On-Site Analysis Sections

This has always bothered me, so now I am going to make a push to change it before we start putting BW analyses on-site. This should also act retroactively on DPP, and updating that all wouldn't take more than a weekend of work that I am willing to do myself.

On-site, the order is like this:This makes no sense, since Team Options and Counters are relevant to each other and should be next to each other. I propose that it should be this:Also, while we're at it, Optional Changes really isn't very descriptive of those sections anymore. We include alternate EV spreads in the set themselves under AC, and OC currently includes entire sets that a Pokemon can run but that aren't good enough to do full write-ups for. These aren't changes, these are options. Now that we've taken this route with OC, I think we should probably go back to what we had before as the title for that section, Other Options.

Lastly, people seem to always get confused by what Team Options and Counters mean. We also include team options and counters in individual sets, so people often just copy and paste that stuff into the TO/Counters section. That's not always correct. Team Options and Counters are for general team options and counters, not set-specific stuff. I propose we rename these sections to be more specific; I think General Teammates and General Counters would be valuable changes to make. If no one likes this, let's at least rename Team Options to Teammates for consistency with Counters.

But, ideally, if everyone likes my ideas, the on-site sections would be:

Not sure the naming of the last 2 sections is necessary, but I definitely agree with the reorder.

(i still think general team options is stunningly redundant when we have specific team options in the actual analysis body but whatever)

I'm not really sold on the idea of [General Teammates] or [General Counters] myself since the names are kind of long, but I am frustrated that our writers keep doin' it wrong. I think being more specific would constantly remind them of the goal of the section. If someone else has better suggestions to ameliorate this, I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess).

Seven Deadly Sins said:

(i still think general team options is stunningly redundant when we have specific team options in the actual analysis body but whatever)

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, however, the stuff in sets is nowhere near as specific or all-encompassing as the stuff in TO/Counters. I know as someone who uses the analyses myself, I do find TO/Counters very valuable in general when I want something that helps/stops the Pokemon at large and not just to a certain set. Whether that's the general consensus or not is something I don't know.

Anyway, I encourage everyone to speak up, not just mods, since I'd be curious to know what the general view on this stuff is.

I actually agree with SDS here, a LOT of the information from the AC is repeated in team options, especially things like entry hazards, Rapid Spin support...etc. Team Options is usually things that share good synergy or remove particular threats. As for a name, I like the sound of [Team Support] or [Support Options]

Couldn't we add a little sentence or something to AC like "These partners are specialized to this set in particular" or have a heading "Specialized Partners"?

Agree on the reordering. Hopefully this will also cut down on the number of people who think we need a separate Team Options section for every set.

Other Options was always a better name than Optional Changes, honestly.

As for the renaming of the other sections... I don't know, adding "General" on the front of the section headers does seem to be a little bit long-winded while not really saying that much. I always liked "Team Options" as the natural next-in-line to "Other Options", so if OO is returning, that would be nice to see stay.

Oh and imo we should rename the counters section anyway since to be perfectly honest nothing that ever goes in that section really qualifies as a counter for the majority of analyses.

I'd prefer to see something along the lines of

[Other Options] > [Team Options] > [Checks and Counters]

...but this is really a side concern, I don't think it really matters what they're called as long as it's absolutely clear what those sections are for.

I like the look of BMB's suggestion there, but this looks in general to be a step in the right direction.

Also, speaking of Team Options, can we have something of a drive to prevent the mentioning of entry hazards - it's very offputting that I am constantly being told how to build a generic team rather than what the specific Pokemon actually needs.

FUK TEAM OPTIONS

I've been advocating to at the least either get rid of the section or the comments within the analysis. Writing with it made me feel they were redundant as hell and it'd be better to have one or the other. Please for the love of God spare my soul.

(Also knocks the ordering out of the way).

After talking to CM and SDS on IRC, I tend to agree with them that Team Options is redundant. We should get rid of the section entirely, I think, since team options are discussed extensively in the sets themselves.

jc104 said:

Also, speaking of Team Options, can we have something of a drive to prevent the mentioning of entry hazards

Click to expand...

I'd like it if we don't mention them on every Pokemon, but instead on those where a Pokemon really has trouble sweeping or doing its job without them. Obviously SR helps every team and Pokemon somehow, but we shouldn't be talking about it unless it's really necessary.

TO in 5th Gen doesn't bother me that much... but I'm very much opposed to removing it from 4th Gen analyses, given that updating them in the first place has taken essentially the best part of two years to do (and still continues...)

I don't know, it seems kind of a step backwards to remove an entire section... I agree that it's redundant, but all the same. Just one question, what happens to those team options that don't necessarily fit the set but are "good ideas" anyway? For example, take Starmie with rain support. In my 5th gen analysis I basically used the TO section as a way to slip in Politoed and how to edit sets in order to equip them to best take advantage of the rain. Would there be provisions made for this kind of situation? Obviously this isn't the best example, but still.

I agree with the sentiment of bmb in that I don't want to see the TO section removed completely from at least the 4th Gen analyses. I've put way too much effort in these things, and to take away essentially a bulk of mine and others work is kind of a big FUCK YOU. I also think it is a good place to put in general teammates or overtly specific ones that don't fit anywhere else.

Also on the issue of mentioning entry hazards: I agree with the sentiment that Stealth Rock and Spikes should not be mentioned unless especially important for garnering specific KOs. Toxic Spikes I'm not worried about, they can be mentioned however.

I like Other Options and the re-ordering.

Counters should be Checks and Counters imo.

I agree with the notion of changing it from "Counters" to "Checks and Counters". Pokemon is no longer a entirely Pokemon based game, but rather checks and counters to specific sets. A Pokemon can be a check to a single set but maybe not to another (like Gliscor for physical Lucario). If we would to stay to our word then many Pokemon would not have "Counter" sections.

I like the idea of "Checks and Counters" as well. It also seems that the general consensus is to remove the TO section due its overwhelming redundancy (though there is some resistance I'll comment on) and rename the "Counters" section to "Checks and Counters". I think these are good suggestions and a solid direction for C&C to take going into the new generation. I'll present the idea to GS later if he doesn't post here first.

Oglemi said:

I've put way too much effort in these things, and to take away essentially a bulk of mine and others work is kind of a big FUCK YOU.

Click to expand...

You and me both, my friend. That said, we shouldn't be resilient to change because we've worked on stuff that gets lost because of change. That is counterproductive, and we have to see beyond our individual contributions to what helps C&C the most. For what it's worth, the TO section is hardly a substantial amount of work in the first place and isn't really a lot of work lost. It's less lost, actually, than what happens when we remove a set from the on-site analyses (which is also someone's work gone). These are things that happen, and I absolutely don't like the idea of us maintaining the status quo just because it doesn't hurt some users' feelings. We should do what's right for the project.

bugmaniacbob said:

Just one question, what happens to those team options that don't necessarily fit the set but are "good ideas" anyway? For example, take Starmie with rain support.

Click to expand...

Replace Starmie with "any water Pokemon" and you'll see that this is an obvious note that shouldn't be mentioned. It's the same reason we don't list entry hazards on every Pokemon's analysis despite that every Pokemon benefits from them.

I don't really think we should consider checks. For example, whenever I have trouble with a certain Pokemon, I will usually go to the counter section of its page, hoping to have a solid counter that will always win. Checks aren't really as important since the point of the opposing team is to get rid of them. For example, Machamp can take a hit from Flygon and KO with Ice Punch, so it's a check. Is this supposed to mean it's mentioned in the Counters section? (or Checks and Counters in this case....)

Counters do not exist for basically any Pokemon. Almost all of what is present in the "Counters" section is actually a list of "Checks" to that Pokemon. Checks are the lifeblood of beating an opposing Pokemon.

Oglemi said:

I agree with the sentiment of bmb in that I don't want to see the TO section removed completely from at least the 4th Gen analyses. I've put way too much effort in these things, and to take away essentially a bulk of mine and others work is kind of a big FUCK YOU. I also think it is a good place to put in general teammates or overtly specific ones that don't fit anywhere else.

Click to expand...

I understand that, but resisting change to a good policy because you've put too much work into a bad policy just leaves us in the past, especially since we're looking at a new generation for this kind of thing.

I also really like the idea of "Checks and Counters" instead of "Counters".

Not that I'm totally against having the TO section removed, I just don't see why we (R_D) would go through the trouble of deleting the ones we already have in 4th Gen, other than them just being slightly "redundant." If we have it, we might as well use it.

We can just not go through the trouble of writing them in 5th Gen (unless we're really trying to be consistent across generations, in which case RBY/GSC/ADV needs a shit ton of work done).

I dunno why this is in the Past Generations subforum but whatever floats your boat I guess.

I too think we should just axe Team Options entirely, it's horribly redundant when we also mention the specific teammates in the analysis (and since Pokemon is more about countering specific sets rather than actual Pokemon since only so many are viable, I'd rather leave the teammates with the additional comments in the analysis) and adds unnecessary length to the analysis. I mean, for crying out loud the blue hyperlinks that show the additional comments even have "Team Options" right there in them!

I also love the idea of renaming Counters to Checks and Counters...especially in Ubers where most Pokemon don't have hard counters, its more like "Pokemon A can beat Pokemon B but only if Pokemon B doesn't have moves X, Y, or Z." (Or heck, just look at current B/W OU :P)

I don't really think Optional Changes vs. Other Options really matters since its honestly six of one and a half-dozen of the other, so I'm fine with whatever we decide to do there.

Hmm actually when I think about it, Team Options might be easier for the reader to access. If they're building a team around that certain Pokemon or something it would probably be easier to just go to Team Options rather than skimming the whole analysis for good partners. It's probably a better idea (in my opinion) to have it and not need it instead of not having it and needing it. Everyone's used to doing it too, even though that's not a good point.

By the way, I'm not opposed to keeping Team Options within 3rd Gen only for one reason:

and since Pokemon is more about countering specific sets rather than actual Pokemon since only so many are viable, I'd rather leave the teammates with the additional comments in the analysis

Click to expand...

This isn't so true in ADV where most Pokemon have an actual counter to them, so in general a lot of Pokemon that are in the set comments can be regulated to the Team Options instead. Then again I'll leave this part to G80 if he seriously wants to keep that part of the section for 3rd Gen since he heads that part of the analyses.

Other Options was always a better name than Optional Changes. I also agree with Counters -> Checks and Counters.

The Team Options section is redundant and I completely support getting rid of it for 5th Gen, but many DPP analyses were written in such a way that simply removing the section would result in missing information. As a quick example, Blaziken's Team Options talks a fair bit about using lures like BaitLix and Magmortar to get bulky Waters out of the way. This isn't mentioned at all in any of the set comments though. Unless someone wants to go through all the DPP analyses and move things like that from Team Options to Set Comments, I think we should leave DPP alone. Redundant info is better than missing info.

So, with overwhelming support and the backing of both C&C leaders (CM and GS, who spoke of this on IRC), we will be going forward with these changes in all analyses immediately. Below is a list of what exactly is changing:

• Team Options is being removed
  
  This section of the analysis is largely redundant and a waste of space in the current iteration of analyses. Removing it will help reduce a lot of extraneous work done and ultimately improve the concision and focus of our work.
• Optional Changes is being renamed Other Options
  
  It used to be called this, and it now will be called it again. Ultimately, because of the content of this section, it's not a list of changes, it's literally a list of other options that a Pokemon can use. This will not require changing of the content of the section, just changing of the name.
• Counters is being renamed Checks and Counters
  
  We've always listed checks in this section, now we're just naming it appropriately. There's really not much else to say here!
• The section order is now: Other Options > Checks and Counters
  
  This is more a clarification than anything. With this said, there's no ambiguity as to where everything goes.

Thanks for your opinions everyone! I'm very glad that this went through, and I know that it'll help our project a ton. Cheers! :)