"Hey, I have a great idea for a new metagame!"
"Yeah, what is it?"
"Let's split all 720 Pokemon up into 18 separate groups and players
can only choose Pokemon from one of those groups when building a team."
"So according to my calculations, you should have 40 in each group?"
"What, no. In one group I think I'll put 124 pokemon, and in another I'll put
just 35 pokemon. To make it fairer, I'll let some pokemon be in two groups"
"How on earth is that going to be balanced? You'll never get that past submission.
How do you account for the fact that some teams have heaps of choices, and others
have really strong pokemon to choose from, and some groups would be naturally
good against others? Surely you would be open to changing the groupings as the
metagame evolved, right?"
"Nope, the groups are fixed. Each generation I'll randomly assign the newHow do you account for the fact that some teams have heaps of choices, and others
have really strong pokemon to choose from, and some groups would be naturally
good against others? Surely you would be open to changing the groupings as the
metagame evolved, right?"
pokemon across the groups, based on a secret characteristic that Game
Freak gives each one."
"Okay... but there will be some bans though right?"
"Yeah of course. This is a metagame after all, how could it not have bans?
Obviously all Ubers are banned from the start, but if I feel that some of the
groups are a bit weak, I could unban them. Some mega stones too will have
to go, because they are just straight out overpowered. I'll also allow for group-
only bans, for pokemon that are in more than one group."
"What about reasons for future bans?"
"Well I was talking to my friend Nani Man the other day about it actually,
and here is what we came up with:"
1. If a single pokemon in one of the groups can automatically beat any team from at least three of the other groups, then I'll ban it
2. If a pokemon promotes group-based matchups, then I'll ban it.
3. If a pokemon in a group is broken due to team support available in its group, or it is just naturally really strong, then I'll ban it.
4. If a pokemon is part of a core that cannot be broken by most groups, then I'll ban it.
"What do you think?"2. If a pokemon promotes group-based matchups, then I'll ban it.
3. If a pokemon in a group is broken due to team support available in its group, or it is just naturally really strong, then I'll ban it.
4. If a pokemon is part of a core that cannot be broken by most groups, then I'll ban it.
"It sounds pretty reasonable, except I have some questions about number 4. How many
is most? I think you should at least specify a number here. And are we talking just about
defensive cores only, or offensive and balanced cores as well? Also, why should one pokemon
in the core be banned over any of the others? Doesn't this sound a bit vague to you?"
"Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Maybe I could clear that up a bit"is most? I think you should at least specify a number here. And are we talking just about
defensive cores only, or offensive and balanced cores as well? Also, why should one pokemon
in the core be banned over any of the others? Doesn't this sound a bit vague to you?"
"I also have some other suggestions for your tiering philosophy that might make the
metagame a bit more balanced:"
metagame a bit more balanced:"
(a) That idea of unbanning Ubers to help out certain groups; bad idea. I can't see how that will help create a more diverse metagame, especially when you unban pokemon and put them in groups that already have heaps of diversity and don't need the help. If you want to unban Ubers, why don't you just make an Uber-based metagame?
(b) Why don't you give each group a sort of ranking? Then we teams from different groups play each other, then the group with the lower ranking would get more 'points' then it normally would, because it beat a higher ranked group.
(c) Why don't you make two metagames? In one you can have the groups as you started with, and no bans except for Ubers and certain megastones. In the other, you can remove an arbitrary number of the most used pokemon in your first metagame, and set them as the banlist in the second metagame. Sort of like UU.
(d) Ban megastones that change the pokemon from one group to another. These obviously create a lot of inherent problems with your metagame and wouldn't remove too much diversity.
(b) Why don't you give each group a sort of ranking? Then we teams from different groups play each other, then the group with the lower ranking would get more 'points' then it normally would, because it beat a higher ranked group.
(c) Why don't you make two metagames? In one you can have the groups as you started with, and no bans except for Ubers and certain megastones. In the other, you can remove an arbitrary number of the most used pokemon in your first metagame, and set them as the banlist in the second metagame. Sort of like UU.
(d) Ban megastones that change the pokemon from one group to another. These obviously create a lot of inherent problems with your metagame and wouldn't remove too much diversity.
"What do you think? Obviously some of these you would have already considered, and
some are pretty rubbish suggestions too. But maybe they will spark some ideas to help
balance out your metagame a little. Still, it seems to me that the starting premise of
spilting all pokemon up into 18 groups and expected them to be equally usable is a bit flawed."
"Well, it sounds like you've given this metagame a lot of thought already. Surely as the
metagame grows however, certain people would gravitate towards certain groups that are their
favourites, or that are just really easy to use?"
the only way to bring change to the metagame is through banning pokemon, I can
see how eventually only a couple of groups would be used at all, or I would have to
keep banning pokemon to balance the metagame until there are only weak pokemon
left."
"Maybe you are right. Maybe it just isn't a really stable idea for a metagame in the first place.
What is the appeal anyway? Also you never did tell me how you were splitting the pokemon up
into those 18 groups either."
"I wanted to create a metagame that captured the nostalgia and power of certainWhat is the appeal anyway? Also you never did tell me how you were splitting the pokemon up
into those 18 groups either."
in-game characters. Have you heard of the type chart..."
