Rank Cutoffs

[Complications]

I was initially going to make a wall of text but I figure I'll write that later, so here it goes:

After a lot of discussion (over a substantial amount of time), we've finally decided that the Rank 3 cutoff finally deserves a face-lift, or at least some serious discussion, to say the least. That said, while we're at it, I think it wise to take a look at all of the cutoffs, so here it goes. I added a few of my personal opinions just as a kickoff.

Rank 2: 26-60
I don't think there will be too much, if any, discussion on this. It really doesn't impact anything substantially.

Rank 3: 61-95
Here's the big talking point, a lot of people would like to see this cutoff lowered by at least a point. Provided below is a comprehensive link to Pokemon impacted by it courtesy of AcidPhoenix, and I will add analyses as (if) people provide them.
Comprehensive change of stats

Rank 4: 96-115
While everybody hates getting trolled by that one 95 stat, I also think everyone would also agree that lowering the cutoff would also break a lot of Pokemon. I don't see much discussion happening about this.

Rank 5: 116-140
Personally I feel like this could be looked at a bit, but I see it gaining little ground. A lot of Pokemon would be a lot more useful if their strongest stat was Rank 5.

Rank: 6: 140-153
Another cutoff that some people would like to see lowered, I imagine this will be the second most discussed cutoff in the thread.

Ranks 7-10: 154-210+
I grouped these together because I doubt there will be any discussion about them. They impact too few Pokemon too negligibly to warrant close analysis.

So what is everyone's thoughts? Fire away.
Elevator Music ZhengTann smashlloyd20 JJayyFeather Texas Cloverleaf

 

[zarator]

The only one I can see having some serious discussion about, tbh, is Rank 6. Not only it is abnormally small, but Rank 5 feels unusually large by comparison. Personally, I think we could have Rank 5 going from 116 to 135 and Rank 6 from 136 to 153 (I'm guessing the upper limit is 153 for the sake of Mewtwo, Lugia, and Ho-Oh, right?)

Before anybody says "rank 3", I seriously invite you to check the points I and others have made against extending its lower limit.

 

[Complications]

For the sake of convenience,

I would like to spend a word talking about the Rank 2/3 cutoff, because I was around when it was done and I am among those who, despite my roster being hit pretty hard by the change at that time (I had Gengar, Chandelure, and Zoroark among others), feels that this change was for the best - in other words, I believe it would be a mistake to revert to the old system.

Looking at the various cutoffs, it's pretty clear that, at the moment, Rank 3 is by far the biggest one. Only Rank 2 covers a wider breadth of stats, weighted (Rank 9-10 apparently covers more but, in relative/percentage terms, not really). This means that this rank has also the biggest variance when it comes to comparing "ASB stuff" to "cartridge" stuff. For example, if you pick things with, say, Rank 5 Defense (such as Hippowdon, Ferrothorn, Gigalith, etc.) they do feel approximately "on the same level" in cartridge as much as they do in ASB. Rank 3 Defense is a whole different story, though: Azelf and Poliwrath may have the same physical bulk in ASB, but this hardly reflects how they are "felt like" in cartridge games.

What I am getting to is that, while every cutoff we decide would be arbitrary (60 no more than 61), making it wider would make things even more "absurd", to an extent. It would mean, for example, that suddenly Zoroark is as bulky as a Hydreigon. It would mean that, now, Spinda has the same offensive stats of Lugia. While it would make more mons viable, it would also significantly increase the number of mons sitting in the already-pretty-crowded Rank 3 benchmark, thus increasing the feeling of mons having all the "same stats". Even now, the amount of Pokemon with a bunch of Rank 3 stats is surprising, even when these mons are actually (or should actually feel) more diverse than they are.

When we decided to raise the cutoff from 56 to 61, the reasoning was pretty much the same as when we lowered it from 130 to 125 (yeah back then the cutoff for Rank 5 was 130): the variance was too large. Sure, it sucked if you were Zoroark (which many brought up as one of the main complaints against the cutoff change, even back then). But at the same time, it did feel reasonable that Gengar shouldn't be as physically bulky as Dragonite, just like how it felt odd that Bisharp or Hydreigon had rank 4 offenses along with the likes of Tauros or Starmie.

In conclusion, before claiming that we should do this to "revitalize" the metagame, or to make more mons viable, more thought should be given to how this change would relativize (is this even a word) the already-kinda-unimpactful stats difference around the average mean. Besides, while it may appear that this change would only make some mons "better" (aside from the obvious RC/Everstone issues), you should not forget that raising the stats of a bunch of mons might make many others worse by comparison - especially when some of those who would benefits are also pretty good mons like Gengar and the aforementioned Kecleon. Basically, if you already have Rank 3 stats across the board, you are at risk of getting comparatively worse after the change - which in the end might leave the overall number of viable mons substantially unchanged, killing the entire point of the proposal.

EDIT: Okay maybe it wasn't just a word but when was the last time somebody said "I want to spend a word about X" and it rly was just a word?

 

[Dogfish44]

Alrighty then.

Let's set out some broad advice and thoughts;

• Remember that buffs to some mons will always nerf others in a relative sense. Drop the R3 cutoff from 61 to 60 and you buff Gengar's HP - but that means other 90 HP Ghosts (Cofagrigus, Sableye) become slightly weaker in comparison, as do other notable special attackers (Alakazam).
• 'feelings' matter. Dropping R5 to 115 adds the Tapu's second stat as a 5 - this 'feels' wrong to me.
• I advise everyone to read Zarator's original post on the Rank 3 cutoff change (Also quoted above :P)

As for changes, the most discussed outside of R3 would be a drop of the R6 cutoff, from 141 to 140. This would bring up the following from R5 to R6:

HP:
Wigglytuff

Atk:
Mega Aggron
Mega Sharpedo
Rhyperior
Conkeldurr
Darmanitan
Archeops
Wishiwashi

Def:
Forretress
Scizor
Skarmory
Lairon
Torkoal
Groudon
Golisopod

SpA:
Mega Houndoom
Mega Latias
Mega Lucario
Darmanitan-Z
Wishiwashi

SpD:
Mantine
Kyogre

Spe:
Mega Mewtwo Y

The biggest impact would be in Megas - I noticed that a lot of Megas seem to have 140 as a 'high' offensive stat, but we only translate as 5 as it stands. Again, this is purely how I 'feel' on the matter.

As an aside, 136 also works as another rank cutoff for R6, which would add Buzzwole (ATK, DEF), Solgaleo (ATK), Pheromosa (ATK, SpA), Mega Lopunny (ATK), Lunala (SpA) and Bastiodon (SpD) to the above.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

That new r6 cut "feels" very right

Also I oppose the r3 change

 

[JJayyFeather]

My 'at a glance' opinion, which I will refine and expand upon once I get more time.

- Worth noting that increasing the strength of Gengar does not affect Sableye. If anything, it makes Sableye better since Sableye will just have something it dunks on become more popular.
- On a related note, lol buffing Kecleon will finally completely solidify it as 'better than Greninja without a doubt.'
- I don't necessarily like that the focus of the discussion of 'feeling' right, but I'll address that more later.
- On a related note, if we are changing R6, 136 will 'feel' a lot more correct just for the fact that M-Lopunny definitely doesn't feel like her offensive prowess translated properly.
- Additionally (mostly aimed at you Texas), if you are going to post an opinion, please give reasoning for it. Just postings stances doesn't help guide the discussion or inform others.

 

[Exclaimer]

Atk:
Conkeldurr

/me screams eternally

 

[zarator]

- I don't necessarily like that the focus of the discussion of 'feeling' right, but I'll address that more later.

For the record, my point was not merely about "feeling", but about how this change would make stats more of a "moot point". If anything, in this case, "I have a bad feeling about this" is more of a symptom than a reason for action.

The real reason is that, if the range between the upper and lower cutoffs of Rank 3 becomes too wide, then you would have a bunch of Pokemon with basically the same stats - and at that point, what is even the point of HAVING stats, in the first place? You might think that this is an exaggerated concern for a proposed 1 point difference in the cutoff, but keep in mind that Rank 3 is already a very peculiar rank in two respects:

1) It has the widest weighted range of all ranks, save perhaps for Rank 2 itself (whose lower cutoff is however generally uninfluential in FE battling - sorry Smeargle/Shuckle). When I say "weighted" I mean that, while for example Rank 10 has a wider "absolute" range (around 35-40 points I believe?), the difference between, say, 210 and 255 is much less impactful than between, say, 61 and 95. In math terms, (255-210)>(95-61) [absolute difference], but 255/210 < 95/61 [relative difference]
2) The large majority of FE stats fall in the Rank 3 range (I haven't counted for actual numbers, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one).

This means that, basically, the large majority of FE Pokemon already have one or more Rank 3 stats, which means that, when they square off against each other, their stats don't basically matter at all - there is no difference between them in this regard. As you noted yourself, even lowering the lower cutoff by 1 would cause a significant influx of Rank 3 stats in the meta (if it didn't, we probably wouldn't be here to discuss it), which would mean we'd have even more matchups where basically everyone has the same stats.

I will concede you that, technically, there is nothing inherently wrong about this. Heck, one of the main reasons (but not the only one) for introducing Ranked stats - as opposed to natural, in-game stats - was to reduce the impact of stat differences among Pokemon. However, this objective, noble as it is, is at odds with another objective - one which I think became more and more relevant to us as the game progressed: Pokemon uniqueness. We generally strive to make sure that each Pokemon is unique in some way. Many of our fixes and "ad libitum" changes to the in-game precedent (such as a bunch of sig items which did not exist in the original game) were also added to make sure that each Pokemon had a niche and as few Pokemon as possible were outclassed. But part of what creates differences in the game is, you guessed it, stats. Some Pokemon are unique by virtue of their stat layout, even if their movepool or type or abilities is nothing unprecedented. By reducing the diversity in stats, you are threatening this aspect of Pokemon uniqueness. When we wanted, say, Dragonite to be more physically bulkier than Gengar (just a random example off my head), we also wanted to make Dragonite and Gengar (and by extension many other Pokemon) more different. Ofc making Pokemon different might involve buffing some while nerfing others, but even when you create a special sig item for, say, Salazzle or Spiritomb, you are buffing/nerfing content in the same way.

Again, a possible retort might be that this update seeks to increase, rather than decrease, diversity. For example, it might be pointed out that making something like Zoroark bulkier, and thus potentially viable, would increase metagame variety. But I think this is where the burden of proof lies with the change proposers, rather than the opposers. This is especially notable because there are a bunch of other Pokemon who already sit in the Rank 3 range that might be displaced by this change.

Take Zoroark again, as an example. Okay, maybe, with 100/3/3 defenses, Zoroark would be playable. After all, it has the incredibly useful Illusion ability. But if Zoroark becomes a viable choice, this could mean that, for example, Hydreigon or Weavile (who already are Dark-types with 100/3/3 defenses) face tighter competition as a result. Indeed, when before I would have seriously weighted the merit of Illusion against the lower defenses, now I would find it very hard to justify using any of those two over Zoroark. It is not a perfect example - both Hydreigon and Weavile are already on the edge of unviability as we speak, and it might be argued that adding a 100/3/3 Zoroark to the mix would be nothing but a little nail in the coffin. But you gotta understand that, with 700+ Pokemon out there, for every Pokemon out there that you buff, there is a scenario like the aforementioned one that arises, where making a Pokemon viable pushes one or more out of the meta.

In the end, can you really prove that this change will not make more Pokemon obsolete than the ones it pushes into viability? I'm not sold on this point.

 

[Dogfish44]

- I don't necessarily like that the focus of the discussion of 'feeling' right, but I'll address that more later.

Unlike Zarator, I'm inclined to say that a more emphatic route is how stats have generally been determined. Saying that 'ASB Gengar should be less physically bulky than ASB Dragonite' is, to a degree, a position that comes from an emotional judgement.

As such, here is my completely emotional proposal. My priorities are stat boundaries which are less ugly, as well as consideration of balance changes as needed. I think in particular we've not considered stats since the ORAS Megas. Not that I change ORAS Megas beyond Lopunny and Sharpdo, but still, it's as good an excuse as any.

DF44 Proposal

Rank 1: 0-25
No Change
Rank 1 is not competitively relevant, and I see no running justification to change. The only realistic adjustment - upper limit to 30 begins to include mons such as Darm's Atk/SpA, Kadabra's Def, Shedinja's SpD, Makuhita's Def/SpD, and Sunkern's everything.

Rank 2: 26-60
No Change
Rank 2 also stays the same here. I'll actually discuss the impacts as such in a couplle of seconds :P

Rank 3: 61-95
No Change
Right, so people have already listed the benefits of a drop to 60 for the bottom - and people have also listed out the problems (I think, much like in the upcoming UK elections, the Cons win in a landslide).

One thing I will say is that, if we're following my ideals of 'Rank Cutoffs at multiples of 5', then 56-95 is much the same as the common proposal of 60-95. FE differences would be Diggersby (Atk), Swoobat (Atk/Def/SpD), Dedenne (Atk/Def), Lanturn (Atk/Def), Sigilyph (Atk), Wormadam-G (Atk), Plasmanta (ATK), Wobuffet (Def/SpD), Braviary (SpA), Fargetch'd (SpA), Gourgeist (SpA), Wormadam-S (SpA), Kartana (SpA), Yanmega (SpD), Purugly (SpD), Tyrantrum (SpD), and then a handful of mons have a Speed Rank change (Trev, Tort, Ramparos, Pangoro, Aurorus, Scrafty, Clawitzer).

Rank 4: 96-115
No Change
115 is annoying, but a large number of mons tend to use 115 as the 'second stat' value (look at the Tapus). I gain a lot personally from making this 96-110, but I can't justify it as is.

Rank 5: 116-135
Some R5 now R6
Rank 5 changes as a product of R6 gaining part of it, more than anything, which is justified below.

Rank 6: 136-150
Gains Outlined Here, loses Krilowatt (HP), Toxapex (Def), Greninja-A (SpA), Pheremosa (Speed Rank)
141 as the cutoff to get into R6 has always been relatively high, and it cuts out a lot of Megas in particular. Heck, it's why Houndoomnite has like 50 boosts attatched to it. 136 as the entry point adds a lot of mons to the 'viable megas' list, which I think would be healthy for the game. It also causes some mons to specialise further, but not by making them invaluable compared to others. Mantine becomes the premier special wall. Archeops finally has a niche over Aerodactyl in spite of a weaker movepool. The only potential balance issue is Conkeldurr, but other Fighting mons still have advantages (Machamp has DynamicPunch, Mienshao is fast and has Bounce, Sawk has Pain Split, Hariyama has Trapping, Fake Out, and Switch Forcing).

The current numbers are to keep Mewtwo, Ho-Oh, and Lugia from sulking, but it's frankly ugly, and giving Krill a reason to be used over Lanturn, Toxapex the actual bulk it wants, and a reason to use Greninja-A... these all sound good to me.

Rank 7: 151-170
Gains what R6 loses, Loses Xurkitree (SpA)
Mainly pickups from R6 and Aesthetics. Also, Xurkitree's thing is obscene SpA, much like Kartana has a silly Atk.

Rank 8: 171-185
Gains Xurkitree (SpA)
A E S T H E T I C S.

Rank 9: 186-200
No Changes
A E S T H E T I C S

Rank 10: 201+
No Changes
A E S T H E T I C S

 

[JJayyFeather]

Alright, after some discussion in Discord with a variety of peeps, I think it can be said easily (make it known if you disagree) that we can split this discussion into two pieces: 0-95 and 96+, thanks Kingdra and Silvally for giving us a nice splitting point that no one is willing to tip over.

That being said, unless there are new proposals for or arguments against Dogfish's proposal for 96+, given that it is the only standing proposal for that range and people seem to like it, I'd like to send that to a vote in 48h with the following slate:

96+ Vote

How should Stats 96+ be handled?
a) Leave as is
b) Dogfish44's Proposal (link)

As for the 0-95 region, there are a couple things to be discussed. Currently we have the following options that have been presented in this thread:
- Leave as is
- Move R3 to 56-95
- Move R3 to 60-95

Additionally, in Discord two other ideas arose:

- R1 0-35, R2 36-75, R3 76-95
A much more centralizing approach to that region. Notably, it pulls a lot more pokemon from R3 to R2 while shedding 'deadweight' so to speak. Also discussed in Discord was R1 capping at 30, R2 capping at 70, and R2 capping at 65, the one named in bold was just the original suggestion that sparked the discussion.

- R1 0-25, R2 26-50, R3 51-75, R4 76-95
Formed after looking at the descriptive analysis for the stats and using the quartiles to determine that 51-75 feels like it should capture an entire range on its own. This does indeed create a new rank, which would then bump everything in the 96+ discussion up one rank (see: 96-115 would be R5 then, and so on).
=====
With all of that said, just a few things to focus this discussion around so we can keep moving:
- Are there any qualms with sending stats 96+ to voting or the fact that it is being separated from the rest of the stat discussion?
- What are your feelings about the current suggestions?
- Any other suggestions that should be fielded?

And for ease of sifting through posts for quotes/evidence/etc, please label your post and/or the sections of your post with what suggestion/topic you are discussing, since there is a lot going on in this thread.

 

[ZhengTann]

So I scanned the whole thing through, and the only thing that knocks me is the Jayy's lines here:

- R1 0-35, R2 36-75, R3 76-95
A much more centralizing approach to that region. Notably, it pulls a lot more pokemon from R3 to R2 while shedding 'deadweight' so to speak. Also discussed in Discord was R1 capping at 30, R2 capping at 70, and R2 capping at 65, the one named in bold was just the original suggestion that sparked the discussion.

While I somewhat agree with Zarator's sentiments (note: I used sentiments instead of arguments) about "Gengar shouldn't feel as bulky as Dragonite in-ASB", I also think that R3's status quo of being our, for lack of phrases, "mid-range generic stat" should be retained. Most mons still fall between R1 and R6 in their stats, and I personally prefer the bell curve function when it comes to stat distribution across species. I could be open to letting R4 be the peak of the bell curve, but I have not done enough homework to properly justify that. Maybe a less drastic raise of R2's upper stat limit may retain that bell curve? Again, haven't done my homework so I'm not in a position to push harder.

 

[acidphoenix]

I (obviously, given the fact that I was the one who proposed it) heavily disagree with the above, mostly on the grounds of- looking at the perspective of the current system - any system in which we keep the same fundamental logic behind the r2/r3 cutoff, with the average being r3, will cause r2 to be a death sentence in most cases rather than the "below average" stat it, (in my opinion at least), should be.

If 'less drastic' means "70 instead of 75" it would be acceptable, but in my opinion worse, and if it means '65 instead of 70' it isn't a positive change because it doesn't hurt things that generally form a baseline for our metagame.

 

[acidphoenix]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wU8sz3DDQzhukfZKGMa8Q38Hdx2NZCqSikhDebehddQ/edit#gid=0

please don't actually edit but STATS

 

[acidphoenix]

after exploring the sheet stats i now support 70 over 75; the difference isn't extreme and 75 could have went either way to begin with, but while i don't care THAT much about the lc distribution 50.4% of all stats being r2 is still stupid

 

[acidphoenix]

so uhh

even if we aren't going to actually do anything about r1-r3 (which i'd still like to but imo should be discussed more) can we at least actually put the dogfish proposal voting up

:|

 

[Matezoide]

On one hand i want 100/3/3/3/3 Spinda because fuck item removal

On the other Primeape would lose +2 RC Atk

Fug

 

[JJayyFeather]

Alright, this has been sitting around too long.

To Voting:

Stats 96+
How should Stats 96+ be handled?
a) Leave as is
b) Dogfish44's Proposal (link)

This will be going to voting immediately as no objections were launched since I last posted about this.

Deadline until Voting:

Stats 1-95
How should Stats 1-95 be handled?
a) Leave as is
b) Move R3 to 56-95
c) Move R3 to 60-95

This has 48h until it goes to voting unless there is significant discussion that alters the slate in any fashion, whether that be the removal of options or addition of options.

 

[acidphoenix]

k so I'm just going to make a post to stop this from going to its belated voting since I think nobody at all wants 60, maybe someone wants 56 but it's an overwhelming majority against, and I actually need to post things wrt r2 move up to 70(which I will do tomorrow it's 1 am)

 

[Mowtom]

*rises from the dead*

- R1 0-25, R2 26-50, R3 51-75, R4 76-95
Formed after looking at the descriptive analysis for the stats and using the quartiles to determine that 51-75 feels like it should capture an entire range on its own. This does indeed create a new rank, which would then bump everything in the 96+ discussion up one rank (see: 96-115 would be R5 then, and so on).

I actually think this idea is really interesting. It seems to solve both the problem of "Gengar should be less bulky than Dragonite" while still addressing the original suggestion to change things. Would people mind discussing it a bit and potentially including it in the voting slate?

*sinks back into grave*

 

[acidphoenix]

*rises from the dead*

I actually think this idea is really interesting. It seems to solve both the problem of "Gengar should be less bulky than Dragonite" while still addressing the original suggestion to change things. Would people mind discussing it a bit and potentially including it in the voting slate?

*sinks back into grave*

i agree that it's interesting(obviously i'm the one who put it n the first place0 BUT continue standing by the idea that to do this it's better to just have the r2 and r3 in that scenario be together (with an r1 bumped up to 35 for the sake of making r2 less insanely large, although it is still unfortunately large)

R1 1-35, R2 36-70, R3 71-95

R1 - 1-35 makes it more of a real rank, not pushing it to 40 to avoid having 7 80/1/1/1/1/x mons, and also helps reduce the size of r2
R2 - frankly i've said this multiple times but on principle i hate that we have a clear "this stat is subpar" stat that isn't really at a spot where it moves from subpar to not subpar, moving it to 70 means that r2, overall, means "below average," if only a little, and r3 means "above average," if only a little, meaning that rank 2, instead of being a "hahaha i hope you aren't on the other side of this because if you are you need to be REALLY great to make up for it," becomes a legitimate rank that is actually held by legitimately relevant pokemon

for the record, for competitive reasons i prefer going up to 75, but am copping to 70 as a means to make it less silly how many mons are in the rank
R3 - loses the 10 points to r2, top end is the same, nothing really to say that isn't said in r2

 

[Maxim]

Going to toss in my two cents in here.

While I don't mind the initial raise Rank 3 proposal failing, I really think widening R2 is a bad idea. Main reason is because it may do a shift, but for the most part you aren't touching offenses (in fact, Dogfish's proposal that was accepted raised them for some). Given most of the stats that would fall in the R2 widening are defenses, this means that the vast majority of Pokemon are going to take even more damage from offensive behemoths. Essentially, I argue that R2 will still be a subpar stat because you're realistically not touching offense at all, whilst lowering defenses of the majority of the unfortunate targets. That does not even take into account the number of 90 HP Pokemon that would be made (assuming this applies to all stats), and we already know that 90 HP is a death sentence for a lot of Pokemon.

 

[acidphoenix]

Going to toss in my two cents in here.

While I don't mind the initial raise Rank 3 proposal failing, I really think widening R2 is a bad idea. Main reason is because it may do a shift, but for the most part you aren't touching offenses (in fact, Dogfish's proposal that was accepted raised them for some). Given most of the stats that would fall in the R2 widening are defenses, this means that the vast majority of Pokemon are going to take even more damage from offensive behemoths. Essentially, I argue that R2 will still be a subpar stat because you're realistically not touching offense at all, whilst lowering defenses of the majority of the unfortunate targets. That does not even take into account the number of 90 HP Pokemon that would be made (assuming this applies to all stats), and we already know that 90 HP is a death sentence for a lot of Pokemon.

while i do agree that making attacks do overall more damage is unfortunate, i think the benefits outweigh this personally

of course r2 will still be a subpar stat, the point is to make it a subpar stat that mons actually HAVE- making it a "below average" stat rather than a stat that most relevant mons don't even have one stat that low, with the possible exceptions of speed and the offstat offense

the last point is completely disingenious considering the only argument presented (mine) was COMPLETELY about how having r2 be higher makes it NOT a death sentence to have in a relevant stat

 

[JJayyFeather]

Posting here partially to move things along and partially to make a point.

*rises from the dead*
(quote of the 4 rank split opinion here)
I actually think this idea is really interesting. It seems to solve both the problem of "Gengar should be less bulky than Dragonite" while still addressing the original suggestion to change things. Would people mind discussing it a bit and potentially including it in the voting slate?

*sinks back into grave*

I like the idea a ton, which is why it made it into my post. I do think it is rather complex and hard to predict the outcome of, as well as extensive for implementation purposes. It would also cause us to have to completely revisit Rare Candy and Everstone.

R1 1-35, R2 36-70, R3 71-95

R1 - 1-35 makes it more of a real rank, not pushing it to 40 to avoid having 7 80/1/1/1/1/x mons, and also helps reduce the size of r2
R2 - frankly i've said this multiple times but on principle i hate that we have a clear "this stat is subpar" stat that isn't really at a spot where it moves from subpar to not subpar, moving it to 70 means that r2, overall, means "below average," if only a little, and r3 means "above average," if only a little, meaning that rank 2, instead of being a "hahaha i hope you aren't on the other side of this because if you are you need to be REALLY great to make up for it," becomes a legitimate rank that is actually held by legitimately relevant pokemon

for the record, for competitive reasons i prefer going up to 75, but am copping to 70 as a means to make it less silly how many mons are in the rank
R3 - loses the 10 points to r2, top end is the same, nothing really to say that isn't said in r2

This is the idea I currently support the most. Details along with my next quote.

Going to toss in my two cents in here.

While I don't mind the initial raise Rank 3 proposal failing, I really think widening R2 is a bad idea. Main reason is because it may do a shift, but for the most part you aren't touching offenses (in fact, Dogfish's proposal that was accepted raised them for some). Given most of the stats that would fall in the R2 widening are defenses, this means that the vast majority of Pokemon are going to take even more damage from offensive behemoths. Essentially, I argue that R2 will still be a subpar stat because you're realistically not touching offense at all, whilst lowering defenses of the majority of the unfortunate targets. That does not even take into account the number of 90 HP Pokemon that would be made (assuming this applies to all stats), and we already know that 90 HP is a death sentence for a lot of Pokemon.

I think agreeing and disagreeing is possible here, so I'm going to do both.

I agree heavily with the point about how the meta will shift, and that's something I'd say really matters. With offenses rising and bulk dropping, the game will shift to offensive and fast (which tbh if ASB can move faster thats better tbh :P). However, I do think that might be a shift that's contrary to how some players want to have their battles go with the slower more tricky route. Or if anything, it might just cause people to alter their choices in Pokemon to make their intended goal attainable, which would also be a plus, since the overall goal I was aiming for when I initially suggested to change rank cutoffs was to altogether shift the metagame in one way or another, since stagnant is boring.

I disagree with the point about how bad nerfing things gets, and I'll explain it sort of like how bans in tiers on PS! ladders work. Basically, if nerfing pulls down the 'top' mons, it opens up room for the 'bottom' mons to make an appearance on the scene. For example, with Gardevoir losing 10 HP, 1 Atk, and 1 Def, it suddenly becomes as physically bulky as an Alakazam. Many people disregard Alakazam because of this principle flaw and how easy it is to capitalize upon, so what's to say the same won't go for Gardevoir. Sure, people will still use her, just like Alakazam, but it more readily highlights a weakness in the Pokemon than before. I do acknowledge that some mons that don't need nerfs will get nerfed as well, but it's really really hard to simply target a few mons when they have no unique interactions, abilities, or anything making them as good as they are.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Since no discussion is occurring here, I'm going to move things forward. Proposing the voting slate that will be sent to voting in 48h if no opposition is raised.

How should Stats 1-95 be handled?
a) Leave as is
b) R1 1-25, R2 26-55, R3 56-95
c) R1 1-35, R2 36-70, R3 71-95
d) R1 1-25, R2 26-50, R3 51-75, R4 76-95 (this bumps all ranks that are currently 4+ up one)

EDIT @ Below: D was added by request of Mowtom (which I agree with, it wasn't slated at first because it got no attention), B because people like Maxim still exist who would rather have things buffed than nerfed.

 

[acidphoenix]

does anybody actually still support either b or d? honest question