Articuno64
1 to 63 were taken
This is a post about the tiering process, but at the same time, it is not. It is really much simpler and more fundamental. It has nothing to do with Salamence, Garchomp, ladders, councils, or any of that.
I've felt this way for a long time, but I've hesitated to speak up because it goes right to the heart of a project that is the brainchild of people who are very good friends of mine. The reasons that I'm bringing it up now are that a) I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm not alone in this opinion and b) with Black and White coming up, we all agree that it's important to start on the right path.
I'm calling into question the assumption that having the freedom to control the rules of the game makes the game more enjoyable. In fact, the thesis of this post is the opposite: The very act of opening up the rules of the game for discussion makes the game less enjoyable.
This is an idea that is counter-intuitive but, given some thought, makes a lot of sense. To better explain it, I'm linking to a TED talk called "The paradox of choice" by Barry Schwartz. It's 20 minutes long, and it's a worthwhile listen even if you don't care about this thread. (not all of the talk applies to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we are not qualified to decide what the rules should be; what I'm saying is that doing so makes us enjoy it less)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
One of the problems that Barry talks about is decision paralysis. We seem to have passed that by moving onto the faster council system. That's fine, I'm willing to accept that we've solved decision paralysis for this.
I would like to focus more on the point made in the story about jeans. The fact is that even if, after all of our hard work, we end up with a metagame that is 'better' or 'more balanced' than we started with, we will actually feel worse about it than if we had just picked a "reasonable default" set of rules and left them untouched.
Before, when you had a problem with a pokemon, your only choice was to figure out how to counter it. Now, you have two choices. You could figure out how to counter it, or you could question whether the pokemon should be banned. Simply having the option to ban things fucks with the way that metagame processes work. You can not play properly because there is always an undercurrent of thoughts about whether something should be banned, will be banned, etc. The foundation is unstable, and although it would be worth having an unstable foundation if it resulted in a better metagame, as I've said, we would not actually feel better about a better metagame anyway. It is a sacrifice which feels noble but is for a perceived benefit which does not actually exist.
It sounds weird, but we need to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for coming up with rule decisions. We need to be desperate to pass the buck as far as we possibly can. How to pass the buck? There are a few ways to do it. Following the rules in official Nintendo tournaments or the stadium game modes is one way. Going with a traditional competitive community ban list (banning the Mewtwos and equivalent stat totals along with the pokemon that have 100 in each base stat) is another way. Really, ANYTHING at all that provides a simple, reasonable, default set of rules that does not need to be constantly up for debate is a preferable system. Then we can finally just play the damn game.
I've felt this way for a long time, but I've hesitated to speak up because it goes right to the heart of a project that is the brainchild of people who are very good friends of mine. The reasons that I'm bringing it up now are that a) I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm not alone in this opinion and b) with Black and White coming up, we all agree that it's important to start on the right path.
I'm calling into question the assumption that having the freedom to control the rules of the game makes the game more enjoyable. In fact, the thesis of this post is the opposite: The very act of opening up the rules of the game for discussion makes the game less enjoyable.
This is an idea that is counter-intuitive but, given some thought, makes a lot of sense. To better explain it, I'm linking to a TED talk called "The paradox of choice" by Barry Schwartz. It's 20 minutes long, and it's a worthwhile listen even if you don't care about this thread. (not all of the talk applies to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we are not qualified to decide what the rules should be; what I'm saying is that doing so makes us enjoy it less)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
One of the problems that Barry talks about is decision paralysis. We seem to have passed that by moving onto the faster council system. That's fine, I'm willing to accept that we've solved decision paralysis for this.
I would like to focus more on the point made in the story about jeans. The fact is that even if, after all of our hard work, we end up with a metagame that is 'better' or 'more balanced' than we started with, we will actually feel worse about it than if we had just picked a "reasonable default" set of rules and left them untouched.
Before, when you had a problem with a pokemon, your only choice was to figure out how to counter it. Now, you have two choices. You could figure out how to counter it, or you could question whether the pokemon should be banned. Simply having the option to ban things fucks with the way that metagame processes work. You can not play properly because there is always an undercurrent of thoughts about whether something should be banned, will be banned, etc. The foundation is unstable, and although it would be worth having an unstable foundation if it resulted in a better metagame, as I've said, we would not actually feel better about a better metagame anyway. It is a sacrifice which feels noble but is for a perceived benefit which does not actually exist.
It sounds weird, but we need to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for coming up with rule decisions. We need to be desperate to pass the buck as far as we possibly can. How to pass the buck? There are a few ways to do it. Following the rules in official Nintendo tournaments or the stadium game modes is one way. Going with a traditional competitive community ban list (banning the Mewtwos and equivalent stat totals along with the pokemon that have 100 in each base stat) is another way. Really, ANYTHING at all that provides a simple, reasonable, default set of rules that does not need to be constantly up for debate is a preferable system. Then we can finally just play the damn game.