Tier Naming Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26
I think this idea makes a lot of sense because of the fact that the ___used names would still be technically correct and could still be used to refer to the tiers in an "unofficial" capacity. Changing everything to _U in analyses and articles and on PS and whatever else removes a lot of the "need" to have abbreviations for new tiers as it lets you be consistent across the board (aka getting rid random inconsistencies like this) without actually getting rid of any tradition / alienating people who are used to the current names / changing a large part of the "image" of the site. It also solves the "omg how can anything be used less than never" issue completely, as well as the need to try to scramble for names that make some sort of "sense" when naming new tiers below PU. Basically it just solves a few of the issues brought up in the thread without radically changing anything.


(on a side note, it's probably just personal, but i think "poorlyused" and "partiallyused" sound really stupid lol)
 

Lutra

All generations forever.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
#28
My Nomenclature for current Smogon tiers:

1A (Anything Goes) <-- No bans/clauses. No Pokemon listed.
1P (Primary Ubers) <-- No Pokemon bans. Pokemon banned from 1Q (Ubers) listed.
––--------------------------------------------------------------------
1Q (Ubers) <-- Ultra-broken Pokemon banned. Pokemon banned from 1U listed.
1U (OverUsed) <-- Broken Pokemon banned. Pokemon deemed 1U listed.
2P (BorderLine) <-- Pokemon deemed 1U banned. Pokemon banned from 2U listed.
2U (UnderUsed) <-- Pokemon deemed 1U and broken banned. Pokemon deemed 2U listed.
3P (BorderLine2) <-- Pokemon deemed 2U banned. Pokemon banned from 3U listed.
3U (RarelyUsed) <-- Pokemon deemed 2U and broken banned. Pokemon deemed 3U listed.
4P (BorderLine3) <-- Pokemon deemed 3U banned. Pokemon banned from 4U listed.
4U (NeverUsed) <-- Pokemon deemed 3U and broken banned. Pokemon deemed 4U listed.
5P (Borderline4) <-- Pokemon deemed 4U banned. Pokemon banned from 5U listed.
5U (PU) <-- Pokemon deemed 4U and broken banned. Pokemon deemed 5U listed.
 

erisia

nyoen wnt an popsicel
is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#29
That's an interesting system. We talked about it on PS and while I think it suits RBY well where you'd want a tier with only Mew allowed AND another one with Mewtwo allowed, I don't think we need two seperate Ubers tier designations for the modern metagame with Anything Goes. I'm starting to think that Ubers, U1, BL1, U2, BL2 would be a good system since it's clear that U translates to Usage and it has a little more transitivity with the current system (not much but eh). It also looks clean and avoids naming issues like the previous T1 designation.
 
#30
The following proposal intends to keep the familiarity of the abbreviatures of the main Smogon tiers,
as well as provide a sound nomenclature system.

OU, UU and RU are kept. We could then (optionally) have the NU tier renamed to SU, standing for Seldom Used.
Afterwards, it follows the BU tier (Barely Used), and the fact that it starts with a B allows for a sorted alphabetic system.

OU > UU > RU > (NU|SU) > BU > CU > DU > EU > FU > GU > HU > IU > JU [...]
In practice, they would be likely referred to as B Tier, C Tier, D Tier, etc.

This system holds a resemblance to several successful scientific nomenclature systems, such as atomic orbitals: s, p, d, f, g, h, i, j, k, ...
 

Deck Knight

RIP (Ultra)Space Dragon
is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
#31
In my opinion I think you can keep the best of the nomenclature and the clarity by just using descriptors for "Classic" Tiers and going from there. Here's a sample of my thought process on this:

AG
Ubers
OU (Tier 1)
BL1 [Tier 1 Pokemon too strong for UU]
UU (Tier 2)
BL2 [Tier 2 Pokemon too strong for RU]
RU (Tier 3)
BL3 [Tier 3 Pokemon too strong for NU]
NU (Tier 4)
BL4 [...]
PU (Tier 5)
BL5 [Tier 5 Pokemon too strong for T6]
T6
BL6 [...]
T7
BL7 [...]
T8
etc.

In this naming convention, all our "classic" tiers are assigned a sub-designation so people know their usage order, but as of yet un-created tiers switch to a straight "T" naming convention. This convention is useful because it retains Smogon's terms for these tiers across generations but it can also translate to any language because all future tiers will retain a 2-character shorthand (and all banlists a 3-character shorthand). For Doubles we just append the prefix character "D", i.e. DAG, DUbers, DOU etc.

Now, you could use U for Usage instead of T for Tier but at that point I think you're just going to confuse people with whether U6 is comparable to UU. The completely different letter prevents that mental jumbling.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#33
Okay, seriously, we already start numbering BLs; I think we can number tiers:

(Ubers)
OU
(BL)
UU
(BL2)
UU2
(BL3)
UU3
...etc

Not only does it make it a lot easier to remember which BL is the banlist for which tier, it also retains the upper tiers' names, and it makes sense: overused, underused, more underused, even more underused...
 

Deck Knight

RIP (Ultra)Space Dragon
is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
#34
Suggestion: It has been the case in CAP that when we want to finalize an action, we put our choices into the form of a "motion" and conduct a vote on it. We already have several proposals worth considering. I know Su/Mo don't realease until November, but I think it would be prudent to determine how we intend to handle any new tiers that might emerge before that date.

Otherwise we'll just keep bumping this thread for the next few months and keep adding to a multiplicity of suggestions instead of moving forward constructively.
 

erisia

nyoen wnt an popsicel
is a Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#35
That sounds like a good idea. A lot of systems have been changed slightly so this might not be a complete list but here's a WIP slate:

Option 1: No change.
Option 2: Ubers -> OverUsed -> UnderUsed -> RarelyUsed -> NeverUsed -> SeldomUsed -> Undecided or similar.
Option 3: Ubers -> T1 -> BL1 -> T2 -> BL2 -> and so on.
Option 4: Lutra's system or something similar.
Option 5: Ubers -> OU -> UU -> RU -> (NU|SU) -> BU -> CU -> DU -> and so on.
Option 6: Ubers -> OU -> BL -> UU -> BL2 -> RU -> BL3 -> NU -> BL4 -> T5 -> BL5 -> T6 -> BL6 -> and so on.
Option 7: Ubers -> OU -> BL -> UU -> BL2 -> UU2 -> BL3 -> and so on.

I really like Zarel's system because we keep more of Smogon's identity etc while also ensuring we don't run into problems later down the line and keeping the system transparent for new users. So if I was going to vote I'd say Option 7 is my favorite, but Option 3 or Option 6 could also work.
 
#36
Should probably indicate what Lutra's system is. My preference is for the hybrid option where we keep the current nomenclature and append T(x) to it (i.e. UU/T2, PU/T5). Maintains tradition, adds in pragmatism.
 

Acast

Classy af
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
#38
Since I posted my initial suggestion I've found that I don't like the T1, T2, T3 system (Option 3). OU and UU are iconic within smogon, so it would feel wrong to get rid of those.

I'm also not a big fan of Options 2 and 5 because they'll just get way too confusing if we continue to add more tiers. I'm still not sure I understand Lutra's system either. It just seems unnecessarily convoluted.

That basically leaves Options 6 and 7 as well as the hybrid approach Texas Cloverleaf just mentioned. I'm not sure Option 7 (Zarel's suggestion) is ideal, but it's definitely a good compromise between tier individuality and simplicity, so it's one of the best options presented. I feel the same way about Option 6, but if we go that route then we should combine it with the hybrid approach and give each tier a tag to represent its order in the hierarchy (T1-OU, T2-UU, T3-RU, etc.)

TL,DR:
I prefer Option 6 if we include the Tx tags before every tier name.
Option 7 is fine too. I wouldn't be opposed to either.
 
#41
I'd like to point out that the no change posts in the thread have the most likes, which is pretty meaningful since it shows that a lot of the userbase agrees that throwing out so much of our identity just so it's a little easier on new users (who very rarely have problems with it in the first place) is a bad idea.

If this comes down to a vote (which I really don't think it needs to) it should probably just be left to the tier leaders. However I really don't like the idea of a vote at all, since people are going to prefer some of the options but not others for entirely different reasons, and people can more or less agree with each other on most of it but their slight differences would split their vote completely. For example, all I want is for the current tier names to stay the same, but I really don't care what happens past that, so I'd vote "no change", but someone who agrees with me that the current names should stay the same but also thinks the currently non-existent tiers should just be named T6, T7, etc (this option should have PU keeping its current name plz) would end up voting for a different option than me and therefore our almost-completely-in-agreement opinions would be entirely different votes. "Which option does everyone like better" doesn't really fit for this type of thing.

Also option 1 vs option 2 is just something that should be left to the NU and PU tier leaders as we and the playerbases we represent are affected by it far more than anyone else on the site.
 

Deck Knight

RIP (Ultra)Space Dragon
is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
#42
The usual way we handle this is Preference Block Voting, a form of Instant Runoff Voting.

In any case I wasn't suggesting we vote now / immediately, I was saying that it would be a good idea to formalize what we have on the table and develop a plan so that we're not still looking at this thread on November 1st and saying "sooooo... Bunch of new mons are coming in two weeks. Let's discuss re-stabilizing AND renaming our tiers at the same time!"
 

Aberforth

Californium is PoMMan now.
is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#43
No change.

Even if we're not voting for this now, this seems like a solution to a non-problem to me. People understand the current system we have with almost no real difficulty, thanks in large part to the ordering on both here and Showdown with the tiers, making it clear which is first, and the subsequent order of the other tiers. 'FU' as a tier name is probably something that should be rethought by staff and the tier's leaders, but even in the alphabetical naming system, there would eventually be an 'FU'. This we at least we can still change it to Seldom or Barely or anything along those lines. And abandoning the XU system is something that would just cause confusion and would lose part of smogon's identity, OU, UU et al are synonymous with Smogon and abandoning them serves next to no purpose outside of removing the 'difficulty' of understanding the tier ordering system... which can pretty much be done at a glance at showdown's tier list in the select a format page, or by looking at which of them is closest to the top left on smogon's Competitive Discussion section of the forum, as if people are reading a book. Outside of that the gains we get from this are minimal at best (no more having to come up with a letter for an official tier that needs to be introduced) and we would lose a large part of our 'identity', while also creating confusion in the generational transitivity of tiers (does Sumo T4 relate to Oras NU or Oras RU in the was that the Oras tiers related to the BW tiers). It's a whole lot of effort to go through, for something nobody has difficulty with.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#44
Even if we're not voting for this now, this seems like a solution to a non-problem to me. People understand the current system we have with almost no real difficulty
Yesterday I had to explain to someone why they can't use Piloswine in PU if it's listed as a NU mon. They were convinced PU was above NU and they were surprised when I explained PU is the lowest usage-based tier.
 
#45
Regardless of whether or not we add the T1, T2, etc. we should 100% keep the uu/ru/nu names. They are an important part of Smogon's identity and many people, myself included, would be sad to see them replaced by mere digits.

Also if BLs are confusing then maybe do something like "BLOU" or "BL (OU)". If you go with the latter option then at least have "BLOU" as a functioning option in commands like "/ds water type, BLOU".
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#46
Aberforth, I am happy for you that you and your friends have been on Smogon long enough to understand the tier naming system. But this isn't about you. You and your friends will understand the tier naming system no matter what it is.

This is about newcomers. This is about that the Help room shouldn't have to answer the same questions over and over. This is about how there should never have been a tier below "NeverUsed" in the first place.

My system keeps Ubers, OU, and UU, the tiers that have the most name recognition, and numbers the lower tiers (which we already do with BLs anyway, so this just makes it consistent). My system keeps more of the old system than any other system, and only changes the confusing parts.
 

Aberforth

Californium is PoMMan now.
is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#47


That is self explanatory, not just to my friends and myself, but to most newer people too. Ru is below UU, Nu below that, Pu below that. And if the help room is receiving these questions on a very regular basis, I would question why that isn't a part of an FAQ or similar command (/tiers is not currently adequate imo, the link to the smogon page covering the tiers doesn't even mention PU and the home page does not contain a summary for the tiers and their order). If the Never part of Neverused is that confusing, perhaps it could be changed to something not quite as absolute (Negligently Used? Closest thing I can think of that also starts with N) that retains the same letter. People also dont always understand some of the commands on PS (someone has just asked how to compare stats), and the nature of the Help room says that by its nature it will be answering the same questions over and over, cause people will have similar problems to other people. If you dont want the help room answering the same questions over and over, I wonder what you want the help room to do. If you specifically want this question to not be asked repeatedly, a) that's holding it to a higher standard than the other questions the help room will receive regularly and b) steps should be taken to make that so the question is answered easier (ie: adding an explanation to the FAQ thread, adding details to the /tiers page on smogon), not overhauling the tier naming policy.
 
#48
One or two people aren't all new users. There's always going to be people who don't understand something, and that doesn't mean we always have to undergo huge changes just to cater to them. Our current tier naming system is no more confusing than some game mechanics; if you're trying to get into something and aren't prepared to not just understand everything without a bit of explanation first then I'm not sure what to tell you.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
RU Co-Leader
#49
1P -> 1U -> 2P -> 2U -> 3P -> 3U -> and so on (expandable lettering).
I understand you are heavily involved on PokemonPerfect, but I think changing our naming system to match their naming system would be granting far to much deference to a website which doesn't have nearly the same clout for the current generation as smogon. Additionally this is just the Ubers -> T1 -> BL -> T2 -> BL2 -> T3 etc. with "Usage" instead of "Tier" and I literally have no clue in place of "Ban List" and is in my opinion completely outclassed by the latter format.

out of:
Option 1: No change.
Option 2: Ubers -> OverUsed -> UnderUsed -> RarelyUsed -> NeverUsed -> SeldomUsed -> Undecided or similar.
Option 3: Ubers -> T1 -> BL1 -> T2 -> BL2 -> and so on.
Option 4: Lutra's system or something similar.
Option 5: Ubers -> OU -> UU -> RU -> (NU|SU) -> BU -> CU -> DU -> and so on.
Option 6: Ubers -> OU -> BL -> UU -> BL2 -> RU -> BL3 -> NU -> BL4 -> T5 -> BL5 -> T6 -> BL6 -> and so on.
Option 7: Ubers -> OU -> BL -> UU -> BL2 -> UU2 -> BL3 -> and so on.
I think option 6 is the best (with T5 either being T5 or PU, up to them), options 1-3 and 5 would also be fine with me, I don't like option 4 cause it is a worse option 3, and option 7 is basically a worse option 3 as well.

If I were gonna IRV this it would be 6, 1 ~ 3, 2, 5, 7, 4.
 
Last edited:
#50
I like option 6 as well because it allow us to keep the traditional OU/UU/RU/NU names while also providing a generic name for tiers below NU. However, I do think it's a little odd for the "T" tiers to suddenly start at 5. Technically it makes sense, but it looks odd nonetheless. Perhaps we could come up with an overarching tag for tiers below NU and then start sequencing from there? For example, you could use "L" for "Leftover" and have NU -> BL4 -> L1 -> BL5 -> L2 etc. It might look a little weird that the "BL" and "L" numbers are different, but you already have a similar problem with the current version of option 6 where BL4 is actually the banlist for T5 and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.