1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Metagame Management in Five Easy Steps!

Discussion in 'Pokémon Policy' started by Jumpman16, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. imperfectluck

    is a Past WCoP Championwon the 4th Official Smogon Tournament

    Mar 18, 2005
    Not only would an endeavor like this be logistically nightmarish, it's impractical and leaves to question the "objectivity" of the observers. What makes an observer "objective," I ask? The fact that one does not battle and has no previous bias to Wobbuffet / insert Pokemon here? People that battle on ladder every week see certain strategies over and over again, and let's say while the top tier players can still maintain their rank as elites in the new metagame (with Wobbuffet and Deoxys-E induced,) they don't like it because of the lack of variety it provides and the closing of the "skill gap" between players as those Pokemon are limiting to the metagame and stifle creativity. Wobbuffet in particular is a concern because it does not "maximize skill / minimize luck" but rather simply reduces a battle down to 5 vs. 5/6, and Wobbuffet's user has absolute discretion at which Pokemon to cripple. No other Pokemon in the game can do this, not Dugtrio who is incredibly frail, and is easily set up on after getting in a KO, nor Magnezone who is limited to trapping steel types and must fear Earthquakes and Fire moves from those steels.

    Sure, we can have a metagame where everything is left just it is right now, like MoP wants, and the best will still probably remain the best. However, for the health of the metagame's development, I believe this is not the best way for determination of Wobbuffet (along with Deoxys-E, Garchomp, and anything else)'s "banned" status. Smogon is a community that values itself on being an authority in the competitive arena, quoted from smogon's "about" section, yet without giving its most esteemed battlers recognition much say in rules that will widely affect the metagame we all play in, leaving the final decision up to administrators like Jumpman and Articuno (no offense against you guys, you're great fellows and all) that DO NOT BATTLE on a regular basis (or at all) offends us regulars. There is always something different about playing a match and spectating on the sidelines (I'm looking at you Jump) as only the person playing the match can truly understand the "pressures" to make the right play, the best play, to win a match. Wobbuffet removes many options available to the player, for instance.

    Nor do I believe short term tournaments like Eon / Rainbow will prove anything, if anything, the best solution for testing is unbanning a Pokemon completely, letting it out for testing in the metagame rather than having a tournament where all teams will be overprepared for it. However, we also should reach a consensus on just what grounds to ban a Pokemon on and to redefine the definition of "centralization" and "uber" in CONCRETE terms that are absolutely unambiguous. If Rayquaza were to be unbanned for testing, and used less than Garchomp because of a Stealth Rock weak, for instance, would we all consider Rayquaza less "uber" than Garchomp? Wobbuffet and Deoxys-S are clearly not anywhere in the top section of most used Pokemon, for whatever reason, people choose not to use them as often as the most popular OU Pokemon. However, their very existence in the metagame shapes the most popular teams at the top into the way the way they are. Garchomp forces every team to carry a minimum of 2-3 "counters" in order to beat it - while being nearly impossible to OHKO when holding a Yache Berry, the only faster Pokemon that OHKO Yache Garchomp are Scarf Outrage, Scarf Draco Meteor, and Explosions. Of course, we have Sand Veil, which is a factor out of your control when trying to "deal" with Garchomp. Garchomp's influence is seen on every single competitive ladder team on shoddy, one must deal with Garchomp when building a team or risk losing to it. What is "centralizing" the game?
  2. 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 and WCoP Champion

    Feb 19, 2005
    I'm not saying keep everything as it is right now literally, that was just a point of emphasis to show that just because any certain person battles a lot, does not necessarily mean that they know more than those who don't play as much, and certainly by no means that their opinion has more value over anyone else.
  3. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion

    Dec 19, 2004
    I dunno if this is appropriate or whatever, I havent fully read this topic. I'm sorry it's late and I have had a busy week. I'm tired.

    Ok, I am gonna go back to my original suggestion of how to proceed..

    But about your comments jump.
    It seems that peoples judgements of imprtance of moves is entirely based on their opinions about whether they should be changed or not. I think this is really looking at this the wrong way.

    Firstly, Species Clause is ridiculous. This is a fundamental change to the game of pokemon. We might as well discuss 5v5 battles or level 50s. This is really nothing but a distraction and nothing is really being gained by discussing it.

    Event Moves and Legendary IV Clause are really non-gameplay related decisions. They should be decided immediately. To be honest I dont really see a need for a vote, we should just apply the philosophy of smogon. Basically, this is a competitive pokemon site, we follow the rules of competitve pokemon. I guess event moves are a little more complicated, but Legendary IV clause is not. We simulate the game glitches and all. We dont have focus energy boosting CHes in RBY and likewise we dont have pokemon with impossible IVs in DP. Event moves are a part of pokemon and should be included in our games. As accurately as we can possibly manage.

    Wobbuffet and Deoxys-S. We have already started messing with these so it would be pretty ridiculous to start thinking about other pokemon while these are still in limbo. But anyway, we have tested them, lets get these finished.

    Garchomp, Lati@s, Mew, Manaphy and Darkrai the ranking of these are just gonna depend on how strongly people feel about them. Opinions about Garchomp are obviously pretty strong, and an outcome on that front could be a decision on all of these pokemon if we decide it ought to be banned.

    Evasion Clause. This is sorta the wildcard. I think it's kind of a simple decision, and an important one. I dont think it will interfere with simultaneous testing. Like, I cant imagine Garchomp and evasion really meeting all that much, Garchomp should use it, and nothing is going to use it against Chomp. Also Chomp is not gonna be someones intended DT counter. If DT is interfering with a Garchomp test it probably means DT is broken. Also if you have a second ladder, one for testing one for not, I wouldnt mind seeing DT unbanned on both.

    Arceus I dont actually know what the issue with him is. It relates to ubers anyway, which means it can be decided seperately from most of these other issues anyway.

    UU Tiers well I am unsure if you mean creating a system of ranking of the currently UU pokes or deciding what UU pokes are. If it is the first then it is a pretty pointless exercise and should be really really low priority. If it is the second then obviously this has to be done after OU is decided, so either way this has to be pretty low on our priorities.

    I think this certainly should be given priority over the previous issues, and should be decided by votes. If people want to analyse logs, they can do so and post their findings. it may sway some voters. I am not sure that an open vote for everyone is a good idea. I still think a badgholders vote is the best idea.

    I disagree. I dont care about anyone elses battles. If I find something to be restricting my options in what pokemon I use or whatever then all the stats in the world arent going to mean anything to me. I will almost certainly dismiss them and I will do so with justification. Any statistical analysis we come up with is still going to be subjective. I dont mean to come across as an asshole, but this is the problem with statistics.

    Also I mentioned a dual ladder before, but I am really against this idea. HEre is a discussion explaining it (sorry im tired, it's late):
    [00:01:58] <imperfectluck> I don't agree with Tourneys Toothache
    [00:02:06] <imperfectluck> everyone will be "overprepared"
    [00:02:10] <imperfectluck> and it won't prove anything
    [00:02:16] <+Toothache> that is a valid point
    [00:02:24] <+atlas> we already had a tourney with evasion moves unbanned. pretty much no one used them.
    [00:02:26] <+Toothache> but it will still give us some solid data to play with
    [00:02:31] <+Toothache> rather than just pure theorymon
    [00:02:45] <imperfectluck> I agree with using the ladder for tests
    [00:02:53] <imperfectluck> but I also think there should be one issue at a time
    [00:03:09] <@Hipmonlee> I dont really agree with testing
    [00:03:12] <imperfectluck> this is too many issues too quick... ?.?
    [00:03:15] <@Hipmonlee> I think we should just dive straight in
    [00:03:26] <imperfectluck> these will be opened up to public discussion too, right?
    [00:03:35] <@Hipmonlee> like a testing ladder to me seems like it would have more problems with overpreparedness
    [00:04:02] <imperfectluck> I'd assume they'd get closed when the server goes up
    [00:04:05] <+Toothache> so just unban it completely for now, and then see what develops, is that what you're thinking hip?
    [00:04:15] <@Hipmonlee> pretty much
    [00:04:16] <imperfectluck> since by then there needs to be a decision to allow it or not, right?
    [00:04:16] <Junior> hmm ok
    [00:04:34] <@Hipmonlee> like if there was a testing ladder I would only use it when I wanted to test the thing being tested
    [00:04:52] <@Hipmonlee> so like if there is a ladder where you are testing mew being unbanned
    [00:05:01] <@Hipmonlee> I wouldnt be surprised to see mew on 90% of teams
    [00:05:13] <@Hipmonlee> but everyone would think it was broken
    [00:05:15] <+Toothache> yeah so then you'd specifically gear your team for fighting evasion by like including shock wave or maybe sweet scent or even snatch
    [00:05:30] <@Hipmonlee> like it would be even worse than a tournament
    [00:05:36] <@Hipmonlee> because in a tournament people have to battle
    [00:05:54] <+Toothache> and they don't battle on a ladder?
    [00:06:00] <imperfectluck> oh yeah snatch and sweet scent
    [00:06:03] <imperfectluck> ok I'll list those too
    [00:06:04] <@Hipmonlee> not if they have a choice of ladders

    I mean we didnt need testing in advance when we unbanned Celebi. Maybe Celebi shouldnt have been banned, but even after years of battling with it opinions didnt really seem to be much different to when it was first allowed. Wobbuffet seems to have followed a similar trend - testing doesnt really seem to prove anything.

    I'd like to resubmit my original suggestion, that every 6 months we have a round of voting (among badgeholders) where anyone can make a suggestion for a change, and then we vote yes or no to try it or not, and make those our rules. Sure people may have to rebuild teams twice a year, but otherwise it is a tidy solution. It also is a nice incentive for people to earn badges! There is no real risk of us totally screwing up the game, and if the game does get totally screwed up we can make a mid season change. The original idea was to finish one season with the smogon tournament, and the other season with some other big tournament, and maybe have a couple of tours inbetween.

    Colin complained it was elitist, but someone is going to make a decision. I dont think a popular vote is a good idea, because really if a poor player finds the game overcentralised while good players do not, the poor player just needs to improve in order to fix the problem. A good player cannot become a bad player. The fact is we are trying to create rules for elite pokemon competition. Our method is going to be elitist.

    Have a nice day.
  4. ODDish


    Jul 24, 2007
    What about NFEs?

    Are they included under the "UU tiers" umbrella, or would they be considered a separate issue given the previous discussion the topic has generated?

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