1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Little Cup Analyses?

Discussion in 'Site Projects' started by Great Sage, Jun 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Great Sage

    Great Sage

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,666
    I got a PM from "eric the espeon" regarding Little Cup analyses, shown here:

    Of the little bit of opinion I have on this, I tend to lean towards not allowing it, because it would eventually result in "hey, why not do intermediate Pokemon like Ivysaur => hey, why not do Little Cup Pokemon at level 100 => hey, wait, what level should intermediates be at => etc.". It's not a really strong opinion though.

    So, discuss what you think of this idea.
  2. Bologo

    Bologo Have fun with birds and bees.
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,841
    You could just make the 1st stage NFE pokemon their own tier call LC or something. I've always thought that 1st and 2nd stage evos deserved their own separations anyway.

    They seem to be working really hard on these analyses, so I don't see why we shouldn't give them a chance. If you change that name to LC, then when people look at the Little Cup article, they'll see that all of them are supposed to be level 5, and they won't really be able to justify having level 100, or 2nd stage evo analyses.

    The little cup pokemon seriously do need their own analyses, because Little Cup, in my experiences, is even more offensive of a metagame than ubers, and it goes even faster. This is a completely different metagame than all of the other ones, and the pokemon that can participate in it all deserve analyses. I don't think anyone will want to do Caterpie, Weedle, or Magikarp analyses, but that's up to them.

    If we're not going to put them on the SCMS, at least put something in C&C that allows all these analyses to be shown, because the people working on them have put a lot of work into them, and people are quite interested in this metagame.

    I'd go with the first proposal. At least it isn't us that's actually making the analyses, so that allow us to focus on the standard metagame. We should only allow them if the people in that thread are going to keep making the analyses, because we shouldn't be forced to do it for them, since we aren't the ones that actually play it.
  3. Aeroblacktyl

    Aeroblacktyl The pizza doesn't scream in the oven! LOL!
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL + WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,334
    imo hell the f no. we have more issues to worry about atm before doing this. with the whole what's uber, garchomp/wobb, finishing tiers, metagame analysis, that should definitely be a lower priority
  4. Jumpman16

    Jumpman16 np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,769
    that's pretty much exactly what i told GS on irc because he pmed me too but that also somewhat speaks of my apathy towards the little cup. i dont want anything to do with this at all and i think that speaks more if my focus on fixing standard play and its most pressing issues before worrying about anything else
  5. IggyBot

    IggyBot !battle
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    948
    I would rather figure this stuff out than worry about a metagame that's popular on a server that has a rather low level of competition (sorry doug).
  6. Bologo

    Bologo Have fun with birds and bees.
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,841
    Well, I agree with you guys that we need to figure out the other stuff first. However, we could just make the subforum for the people making up Little Cup and treat it as one of smogon's projects. Just give whoever the leader of the project is temporary mod status so they can monitor the project by themselves without our help, so that we ca focus on the more important stuff. After all, we don't have to help out with the analyses at all, because the people who are making them in that thread are basically doing all the work. All we have to do is make the subforum and let them and their project manager do the rest of the work.

    If anything, we don't even need to put them on the SCMS after. Just keep that subforum after and put the analyses in order or something and keep them in there. It might help prevent a lot of the work needed after the analyses are all done. I'd recommend finding someone to be the leader of the project first, probably eric the espeon.
  7. Calciphoce

    Calciphoce

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,713
    I don't see a point in giving them a chance. I'm not going to participate in this at all.
  8. Great Sage

    Great Sage

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,666
    I've thought of another reason to oppose this. We don't have separate analyses for ADV 200 mode, RBY with GSC tradebacks, or true GSC (or true D/P for that matter). If we allow anything other than the analyses for the "standard" game (such as Little Cup analyses), then there is nothing to stop people from demanding that we allow analyses for the things I mentioned.
  9. Bologo

    Bologo Have fun with birds and bees.
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,841
    Well, we may not have had separate analyses for those, but we did include them in the normal analyses. For instance, there were 2v2 movesets in some of the R/S movesets, and some pokemon even had ADV 200 movesets, such as Trapinch. They don't even need separate analyses, because only a few movesets change. Most of the R/S pokemon in 200 did the exact same thing in 386.

    However, Little Cup isn't even mentioned at all in anything besides the articles. This isn't something like GSC tradebacks where it only really affects a couple of the pokemon in the GSC metagame with their movesets, this is an entire metagame with tons of pokemon in it, and it's possibly the most diverse metgame out there right now.

    I dunno, I guess that a lot of the LC pokemon do the exact same stuff as their fully evolved forms, and that's probably the biggest reason not to allow them.

    Now that I think about it, someone who plays LC a lot should just make a thread in C&C with tiers in LC, because since a lot of the movesets are so similar to the fully evolved forms, tiering in LC is all that people really need if they're going to play the game. Whoever makes that thread in C&C can maintain those tiers, but it would most likely not go on the SCMS. They can tier it themselves, I guess, they don't need much of our help, besides moderation and such.

    Basically, I'm pretty borderline on this subject right now. They don't necessarily need analyses, but people do need to know what's good and what's not in that metagame.
  10. Misty

    Misty oh
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,152
    stuff like this should be done after the standard metagame is stabilized. we can't even decide if garchomp is uber, so no.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)