1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to Pokemon Perfect, Guest!

    Our motto is Pokémon Practice makes Pokémon Perfect. We are a competitive-battling community that encourages the development of players and their ideas, and fosters positive and respectful attitudes. We love Collaboration (working together), Competition (getting stronger), and Communication (being informed).

    You are free to post everywhere, unless the thread explicitly states otherwise (usually in the case of a vote), and there are no private forums whatsoever. We just require you to not make multiple accounts. Let us greet you by posting a thread in the Introduce Yourself! forum.

  3. Tiers

    View Introduction to Tiers if you don't know what tiers are. Pokémon Perfect tiers are named differently to those on Smogon. A numeral followed by the letter U, e.g. 1U, 2U, 3U, represents a main tier on Pokémon Perfect – the '1' of '1U' representing the tier level. For a tier to be a main tier, it must be balanced (nothing is too powerful and game-breaking) and diverse enough (include a variety of Pokémon and strategies). A numeral followed by the letter P, e.g. 1P, 2P, 3P contain all Pokémon that are deemed overpowered in the respective 1U, 2U, 3U tiers. The 1st tier level allows Pokémon that are banned in the 2nd level, and this process continues down. Read the tier list, and in-depth explanations of the tiers naming system and tiering system. Also check out our analyses for all tiers.

  4. Tournaments

    RBY 1U Seasons and its master tournaments are responsible for starting up the community, and tournaments continue to play a big role in maintaining interest in the forums. Signups Open gives you a list of tournaments you can join, and Ongoing lists tournaments that you might want to follow. Additionally, you can tap to find out approximate Schedules for tournaments.

    For historical threads, check out Signups Closed, Finished tournaments and Results. We also have Nominations, Voting and Event threads for exhibitions – past and present.

All Gens Vote on Tiering Guidelines #1

Discussion in 'Tiers' started by Disaster Area, Feb 6, 2018.

?

Which approach do you support

Poll closed Feb 13, 2018.
  1. Option A

    3 vote(s)
    21.4%
  2. Option B

    6 vote(s)
    42.9%
  3. Something Else (Post It In The Thread)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. No Opinion

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Both Option A & Option B

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  6. Option C

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

    To be clear, these will only serve as guidelines. They are to be used as a reference point to determine whether or not something should be suspected and whether or not something should be banned, but there is explicitly plenty of room for interpretation in both of those situations.

    Option A

    Option B
    Option C
    The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
  2. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I prefer my approach because I think it provides clear and easy to understand guidelines for guaging when something is problematic, and I think it doesn't leave so much to interpretation that people can't easily make the argument to keep obviously broken Pokemon around. I worry about if we use Ortheore's approach, how easy it would be under his approach to make the case that, for example RBY Mewtwo is broken. It clearly is a broken Pokemon, but RBY Ubers is a metagame with a lot of depth, and I think it's much easier to make the case under his guidelines that it shouldn't be banned than it would be under my guidelines.
     
  3. Linkin Karp

    Linkin Karp 从来没有幸运,但有时橡胶鸭子。 Season Host

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    354
    I'm actually against your approach for the very same reason. I fear that if we set clear guidelines spanning across generations that state exactly whether a mon is broken or not, we might in the end fall victim to our own policies, possibly going as far as having to ban the Big Four. Something that is as meta-defining as Tauros in Gen 1 would be instabanned in newer generations. The strength of individual mons and strategies always needs to be looked at in the context of the metagame, and for that, strict and inflexible guidelines would hurt our tiering process.

    Exhibit A: Smogon Gen 7 OU quickbanned most likely way more than necessary to create a stable and diverse metagame, solely due to precedents set in Gen 3-5.
    Exhibit B: Smogon OMs. Just look at Shared Power - an extremely centralized metagame where broken quite literally checks broken by design. The concept would never allow the meta to be anywhere close to standard play in terms of diversity, yet people are complaining about that and now the top threats are being banned. Once the first wave of bans on somewhat manageable stuff has gone through, Smogon will end up with a complete train wreck of a tier where a lot of stuff is banned just for being good, yet the level of imbalance will still be the same. This happens when you apply policies from one metagame to another that is entirely different. Gen 6 STABmons went through a similar ordeal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  4. Golden Gyarados

    Golden Gyarados Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    623
    Likes Received:
    346
    They're guidelines, not policy. Is there a reason both can't be stated?

    I think the most important thing is defining guidelines first and foremost. Remember, the vote that prompted this discussion had most people saying they wanted "guidelines" in direct contrast to the other option, which was "clear policy." So starting upfront by saying,

    "Guidelines are used as helpful reference when discussing whether an element is banworthy, with the ultimate decision coming down to [a council? a vote? something else?]. As these are merely guidelines, note that an element may meet all criteria defined herein yet remain unbanned. Conversely, an element may be banned that does not meet all or even most of the criteria defined herein."

    Once you define the guidelines thusly, the guidelines can include both the approaches listed here.
     
  5. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    They don't state exactly when a Pokemon is broken or not but satisfaction of more of the conditions more strongly is a clearer indication that a Pokemon is banworthy.

    I guess I need to edit my description to make it clear that it is still only a guideline on what's banworthy rather than a clear determination. Will do that in a few minutes. Furthermore, clearly the strength to which a Pokemon needs to satisfy a criteria depends on the generation.

    I can add an option for "both" in the poll, give me a second. I like what you wrote there though so I'll be making an edit to the post correspondingly.
     
  6. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I am editing my description of my option and adding a comment about the nature of this policy being merely a guideline.

    Here is the original post:
    In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

    Option A

    Option B

    The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.

    Here is the updated post, with changes bolded:
    In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

    To be clear, these will only serve as guidelines. They are to be used as a reference point to determine whether or not something should be suspected and whether or not something should be banned, but there is explicitly plenty of room for interpretation in both of those situations.

    Option A

    Option B

    The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.

    Ortheore I haven't & won't touch your option's description. If you want to do any changes to it, since you have moderator powers, you can edit the opening post and make a post like this highlighting the before & after.

    Golden Gyarados and Linkin Karp I hope this provides clarification.
     
  7. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Can someone explain to me how you would make an argument that Mewtwo in RBY would be broken under Ortheore's proposal? I can't. RBY Ubers is a really deep metagame.
     
  8. CrapAtRBY

    CrapAtRBY Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    66
    I think Mewtwo lowers competitive depth below an acceptable point because it is so powerful, offensively and defensively, that it a) you must put a stop to it almost immediately lest it sweep your team, b) counterplay to it is severely limited.

    Although it can't cover every common solution to it in 4 moves, it still has ways to address it's 'weaknesses' in a reliable or at least sufficient way. Thunderbolt outpaces Slowbro's Surf and kills Slowbro on a Crit, Psychic will wear down Light Screen Chansey, Barrier wins PP wars and makes physical offense dependent on crits and it can suffer two spec drops at +6 and still be at 999 special, lowering the number of exploitable turns opened up by trying to lower it's special and forcing it to boost again. Even Mons like Mew and Amnesialax that can boost on something it can force out, paralyse Mewtwo and hope to overwhelm it, still have a good chance to lose that match-up and then present a significant opportunity-cost having paralysed Mewtwo and shut down any freezes.

    The only 100% reliable way to beat Mewtwo is to freeze it, you must have a way to freeze Mewtwo in case all else fails, many Ubers matches devolve into both players spamming Ice Beam at each other hoping for that 10% chance to go their way.
     
    Linkin Karp likes this.
  9. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Why do these lower competitive depth? Yes, you have to play around it aggressively, and you have a limited amount of ways of dealing with it. Why do those lower competitive depth?

    You can also use Flash Mewtwo which forces out or beats all other variants of Mewtwo 1v1, there's also the asd assassin (self-destruct + twave) which can effectively trade Mewtwos, Barrier is basically not used lol. You can reliably beat Mewtwo to some extent, but it depends on the team you bring and the Mewtwo variant your opponent brings, and your approach to the game.



    Basically, there are multiple approaches to the Ubers metagame, with a variety of viable sets / Pokemon. Although within the game your options are often fairly limited, there is plenty of depth from the teambuilding perspective and the strategy determined pre-game in the builder.

    I think Mewtwo is clearly broken. I also think RBY Ubers is clearly a metagame with a lot of competitive depth. But honestly I'm finding it really hard to argue in terms of "competitive depth"... what does it even mean exactly?
     
  10. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Also, when a game isn't terribly deep, but no particular Pokemon seems to be the culprit, what do?

    The example I'm thinking of here is RBY 6U. It's balanced in my opinion, also very boring (some people enjoy it though) and not very deep (which I think is less debatable, but idk, I really don't get wth competitive depth really means honestly). Do we ban Kabutops or Machamp or something then?
     
  11. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Reason why my proposal should be accepted
    • It more directly addresses why we implement bans in the first place, helping to ensure that bans are made for the right reasons
    • It entails evaluating whether a metagame is healthy or not before we consider implementing any bans, so we're not trying to fix stuff that isn't broken.
    • By defining banworthiness in terms of a minimum standard for a given tier, we're better able to justify having different standards for different generations. By contrast, relying solely on criteria such as DA's leads to scenarios where we have stuff that's broken by those criteria, but we ignore it because "it's an old gen" or for some other reason, which means we've created guidelines that just aren't very effective
    • It does not exclude traditional definitions of banworthiness.
    • It covers all possible dynamics that might be created by a problematic element, even ones that we've not thought of yet
    I will admit there will be some challenges in adapting discussions to address the issue, as it's quite different to what we're used to, and it can be fairly abstract

    I really don't see how RBY Ubers is remotely deep. RBY Mewtwo literally forces teams to spam explosion or PP stall, those are pretty much your only options for handling it (freeze is a thing, but it never happens in practice). Those are really your only overarching strategic options and when you get into details, the tier is so massively warped around dealing with M2 that only a handful of pokemon are truly viable (Mew because Mew, Gar/Jynx/Egg for sleep, then Chansey, Lax and Bro and pretty much anything beyond those becomes fairly niche). With limited options when teambuilding and battles revolving around either pp stall or whether you can land explosion or not, I think it's fair to say that the game has very little depth

    Also you list Selfdestruct M2 but dismiss Barrier? Barrier's legitimately one of M2's best sets, while blowing up your M2 is unfathomably foolish because M2 is just so valuable.

    Actually this has been a really valuable mini-discussion, since I have to admit it's such an abstract topic it can be hard to talk about it, so I think it's good to try talking about it.

    The key thing here is there's no obvious causal relationship. I think that's just all that the tier has to offer, as we've progressed to the point where there's just not a lot of options. Maybe I need to revisit my proposal and alter the language somewhat so that causality is an explicit requirement (I thought it was, but if this question is being asked maybe I didn't make it clear)
     
    Linkin Karp likes this.
  12. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I think this is a noble goal and if it did that better I think I would be more supportive of it. But I don't fundamentally feel like it actually addresses why we implement bans in the first place.

    That's a legitimately interesting point. But does a game's level of competitive depth (whatever that means?) accurately measure whether or not a metagame is healthy? It feels like to me you've replaced one vague thing (is the metagame healthy?) with another vague thing (does the metagame have adequate competitive depth?)
    My standards don't mean we ignore things because "it's an old gen". The thing is you need to view the conditions in a way that isn't binary, because they're not binary. Think of it like
    - the fewer checks and counters a pokemon has, the more likely they are to be banworthy
    - the more punishing it is to make a mistake against a Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
    - the more sets that have different checks and counters, the more likely it is to be banworthy
    - the more & better Pokemon it offensively invalidates or limits, the more likely it is to be banworthy
    - the more effective it is as a supportive Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
    etc.

    and then apply human judgment to it. Obviously the generation provides a context for these things.

    Wdym by traditional definitions of banworthiness?
    Does it? Again, noble goal, and again, not sure it actually achieves that goal.
    Right or wrong on the details of that (you play that meta more so you know more than me) I'm not sure that really qualifies it as having very little depth. What is depth anyway?

    Idk, sunny, marco, etc. abused it a lot.

    I guess this is just one of the differences really between our two proposals:
    - your proposal is more abstract that mine is. I wanted something practical that's useful to measure up against when making an argument, rather than something where people get lost in abstractions.

    I do think your philosophical approach is wise in some ways: trying to understand what fundamentally makes something banworthy in terms of how it affects the game. I just don't personally feel like it achieves that. Evidently enough other people seem to think differently though.

    Yeah, I think that's sensible. Maybe I was being too literal in asking that question, but there is never any harm in making something implicit explicit.

    ---

    tl;dr:

    Ortheore's approach is has a more philosophical bent to it, trying to understand precisely why we want to ban things in the first place.

    My approach has a more practical bent to it, trying to provide fairly measurable tools to help decide when something is banworthy.
     
  13. CrapAtRBY

    CrapAtRBY Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    66
    Competitive Depth as I see it is a metagame that reaches a reasonable amount of diversity of viable playstyles and mons within the constraints of the metagames/tiers possible within the generation. As we gain more mons, mechanics and moves in each generation this is a threshold that should be steadily increasing (or at least staying within an acceptable range once we reach a plateau, I know next to nothing about newer gens).

    So if we look at RBY 1U, the mechanics of the gen already limit us in playstyles, wholescale stall is simply not viable for a variety of reason, so we have a standard team and the variations thereof and Full Wrap, if we look at how many mons are viable, yes we have the big four, but there are 22 mons in A-D in the Viability Rankings, of 70 fully evolved Pokemon (if I've counted correctly) in the tier, that's about 30%, plus other mons that other players will adovcate for, which imo is a decent number.

    In Ubers however we have 8-12 really viable mons depending on who you ask, that's about 10-15%, there's a handful of strategies all dedicated to taking down just one Pokemon, even the alternatives you listed were all dedicated to trading Mewtwos.

    Though 1U has it's centralising forces and has nowhere near the variety of today's gens, it's significantly more varied than Ubers and in the context of what's available and possible in Gen 1 I think it's good, competitive meta.

    I don't think we need more rigid guidelines, just a more general philosophy of what we want out of our standard tiers, I think as a community we have the sense to apply that philosophy well.

    I don't know how well what I'm saying will get through in text but hopefully, my point comes across
     
    tjdaas, deluks917 and Disaster Area like this.
  14. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    So am I right in thinking then that competitive depth is a proxy for other things like diversity of viable Pokemon & sets, centralisation, and so on?
     
  15. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Why do you not think that? Why do you think we implement bans?
    I never said these conditions were binary? Just that your guidelines implement conditions that in no way communicate that the standard for what should be banworthy will vary across generations. Furthermore, I think just saying "oh, we'll have different standards for different gens" really strikes me as an arbitrary decision that could potentially be used in a way that tries to artificially define what is acceptable. Even then, because you're looking at specific dynamics that characterise brokenness, rather than a pokemon's overall impact, it's possible to get caught out by your own definitions since you would have to define a standard for each of those criteria, otherwise you're relying on players evaluating how that pokemon impacts the metagame, rather than whether it matches those criteria. This is fine, but you'd think we'd address that in our guidelines.

    Basically, your guidelines would need to explain why stuff like 5U Dragonair isn't broken, despite Dair thoroughly meeting pretty much every criterion

    Also saying "meta is healthy" is equivalent to "I like playing this tier", which for a player can mean anything. Competitive depth actually does mean something, as I stated in the other thread (if you're looking for sources discussing it, maybe simply looking up depth in the context of game design, rather than specifically in a competitive context would be effective, since it's the same concept, just not necessrily specific to PvP)
    Pretty much your criteria, given that it basically follows pretty much every similar list of guidelines I've seen from other communities
    Yes it does. My approach asks the question "does this pokemon negatively affect the meta?" which can be answered regardless of whether or not we've encountered that specific dynamic before. By contrast, if your guidelines contained some oversight, where a pokemon's c&cs were insufficient to prevent it from dominating the meta, a person relying on your guidelines could tick off "yes, they've got an adequate number of checks, yes they've got a hard counter..." and so on, and if your guidelines don't cover that criteria, it technically passes despite being toxic. Admittedly, I don't know what isn't covered, but that's the point, if it were something we were likely to think of we'd just include it rather than potentially encountering it and only then finding out our guidelines are insufficient

    As for the other stuff, there's no denying that my approach is more abstract. But fwiw I think the approaches can coexist, but only in the scenario where my approach is accepted and your guidelines provide clarity. I'm aware that assumes my approach is favoured, which is maybe a bit rude, but I still felt it was worth pointing out
     
  16. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Because I think we ban Pokemon in metagames that in my opinion are very deep.

    If we used your standard, here is the list of Pokemon I would ban in each generation:
    RBY - None
    GSC - I don't know, probably none
    ADV - None
    HGSS - I don't know
    BW - None
    ORAS - Possibly Mega Rayquaza, but I'm not sure.
    SM - Same as in ORAS, but maybe some other stuff might be more powerful like Geomancy given the introduction of Z-moves and so on, so possibly more than just Mega Rayquaza is on the table.

    I don't know, exactly. If I had a good answer I would propose it. I have a gut feeling that something introduces game dynamics I don't like. I haven't worked out the rules roughly underlying why.

    I've made a lot of threads trying to understand other people's perspectives and develop my own ideas because I'm not really sure why I think something that is broken is actually broken, e.g.

    All Gens - What Makes Something Broken (To You)? | Pokémon Perfect
    All Gens - Do You Think The Ubers Tier Is Broken In Most Generations? | Pokémon Perfect

    So on a subconscious level (or something) I get why we implement bans. But I can't articulate why we implement bans.

    The thing is though, different stuff is acceptable in different generations because
    - you have a wider pool of available Pokemon at various power levels
    - you have moves, items, and mechanics that make the overall pace of metagames in a given generation different to some degree to those previous

    That is true. I do that because I think it's easier to make sense of things in that way. We can sort of quantify how few responses a Pokemon has or how dangerous it is to make a misplay. It's far harder to quantify a Pokemon's overall impact.

    I think that we wouldn't need to be too specific actually in the guidelines on where exactly to draw the line. Instead, cases of stuff being or not being banned (e.g. in RBY, Mewtwo, Mew being banned, various stuff in 2U, 4U, 5U, and 6U not being banned) provides precedent within a generation about how thoroughly criteria would need to be met for a ban.

    If we're going for pure abstraction in the guideline, why not just have as our guideline:
    "we ban Pokemon when they are too powerful for the metagame"
    outside of cheese strategies (which I think we agree upon how to deal with anyway) I think that covers it...

    if we want something more measurable / less useless, well... that was what I was trying to go for.
     
  17. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Proposing this guideline:

    Option C

    We should ban Pokemon when they are too powerful.

    We should ban or restrict other things in order to mitigate cheesy strategies (ones that are highly reliant on luck or matchup to beat).

    ---


    Adding it to the OP & Poll
     
  18. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    I mean I guess this is one of those things where you're entitled to your opinion, but I cannot stress enough how heavily I disagree with the notion that RBY Ubers is very deep, and also the idea that a MRay meta is even open for debate when it literally devolves into who can murder the other player with it first.

    Otherwise, I would say that just because we follow a certain pattern of banning things, that does not mean that that pattern is the appropriate way to do it. If we're banning things in metas that are already very deep, maybe we should be evaluating those bans, rather than using them as a potentially flawed precedent
    Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that different generations will have different standards, just I feel like having different standards based on those criteria is somewhat contrived and I suspect they could be twisted in a way that could potentially misrepresent a situation. By contrast I think a wholistic state-of-the-meta approach enables people to come to their own opinion on what's acceptable, which then contributes to a community consensus. Maybe? I feel like my reasoning is weaker here, like I'm not articulating correctly. It's actually inspired by comments you made on PDon (iirc), where you said that in g6/7 no pokemon should have 90% usage or w/e, and I just found that specific reasoning really contrived.
    This is fair enough for generations where have a precedent, but that's pretty much only rby atm. What about all of the other generations?
    Pure abstraction is a pretty blatant strawman and equating my position with a one line guideline is a crass oversimplification. I've already outlined a definition for competitive depth and there is plenty of room for further clarification and translation of that relatively abstract concept into more specific details that are easily identifiable
     
  19. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Fair point. But I do think it is important to have some precedents when deciding whether or not something ought to be banned. It provides a spectrum of what's reasonable, though those precedents and boundaries can of course be challenged.

    I guess you're sort of trying to say that measurable standards are flawed to some extent because the standard depends upon the generation, whereas what you're trying to define is the guiding principle from which those measurements at least ought to have if not did come from.

    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't really understand or agree with what your guiding principle for this is, but I'm also struggling to come up with a better alternative myself, and that's why I end up saying stuff that doesn't really come out right.

    I want something that is either a principle that is simple to understand and agreeable, or a handful of somewhat measurable criteria that are simple to understand and agreeable even if it's not clear exactly where it came from.
     
  20. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Ortheore do you think Primal Groudon would be banned in ORAS under your guidelines?
     
  21. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    I don't know for certain as I haven't played ORAS ubers enough to say with confidence (I basically stopped shortly after MRay ban iirc). But I suspect it wouldn't be, just based on lurking discussions among other people, as I think most people agree that although it's kind of dominant, it still allows all kinds of different playstyles, while although it has lots of offensive tools, teams still find a way to deal with it.

    That said, if someone were to argue for its ban I wouldn't disagree either
     
  22. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I guess this is "working back from my conclusions" but I think to some extent at this stage that is ok, I want guidelines where it would be easier to argue that Primal Groudon is banworthy than that it is not.
     
  23. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    If the votes stay as they are for now I think the right conclusion thusfar is that they're inconclusive and we need to discuss more as a community before we can really lay out the groundwork.

    Do you have thoughts on how we begin to structure this? Maybe the first thing to do is to establish what the scope of guidelines should be.
     
  24. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    I don't think they're inconclusive? My approach is clearly favoured. Either way, I intend to take a bit of time to draft a complete set of guidelines to go along with my proposal. This would probably be:
    • Statement defining banworthiness in terms of its impact on competitive depth
    • Definition of depth, including various observable traits
    • Review DA's guidelines, and outline how my concept interacts with those definitions
    Also I vehemently disagree with creating guidelines that have been deliberately designed to ensure specific decisions are made. The whole point of these guidelines are that they can be applied to any situation and tailoring them to ensure PDon gets banned or anything like that entirely undermines their integrity. I absolutely cannot accept this position. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that this is akin to gerrymandering =P

    Also I know you said you struggle to articulate it, but I think it's really important that you try to explain your perspective on why we ban things
     
    deluks917 and tjdaas like this.
  25. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    42% of the votes, 6/14, is less than a majority. Favoured? Yes. But a clear outcome? I think we need to spend more time discussing how we approach this. That being said, I think you are clearer on what you want out of the guidelines than I am.

    Primal Groudon is definitely overcentralising and singlehandedly warps the metagame, but I don't know if that makes it banworthy under the definition we go for. But I want it and Pokemon like it - Pokemon that singlehandedly make otherwise top Pokemon unviable - to be stuff we can get rid of.

    Btw, do you know what Smogon's reason is to ban something? I think I saw something about it being about overcentralisation but I don't know honestly. Pdon is definitely overcentralising, but it's not broken as an offensive Pokemon and the metagame with it permitted is still deep (I think? I still struggle with that notion) but there are definitely fewer viable options because of it.

    ...

    I also want Mewtwo to be banworthy and I think our guidelines should enable us to be able to ban it. It's the same for me with Mewtwo as with Pdon, but Mewtwo is the least controversial thing to want banned ever. I think if our guidelines didn't make it easier to ban Mewtwo than to argue against banning Mewtwo then it's inadequate, and I don't think that's controversial, even if in some way it's working backwards from our conclusions.
     
  26. Ortheore

    Ortheore Leader

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,957
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Regarding the voting, I think the A&B option is ambiguous- is it both proposals? Is it a "no strong opinion" option? idk. Either way it's problematic, since you could have both sides claim a majority or neither side claim a majority quite easily.

    Hmm well I disagree with you on PDon, since I think if the metagame's fine with a dominating presence (to be clear, I'm not remotely sure this is the case with PDon, it could be busted regardless) then that's acceptable. To go beyond that is implementing bans that don't address any need, something I don't think should ever be done by any competitive community

    Off the top of my head, smogon's policies are similar to your's, but I would need to look that up to say for sure

    No-one else has chimed in on our debate on the merits of rby ubers so it's hard for me to say, but I don't think RBY ubers is remotely close to being in an acceptable state under my guidelines and I don't imagine I'm in the minority on that one. The reason I brought up the condition of being able to sustain many years of competitive play was to illustrate that the standards for depth should actually be really high, and therefore merely having a few different options is not sufficient. RBY ubers has like 8 pokemon that aren't gimmicks, the majority of which have literally no flexibility in how they're played. I'm not saying there's no depth to be had, since almost any game has some depth, but it's not nearly enough to be considered adequate
     
    Disaster Area and deluks917 like this.
  27. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Fur and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Would guidelines based on competitive depth include something concrete, e.g.
    - If a Pokemon significantly reduces diversity then that is reducing competitive depth

    I think a non-exhaustive explicit list of ways in which the standards can be applied would be very helpful and could get me on board. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Again I'm finding stiff hard to articulate, lol.

    I guess a part of things that make me want to ban a Pokemon and have some relation to competitive depth are:
    - When a Pokemon is (offensively) overpowered, that generally means that it has few viable responses (if any), which may not be reliable, and making a mistake against it (e.g. giving free setup opportunity, getting lured by a coverage move which can't be scouted out safely) can be very costly.
    - When a wall or support Pokemon is so prominent that if a Pokemon struggles versus it then even if it matches up well against the rest of the metagame it is very uncommon/not very viable. If there's plenty of these Pokemon (in Pdon's case, say) that is reducing viable options significantly and reducing competitive depth.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page