU queue. Splitting the queues into OU and UU might even result in better queue times under the right circumstances (decent and potential extra rewards) because people who are not that interested in OU would play UU. In addition to that, some players who usually wait for other people to get some rating on the ladder in the first 1-2 weeks in the season could just play UU instead. Same goes for players who already have enough rating to keep a place in the top #25 of ladder, instead of not playing or playing on the opposite server, some would just play UU instead.

So under the right conditions I feel like two queues could even lead to more activity in PvP, it should be worth a try at least.

 

[Eaty]

Adding a permanent UU queue is not possible with our current PvP player base. We would need to either reduce the current PvP reward by half or it's fairly easy to easily gain 1000+ PvP Coins for a few monthly. This would also split our already small PvP player base in two and makes it harder to find matches.

 

I would only add a second ladder for random battles, that's it. And that won't be soon, so please do not suggest another second PvP tier, guys.

[Zytrax]

Honestly pro pvp couldnt get any worse than it is right now (my perspective). Its so sad and boring facing the same broken pokemon every game. I think the idea is great and desperatly needed. 

[Thelitgengar]

Does no one understand that every tier of Pokémon has its own meta? So the complaints of finding the same Pokémon over and over again (which isn’t  really valid) will happen in UU too. If that doesn’t bother you, that’s fine but it’s going to happen.

[Makeitwitchu]

Well, following Eaty's comments, I still think it would be better/healthier for the game to halve the pvp rewards and introduce a separate queue than to enforce a playstyle every season. As for reasons other people have mentioned, I do not think a second queue would "split up" the playerbase too much, if anything it will make the current playerbase grow. 
 

There are a few options if you work with two queues without necessarily requiring you to sink the economy by handing out too many pvp coins.

 

For example, you can split up the queue, but the ladder only follows 1 tier. Players would still get a pvp coin per win whether they play OU or UU, but only one of the metagames would have a ladder with subsequent ladder rewards. In doing this, you also have two options:

 

1. You add a UU queue for people who want to play a different metagame, but maintain the ladder rewards and ladder tour for OU only. Basically, this would give players the options to play UU if they want to (making it a more "fun" and "relaxed" metagame because you are not pushing for ladder (although you would still get a coin per win) basically unranked but with a reason to play it) 

OR 2. You add a UU queue, but the ladder shifts every season from OU to UU. So one season, the ladder and the ladder rewards would be based on the OU queue, whereas the other it would be based on the UU queue. (This can be done in the way you suggested with 3 months OU and 1 month UU or whatever ratio you deem fit.) This would challenge ladder players to compete in a new metagame, while leaving other players the option to gain rating and coins by playing OU if they do not feel like competing in the UU ladder.

Personally, I think both options are better for the game than enforcing a singular metagame. Arguments about the playerbase being too small can be easily proven or disproven by implementing this system for a season and monitoring the activity of the playerbase. Maybe I am optimistic, but I do not think it would lead to dead queues. 

[Ad0nar]

Best idea ever