Regarding Set Order

[RaikouLover]

This issue has been tackled all of Gen IV, but once again there needs to be some sort of collective stance on this. Some users on the team believe set order should be based on usage, but this led to some controversy some time ago when shit like Dragon Dance / Outrage / Earthquake / Fire Punch Dragonite remained the top set despite being completely outclassed in every way by Salamence. Yet users continued to play Dragonite in this fashion, leading to consistently lower OU usage (being in the cellar of OU) and gross disuse of the pokemon. The set eventually was scrapped by QC due to it finally being labeled as "outclassed." Anyway, the point of the story is that a recurring cycle can and will happen to every set that remains at the top of an analysis for whatever reason. It is the duty of all contributors and QC to make sure the most effective sets of the metagame are being presented in viability to prevent useless cycles like this from happening.

The reality is that users, especially the less experienced who are trying to improve, use each pokemon's analysis as a guide to what set is the best for that pokemon. There are many cases when the best and most used will not always coincide, thus beginning the cycle. Though I can guarantee over 95%+ of the top sets listed on usage statistics will be the top set of the analysis, we cannot deny that this is most likely a result of the analysis order, not vise versa.

Therefore, there needs to be a consistency and we should declare a stance on this.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The dex isn't meant to "sell" a set. The dex is meant to inform. The idea is that similar to how tiers are decided (the most common pokemon are obviously the best at the time), set order is also decided partially by usage. When a set enjoys a massive lead in usage over other sets (see Choice Scarf Tyranitar vs. DD and Choice Band), it should be listed first, because when a user encounters an opposing Tyranitar, currently the most likely set it's running is Choice Scarf. Same with Choice Band Scizor. Many arguments can be made that its "best" set is not its Choice Band set, but it sees the most usage of all Scizor sets, so it should be listed first.

You think of the analyses as "advertisements for Pokemon" rather than just places where you can get information on the most viable sets. In order to provide the most relevant and up-to-date information, set order should be based (at least partially) on usage.

Generally this is only a huge deal when it comes to "the first listed set", and indeed, this is also only a huge deal when there are sets that are obviously used to a massive extent, such that other sets are unexpected or unorthodox.

EDIT: Another really, really important note is that "best set" is incredibly subjective. You may happen to think that the Mixed Dancer or Double Dancer or whateverthefuck Kingdra set is the "best", while I might advocate for the SubDD set being "the best", while others like Phil and Atticus might advocate for the Chesto Rest set. It makes no sense to try and struggle with some kind of subjective analysis of which set is "best" instead of using a 100% ironclad example of "what works". If the #1 set "stops working" it will stop being used, obviously.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

Yes, the dex is meant to inform, but in what way? Does it inform the reader what the "best" sets are or what the most common sets are?

The most effective sets should be listed first. "Best" being subjective doesn't really matter; Quality Control can always make judgment calls. In more ambiguous cases, usage stats can be determinant. While not always the case, usage is usually a good reflection of effectiveness.

Basically, I feel we should use common sense / judgment whenever possible to decide the best sets (i.e. Dragonite example), and in cases where multiple sets are arguably equally effective, and a consensus cannot be reached, use usage as a deciding factor.

 

[j_hunter]

Why not cut out the usage/effectiveness factor altogether and simply list the sets in alphabetical order? Although this might mean that there is no indication to readers as to which set they're most likely to be face with, it would help prevent readers from being misled by what they assume is the "best" set.

 

[cim]

How I've always interpreted the unwritten rule is that the top sets are primarily the most effective and secondarily the most common. For example, your opinion over whether CS or CBtar shouldn't really matter since they're both good and CStar is really common. However, if a set is commonly used in a really bad way, listing it first is disingenuous.

We can't create policy and pretend that analyses don't cause the very usage people insist on trying to "track" with them. That's just stupid. Usage should be a small factor but ultimately effectiveness trumps putting a bad set first. Effectiveness over time.