Quoted By:
>One problem I have with the suspect test format is that it seemingly discourages actually doing what a suspect test is supposed to accomplish, and none of the options here really fix it. The problem is that when you need to pass a ladder skill check in order to prove your value as a human being, are you going to try a bunch of options, experiment both with and against the mon in question and try to research the best counterplay options? No, you're going to use the best team you have and try to grind out 30-50 games with a heavily skewed win/loss ratio. The big problem is that learning often requires losing, and both the gxe requirement and the win rate requirement heavily punish losing of any kind. GXE will usually take 2 wins to offset any loss you take and the win% requirements are even more harsh. I don't think anybody comes out of a suspect ladder run with a better understanding of the tier, they just have the biases of whatever team they grinded with reinforced.
>[REDDIT SPACING]
>I don't have a solid answer in mind, but I feel like a better suspect test requirement, at least for lower tiers, is one that would emphasize a consistent win rate over more games. Perhaps the range of qualifying GXE could be expanded so playing 60 games could let you get even less GXE or we could switch to an ELO qualification. Something like getting to ~1400 gxe in RU takes a lot of skill even if you do grind out 100 games like a degenerate, but ELO is a system where you can afford to lose a couple games with an experiment then quickly get your rank back with a few wins, while with GXE or an 80% win rate requirement you will need to win 4 to 8 games to make up for 2 losses.
