-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Portrait of an Uber
- Thread starter Jumpman16
- Start date
- Status
About my answer "it can", it would be a rather mammoth task to do it.
However, I was going to do something similar for the current metagame. Since Doug produces rather accurate statistics for nature, EVs and moves, I know exactly the average stats each Pokemon has and the typical moveset each Pokemon has. I'm then going to pit them against each other using their movesets. :)
My initial scope for this was to find a concrete value to typings of Pokemon. I've already done something similar to find which move types are better than others (basically concluded that ice and fire are the best attacking types in the game, as everyone knew). Now I was going to find which Pokemon types are better than others... so I should conclude once and for all that Fire is one of the worst types defensively, for instance, etc.
However this can be altered slightly to find the ratios of each Pokemon in the current metagame as well as this.
This wouldn't take me that long except for the fact that my wedding day is approaching and hence I'm busier than normal with other stuff. :)
However, I was going to do something similar for the current metagame. Since Doug produces rather accurate statistics for nature, EVs and moves, I know exactly the average stats each Pokemon has and the typical moveset each Pokemon has. I'm then going to pit them against each other using their movesets. :)
My initial scope for this was to find a concrete value to typings of Pokemon. I've already done something similar to find which move types are better than others (basically concluded that ice and fire are the best attacking types in the game, as everyone knew). Now I was going to find which Pokemon types are better than others... so I should conclude once and for all that Fire is one of the worst types defensively, for instance, etc.
However this can be altered slightly to find the ratios of each Pokemon in the current metagame as well as this.
This wouldn't take me that long except for the fact that my wedding day is approaching and hence I'm busier than normal with other stuff. :)
Clarifying my "theory" on the Metagame/Uber since it really needs to be a little less vague and more specific.
Within a competitive Metagame, I believe usage is the only quantitative way we can order how "useful" a Pokemon is, or their power. Let me explain.
Players will, over time, use the best strategy available to them. This means rather than use the best possible "general" option, they will use what is the best option within the Metagame at the moment, because what they want to do is find a team that takes advantage of how people play, what they use, IE, the "general standard". This leads to the following cycle
1) Metagame shifts, letting Pokemon X be a prominent force (IE, Free from Counters)
2) Pokemon X becomes popular, as more and more people catch on.
3) People start using Pokemon X's counters, or find more solid ways of "dealing" with the Pokemon X.
4) As people find new ways to deal with Pokemon X, it is no longer a prominent force. The Usage of Pokemon X goes down. As the usage of Pokemon X goes down, the counters become less common.
The fun part about this is that another sequence begins at any part of the sequence, as each sequence is a shift within the Metagame. The Metagame is a combination of these sequences going in a cycle.
This means that if people play to win, and are rational about it, then over time, the Metagame will go in these trends.
This means that theoretically, an "Uber" Pokemon will have the following effects on the metagame.
1) Shift a significant portion of the metagame to deal with the Pokemon in question, while the percent usage of the Pokemon does not decrease. Garchomp fits this definition. This does not just apply to offensive Pokemon.
2) There is no rational way to deal with its effects. Wobbuffet fits this definition.
The line is of course very difficult to draw, when we look at it objectively.
This means that "uber" is anything that halts the Metagame and essentially "immune" to this self checking sequence of the Metagame. If the Metagame cannot "check" itself to a threat, meaning the sequence essentially halts (Usage of Pokemon X continues to rise, despite people trying to deal with Pokemon X), it implies that this Pokemon is too powerful, as it implies that there is no rational way to deal with this Pokemon and its effects.
So then I think it is a good idea to characterize how uber something is by its usage as long as we are careful with what is a "decentralizing" factor (Heatran, something that checks many of the many platinum threats) what is a "centralizing" factor (Overhyped critters, Garchomp, etc). I think the best option is to say something is Uber if the percent usage rises "significantly" (I mean statistically significant) for a given period of time.
So I think this definition not only implicitly considers the definitions that was mentioned in this thread, but also gives a way to measure it.
Within a competitive Metagame, I believe usage is the only quantitative way we can order how "useful" a Pokemon is, or their power. Let me explain.
Players will, over time, use the best strategy available to them. This means rather than use the best possible "general" option, they will use what is the best option within the Metagame at the moment, because what they want to do is find a team that takes advantage of how people play, what they use, IE, the "general standard". This leads to the following cycle
1) Metagame shifts, letting Pokemon X be a prominent force (IE, Free from Counters)
2) Pokemon X becomes popular, as more and more people catch on.
3) People start using Pokemon X's counters, or find more solid ways of "dealing" with the Pokemon X.
4) As people find new ways to deal with Pokemon X, it is no longer a prominent force. The Usage of Pokemon X goes down. As the usage of Pokemon X goes down, the counters become less common.
The fun part about this is that another sequence begins at any part of the sequence, as each sequence is a shift within the Metagame. The Metagame is a combination of these sequences going in a cycle.
This means that if people play to win, and are rational about it, then over time, the Metagame will go in these trends.
This means that theoretically, an "Uber" Pokemon will have the following effects on the metagame.
1) Shift a significant portion of the metagame to deal with the Pokemon in question, while the percent usage of the Pokemon does not decrease. Garchomp fits this definition. This does not just apply to offensive Pokemon.
2) There is no rational way to deal with its effects. Wobbuffet fits this definition.
The line is of course very difficult to draw, when we look at it objectively.
This means that "uber" is anything that halts the Metagame and essentially "immune" to this self checking sequence of the Metagame. If the Metagame cannot "check" itself to a threat, meaning the sequence essentially halts (Usage of Pokemon X continues to rise, despite people trying to deal with Pokemon X), it implies that this Pokemon is too powerful, as it implies that there is no rational way to deal with this Pokemon and its effects.
So then I think it is a good idea to characterize how uber something is by its usage as long as we are careful with what is a "decentralizing" factor (Heatran, something that checks many of the many platinum threats) what is a "centralizing" factor (Overhyped critters, Garchomp, etc). I think the best option is to say something is Uber if the percent usage rises "significantly" (I mean statistically significant) for a given period of time.
So I think this definition not only implicitly considers the definitions that was mentioned in this thread, but also gives a way to measure it.
Yet you and the majority of Smogon argued that Wobbuffet was uber, when it does not fit that definition.
The fact that a clear uber such as Wobbuffet barely cracked OU at all proves, at the very least, that players are not completely rational and objective when choosing their teams. Therefore, there must be other factors in play as well.
The fact that a clear uber such as Wobbuffet barely cracked OU at all proves, at the very least, that players are not completely rational and objective when choosing their teams. Therefore, there must be other factors in play as well.
That's because many 'competitive' players refused to use it simply because they thought it promoted uncompetitive play. This is a bias, and leads to less than perfect results and less rational choices. Its not only bias that wrecks it anyway, it is also the fact that the community is "lazy" as a whole.
Secondly, I never said an uber had to fit that specific definition (Hi Deoxys E). I said "it would be considered uber if usage rose for X Months", not "If it's uber, the usage will rise for X Months". I broke what is "uber" down into two effects, and showed a way it may be measured, and called it a "characteristic".
But yes, in a perfectly competitive environment Wobbuffet and Deoxys E would have been pretty high in usage.
I don't think I ever said that, lol. Even in a perfectly competitive metagame the usage wouldn't be the only factor. In fact, I point it out.
I think you're trying to understand this in a black and white sort of way but what you should be doing is trying to figure out the point beneath it!
Everything you said here is great, of course, and I want to add something to the very applicable Garchomp vs. Gyarados comparison. Please take a look at this:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44721
This is X-Act's applet for Pokemon Type Coverage that accounts for the attacker's typing and Atk/SpA stat then gives the average damage that will be dealt by a pokemon's specified moveset. I can see this being a very powerful, 100% objective tool in assessing how powerful a pokemon really is. We can assume that seriously every single analysis has the most optimized Type Coverage for every pokemon considering slashed movesets (or is not far off), and when you account for Abilities like Tinted Lens, Adaptability and Pure Power on applicable pokemon (not many but still) and remember that "Metagame" is already accounted for, I do not see what else needs to be considered.
For example, Jolly, 359 Atk Garchomp does an Average Damage of 68.30% to Standard with EQ/OR/FF, and this is considering how easily neither it can switch in nor get a SD (How capable a pokemon is of sweeping standard in common battle conditions with one turn of set up or less). Even without considering SD and assuming Yache Berry, this is even better than Adamant, 379 Atk Electivire's 65.43% AD on Standard with TP/IP/CC/EQ, though with Life Orb this is 72.78%. This says nothing of its defenses compared to Garchomp, nor its Speed (The ratio of the amount of damage it can deal with the amount of damage it can withstand), so yeah.
For posterity, Adamant, 438Atk/302SpA Life Orb Rayquaza has a 79.43% AD on Standard with OR/EQ/OH, and this drops slightly to 77.39% with Extremespeed over Overheat but does not account for ES's priority, as Body Slam and Return do not change the percentage. Of course Rayquaza's defenses and typing would have to be accounted for but this is a great start.
Does anyone see any reason why we shouldn't be using this applet for at least a general idea of what it means to be offensively uber with relation to standard?
I will agree that the applet certainly has its uses for determining the relative power of a Pokemon.
However, there are a lot of things it doesn't account for. Speed, the pokemon's defenses (including defensive typing), abilities, any sort of stat up move (they will decrease coverage and lower the total overall). It should be used with caution, keeping what's missing from it in mind.
However, there are a lot of things it doesn't account for. Speed, the pokemon's defenses (including defensive typing), abilities, any sort of stat up move (they will decrease coverage and lower the total overall). It should be used with caution, keeping what's missing from it in mind.
We would have to keep pokemon like Scizor in mind with this effect, as it is beyond "likely" that Heatran has been #1 the last two months because of Scizor and, to a lesser extent, Skymin. Both of these may die down as threats since what made them threatening was Platinum, and, of course, Skymin may be voted "uber" for Stage 2, which could result in Heatran's use dropping (also, this should be a percentage and not just #1 or #2, as I think you said), but we would have to ascertain why a pokemon's usage rises, and that may be tough to do in general.
Blissey was #1 for like 5-6 months until everyone started to realize just how good Garchomp was. Zapdos has gone #23 -> #13 -> #4 in the last three months...is this because of Heat Wave? Or because it's also a fantastic Scizor counter and a great Skymin counter, much like Heatran? It'd be hard to put a finger on this, but absolutely crucial, unless we want to give credence to the "Blissey is uber!!" claims that still echo.
If Blissey was uber the usage would continue to rise, because it is so good in its own right. We observed that this is hardly the case. Same with Heatran - I don't see Heatran use rising forever particularly because Heatran is simply a "response" to many metagame threats.
The Blissey example is what exactly I was referring to as a cycle - Blissey was a dominating presence, people found ways around it, and things reshifted in a way where Blissey isn't as promiment as it once was. I don't think Blissey's 5-6 months usage at #1 is a "significant" increase as Garchomp did (i posted some numbers regarding that a while back regarding Garchomp to show that Garchomp's usage rose significantly month after month even after it reached #1)
Zapdos wouldn't be uber since honestly I would argue that it would have to stay in the top 3~ (depends on percent usage) for a while and it has to continually increase
I'm glad you're finding my type coverage Excel sheet (it's not an applet, lol!) useful. I just need to remind you that, right now, it uses July's or August's stats, so the damage it's returning does not reflect the _current_ metagame. However, since interest in it seems to have spiked suddenly, I'll try to update it today.
EDIT: I have just updated it to version 1.2. You'll notice that it now reports higher damage than before. This is due to an error in version 1.1, which reduced all damage percentages by around 19% by mistake.
EDIT: I have just updated it to version 1.2. You'll notice that it now reports higher damage than before. This is due to an error in version 1.1, which reduced all damage percentages by around 19% by mistake.
Pokemon's defenses are accounted for. It uses the average defense and HP stat of each Pokemon when calculating the damage dealt.
Most abilities that lower or increase damage are also accounted for. These are exactly: Levitate, Dry Skin, Flash Fire, Water Absorb, Thick Fat, Filter, Volt Absorb, Wonder Guard, Solid Rock, Heat Proof and Motor Drive.
Stat up moves are also taken into account if you want. You can type in just three moves instead of four and double your attack stat, and that would be the type coverage of the Pokemon after it has used Swords Dance.
this thread needs more activity!
im not sure why sweeping is held in such prominence for an uber definition, maybe jump is just a BT addict. stuff like giratina and lugia are "clearly uber" not because of their sweeping ability (or even the ratio of damage done vs damage it can take... i dont understand that parameter either, shoulnd't it be a product?)
i think the case has been in the case with all ubers currently tiered, be it wobba, chomp or dsds, that there exist no viable checks within the OU metagame for these pokemon.
"check" is reasonably well defined, and viable would be a parameter based on "overcentralization".
i.e. a "specialized check" (be it a pokemon, set of pokemon or even an entry hazard, like ts was a pseudo chomp check, and a team full of shed shell mons was a wobba check) for any uber can exist in the OU metagame but will result in an "overcentralized"/"overspecialized" team who's strategy suffers. this parameter would (hopefully) one day have a concrete statistical definition.
ray is "not uncheckable" given any set in my opinion (occa berry foretress spins the spikes away for max hp max attack cbswine to ice shard or whatever. nothing has a 100% foolproof strategy in pokemon, but what makes a pokemon uber is when it's presence alone prevents you from effectively teambuilding. scizor spikes his checks zapdos and heatrans usage, but doesnt govern the entire metagame like lugia would if you were to pair it with bliss/hippow/skam/rotom which essentially halts the metagame or whatever
edit: yeah i misunderstood the ratio idea, but what of stuff like deo-a that takes more damage than zam but outputs more damage too, or stuff like giratina which takes less than zong and does less than zong?
im not sure why sweeping is held in such prominence for an uber definition, maybe jump is just a BT addict. stuff like giratina and lugia are "clearly uber" not because of their sweeping ability (or even the ratio of damage done vs damage it can take... i dont understand that parameter either, shoulnd't it be a product?)
i think the case has been in the case with all ubers currently tiered, be it wobba, chomp or dsds, that there exist no viable checks within the OU metagame for these pokemon.
"check" is reasonably well defined, and viable would be a parameter based on "overcentralization".
i.e. a "specialized check" (be it a pokemon, set of pokemon or even an entry hazard, like ts was a pseudo chomp check, and a team full of shed shell mons was a wobba check) for any uber can exist in the OU metagame but will result in an "overcentralized"/"overspecialized" team who's strategy suffers. this parameter would (hopefully) one day have a concrete statistical definition.
ray is "not uncheckable" given any set in my opinion (occa berry foretress spins the spikes away for max hp max attack cbswine to ice shard or whatever. nothing has a 100% foolproof strategy in pokemon, but what makes a pokemon uber is when it's presence alone prevents you from effectively teambuilding. scizor spikes his checks zapdos and heatrans usage, but doesnt govern the entire metagame like lugia would if you were to pair it with bliss/hippow/skam/rotom which essentially halts the metagame or whatever
edit: yeah i misunderstood the ratio idea, but what of stuff like deo-a that takes more damage than zam but outputs more damage too, or stuff like giratina which takes less than zong and does less than zong?
Why should it be the product? The ratio makes more sense.
Consider Alakazam and Bronzong. Alakazam dishes a lot of damage but is dealt a lot of damage as well, so its ratio would be near 1. Bronzong dishes little damage but is dealt little damage as well, so its ratio would also be near 1.
However, with your reasoning of using the product, Alakazam would have (a lot) x (a lot), which would be a very large number, while Bronzong would have (a little) x (a little), would would be a much smaller number.
Consider Alakazam and Bronzong. Alakazam dishes a lot of damage but is dealt a lot of damage as well, so its ratio would be near 1. Bronzong dishes little damage but is dealt little damage as well, so its ratio would also be near 1.
However, with your reasoning of using the product, Alakazam would have (a lot) x (a lot), which would be a very large number, while Bronzong would have (a little) x (a little), would would be a much smaller number.
On the Latias suspect ladder thus far, I've been running strictly offensive versions of Latias, and I notice that most players are as well. There seems to be this vibe that Latias being an amazing support pokemon wouldn't change anything, so why bother running one? This led me to a question I felt was best phrased in the framework of this thread.
How much of a pokemon's support potential should come into play when considering it's Uber status?
Now, I agree with most of the arguments put forth in this thread as far as defining 'Uber' goes, but I don't think any single one has been very satisfying on it's own. Yes, a pokemon should be considered Uber if there are no viable checks to it. Yes, we should take into account sweeping potential and damage done vs damage taken. But in reality, it's a combination of these factors that puts a pokemon over the edge. Instead of trying to find a quantifiable definition, perhaps the number of viable concerns that are acceptable as arguments regarding Uber status should be narrowed down and defined? (Make no mistake, I don't consider this an easy task by any means) At least in that case, the argument will be set in a strict framework which makes it more reasonable to discuss.
Having said that, I'm having a hard time deciding how much of a role support plays in all this. I would gather Wish is kind of low on the list. It's a great move, but it's quite risky at times, and even when it pays off it's not always that threatening. Reflect and Light Screen are a bit different, though. If you have a pokemon who is able to come in many times per game (due to reliable recovery and bulky stats), set them up, and get out of there... I suppose it could become an issue. Maybe not though, because I don't see Celebi running around with sets like that. Which is interesting, because it seems like screens were a substantial part of finally declaring speed Deoxys Uber - a pokemon with much less of a defensive presence. What's preventing Celebi from setting up it's team to sweep in the same fashion? It's not as if Celebi is a weak pokemon either - it threatens both Life Orb and bulky CM sweeping potential.
I don't think a pokemon could be made Uber on it's utility to a team alone, but it seems possible it could play a significant part (as it seemed to in both Wobb and Deoxys testing thus far, specifically with setting up other pokemon). Thus far, I believe the only reasonable argument working against Latias is that it further overcentralizes the game around Dragon and Steel typings, which really has little to do with it's support potential. However, if an amazing team was made featuring Latias in a key support position, could that be the breaking point for some? The viablity of that actually happening is another story altogether, but I think the idea behind it is worth discussing.
To better phrase this:
Should we consider the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep as a possible characteristic of an Uber?
How much of a pokemon's support potential should come into play when considering it's Uber status?
Now, I agree with most of the arguments put forth in this thread as far as defining 'Uber' goes, but I don't think any single one has been very satisfying on it's own. Yes, a pokemon should be considered Uber if there are no viable checks to it. Yes, we should take into account sweeping potential and damage done vs damage taken. But in reality, it's a combination of these factors that puts a pokemon over the edge. Instead of trying to find a quantifiable definition, perhaps the number of viable concerns that are acceptable as arguments regarding Uber status should be narrowed down and defined? (Make no mistake, I don't consider this an easy task by any means) At least in that case, the argument will be set in a strict framework which makes it more reasonable to discuss.
Having said that, I'm having a hard time deciding how much of a role support plays in all this. I would gather Wish is kind of low on the list. It's a great move, but it's quite risky at times, and even when it pays off it's not always that threatening. Reflect and Light Screen are a bit different, though. If you have a pokemon who is able to come in many times per game (due to reliable recovery and bulky stats), set them up, and get out of there... I suppose it could become an issue. Maybe not though, because I don't see Celebi running around with sets like that. Which is interesting, because it seems like screens were a substantial part of finally declaring speed Deoxys Uber - a pokemon with much less of a defensive presence. What's preventing Celebi from setting up it's team to sweep in the same fashion? It's not as if Celebi is a weak pokemon either - it threatens both Life Orb and bulky CM sweeping potential.
I don't think a pokemon could be made Uber on it's utility to a team alone, but it seems possible it could play a significant part (as it seemed to in both Wobb and Deoxys testing thus far, specifically with setting up other pokemon). Thus far, I believe the only reasonable argument working against Latias is that it further overcentralizes the game around Dragon and Steel typings, which really has little to do with it's support potential. However, if an amazing team was made featuring Latias in a key support position, could that be the breaking point for some? The viablity of that actually happening is another story altogether, but I think the idea behind it is worth discussing.
To better phrase this:
Should we consider the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep as a possible characteristic of an Uber?
We can start to look at that, as such a potential characteristic would begin to account for why Dual Screen Deoxys-S "made it uber" and why Wobbuffet is uber because of how easily it sets up pretty much anything you want. Things like Bronzong, while obviously viable, cannot pull this off as easily thanks to lack of speed, lack of reliable recovery, lack of Taunt, susceptibility to Taunt and just getting blasted anyway, and "lol i dont have shadow tag". While I've seen Rest/Sleep Talk/Reflect/Light Screen Bronzong in play I don't really think it's all that threatening. Latias may prove itself a great dual screener as soon as "people" realize that it's not just a "better Specsmence" or just meant to CM sweep, but only time will tell that story, since it's not like anyone should be forced to use a Reflect/Light Screen/RecoverDP or Refresh/ Latias@Light Clay set if they don't want to.
So sure, the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep seems workable to me. Though, as with any characteristic, it's really defeating the purpose of this thread for just me to say yea or nay on a characteristic (much like it's defeating the purpose for me personally to decide on the tiering of any Suspect for the thousands and thousands of people who use our tier list for competitive battle, no matter how informed my opinion is). I will also state here that "substantially easier" here and with any other characteristic is obviously subjective, but that the other purpose of this thread is to come up with and chisel away at multiple chars, so that with enough solid ones, this kind of subjectivity can be trumped.
I'm sure a few of you have clicked on one of Stark Mountain's most-viewed threads of all time in "DP Battle Tower Records". Rather than pat myself on the back for having the #1 record or insist that my BT prowess indicates to a very large degree that I actually really do know an awful lot about pokemon and what it takes to be excellent at it, I will just let my numbers and teams speak for themselves. My current record is 462-straight wins, a streak that's still active. I have achieved this with a Trickscarf strategy that is nearly foolproof when employed correctly. The pokes I use are Cresselia and Latias/Scizor as the sweepers. Of my three best teams, I have Switcheroo Lopunny with Latios and Lucario as the sweepers as my second-best team (with a record of 321 wins, which is still good enough for 4th all-time), and my sweeper-heavy, straightlaced Starmie/Tyranitar/Garchomp team whose record is 203 wins.
I can say with the confidence of a person who has played for hundreds and hundreds of hours in the Battle Tower, and likely knows more about the BT-metagame than anyone does about the competitive metagame, that standalone sweeping in the BT metagame is nigh impossible and definitely needs support if you want to be successful (where success equals a streak of, say, 150 or more). MY BT addiction has shown me things about pokemon that support my knowledge of competitive pokemon and things that I would not otherwise know if I weren't a BT addict. Again, I'm not going to argue that my BT-prowess alone makes me the #1 authority on competitive pokemon of all time, but if you haven't played the BT and know what it takes to be successful, well, you don't know what I know, considering I actually do play competitively as well. And in my opinion it doesn't matter that we're talking about the Battle Tower and not "competitive pokemon", because in the sweeping regard, there is little to no difference. I would therefore argue that if there is one person who knows first hand that ability to sweep on its own does not guarantee you success, it's me.
Further, as far as the BT is concerned, "Lopunny is uber". It is obviously very funny/silly to say that on the surface and I do that alot with Breloom and Kingdra in jest, but please see my point. In the competitive metagame, Lopunny is a UU pokemon, not even BL (not right now anyway). In the BT metagame, I have demonstrated that Lopunny can utilize a moveset that lets other pokemon rampage through the game hundreds of battles at a time. So if we were to tier things in the "BT-metagame", Lopunny would very much be "uber" or at least top-tier OU thanks to the Switcheroo/Thunderwave/Charm/Sweet Kiss set. Without the support of Lopunny or Cresselia, Calm Mind Lati@s isn't going to go that far trying to sweep in the BT. More applicably, though, Calm Mind Lati@s isn't going to go that far trying to sweep in standard competitive play without the support of pokemon like Magnezone and Dugtrio. So I know that there's more to "uber" than just being able to sweep, and is why I am imploring all of you to come up with characteristics because I know there is not just a one-sentence definition of "uber".
Finally, this thread, and Tangerine's before it, have been around for almost a year. I think it's clear that we've pretty much reached the limit of our ability/willingness to both come up with and decide upon an uber definition or characteristics of an uber. Whether this is because even hand-picked PR members besides myself, Tangerine and a small handful of others are unwilling to contribute or just unable is a non-issue now as far as I'm concerned. If QZ had not posted early this morning (and if I had not given him PR access two weeks ago, thanks to Tangerine's input) I would have had to bump this topic, my own topic, for the second time, considering that Tangerine and I were talking in PM a little after midnight about starting to wrap this up today because no one else is posting. (I will use my next post to reply to his posts directly.) I reiterate that we are in dire need a definition of uber in order for people to accurately vote on whether a given Suspect belongs in standard or uber play.
With Tangerine's help I am going to pull together and decide upon the best characteristics and whatever we come up with will be our definition, and that will be that. Besides the fact that this has stagnated for long enough, I think there's been great progress and we'll be able to apply whatever I decide on to Suspects going forward. But I cannot just let this sit around and wait for people to contribute after constant coaxing, because it's pretty clear to me that we're not going to get anywhere anytime soon if I don't do something.
So sure, the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep seems workable to me. Though, as with any characteristic, it's really defeating the purpose of this thread for just me to say yea or nay on a characteristic (much like it's defeating the purpose for me personally to decide on the tiering of any Suspect for the thousands and thousands of people who use our tier list for competitive battle, no matter how informed my opinion is). I will also state here that "substantially easier" here and with any other characteristic is obviously subjective, but that the other purpose of this thread is to come up with and chisel away at multiple chars, so that with enough solid ones, this kind of subjectivity can be trumped.
First of all, I know you're half-kidding and all, but I just stated above, and have stated before in this thread, "characteristics" is plural for a reason. I think it's funny that you would reference my "BT addiction" with reference to how I seem to regard sweeping with prominence, because it actually proves my point and underlines why I actually made this thread, and here is why.
I'm sure a few of you have clicked on one of Stark Mountain's most-viewed threads of all time in "DP Battle Tower Records". Rather than pat myself on the back for having the #1 record or insist that my BT prowess indicates to a very large degree that I actually really do know an awful lot about pokemon and what it takes to be excellent at it, I will just let my numbers and teams speak for themselves. My current record is 462-straight wins, a streak that's still active. I have achieved this with a Trickscarf strategy that is nearly foolproof when employed correctly. The pokes I use are Cresselia and Latias/Scizor as the sweepers. Of my three best teams, I have Switcheroo Lopunny with Latios and Lucario as the sweepers as my second-best team (with a record of 321 wins, which is still good enough for 4th all-time), and my sweeper-heavy, straightlaced Starmie/Tyranitar/Garchomp team whose record is 203 wins.
I can say with the confidence of a person who has played for hundreds and hundreds of hours in the Battle Tower, and likely knows more about the BT-metagame than anyone does about the competitive metagame, that standalone sweeping in the BT metagame is nigh impossible and definitely needs support if you want to be successful (where success equals a streak of, say, 150 or more). MY BT addiction has shown me things about pokemon that support my knowledge of competitive pokemon and things that I would not otherwise know if I weren't a BT addict. Again, I'm not going to argue that my BT-prowess alone makes me the #1 authority on competitive pokemon of all time, but if you haven't played the BT and know what it takes to be successful, well, you don't know what I know, considering I actually do play competitively as well. And in my opinion it doesn't matter that we're talking about the Battle Tower and not "competitive pokemon", because in the sweeping regard, there is little to no difference. I would therefore argue that if there is one person who knows first hand that ability to sweep on its own does not guarantee you success, it's me.
Further, as far as the BT is concerned, "Lopunny is uber". It is obviously very funny/silly to say that on the surface and I do that alot with Breloom and Kingdra in jest, but please see my point. In the competitive metagame, Lopunny is a UU pokemon, not even BL (not right now anyway). In the BT metagame, I have demonstrated that Lopunny can utilize a moveset that lets other pokemon rampage through the game hundreds of battles at a time. So if we were to tier things in the "BT-metagame", Lopunny would very much be "uber" or at least top-tier OU thanks to the Switcheroo/Thunderwave/Charm/Sweet Kiss set. Without the support of Lopunny or Cresselia, Calm Mind Lati@s isn't going to go that far trying to sweep in the BT. More applicably, though, Calm Mind Lati@s isn't going to go that far trying to sweep in standard competitive play without the support of pokemon like Magnezone and Dugtrio. So I know that there's more to "uber" than just being able to sweep, and is why I am imploring all of you to come up with characteristics because I know there is not just a one-sentence definition of "uber".
Would you think that a metagame with Latias and therefore CB Tyranitar, and therefore CB Dugtrio (that can run Toxic as I've been stating for yeras to beat Wobbuffet) would be "overcentralized" in checking Wobbuffet? I'm not trying to deuberize Wobbuffet but am rather highlighting the danger in just relying on your proposed check characteristic to account for all pokemon as you seem to be implying, where something like what QZ proposed is an addition single characteristic that serves to go along with other ones.
Finally, this thread, and Tangerine's before it, have been around for almost a year. I think it's clear that we've pretty much reached the limit of our ability/willingness to both come up with and decide upon an uber definition or characteristics of an uber. Whether this is because even hand-picked PR members besides myself, Tangerine and a small handful of others are unwilling to contribute or just unable is a non-issue now as far as I'm concerned. If QZ had not posted early this morning (and if I had not given him PR access two weeks ago, thanks to Tangerine's input) I would have had to bump this topic, my own topic, for the second time, considering that Tangerine and I were talking in PM a little after midnight about starting to wrap this up today because no one else is posting. (I will use my next post to reply to his posts directly.) I reiterate that we are in dire need a definition of uber in order for people to accurately vote on whether a given Suspect belongs in standard or uber play.
With Tangerine's help I am going to pull together and decide upon the best characteristics and whatever we come up with will be our definition, and that will be that. Besides the fact that this has stagnated for long enough, I think there's been great progress and we'll be able to apply whatever I decide on to Suspects going forward. But I cannot just let this sit around and wait for people to contribute after constant coaxing, because it's pretty clear to me that we're not going to get anywhere anytime soon if I don't do something.
Alright.
So in order to derive these characteristics, we should first consider how players think when they play Pokemon.
I think one of the best ways to think about Pokemon is, that in a battle, you are trying to make a either a Pokemon in your party or a combination of a Pokemon in your party "broken" to the other player. The battle is almost like chess to a degree, looking for openings, predicting moves, to set up your strategies to set up a checkmate and then sweeping through.
There are many ways to approach this. You can first attempt to stall the other player out, by either preventing the opponent from setting up, or countering the threat and walling it and stalling your opponent out through entrance hazards, status, and PP. This is the generalized goal of a stall team. So I think A Pokemon is uber if a Pokemon is able to wall and stall out a significant portion of the metagame. Take for example, Lugia, where nothing short of CBTar and perhaps Weavile is going to be able to kill it in the current OU metagame. The subjective portion of this characteristic is the "significant portion" part - you will need to argue how by walling this "significant portion" or certain threats it makes Stalling "too easy".
The second way to approach this is the general method - which is to use attacks and sweep through the opponent. Obviously, your opponent should be able to prepare for them so it wouldn't be so easy. But suppose that there is a Pokemon that once it comes into play, you need to sacrifice a significant portion of your team to even consider taking it down. Of course, we already know that you can't prepare for all threats. For example, if your team is Infernape weak, then you'll have to sacrifice a lot once you see it in play. But suppose that a good majority of teams are Infernape weak, not because you are ill prepared, but simply because it is extremely difficult to deal with the Pokemon. So I think A Pokemon is Uber if it is capable of sweeping through a significant portion of teams in the Metagame with little effort. An Example is Rayquaza, of course. Sure, you can "take it down" but Rayquaza isn't going down without a fight(or its going to take down at least two pokemon). This means that to argue this, you need to argue how this thing can take down a reasonably prepared team consistently, or at least, tear up a nice hole making it easier for other Pokemon to thrive and clean up. A Pokemon does not need to kill every Pokemon or even 2 Pokemon for this condition - if the presence of it makes other Pokemon easier to sweep then it may fall under this condition. Players need to consider that Offensive Pokemon are also to an extent Support Pokemon, which leads us to the last criterion.
I think the final thing we need to consider, is of course, support. This is literally "the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep". Consider Wobbuffet, who was able to destroy the concept of counters by letting Pokemon set up on their counters. Or consider, Lopunny in the BT, who literally makes other Pokemon set up easily, or consider things like Dual Screening, or more like, fast dual screening with a combination of taunt. The things that need to be argued with this characteristics are how easily the Pokemon can accomplish the support, and how the support of the pokemon makes it too easy to obtain the winning condition.
I think these three characteristics cover everything, for now anyway.
For people who argue "luck" - this is not a criterion, but I'm quite certain you can find a way to apply "luck" into this (because I can). But it's best not to think of it as "luck" but the ability of the Pokemon itself. Meaning if Paraflinch allows Jirachi to beat Gliscor consistently then that shouldn't be blamed on "luck" - which is a shallow argument, but on Jirachi itself.
Secondly, it is quite obvious how predictability and unpredictability can measure into all of this. I believe I don't need to explain how unpredictability of a Pokemon may or may not help the arguments within any three of these characteristics.
I'll edit more things when I can think of more.
So in order to derive these characteristics, we should first consider how players think when they play Pokemon.
I think one of the best ways to think about Pokemon is, that in a battle, you are trying to make a either a Pokemon in your party or a combination of a Pokemon in your party "broken" to the other player. The battle is almost like chess to a degree, looking for openings, predicting moves, to set up your strategies to set up a checkmate and then sweeping through.
There are many ways to approach this. You can first attempt to stall the other player out, by either preventing the opponent from setting up, or countering the threat and walling it and stalling your opponent out through entrance hazards, status, and PP. This is the generalized goal of a stall team. So I think A Pokemon is uber if a Pokemon is able to wall and stall out a significant portion of the metagame. Take for example, Lugia, where nothing short of CBTar and perhaps Weavile is going to be able to kill it in the current OU metagame. The subjective portion of this characteristic is the "significant portion" part - you will need to argue how by walling this "significant portion" or certain threats it makes Stalling "too easy".
The second way to approach this is the general method - which is to use attacks and sweep through the opponent. Obviously, your opponent should be able to prepare for them so it wouldn't be so easy. But suppose that there is a Pokemon that once it comes into play, you need to sacrifice a significant portion of your team to even consider taking it down. Of course, we already know that you can't prepare for all threats. For example, if your team is Infernape weak, then you'll have to sacrifice a lot once you see it in play. But suppose that a good majority of teams are Infernape weak, not because you are ill prepared, but simply because it is extremely difficult to deal with the Pokemon. So I think A Pokemon is Uber if it is capable of sweeping through a significant portion of teams in the Metagame with little effort. An Example is Rayquaza, of course. Sure, you can "take it down" but Rayquaza isn't going down without a fight(or its going to take down at least two pokemon). This means that to argue this, you need to argue how this thing can take down a reasonably prepared team consistently, or at least, tear up a nice hole making it easier for other Pokemon to thrive and clean up. A Pokemon does not need to kill every Pokemon or even 2 Pokemon for this condition - if the presence of it makes other Pokemon easier to sweep then it may fall under this condition. Players need to consider that Offensive Pokemon are also to an extent Support Pokemon, which leads us to the last criterion.
I think the final thing we need to consider, is of course, support. This is literally "the ability of a pokemon to consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep". Consider Wobbuffet, who was able to destroy the concept of counters by letting Pokemon set up on their counters. Or consider, Lopunny in the BT, who literally makes other Pokemon set up easily, or consider things like Dual Screening, or more like, fast dual screening with a combination of taunt. The things that need to be argued with this characteristics are how easily the Pokemon can accomplish the support, and how the support of the pokemon makes it too easy to obtain the winning condition.
I think these three characteristics cover everything, for now anyway.
For people who argue "luck" - this is not a criterion, but I'm quite certain you can find a way to apply "luck" into this (because I can). But it's best not to think of it as "luck" but the ability of the Pokemon itself. Meaning if Paraflinch allows Jirachi to beat Gliscor consistently then that shouldn't be blamed on "luck" - which is a shallow argument, but on Jirachi itself.
Secondly, it is quite obvious how predictability and unpredictability can measure into all of this. I believe I don't need to explain how unpredictability of a Pokemon may or may not help the arguments within any three of these characteristics.
I'll edit more things when I can think of more.
I am extremely satisfied by Tangerine's masterpiece of a composite definition of an Uber. Though it may lack mathematical formulae, it gives us a foundation for developing those (if such is possible, I try not to doubt the magic wrought by X-Act and DougJustDoug), and serves about as well as any reasonably subjective definition ever will. I particularly like it since it can be used to describe literally every Pokemon that is currently Uber, and gives us a yardstick to measure the current Suspects against.
The only problem I would say with Tangerines definition is if we add a pokemon that was unusual.
Like for instance if Gyarados was uber, and then we unbanned it, it probably would sweep any unchanged team very easily. Gyarados is quirky enough that usually you have to make some changes to beat it, but those changes arent especially difficult to make. I mean when you say 'the metagame' if the metagame is made up of people who havent yet changed their teams to cope with a new threat then that threat would be seen as uber no matter how small the changes required might be.
Have a nice day.
Like for instance if Gyarados was uber, and then we unbanned it, it probably would sweep any unchanged team very easily. Gyarados is quirky enough that usually you have to make some changes to beat it, but those changes arent especially difficult to make. I mean when you say 'the metagame' if the metagame is made up of people who havent yet changed their teams to cope with a new threat then that threat would be seen as uber no matter how small the changes required might be.
Have a nice day.
I think we have to assume that people will adjust to changes "if they want to win", which I think is a good enough assumption. Of course, yes, there might be a bias in which people will argue "I don't want to change my team", but I think we have seen that people will adjust to win.
When I say metagame, I mean the exact opposite - meaning people have already adjusted to a given threat, which they should have by the end of the suspect test. This is a fair thing to expect out of people, especially people who are supposedly playing to win.
Very important and will thus be highlighted here. To bridge the gap to the final criterion, simply imagine that Kangaskhan or Miltank got Explosion. Think about it for a sec if you don't understand why I'd say that.
I actually think the argument defeats itself when "consistently" is uttered in the same breath as "luck". If Jirachi is able to 3HKO Gliscor with Iron Head before Gliscor can 2HKO with EQ, that's pretty consistent to me at 36% (i don't think 50% or high has to equal "consistent" as far as the argument is concerned, much like OHKOs dont need a 51% success rate to be considered consistent). Jirachi is the "uber" party here, not luck.
Ok, I think at this point it's fair to crosscheck our characteristics with actual pokemon to see how airtight they all are. I will also reiterate now that the idea wasn't first to think of obvious ubers like Rayquaza and Lugia and use that information to kind of "cheat" or way into our characteristics. I'll do this tomorrow though cause tired as hell etc
- Status