1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. ATTENTION: For our 2023 season all of our tournaments will be hosted via the Pokémon Perfect Discord server rather than the forums. Please join us there and continue to enjoy our tournaments! https://discord.gg/2CsWWnan2A
  3. Tournaments

    Check out the 2024 Tournament Calendar and join our discord server to participate in our tournaments!

Community Discussion on the tiering project

Discussion in 'Tiers' started by Ortheore, Mar 23, 2018.

  1. The Idiot Ninja

    The Idiot Ninja Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    433
    Pause. Why is it "okay for it to be in 2U" when the vast majority agrees he should be 1U? This is the point I've been trying to make for literal ages. Our system (if we can even call what we have a 'system') is very very very VERY unwelcoming to things like making one simple shift, to the point that you'd rather be "okay" with keeping a misplaced pokémon than going through the process to fix things.

    I don't agree with marco on the idea of unbanning things to make tiers more playable. That's not the goal of tiering. But I do think we need a better system in place than "throw everything we had out the window, let's restart tiering from fucking 1U".
     
  2. marcoasd

    marcoasd P.I.P. PLAY IN PEACE Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    905
    Vast majority? I've been playing this tier for more than 4 years and Victreebel never was a staple for that reason I already mentioned alone.
    RBY OU / 1U (OverUsed) - Boundary Review - Part 1 (Viability Rankings) | Pokémon Perfect
    We both voted it as D here, and it barely made it to C (9vs 8, an ass-whooping 17 total voters).
    If it will ever become a staple, it should be banned so people will have to learn to win games without relying on RNG alone.
    Oh, also: Victreebel might theoretically be an issue in 1U because the tier is filled up with slow pokemon, while it could hardly be in 2U - which proves that your "transitivity" thing is a total joke that you borrowed.

    You're throwing everything away anyway everytime you take care of voting/revisiting tiers/whatever, and you will realize how this sytem work when (if it happens, of course) the same exact few guys will just reverse the Victreebel vote just because they woke up on the wrong side of their bed...
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  3. Lusch

    Lusch A critical hit! Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    601
    Got to echo marco here. The vast majority? What? I personally have voted Victreebel 1U when it came up. It is not 1U right now. What does that mean? It means I was in the minority! Am I okay with Victreebel being 2U instead of 1U even though I voted otherwise? Yes, I am. Why? Because it's a borderline case. If I had to give percentages, I'm 55% in favour of 1U and 45% 2U (or something like that). So really, I'm okay with either. There was not a majority when Vic was voted and there is not a mojority now (who does this "majority" consist of? Ask the "top 20" RBYers and get the majority, then I believe it.). Your point is that Victreebel is (clearly?) 1U material. Which is a claim that can (and should) be challenged, simply because it's not. It is dangerous, yes. It can be used effectively, yes. Is it consistent enough? In my opinion, no.
    You can argue this was pre SPL blabla... Still Victreebel has not changed as much as to consider it 1U. (What did SPL show with it? It was used 2% of the time (granted, won 4 of those, but is this representative? please...). Honestly, you need more than that to be considered 1U, especially if you are Victreebel and don't really fit on standard teams unless you drop Eggy, which is... well... not recommended on a consistent level.
     
    Disaster Area and Isa like this.
  4. The Idiot Ninja

    The Idiot Ninja Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    433
    Well, okay, this is a different issue then. My point is indeed that Victreebel is pretty clearly 1U material. I guess I don't really have stats to back up my claim that it's consistent, very much so, because of small sample size, so it's not worth debating that much. I'll let the "few people with too much power" that marco mentioned silence me (hint: you are one of them, marco) and go on with my life. Do whatever the fuck you want with your lowtiers.
     
  5. marcoasd

    marcoasd P.I.P. PLAY IN PEACE Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    905
    I don't have any kind of power whatsoever, "Host Emeritus" is just an empty shell. I have a wide showcase - which didn't cause me too many Victreebel encounters.
     
  6. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    I strongly believe Victreebel ought to be 1U but I know that in the last vote I was outnumbered (the total was 4 in favour of Victreebel in 1U and 7 against).

    I think if we're gonna bring back up determining the 1U/2U boundary, the question should really be about who gets a vote more than what the outcome should be. Who got to vote was fairly arbitary (based on get a certain amount of points in a player rankings) and I think it's worth discussing how we should actually decide on who gets to make the decision. Again, though, whenever I've made threads discussing this point, nobody has ever bothered to reply to them, so we've been stuck with that.
     
  7. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    Although I don't really agree regarding Victreebel, I think the most important issue is the discrepancy in activity between 1U and 2U. I think it makes sense to periodically make small shifts between 1U and 2U, the trouble is that that approach isn't really compatible with our lower tiers because they're both not played constantly and when they are it's a result of us exerting effort to run tournaments etc- although our tours make up a huge chunk of 1U's activity, there are still plenty of other tours going on, plus a semi-active ladder, whereas literally everything for lower tiers is dependent on us hosting, which doesn't occur nearly as often as you'd need it to. Also simultaneous tours aren't great because most people who play lower tiers tend to play multiple, so you just overload people. I just don't think that a highly responsive system is all that compatible with things as they are now, because it's literally only viable for 1U. In the absence of high responsiveness, I think less frequent but more dramatic shifts are the natural course of things. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to deny that this is an issue, but it really isn't one with an easy solution I think

    Honestly at this point I'd rather focus on testing and developing 1Us tbh, since literally the only issues there are generating activity and ensuring that if we need to implement bans, that things don't just get hijacked by people who only want ubers rather than a healthy tier (personally, I'm skeptical of the need to implement bans though). Also I want to fully test ORAS/SM 1U, because afaik very few people got the chance to test each ban and I just have doubts that they're all necessary, and those doubts about the tiers really dampens my enthusiasm for them
     
    Disaster Area likes this.
  8. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    I think on the whole, yes, 1Us should be the top priority.

    But I think we can manage exploring a 1U tier and doing RBY lower tiers too. Most of the people who would be interested in one aren't interested in the other (I think me & orth are probably the main exceptions to that, and even then it depends on the 1U meta being tested [I only really am interested in personally being involved in ADV's])
     
  9. DDX2

    DDX2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    While near mostly a lurker, I always thought the process for tiering could have been done in a different faster matter.
    That being, keep the focus on the top if they require further attention, but also try to hold quick weekly one-time tournaments across each other tier to see if it needs further adjustments.

    It won't provide concrete analysis for the lower tiers, but it does provide something to go along with until attention is able to be given to the lower tiers which could be months, and also allows the casual look to what 7U, 8U, and 9U would look like.
     
    ToadNorton likes this.
  10. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    Live tours is actually a really good idea lol. I think that's something I tend to overlook because I personally have no interest in them, but I imagine it would draw in different groups of players and I guess for people who'd rather just sink a couple hours into something on a one-off basis rather than having to schedule every week and deal with shitty activity and whatnot it could be good

    =====================

    A few random thoughts
    • WE NEED AN END POINT FOR OUR TIERS. One idea I'm going to float for determining this is stopping once we've tiered more than X% of all available pokemon. What should X be? I have no idea. 80%? Idk.
    • I'd be happy to resume testing of the old tiers (6U onwards), IF we decide that we ought to continue.
    • We haven't determined anything in the new set of tiers besides the line between 1U and 2P/2U. So honestly, if people are unhappy with how that line has turned out and want to revisit it, now's the time imo. Once we start banning things or move on to 3U, I'd be extremely reluctant to return to the start until we've "finished" tiering, as I don't like the idea of half-assing something like this. So yeah, if people want to redo the vote I'm ok with that, but let's do it now rather than after we've really started making progress.
     
    Disaster Area likes this.
  11. DDX2

    DDX2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, as for endpoints, the realistic end is 9U.
    Assuming no changes to the current 6U, and that there are 13 pokemon cut out of 7U and 8U, that leaves 30 more left for 9U or 17 for 10U, but 5 of those 17 would be useless (Caterpie, Metapod, Weedle, Kakuna, and Magikarp).

    Technically 10U does not need to be tiered because by that point you could play the rest as you like, but there's an entertainment argument to tier them for completionist sake if you want the absolute ending of tiering everything in their sections.
     
  12. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Well, there's 73 Pokemon left that are tiered after 5U. 6 Pokemon are useless (you forgot Ditto!), leaving 67.

    So yes, if we just made sure that every Pokemon which is not "useless" (I guess objectively, that is Pokemon with less than 4 moves in their movepool) then we would get down to about 10U. The question is, should we go all the way, or should we stop at some earlier point (e.g. when 95% of the fully evolved mons that don't have a virtually empty movepool are tiered)?
     
  13. DDX2

    DDX2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    Probably by the time 7U would be tiered the only ones that may not yet have a tier are Ditto and likely Farfetch'd from the Fully Evolves.

    Even knowing that 7U and especially 8U and beyond are effective Little Cups, completing them seems worthy just to say it was done. That every was successfully placed in its competitive tier.
     
  14. Ortheore

    Ortheore Host Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    1,349
    I think it's worth noting that the goal of "completing" the tiers isn't really consistent with actually managing them. The more tiers we have, the more work needs to be done each time we decide to review them, and for tiers where you're lucky to get a dozen people playing, there's a very real risk that the review will peter out due to lack of activity, especially as depth evaporates. Furthermore, more lower tiers means each review takes longer and our tiering system becomes even less responsive to change.

    I really think we have to have an endpoint, beyond which we say that all remaining pokemon are just not worth tiering, one that is more than just that all the remaining pokemon have no movepool. Random note- how would we fit this into our nomenclature?

    Disaster Area, I think there's 78 pokemon that have been tiered, based on what I got when I fed our tiers into the list randomiser on random.org (it was the easiest method I could think of off the top of my head, there are better ways out there though)

    Personally I think we should stop anywhere from 5U-7U in RBY (meaning that 6U-8U wouldn't be tested).

    Also while I'm here, I'm not sure how well relying on X% of available pokemon transfers across generations, as I suspect that you need more tiers to reach that goal with each generation. That said, nothing's been proven and I haven't even thought that much about it lol edit- That's kinda the point lol- smogon is a good example of this with PU, FU and whatever other tiers they've started adding... tiers naturally increase with each gen so idk why I worry about this, other than the logistics of it
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
    Disaster Area likes this.
  15. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Little Ball of Furr and Power Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    I think w/ x% it's an objective standard, but then I guess so is hitting a certain U tier.

    The ideal would be if we had the playerbase to do it, would be go all the way to the bottom in every gen. But obviously that's not realistic. Maybe going down to 6U is good, then we can have tours that have 1 of each of the 1U tiers with 6 slots in it
     
  16. DDX2

    DDX2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    I suggest having the big tournies for the main played tiers. Up until the 5U or 6U discussed, and then doing the rest of the tiers as quick casual plays and making descisions by yourselves. Essentially without pressure and taking objective guesses.

    So an example for that case would be, 3 people decide theoretical 7U and from those games you see Beedrill is pretty good so you stick him at A. Basically how every tier starts, but with less data involved.

    This way you get the real main data for the played tiers, and casual data for the rest and can you say you completed tiering for all 100%.
     
  17. juoean

    juoean Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    13
    i know this is old but for me this brings up several important contradictions within tiering, and somewhat different from what others have been (it seems to me) focused on.

    ~ im going to use the comments about victreebel and tentacruel as starting points, vic on one side being a pokemon that is clearly viable in 1u but is pretty bad in 2u, and tenta 'on the other' being almost completely unusable in 1u but having its own rank in 2u.
    the two primary responses to this im seeing here are talking abt where to "draw the line" and talking abt wrap. the wrap discussion seems completely arbitrary yes these two pokemon both learn wrap but that really doesnt have anything to do with their strange tiering position and whatever people "think about" wrap has nothing to do with tiering practice (im not going to say anything further abt wrap here and i am only acknowledging it at all since so many comments were talking about it). as for "drawing the line" i think the concept contains numerous implicit assumptions which im going to go into here and if people are okay with the consequences of those assumptions thats fine but they should be openly acknowledged.

    on the 'practice' side there is a central assumption throughout that if pokemon are ranked in a certain order in a given tier, that rank is automatically carried down to setting the next tier. in other words (using rby 1u as an example), if a pokemon that is B rank in 1u is permitted in 2u then all C and lower rank pokemon in 1u must also be permitted in 2u.
    this is mostly arbitrary from a theoretical point of view because a pokemon can function better in one environment than another. but the contradiction is particularly prominent in rby 1u and 2u due to the qualitative centralization of 1u created mostly by chansey. (i mean centralization in the sense that being able to either threaten or stall chansey in some way is almost mandatory for a pokemon to have any 1u viability.)
    even tho tenta has wrap, it cannot accomplish anything in a chansey environment because chansey forces it to wrap and then chansey can just switch right out, in 1u it switches out to tauros. this combined with tenta's lack of status moves and inability to function well when statused bc of being a wrap user ruins it in the paralysis centered 1u, despite having decent matchups against much of 1u. "power level" is a lil imprecise but to the extent that it is a usable concept tenta is a "generally powerful" pokemon in rby and while it has no place at all in 1u it is 'too' strong and 'over'centralizing in 2u (im not claiming anything about the possibility of banning it, i mean descriptively how it is so good in 2u that it has its own rank etc).

    ~ but (moving to the 'practice' side again) a lot of tenta's metadefining place in rby-2u must also be attributed to pokemon that would "likely" fit just fine in 2u but were 'automatically' banned from the tier (by tiering policy) due to their level of viability in 1u. im going to focus on jolteon because its the most unambiguous example but i dont mean to suggest that jolteon is the only "1u" pokemon this is true of. 1 twave is really valuable in 1u in general and specifically jolteon can outspeed and twave tauros (if jolt is unparalyzed) unlike zapdos; while twave is not as important in 2u and since jolteon has a horrible mu with dugtrio anyway its speed tier isnt really that much better than electabuzz's (im separating speed tier from crit ratio). 2 even tho jolteons coverage options are terrible they happen to have the perfect typing for 1u, most importantly double kick having the same bp as zapdos's drill peck vs chansey the tier's most important special wall, and the possibility of running pin missile for egg(/vic). in 2u the special walls are hypno and kadabra and jolt doesn't do that well against either, in addition to the ground types and tangela which are even worse matchups. (there are some other things like not being weak to blizzard in 1u but these are the two key aspects.)
    even without any theorymonning i think it is very clear that the reasons why jolteon has any viability in 1u have to do with specific features of the 1u environment, mostly due to chansey, and it is clear that tiering is done in solely 'one direction', ie that the set of pokemon banned for 2u is determined solely based on their viability within the 1u environment, qualitative factors are basically not considered (meaning if pokemon A "has more viability" than pokemon B in 1u, the specific reasons why that is the case are not considered in terms of whether the pokemon is "considered 1u" and banned from lower tiers), and it is not permitted to argue for a "1u pokemon" to be allowed in 2u based on factors within the 2u metagame (as it exists at that time) which would be 'two directional' (or dialectical) tiering where you go back and review higher ranked tiers based on the development of lower ranked tiers.

    if people wanted to re-tier rby 2u (in a way that is more theoretically sound and i think would also lead to a much better tier in practice, than something like just banning tenta would) two ideas i can think of are:
    ~ tier 2u based on a chansey-less 1u. chansey specifically changes 1u viability so much and since there have been various "tournaments" etc without chansey some people likely have at least a little experience with chansey-less 1u. maybe this idea sounds arbitrary but the reasoning is that there is no other pokemon in rby that is anything (at all) like chansey so the entire set of lower tiers shouldn't be impacted so much by one dominant 1u pokemon. it is 'like' how someone mentioned what if 1u was mewbers, that would obv dramatically change 1u tiering and therefore the starting point of what is allowed in 2u.
    i dont really like this idea to be clear, tiering based on a relatively small set of competitive matches isnt good to say the least but i am mentioning it as a potential way to re-tier 2u without any change to the fundamentals of pp tiering practice.

    ~ this idea is arguably a 'partial form' of two-directional / dialectical tiering, to explicitly include qualitative aspects in the step 'between' having one tier set, and establishing the starting point for the next tier (rather than "drawing a line"). for example, in 1u u might separate the walls (ie the three twave users with instant recovery and maybe eggy goes in this group bc it plays more like a wall even tho it lacks recovery), the "pure" sleepers (jynx and prob gengar), the physical attackers (normals and goldon), and the mixed attackers / wallbreakers / special attackers with a potential way around chansey (zapdos/jolt, lapras, slowbro, maybe cloy dnite vic go here too). the four walls very clearly shouldnt be considered in any lower tier, while particularly the last group pokemon need to each be discussed individually with respect to whether their effectiveness in 1u is 'generalizable'. (this is very rough @ 'groupings' and more meant as initial ideas than a fully formed concrete analysis.) but the point is to evaluate the specific features of a pokémon's viability in 1u / in the given tier, and whether the viability is due to the pokemon's "general" strength or 'power level', in which case it is correct to ban that pokemon from all lower tiers, or if the viability is specific to the conditions of that tier in which case the pokemon should not be automatically banned from lower tiers.

    and to reaffirm, i am using rby 1u/2u as the concrete basis for bringing up these points but i think they are important questions about tiering policy in general, rby 1u/2u is just where these issues have the biggest concrete effect due to how centralized rby 1u is around specific pokemon, mostly due to chansey
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  18. juoean

    juoean Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    13
    but the central issue is that "power level" and viability are not that closely linked in rby-1u bc of chansey. recognizing that power level hasnt really been precisely defined here, but i think by most if not all definitions tentacruel has equal or greater "power level" than many 1u pokemon, eg compared to jolteon it has a slightly better special and far better special attacking options (the option to run 120bp stab and actually having coverage moves, it has access to mega drain for opposing waters too, even tho this isnt needed at all in 2u since it walls all the other viable waters anyway but it "would be" relevant in a different metagame context eg for lapras and to a lesser extent starmie and slowbro), a bit better bulk but worse defensive typing, and on top of that it has wrap and is the fastest wrapper in rby. speed tiers are hard to evaluate in a general way bc by definition speed tiers are relevant in relation to other viable pokemon's speeds, but eg in the 2u context tenta has a great speed tier and jolteons speed tier might as well be the same as electabuzzs. jolteon happens to be better in 1u because of twave's centrality in that tier and because it happens to have "coverage" for chansey.

    i dont think it goes against tiering to have a pokemon "be in" multiple tiers. of course here the way "being in a tier" has been defined is that the pokemon is banned in lower tiers so yes you are technically correct but your "point" is basically a tautology (you are saying "being in a tier is defined as the pokemon is banned from lower tiers, therefore a pokemon cant be in a tier and not be banned from lower tiers"). the intended point (i assume) was that a pokemons viability in 1u does not have to automatically translate to being banned in 2u, and particularly in a tier so heavily centralized around one pokemon (chansey).
    i think it is inevitable that some pokemon will be used in multiple tiers, matchups are a part of pokemon so there will be some cases where a lower tier pokemon happens to play as well or better in a higher tier (eg vic in 1u). there is no set of tiering definitions or rules that can change this fact and more importantly i dont see why it is a problem in any way if a pokemon is playable in multiple tiers. so vic is (more or less equally) viable in both 1u and 2u, goldon if one or both were allowed in 2u / back when rhydon was allowed would maybe not be much better in 2u than they are in 1u bc of all the special attackers, so what. i understand and agree with wanting to make sure every pokemon is viable in at least one tier but why is it a problem in any way for a poke to be viable in multiple tiers (if there were even a way to prevent that from happening). how you 'define' that, if u want to say that vic "is in" 2u but is also viable in 1u, rather than j saying it is both 1u and 2u, is another question but it really seems like a style / wording preference to me.

    i dont want to theorymon too much but i dont see any reason whatsoever to speculate that jolteon would "create problems" (whatever that means) in 2u, i think it would probably be better than buzz and raichu bc of its special stat but honestly i dont even think that is completely clear bc it has no coverage at all (pin missile and double kick would both be useless to it in 2u, i guess pin missile has one potential target in vic but i cant imagine it is ever worth running) and its attack stat is much worse (relevant for using body slam vs grounds and maybe vs kadabra) which i think offsets any benefit of outspeeding dugtrio. it gets sand attack? at least that gives it a viable fourth move to run other than rest.
    honestly it sounds like from your writing that that you didnt actually think about jolteon in 2u, i cant imagine it being ranked above A if it were unbanned much less "creating problems" for the tier.

    (tbc i dont agree with anything else that marcoasd said, the whole wrap convo is misplaced as i said in prior post and saying it is ideal to have eg a grass type designated for each tier or w e is absurd, particularly in rby type diversity isnt even always that important and one cannot even rank pokemon within a type like that bc eg as was brought up golem and rhydon are different, rhydon happens to be better in current 1u but thats largely bc of reflect/stoss chansey it is completely arbitrary to say one is "better" and "assign" the other one to 2u because which one is "better" is very meta dependent. also pokemon can have dual types lol so the question isnt even logically coherent since its not possible to categorize pokemon into types without overlap. "overall" i agree with much 'more' of what u wrote but i wanted to respond to these two sentences specifically)
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  19. magic9mushroom

    magic9mushroom BEST END. Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    440
    1) Actually it's also abandoned, because CALLOUS is a slave to Smogon.

    2) I have not read these posts because they are unpunctuated walls of textspeak. I imagine I am not alone in this. If you want me to read your posts, make it less strenuous to do so.
     
  20. juoean

    juoean Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2017
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    13
    i have tried to adjust some aspects of my writing per your previous requests and neither of these two messages is lacking in punctuation, paragraph breaks, etc.
    does "textspeak" refer to me using shorthand (like abt instead of about, bc instead of because, etc)? i can edit that i didnt realize that was an issue for you

    (i edited both comments to remove shorthand)
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020

Share This Page