Thoughts on the Creation of a Suspect Ladder?

[Texas Cloverleaf]

There have been several ideas floating around Dragonspiral Tower about the creation of a suspect ladder to test the metagame without Pokemon people believe are broken. While I think that that will lead to particular discourse on which Pokemon should be removed from the ladder I do think the idea has merit.

Option 1: A suspect ladder is created when a pokemon is voted Uber a single time by a simple majority. This allows users to test the metagame with both the suspect pokemon present and without.

This would be a case similar to what is going on currently, with Thunderus. A suspect ladder would be created where Thunderus is banned, allowing users to see if particular metagame shifts occur due to the lack of Thunderus, thereby seeing if it is overpowered.

Due to the significance of weather in the metagame, if any weather was voted to a simple majority a suspect ladder would then be implemented to allow voters the oppurtunity to confirm their opinion by playing a metagame both with and without the nominated weather.

Pokemon banned by a supermajority would not be eligible for a suspect test.


Option 2: A suspect ladder will be created when a Pokemon is nominated for re-entry to the OU metagame. After being put to a vote and being successfully supported for re-entry into the OU metagame, a suspect ladder will be created where the user base can test the OU metagame with the nominated Pokemon present, to see if it is indeed broken.

This process would allow for cases such as Manaphy if Drizzle were banned. The suspect ladder will allow a controlled test where it can be seen if Manaphy is indeed broken of its own merit.
NOTE: Pokemon banned by a supermajority will not be reintroduced unless a significant factor in their banning is altered.
This is more of a contingency plan in case something happened for example, if Reuniclus was banned in Round 2.


Given all the apparent support for suspect ladders that has been thrown around i am interested in hearing people's thoughts and opinions on whether a suspect ladder is a good idea, limited to the options above.

If you believe you have an alternative suspect ladder procedure feel free to post your idea here.


On a final note, if one becomes concerned with a dilution of playerbase, one must remember that a player will be playing both ladders to confirm their metagame decision. Worst case scenario we remove Dream World or Challenge Cup :P

 

[Eggbert]

I think this is a great idea to test stuff in actuality. We could find what the metagame is like without threats before banning them. Clear skies could be tested as well. The only problem is actually having people take the time to create the ladder as they have enough to complete.

I'd go with option one. It is kinda testing a theoretical metagame, but it would be useful to test the differences like a control and other obvious reasons. Re-entry is a waste. Stuff like Shaymin and Garchomp should go and we should not waste anymore time testing them. Manaphy is the only case and I doubt we will have to worry about it since drizzle is likely going to stay

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Hold on Eggbert, the point of the suspect ladder I am theorizing is soley to provide greater information to the voter pool and will only be based on the results of voting.

It has already been polled and decided that Clear Skies will not be implemented and I do not want this discussion to go there. If in a single vote all three weathers reached 50% of the vote than yes this ladder would test a Clear Skies metagame but it will not be used to test theoretical metagames.

Please, keep discussion centered on the poll options. Thak you :)

 

[KurashiDragon]

I'd have to go with both options. (Option 3) The first option is easily a good choice as it enables us to get solid proof as to whether or not something is bad for the metagame.

Option 2 is a good way to test uber pokemon who, after certain conditions are no longer available, may or may not be eligible for OU.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

:D Once again Eggbert comes up trumps by pointing out something I`d forgotten.

The intention of option two is certainly not to test things like Skymin and (as has now been edited into the OP) anything voted by a supermajority would not be eligible for reintroduction bar a significant alteration in what made them Uber to start with.

Thanks for pointing that out bro :)

 

[Phi]

I really think there needs to be a suspect retesting process because with stuff like Dream World and an insane amount of viable Pokemon, I think there will be enough metagame shifts, especially in UU to warrant having a process to possibly reintroduce Pokemon that were once broken. I really liked how last generation's BL really trimmed itself down to only pokemon that were actually broken in UU, but at the same time as new pokemon would drop down from OU it seemed strange to me that the old suspects were still considered broken when they could possibly balance out with some of the new ones.

 

[NDenizen]

It does seem a decent way to remove alot of theorymon, though if it was just based on "what most people consider suspect" it seems it might do too little. It would be interesting to see what if did if many of the nominations were given a chance, so we can see what a game without Sand specifically or only Hail would be like.

And as Phi says, the nature of stability for Gen 5 is different to before, where only 2 shifts really happened, and most of them introducing new things in one batch. Now, we may not get that, and if we do, that will be an addition to the fact the Dreamworld will be changing things on a fairly regular basis. It seems unlikely the same old system will accomodate that ideally.

 

[spweasel]

As I said in the "where do we draw the line?" thread:

Lastly, would creating a suspect ladder be beneficial in the process of banning - as it would allow us to obtain fundamental ‘proof’?

No. It really wouldn't give us "proof" of anything unless we let it run until the metagame stabilized (which means we'd probably need to run it for at least two months before getting usable, post-stabilization numbers). And even then, it's often not a case of which metagame is better, but which one people like more (which are certainly not the same concept).

Moreover, a Suspect Ladder starts off with the premise that something should be banned and then sees how bad the fall out would be. That's not how we should be banning things. We should only be banning stuff that absolutely cannot remain in the metagame. If we are so unsure that something needs to be banned that a Suspect Ladder is necessary or desirable, then it is a good sign that it should not be banned.

That being said, I think that there is merit to creating a suspect ladder for unbanning things. Unbanning generally lacks the urgency of banning, so waiting for stable numbers isn't a problem. If a change in the metagame (or a significant change in player attitudes) occurs that makes people seriously consider something no longer ban-worthy, a suspect ladder would actually let players test the thing that's being voted on instead of doing it by blind theorymon.

Of course, it still has the disadvantage of becoming a popularity contest, but I suspect the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Kefka Palazzo™]

Why is it that the majority of Texas' ideas are so good?

 

[Phi]

The problem with a suspect ladder reintroducing old suspects is that while metagame shifts are going to help introduce environments where previously broken pokemon can be more easily checked, the immediate effect of banning something on a metagame is usually a reduction of use in notable checks (like scarf tyranitar for latias in gen IV) and an increase of use of stuff that the suspect countered (like infernape in the same sitch). I definitely think there should be a better outlined process or reintroducing stuff to OU but at the same time I think that we need to make OU and UU bans more flexible to metagame changes than they are currently.
Quick question: Does anyone have a link to a relevant topic about how Latias was moved from Ubers to OU initially in Gen IV? It's the only time in competitive pokemon I can think of where a Pokemon was unbanned.

 

[BurningMan]

We should only create a suspect ladder, if a Pokemon will be voted down by a simple majority, so we can see if it works outside of pure theorymoning.

To create a suspect ladder for a Pokemon to be voted to ubers is stupid a Pokemon should get banned because its broken, not because we like the metagame more without it. There is no point of testing a Metagame without this Pokemon, because this won't show if the Pokemon is broken, it would just show how the metagame would look without it.

Smogons currently shifting from competitive Pokemon players to pseudo-game designers and thats not a shift i like to see.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Hold on a sec BM, your concern is valid but I think a little misplaced.

For certain metagame decisions should not be based off of which metagame people prefer but that isn`t the intent of the ladder concept (more on that in a sec). While it is certainly a potential problem that people will vote based on which metagame they prefer the thing is, the people who would vote, would not be those who got voting requirements. Looking at the voter pool from last round I fail to believe that anyone on that list would vote a specific way based on which metagame they prefer. So I don`t believe that people will vote based on their preferred metagame.

To address what I believe is your misconception, the intent of this ladder would not be to ban a pokemon and see which meta we prefer but rather to reaffirm or reduce our conviction in said Pokemon`s brokenness. By testing a ladder without the Pokemon present, it becomes possible to view metagame shifts and to perceive if the nominated pokemon was strong enough to have caused significant metagame shits, as with Slowbro for Blazekin, or if the rise of these pokemon is also due to general usefulness, as with SpDef Jirachi for the Lati`s or Azumarill/Conkeldurr for Excadrill.

As such option 1 will allow for this confirmation in the event of a simple majority and reduces part of the risk in a pokemon getting the right pool of voters to ban it because these voters will have had the oppurtunity to see wheter x Pokemon is ban-worthy.


In addition, it has just occured to me that this can also provide a possible solution to a Pokemon ebing nominated multiple times but remaining OU consistently. If a Pokemon such as Latios gets simple banned and remains OU for that term people will have had the oppurtunity to see if it is broken and if it is then voted OU during the fowing period it can be said that it is not broken and removed from the ballot minimizing the chance of a Pokemon being banned simply the right voter pool.

 

[IcyMan28]

I voted other.

My issue with option one is that we don't need to create a separate ladder to get an additional majority vote. If it is broken in the current metagame (which is what that initial 50% + 1 vote indicates), then we continue to keep it on watch rather than trivially deciding which metagame we like better.

To address what I believe is your misconception, the intent of this ladder would not be to ban a pokemon and see which meta we prefer but rather to reaffirm or reduce our conviction in said Pokemon`s brokenness. By testing a ladder without the Pokemon present, it becomes possible to view metagame shifts and to perceive if the nominated pokemon was strong enough to have caused significant metagame shits, as with Slowbro for Blazekin, or if the rise of these pokemon is also due to general usefulness, as with SpDef Jirachi for the Lati`s or Azumarill/Conkeldurr for Excadrill.

We can do this without a separate ladder. We all noticed that Slowbro and Azumarill usage decreased after Blaziken was banned. So what's the logical conclusion? Despite other uses, they were particularly prominent because of Blaziken. It isn't that hard.

In addition, it has just occured to me that this can also provide a possible solution to a Pokemon ebing nominated multiple times but remaining OU consistently. If a Pokemon such as Latios gets simple banned and remains OU for that term people will have had the oppurtunity to see if it is broken and if it is then voted OU during the fowing period it can be said that it is not broken and removed from the ballot minimizing the chance of a Pokemon being banned simply the right voter pool.

No. Once this begins, we are just catering to the cries of the masses. What is the point of going to the trouble of a suspect ladder (whose results would be largely inconsequential) when there is overwhelming consensus among the voters that a suspect is solidly OU?

My issue with the second option is, why do we need to create a separate ladder when an Uber is reintroduced just because something is banned? We don't need to check whether reintroducing Manaphy produces a "more favorable" metagame to the standard by making two ladders. All we need to do is decide whether or not it is broken, which can be accomplished on the ladder we play now.

I would only support a suspect ladder in cases that have far-reaching effects on the metagame, IE weather, and only if the voting pool is split significantly down the middle (I'd say 40% on each side). My reasoning for this is that repeated votes resulting in such result will get us no where, so there would really be no other option than to assess the metagame both before and after a ban.

This is different from banning a single pokemon, whose effects are far more concentrated.

 

[a fairy]

I didn't like the first option, because it's not extremely hard to theorymon what the metagame would do if X was banned.

However, I've found it harder to theorymon a Pokemon that will come back to OU after being banned, if it wasn't banned via PR, but an autoban. So, having a seperate ladder for bringing down X, before making a decision that may end up with "What the hell were we thinking? Ban the piece of OP crap now!"

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Fair enough, that's certainly reasonable.

In regards to option 2, I think that reintroducing a broken previously deemed to be strong enough to significantly overpower most of the metagame is enough of a widespread effect to warrant such a suspect ladder.

LS kinda ninja'd me, I was speaking to Icyman.

 

[IcyMan28]

Fair enough, that's certainly reasonable.

In regards to option 2, I think that reintroducing a broken previously deemed to be strong enough to significantly overpower most of the metagame is enough of a widespread effect to warrant such a suspect ladder.

Under normal circumstances, yes (in other words, if we decided to retest Darkrai or Ho-Oh in OU on a whim lol).

But really, the only Uber that is being considered for reintroduction is Manaphy, a pokemon who is so inextricably tied to Drizzle that the banning of the latter would drastically alter the way it played, and the fact that an entirely new metagame would result overall would change whether or not it "overpowers most of the metagame."

 

[Bad Ass]

Terrible idea. It comes down to, "which metagame do I like more" rather than the intended purpose. And 95% of the time, people like the metagame where they don't have to think to deal with X (e.g. Thundurus).

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Terrible idea. It comes down to, "which metagame do I like more" rather than the intended purpose. And 95% of the time, people like the metagame where they don't have to think to deal with X (e.g. Thundurus).

Yes, we can see what we got with the Suspect Process in DPPt. Everything except for Latias got banned, and then... even her got booted. Yay.

 

[Matthew]

The thing I absolutely cannot stand against about suspect ladders is that the ladder itself automatically assumes it is broken by removing the certain aspect. Suspect ladders usually end up with, "which metagame do I like more," which is not the same as creating a balanced meta. People should play on one ladder and then help shape the metagame into something balanced (whether it is balanced.now or ten tests from now) I'm pretty against suspect ladders.

 

[BurningMan]

@Texas Cloverleaf: My point is how do we see, if a Pokemon is broken if we play a metagame where it doesn't even exists, of course its checks, counters and partners will see less use, but that doesn't means the pokemon is broken. You could take out any decent OU Poke and see an decrease of its checks, counters and partners. Its the old tale about "overcentralization" a pokemons brokeness can hardly be determined with usage stats or its impact on the metagame, two of the last suspects weren't even in the top ten of may usage stats (Thundurus and Deo-S) also many of Thundurus checks were used even less so you could hardly see anything, not to speak that Deo-S has actually no really checks, because of the number of sets it could run.

 

[jas61292]

Suspect ladders usually end up with, "which metagame do I like more," which is not the same as creating a balanced meta.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, I would not be against a ladder for re-entry into OU, as otherwise we would be voting without any tests to back it up.

AKA, option 2, and only option 2