1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Tiering Direction and Changes for XY (read post 24 if you posted recently)

Discussion in 'BW LC' started by blarajan, Aug 18, 2013.

  1. blarajan

    blarajan holla ladies #£14000 #bling #sparkle #bitchesonmydick
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,772
    Hi, I'm blarajan, and I'm going to be the Little Cup tier leader for XY. I'm technically the tier leader for right now, but as many of you know, we are basically done with Little Cup for BW, with no more changes taking place. I recognize that the current tier is stale because it's been the same for so long, but I think the fact that we have so many players still playing that tier is a testament to how fun Little Cup is to many people. However, I do recognize the need for spicing it up, so as of now I am basically allowing all forum projects. While I still want you to ask me (or iss) before posting something, the chances are I will say yes. If you think this project will help you have fun with Little Cup, then it's likely worth posting, as that's the ultimate goal of contributing to Smogon and Little Cup in general--to have fun.

    That being said, I know individuals have had problems with Little Cup across the years. I myself am only a recent player of the tier, starting Little Cup after the Misdreavus, Meditite, Murkrow, and Gligar ban of BW1. Since I've been playing, and really since Little Cup became an official tier, it's faced a lot of criticism just for existing by many Smogon users, badgeholders and moderators included. I can't really understand why--we have a fun tier with a good bunch of users that love it. However, even these people...I want your opinions in this thread. Don't get me wrong, if I get any "Little Cup sucks" or "just remove Little Cup for XY" or "I hate Little Cup it's stupid" I will delete your post and infract you without question, badgeholder or not. Administrator Joim has agreed to help me moderate individuals who I cannot infract (mods+). What I do want to see in this thread is your overall view of Little Cup: what you enjoy, what you didn't, what you think we can improve on, how you think we can improve, the works. I want Little Cup to be the best it can be for XY.

    I'm making this thread because I honestly don't know what I'm doing. I have some ideas, but ultimately the success of the tier rests on the players in it. Little Cup will improve based on what the players want. I will do my best to respond to each post in this thread, either via IRC or through the forums (private messages, this thread). I want to hear what everyone thinks and what we can do for XY. To start the thread off, I will share my top secret plan for the XY suspect process. Not all of the kinks have been ironed out, but...

    I plan on bringing back suspect testing. However, I plan to do so in a bit of a weird way. Considering the player base (if this was offensive, I apologize as it was unintentional), it would be incredibly easy to make Little Cup requirements for voting. We would have every Dick and Jane voting and I personally don't think that's the best for a tier like Little Cup. Instead, my idea is to set up periodically a suspect round in which individuals get a particular ladder ranking...and then pick the Suspects. After voters identify, they would be able to pick what they believe should be suspected (probably up to 3, most votes gets suspected) and then we make a suspect thread about it. I believe I'll still keep a Council...a standard Council with some particularly high ladderers + adamant posters / IRCers getting to vote each round. I don't know how this would be regarding TC, but here is why I want to run it like this. I think the players should vote on and pick the suspects because ultimately it is what they believe is worth looking at due to their experience with the ladder. If a large group of people think a Pokemon or whatever is worth looking into, it likely is. However, I still think a suspect Council + particular special voters of a particular round are the best way to go in terms of voting, as our tier is kind of small, subject to bias, and subject to troll votes and bad ladderers. In summation: voters pick the suspects, council votes on the chosen suspect.

    My other idea is to unban fucking everything except for Scyther, Sneasel, maaaaaaybe Tangela, Moody, SonicBoom, and Dragon Rage. This is subject to change according to what we get from XY but...this is probably going to happen.

    Those are the things that I want to do. I'm just one person. I really want everyone who plays Little Cup actively, or even occasionally, or never at all (for specific reasons, not a random hatred) to post in this thread to help me out for XY. I want ideas, complaints, concerns, encouragements, anything to help me make XY Little Cup the best it can be. I may not be all that active now, but that's just because there's really nothing to do. I should be back full storm for XY, though I'll be a sophomore in college and often just busy or hanging out with friends. I'll be on IRC as much as I can, and I should be easily approachable. I'm on many channels, but I would rather you join #littlecup if you have to talk to me.

    Thank you for reading this thread. I look forward to hearing the ideas presented and discussing them with each and every poster.
    AstralFire, Celever, Furai and 8 others like this.
  2. apt-get

    apt-get 笑っている 今が愛おしくて ひとりじゃないと思った
    is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    lc sucks

    jk (open)
    I like the idea of unbanning everything a lot. Having joined in this current state of the metagame, I couldn't see any of the bans, nor know about the broken-ness of the banned deucers: we don't know how the new XY threats will be, too, so maybe our previous bans will find a state in the meta. It helps newcomers know what's broken about bans ("why is snesel ban?????") and allow older users to re-discover the thrill of a new meta.

    Also, I like the idea of users voting for the pokémon to suspect to give the council a choice, although some users probably won't appreciate not being able to vote.
  3. tennisace

    tennisace another eggnog, please
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Pokemon Researcheris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
    Social Media Chief

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,111
    I agree 100% with the sentiment to unban everything except Scyther / Sneasel / Moody / Fixed Damage Moves (if there are more in XY). I'm on the fence about Tangela because we still don't know what Gen 6 will bring (but if Vulpix is gonna be unbanned then Tangela's future looks pretty bleak unless something gets Drizzle.

    I've always said that at the start of a generation, people should go in with an open mind in regards to suspects. Mechanics have changed every generation, threats have gotten more/less powerful, and the game unbalances and rebalances itself on its own accord. By pre-emptively banning Pokemon that used to be broken, we ignore the possibility that a fun, balanced metagame could be achieved with extremely few bans. If, in the process, we find out that old suspects are still just as bad or worse than previous generations, then the suspect process you detailed is a fine way to deal with them. There is nothing to lose with having a mostly clean slate to start XY, and a lot to gain.

    edit: FREE YANMA; ENSLAVE ROTOM
    AstralFire and Pocket like this.
  4. Vileman

    Vileman

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    582
    I think that before saying that sneasel n co shouldn't be banned, we should see what XY brings us. If we get lucky and bulky LC pokes appear, maybe they wont be broken! Altho im in favor to autobanning fixed damage moves and moody.
    OH also, i don't like the idea of sun coming back to LC *too* much, but as i said, decisions shouldn't be made before we know what we are getting.
    Also thanks goodness I really liked the idea of a council, as the ladder can be climbed up not by anyone but by a lot of people, and there have been times when people just didn't liked a poke so they banned it.
    LC rules btw haters suck
  5. GlassGlaceon

    GlassGlaceon Immerse me in the wonder of Your love...
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    671
    Free scyther, that is all. but along with free the scythers campaign, I like all the ideas you stated above and I'm looking forward to gen 6 :]
  6. dcae

    dcae naughty list

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,169
    K so I've been thinking about LC in XY a lot in recent times, especially regarding the staging of suspect tests. I completely agree with your sentiments about LC as said about in the beginning of your post. Dealing with suspects has been a concern of mine, seeing as most reqs are attained by people who do not even play the metagame normally. The system you have outlined is not one I had thought of before, but it sounds quite interesting.

    If I gathered correctly, you intend for suspect voters to select the suspects and then have a elected council vote on them
    This sounds like a good idea to implement in order to have the people selecting being all players that are dedicated to LC and not just hop on to get TC or something like that. However, I don't see exactly how players voting on what to suspecr does that the council does not either. The council will generally end up considering suapecting things that have been brought forth by intelligent posters in tthe np: thread or on IRC, ehoch is almost the same process, just without laddering. Since this is still not sure in correspondence with the TC badge, the only thing lacking for these voters would be being able to get another vote en roite for t e badge. HOwever, since this is a different type of vote than ever before, it might apply differently. idk. Overall, I like the idea of testing everything, because as tennisace said, one must keep an open mind to anything when a new gen xomes around.er to have the people selecr ing
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2013
  7. Pocket

    Pocket Apo, the astronaut's best friend >:3
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,564
    The major issue I find in your "qualified players select suspect; council votes on suspect," is that there's no incentive for the qualified players to play in the first place - people play to vote, not to pick a suspect, which probably wont even count towards tiering contributor. I am aware that some of these qualified players may end up in the council, but it's a letdown for the rest of them who cannot be bothered to discuss about the suspects in the metagame. LC has major issues with activity, and this proposition would not help. I do agree that there needs a way to account for "troll votes," without prohibiting qualified non-council players from voting. Consider weighted votes - noncouncil members count for 0.5 votes, while council members count for 1 vote. Even if non-council members' votes count for less, it's better than not voting at all (and it will count towards TC)
  8. kingmidas

    kingmidas

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    999
    The major issue with your idea behind your dislike for qualified players select suspect is wrong. If you have ever been around the IRC the majority of the LC players there are the best of the best and they all generously contribute because they care about LC because they have played it for so long not helping it is just not something they would do. Also LC doesn't have major activity issues, two months ago most of the top players stopped laddering but we have had more matches then ever before on the ladder.
  9. Rowan

    Rowan not a professor
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,645
    Pocket, whilst qualified players will not have much incentive to ladder, this will get rid of the people that don't actually care about the tier and only care about getting a TC badge from a tier with an easy ladder due to a small player base. The people that do ladder for reqs will be the ones that actually give a damn about the LC tier and if they do make consistent efforts to ladder and have an influence in the LC tier then they will probably be considered for a place on the council or a CC badge if their forum posts are strong. Personally, I don't think it's right that any old person will be able to get a TC badge by abusing LCs low playerbase.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2013
    Goddess Briyella likes this.
  10. blarajan

    blarajan holla ladies #£14000 #bling #sparkle #bitchesonmydick
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,772
    For the record, I am working out a way for the suspect vote to influence Tiering Contributor. Maybe a half vote each, I'm not sure. The point is for this method to provide an incentive to ladder while ensuring that those who get to vote on bans be assuredly qualified. If it takes some pixels to get people to take this seriously, then I will work it out, don't worry. Thank you for your concern Pocket. Regarding your last post, I will say that the qualified voters will be selected by myself and iss (only person I'm saying for sure is on the council...I might just oversee and not vote). As such, they will be competent enough to make a full vote. Probably 7 council members and 4 rotating per vote....I like that, but am unsure as everything is fuzzy.

    As for future posts, I really do appreciate the feedback for the ideas I have presented, and any comments or suggestions will be appreciated. However, we haven't had any posts giving me ideas or comments on Little Cup thus far, and opinions on the tier or potential changes. Please comment on my above propositions, but what I'm most interested in is advice and opinions on other parts for the future.
  11. Delver

    Delver I got the runs like Jagger

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    219
    I think unbanning everything is sort of a necessity entering a new metagame. *Personally*, because people have touched on it, I think unbanning scyther/sneasle and friends is a waste of time. 1 of two things will happen. X/Y's new threats still wont be able to beat them because they're way too fucking strong between stabs speed and power and occasionally bulk and we waste an entire suspect round saying "yeah this was still a stupid idea". OR X/Y will give us a handful of new threats that can handle them, and we're right back where we are now, with may 15-20 *actually* viable pokemon and everything else being overshadowed or straight up outclassed. So going in, i think we should leave Scyther and friends banned, leave berry juice banned, and leave sonicbooms banned.

    As far as whats wrong / what I didn't like, and I think I speak for a lot of people who've stopped playing, this meta is boring shitless. As mentioned before theres only a handful of viable pokemon and the problem stems from the fact that none of them are inherantly "broken" because they're checked by that same handful of not inherantly broken mons. In otherwords, sure we *CAN* use other pokemon to occasional-moderate success but why the fuck bother when we can be 400x more consistent by slapping a scarfcrow in place of your guts scarf'd taillow, and 50% more durable by replacing mankey with mienfoo? To me, this is an example of overcentralization gone wrong. Obviously, its impossible to have a metagame without centralization, that is of course the definition of a metagame, "Mon A is being used a lot, but Mon B beats it so it rises in usage while mon A falls in usage, which prompts more people to sub Mon A with Mon C because it fills a similiar roll while gettin around Mon B easier," and so on. Our problem right now is that this loop is too small "Mienfoo rising in usage? More Missy. Missy rising in usage? Moar krow. Krow rising in usage? More snover. Snover rising in usage? more mienfoo". Ultimately, im unsure how much of this is truly within our hands,as a lot of what makes the to teir mons in LC top teir is sheer stats advantages, ponyta (though not top teir) is a great example of this. Why bother with any of the other mono fires when Ponyta has like 100+ BST over the next highest, a similiar if not better move pool than most of them, hits a 19 speed teir, is fairly strong on both fronts and decently bulky to boot. But this is something I would like to avoid for future metas. I know this isnt the topic to discuss it, but you cant seriously say you can find a reason not to just slap on a murkrow because it will ALWAYS make your team better. Keeping mons like that out of the standard LC metagame, i think, would keep it more fresh and fun.
  12. fatty

    fatty
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    860
    although i haven't been all too active as of late in regards to lc, i feel as though my experience at the beginning of bw lc grants me valuable insight into what might be able to help us contruct an even better metagame / playing experience during xy. i really was incredibly fond of early bw lc, but there were some things that eventually drove me to be slightly uninterested with the tier as a whole. first of all, i feel as though the early stages of the banning process were a bit unorganized and rushed. i dont feel as the lc community as a whole had enough time to fully take in the new toys and mechanics that bw had bestowed upon us, and the aftermath culminated in a lot of hurried initial bans that eventually were undone and, in some cases, redone. another issue i and i'm sure many others have noticed is how stale the metagame has become. this could possibly be a branch off of the ban happy attitude a lot of us had in the early workings of bw lc, but i see a larger problem at hand. littlecup has been notorious for overcentralization of a few specific pokemon, from my experience ranging back to dpp lc as well. misdreavus, murkrow, and mienfoo all have a total usage percentage north of 27%, and correct me if i'm wrong but that is still a significant drop from earlier stages where mienfoo and misdreavus threatened / reached 40%. when looking at other tiers, the average usage percentage of top tier pokemon is around 18-20%, which i feel is the perfect balance for an ideal metagame. now, i'm not necessarily saying that centralization is bad, and i'm sure many would argue that it shouldn't even be in the conversation when talking about whether something is ban worthy or not, but i do think we need to figure out when enough is enough. we all know that the centralization of top tier mons in lc has been the main cause of staleness, and we know exactly which pokemon are the culprits, yet we haven't done anything about it. this is something that is going to need to change for xy. i feel as though we are focusing too much on whether a pokemon is "broken" or not, a definition which is unclear anyways, and not enough on creating a balanced, enjoyable metagame. in order to create such a metagame for xy, i think we first need to identify what we want out of our metagame, which is to say we need a good definition of what an ideal metagame is. from there we can form exact parameters for what it would take for a pokemon to be broken within that metagame and work off of that. in my humble opinion, i don't usually factor centralization into my definition of broken, but in order to make xy littlecup as enjoyable as possible for everyone i strongly encourage us to take a stronger stance against it. in the end i have hope that it is the best way to keep xy lc from being stale and it is the only way we are going to be able to maintain the entire reason we play this game: to have fun.

    basically this is what i'm proposing for xy...
    • be more patient in the initial banning process to allow for a greater understanding of the meta and the limitation of hasty bans
    • clearly identify what our "perfect" lc metagame would be, and base our definition of what it means to be broken off of that
    • take a stronger stance against overcentralization
    • focus more on the state of the metagame rather than what mons you may or may not be able to use
    Furai, Dell, cbt and 3 others like this.
  13. dcae

    dcae naughty list

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,169
    Very well written imo by fatty. I apologize if my previous post was incomprehensible, I was typing up on my phone and the mobile replying interface is weird af and screws up shit. Anyways, I'd like to address mostly the staleness of the metagame in this post. As mentioned previously, the quick bans in early BW LC set the stage for the unmoving, centralized metagame we see before us. Our current definition of a balanced metagame has been for everything to be checked by everything, but this has created a tiny cycle with the top Pokemon outclassing any other options. Delver put this best in words, showing how there are very slight metagame fluctuations, such as a small rise in Snover and a small decrease in Sand, but this keeps going around in circles. The three M's are also a huge factor in this overcentralizing factor of the metagame, with all of them having absolutely monstrous 1850 usage stats, which much more accurately represent LC. We can see Misdreavus at almost 50% usage! If this is not centralization and a representative of a stale metagame, I don't know what is. Missy outclasses Gastly 90% of the time, Murkrow outclasses other Flying types 99% of the time, and Mienfoo outclasses other Fighting types 80% of the time. My point is that these three restrict teambuilding greatly, as I cannot remember a great team that did not use one of these three since the last ban, which was Gligar.

    As fatty said, our tiering and banning policies and LC will depend completely on how we assess a "desirable" LC metagame. I'd like to personally set down my own definition of a balanced metagame, one that people will not give up on and actually join (see RU for this). This definition is as follows:

    A balanced LC metagame consists of several features: first, in a balanced LC metagame, the more skilled player wins 90% of the time. This 10% takes into account hax, and would mean that skill is the major defining factor in this supposed metagame. Second, there are no Pokemon in the metagame that have no reliable checks or counters. An example of this would be Scyther or Sneasel in the DPP or BW environment. Another important feature of a balanced metagame is diversity, or anti-centralization. This is a bit more subjective, but a cited example is Misdreavus attaining 46% usage in the 1850 stats, which is centralized and thus unhealthy for the metagame. The final feature of a balanced game is that no Pokemon or playstyle in the metagame should massively restrict teambuilding. Gligar, for example, massively restricted teambuilding because it was so hard to deal with without a dedicated counter or check. This increased the usage of Bronzor a lot, as it was the premier answer to Gligar.

    This definition can be further summed up into the following points:

    If we follow this definition for XY LC tiering processes, we can hopefully attain as close to a balanced LC metagame as we are able to, something that was unfortunately lost in BW LC. Since we have spent so much time wondering whether something is "broken" or not, which is completely subjective, we have allowed the metagame to rapidly stale and get stuck into an eternal cycle of slight fluctuations, which is the key reason so many LC players have stopped playing BW LC recently.

    In order to not encounter this issue in XY, I'd really like us, as the LC community, to set a certain standard for a desirable balanced metagame. Without it, chances are great that we may drop back into this cycle.
    fatty likes this.
  14. Pocket

    Pocket Apo, the astronaut's best friend >:3
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,564
    Imo, it's inevitable for static metagames like LC to run out of gas. Unlike UU, RU, or NU, there are no major additions or drops that would shake the metagame periodically. Ubers faces the same problem as LC - it has a far more centralized metagame with 8 Pokemon above 20% usage and only 35 Pokemon above the 3.4% cutoff (in comparison to LC's 5 Pokemon above 20% usage and 47 Pokemon above the OU cutoff), and Ubers is a rather stale metagame that does not promote activity within the community. No matter how you change the tiering policy, you'll run into this problem, imo.

    The only way to stave off reduced activity is simply to have active and committed team of leaders, who will spice the LC community with group exercises, ladder challenges, competition, and interesting discussion. What LC needs is manpower.

    That said, Delver & co have brought up valid concerns of overcentralization in LC. I only played LC a little bit last year, so forgive me if I'm off the mark, but is there any reason NOT to use Murkrow on an LC team? I don't see any downsides, and I think all teams are worse off without it. Such a dominant Pokemon should be scrutinized in LC's suspect process.
  15. Audiosurfer

    Audiosurfer have one on me
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ok, well you mentioned this thread on IRC a few days back so I figured I'd post w/ my two cents on it. A while ago, I started playing Little Cup for a bit (went and got tutored in B101 and everything) but my main gripe with the tier was that it was very stale. It wasn't so much what Pocket was saying about lack of drops like in other metagames, but just that I felt like the metagame revolved way too much around a handful of mons (mainly how the Big 3 are seen on such a large majority of teams). I can't say whether this is actually true since I have very limited LC experience, but I definitely feel like this is a common perception of the format and is something that can be a turnoff to people. I (and a lot of other people) enjoy being able to try new things and like to feel like there are many viable Pokemon to test out to keep things fresh, so when you hear that a format is incredibly centralized, it makes it difficult to get excited about being involved in it.

    I get that there's a limited pool of Pokemon compared to other metagames so I'm not sure what could really be done about it, but I think it's something that should definitely be considered in policy making and tiering, so yeah I agree w/ Delver. Also seconding Pocket's points regarding good projects, etc. (maybe more tournaments that center around lesser used Pokemon to give people a chance at using them could be a possibility)
  16. Osiris

    Osiris la vie est drôle
    is a Battle Server Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Messages:
    209
    I started playing LC late last year and I loved it at first and I still do love it but every time I'd attempt to make a new team it would end up with me having to remove all the Pokemon I wanted to try out. So I understand exactly why people would want to stop playing. I'd have to agree with Galv. Hopefully we are able to maintain this concept the LC tier will definitely prosper. With that said, I'm excited to see that people are really trying to bring back the fun to LC and can't wait until XY.
    Goddess Briyella likes this.
  17. Cherub Agent

    Cherub Agent how lonely is the night without the howl of the wolf
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,167
    I've never played Little Cup, but I've heard from a lot of people how centralized the tier is around these "big three" (Mienfoo Misdreavus and Murkrow I believe?), which puts some people like me off the tier and means that a lot of Pokemon won't se the light of day. So I was wondering what your stance was on possibly introducing LC UU? Lesser used Pokemon would be able to show what they've got, and things would be moving up and down in LC UU, which would promote participation in the tier as the metagame changes. I know the main reason people shrug LC UU off is simply because of a lack of players, but a new generation always brings tons of people to Smogon, and having two tiers might attract more people and have them stick around.

    edit @ below: thanks, i wasn't aware of that. still, nor harm in trying next gen i guess :P all those juicy new mons
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  18. apt-get

    apt-get 笑っている 今が愛おしくて ひとりじゃないと思った
    is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    LC UU was tried multiple times, imo it's even more centralized than normal LC around Litwick/Zigzagoon/Lickitung/Kabuto/Mankey
  19. blarajan

    blarajan holla ladies #£14000 #bling #sparkle #bitchesonmydick
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,772
    I'm sorry for the lack of activity in me from the most recent posts--I had a long discussion with iss yesterday, and I'll be making a large post later today.

    There have been a ton of good points mentioned so I don't want to leave any of them hanging.
  20. Ray Jay

    Ray Jay "The sky's the limit, okey-dokey!"
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,693
    LC was pretty much all I did on Smogon for my last year or so I was here, and I had a pleasure being in charge of tiering and other big decisions. That said, I have some input for you blara

    The council idea is silly. It's elitist in a community that's not elitist at all. While it's understood that the good players dedicated to the community do and did pretty much across the board make it into the council at some point or another, I still think it an inferior system to new voices every round based on qualifying. Ideally, your would-be "council" members would be able to qualify every round anyways! It just requires a bit more effort and input, something I think LC deserves.

    Many people complained about overcentralization in Little Cup. I think a key for Gen VI LC, if it's too succeed, is that the complaints need to be ignored. Maybe we will have an exceptionally diverse metagame, but maybe it will be something like we have now. The idea of unbanning nigh everything is fantastic, and I fully support it. Due to the massiveness of number of available options, new things we'll get in Gen VI along with the inevitable power creeped mons, and the combination of those two things and a smaller player base, LC needs time to develop! Make rounds longer than we did this time. I encourage everyone involved in Gen VI tiering of LC (which perhaps may include myself) to KEEP AN OPEN MIND. In nigh any strategy game, metagaming is involved, finding things that work well against what's popular. This cycle continues over and over, and that's what makes strategy awesome. This can happen very quickly in a highly populated game, but LITTLE CUP IS NOT THAT. We should expect that it takes longer to find things that "beat" the meta, and this is something I think the current playerbase of LC has largely failed it, but mostly in part due to no incentive to beat the meta with no suspect rounds or voting. The next generation of LC MUST allow for more time for counters to arise in a given period, and I think a big part of overcentralization is comfort. When we reintroduce suspecting in the future, it needs to be done in longer periods than even other tiers to account for our naturally lower player base.

    In terms of involvement, there needs to be some sort of sustainable reason to contribute regularly for the average user. I remember Aerrow did a great job of this as he essentially mentored me into the upper echelons of LC; he saw I was active and wanted to help and basically took me under his wing. People like to feel important for contributing. Blara, I encourage you to do something similar; if you see people with above average potential, let them know! Make people feel important for contributing. Badges aren't the only way to do this, and they shouldn't be: our community should be welcoming to new helpers as it has been in the past and we need to continue the LC family feel (even when now I log onto IRC, 3 or 4 people I knew from LC, sometimes not even that well, pm me just to say hi. it's nice). A big concern for next gen LC will be whether or not we can sustain a good number of people, and I think our openness to new contributors we've had this gen is something we must carry over.

    The last important thing is that we do not ignore the mistakes of this gen. Leadership should always be active. Vader is a hilarious guy, but leadership changes there needed to happen sooner. And again with Aerrow, he was admittedly not in a position he could be leading the tier for some time. It's important we go about leadership this time around differently. It's a bad quality in a leader to lead from afar without much involvement, but it's equally as bad to just say "peace im out" one day at random WITHOUT HAVING TRAINED UP SUITABLE REPLACEMENTS. Dedicate more time to Smogon and those involved with Little Cup. If we do our jobs right, Little Cup will still be here after we leave. So far, we haven't lost LC with any leaders that have left Smogon, which is good. There are definite steps we can take such that even if we have a small playerbase, this doesn't happen. I believe another mistake was the council (people being comfortable with a position where they make tiering decisions is BAD), but that is ultimately up to you.

    Finally, ignore whatever PO does. The LC folks over there, god bless em, are just ignorant when it comes to tiering decisions.
  21. dcae

    dcae naughty list

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,169
    I have to disagree on the matter regarding overcentralization. The problem with LC nowadays is that Pokemon like Mienfoo, Missy, Porygon, Krow just plain outclass other mons. As I stated in my previous post, there is almost zero reason to run Gastly over Missy, Munchlax over Porygon, and Flying types apart from Drifloon over Krow. Foo also outclasses the majority of Fighting types in its respective roles, whether it be pivot, scarf, or LO attacker. This is unhealthy. We've had roughly the same metagame for a year now, as we can see iss still using LC Rising almost unchanged a year after his RMT. Despite the fluctuations, the issue right now is that the major Pokemon are all outclassing any alternate options.

    Regarding the council, I think you bring up some interesting points. I can see where you are coming from definitely. Maybe a better idea would be something along the lines that NU did for the Jynx vote? Posts + laddering for 100 battles, and it was up to the discretion of the mods to pick who was most qualified to vote from that. That definitely narrowed down the voters to those who actually play NU. My problem with reqs, such as RU's recent one, is that so many people vote without even actually playing the tier. They either vote for the sake of voting or vote for TC. This kind of voting isn't what we should be looking for, as I feel to capture a solid metagame, we need those who actually play that metagame consistently weighing in on the tiering decisions.

    Also, about LC UU, I have been advocating the creation of that for a couple months now, but the key problem is lack of players, and that is what is holding it back from being official. The problem with LC UU atm are two mons, from the many battles I've had in the tier: Omanyte and Lickitung. I won't go further in depth on it since the thread isn't about that, but honestly LC UU has a much wider range of competitive mons, and esp if those two would be banned.
  22. Osiris

    Osiris la vie est drôle
    is a Battle Server Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Messages:
    209
    I absolutely agree when it comes to the unhealthiness and lack of uniqueness when it comes to LC now. It's terrible. I also have been using the same team for a long while now and it grows tiring. As far as the council goes we should have reqs that can narrow it down to LC lovers/players.

    The only thing I disagree on is an LC UU. I feel that LC as a whole is already a tiny community. To break that down even further could prove to be tragic. I do however see that it could provide a wider range of competitive Pokemon but Gen VI could turn many things around so hopefully we won't have to result to doing that..
  23. cxinlee

    cxinlee

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    318
    Regarding the current overcentralisation in LC, I agree that many mons are less used simply because they are outclassed, for eg. Missy and gastly. All i can suggest is that we just unban everything except sneasel, scyther, Dragon Rage, Sonic Boom, and then test everything.

    For me LC UU is a legit way to avoid the overcentralisation since if a mon is used too much, it becomes OU and cannot be used, eliminating any overcentralisation.

    im going to disagree and say that it isn't as overcentralized than normal LC. There are a lot more viable mons that can function well since the mons that outclass them are gone. Aron, Mantyke, Cottonee, Solosis, Purrloin, Shellos and many others are viable too.
    Nozzle likes this.
  24. blarajan

    blarajan holla ladies #£14000 #bling #sparkle #bitchesonmydick
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,772
    I would like to thank everybody for the sheer amount of input I've received and the opinions you all have shared. Considering the sheer size of many of these posts, I will not quote them, but will instead tag the user, summarize what I believed their main points were, and address them accordingly. As the main concern for Little Cup out of the above posts is overcentralization, I will leave my comments regarding that last. This is an incredibly long post, so I put each specific response to a person in hide tags so you can easily scroll to the bottom to see the response towards overcentralization if that's your biggest concern. For the sake of further discussion and to maximize the use I get out of this thread, however, I would strongly encourage you reading all of the sections (even if it wasn't a reply to your post). Thank you for your time if you actually do this.

    @Delver

    1) don't bother unbanning scyther / sneasel
    2) overcentralization; some pokemon are just not born equal (addressing at end)
    responses to Delver (open)

    My goal for Little Cup is to give as many Pokemon and things a chance as possible. While I am highly doubting myself excluding Scyther, Sneasel, and, the more I think about it, Tangela from the ban list, I am going into XY with an entirely clean slate. Besides those three mons who are legitimately perfect and broken beyond belief, I am not considering banning anything. I am not even 100% on leaving these banned depending on additions, but chances are they will. Berry Juice is something I've been wanting to see even in BW, and sorry if you feel that way, but it's definitely getting unbanned.

    I have a problem with your concern for Pokemon going up in usage as others do, and decreasing as others don't. That's just called a metagame cycle. Pokemon will increase in usage to address others that increase in usage, and decrease accordingly. It will happen, and I feel like your depiction of the cycles in Little Cup currently is very unfair. That being said, the rest of your post addresses centralization, and I will address this at the end.

    @fatty

    1) original banning process was rushed
    2) stale, overly centralized metagame (addressing at end)
    3) focus on creating a perfect metagame, and on the state of the metagame (ie, its fun factor) as opposed to just its ban list
    responses to fatty (open)

    I absolutely agree with you regarding the original banning process of BW. While I was not a part of the LC family at that time, from what I've learned of the process, and from basically everyone involved, it was a rushed time. Snap judgements were made about a tier that we did not even understand based on our perceptions of DPP LC, and we had annoying suspect tests filled with four huge Pokemon, and other irritating processes. I do not want to see a repeat of this in XY LC, and I will not see a repeat of this. It is my personal belief that everyone involved with BW will be more patient with XY, and that our experiences with BW will allow us to handle the inevitable XY power creep. DPP==>BW was a harsh transition, but BW==>XY doesn't have to be and won't be. I feel like we've all gotten smarter as a whole, and will be able to keep our cool even when bogged down by XY additions. I am going to focus on allowing the metagame to stabilize initially, and hopefully successfully manage a suspect process that addresses the tier fairly. My goal is not to suspect more than two Pokemon (or things) at once. No repeat of the Murkrow, Gligar, Misdreavus, Meditite ban, I promise. Point 3...confuses me, a bit. I will address it while addressing Dcae's post.

    @Dcae

    1) overcentralization (addressing at end)
    2) focus on creating a perfect metagame
    responses to Dcae (open)

    Both you and fatty request that we basically attempt to create a perfect metagame. I understand these sentiments and appreciate them, but I really don't think that's in any way possible. Tiering as a whole will always be a subjective process--regardless of how much I or anyone attempts to standardize the suspect process, what gets banned will ultimately be the opinions of the players. Both of you mentioned creating a definition of an ideal metagame and applying it, with dcae even going into a full on plan on how to attain it. I am just going to apologize, as such an ideal will be impossible to even create, let alone implement. I don't think any "blueprint" for a perfect metagame is anything but the opinion of the person creating that blueprint. Dcae I really appreciate the time you put into creating that plan, but I can't imagine myself, or anyone really, following a structured plan like that when tiering. It's just too arbitrary. I'm going to be eyeballing everything--no measuring cups available, unfortunately.

    @Pocket

    1) inevitable running out of gas
    2) more manpower
    responses to Pocket (open)

    Regarding LC eventually running out of gas, I 100% agree with your sentiments and have, along with other LC staff, been racking our brains over this problem for like...over a year in my case, and years for others. It is a problem, and it will happen. My stopgap solution for that was to implement the suspect testing policy that I had. If an individual feels like they can actually pick the Pokemon they believe are broken, I think they would ladder more. The requirement for voting on a suspect would likely be a bit easier than voting to ban or not, and would be more welcoming of players who just want to get involved. I think I am going to do this sort of suspect every 3 months. 3 months gives the metagame time to stabilize after a ban or no ban, and lets people get used to things before working on the next suspects. Likewise, it would fall around the same time as tier shifts, and give the players something to look forward to. I feel bad for Ubers, that doesn't even have that luxury.

    Regarding the need for more manpower, I both agree and disagree. I don't believe the problem with Little Cup comes from a lack of leaders and topic starters. We have a fantastic group of guys that really adore Little Cup to its core, starting discussions, being involved with the tier, being active in IRC, and helping me with policy. The problem is the lack of players that post in those topics, battle in the challenges, and chat on IRC. While I love and know basically all of the main LC guys, a lot of projects just become the same guys posting again and again, and it's kind of disheartening.

    On that note, though, if anyone has any cool project ideas that they feel like would help make LC less stale (the most interesting of which generally involve battles), or want to pitch a project from a different tier's forum that would work well, please don't be afraid to suggest it. I will say that...if you suggest it, iss and I will almost always say yes to a project or thread. We might ask for an idea to be fleshed out, or for it to be posted after some time has passed so it doesn't conflict with another project, but we will basically always say yes. As many have pointed out, we play this game to have fun. If you find it fun to be a leader, post projects, participate in as many projects as you can, or just engage in all around shenanigans, who am I to stop you if you're enjoying yourself? I want the forums as active as possible and the players as happy as possible, so I will hardly ever say no to a project. Just let me know what you want!

    @Audiosurfer @Swirlix @Cherub Agent

    1) overcentralization (will address later)

    @Ray Jay (did you know I love you?)

    1) council is stupid
    2) let metagame settle
    3) provide more incentives to contribute
    4) don't be a shit fuck leader
    5) fk PO
    responses to Ray Jay (open)

    Thank you for the post, for your ideas, and recommendations. I am going to tell you I agree with your latter four points, but disagree with point 1. Since that's the only place we clash, I'll address that afterwards.

    I absolutely agree we need to give time for the metagame to settle. I will not be holding rapid fire suspect rounds. As I responded earlier, I believe I'm going to keep my suspect processes 3 months apart (that's plenty of time for things to settle in my opinion, but the exact details of things could change). I don't know anything exactly right now, but I will do my absolute best to keep things well spaced apart and to hold each suspect test in as fair of a manner I can.

    I do my best to let others know I appreciate their contributions. I absolutely adore the family feel that you get from LC as well, and will try my utmost to maintain it. Whenever I see a new poster in Little Cup who may not be the best of posters, but tries, I generally send them a PM or VM telling them I appreciate their contributions and would really like to see them post more or join IRC (I advertise #littlecup A LOT). I want everyone who contributes to feel as if their posts and ideas are welcome, and welcome them to post projects and ideas (with my approval, but as stated above, it's almost always a yes), even if they are a new contributor or haven't posted in Little Cup before. Badges aside, I want my LC guys to feel as welcome as possible, and do my best for that to happen. I have never given out a non spambot infraction. If I see a post that I consider infraction worthy, or multiple rules broken, I delete the post(s) and PM the user involved, explaining what's wrong with the posts, what I expect or want from posts, resources to improve if I think they are necessary, and advertise #littlecup for them if they need help. I can provide examples of individuals who frequented or contributed more because I did that, but I won't as that would be rude to those involved. I am doing absolutely everything I can to make players feel welcome on the forums and IRC, but it's really difficult to do that when channels that aren't #littlecup publicly bash it at any given opportunity, have multiple trolls join the channel (not recently, but we have a huge ban list) just to troll, and have an overall "Little Cup is inferior to other tiers" vibe all over Smogon. I'm trying my absolute hardest, and if there's anything you think I should do more (everyone reading this), I implore you tell me what it is so I can do it. But I can't do that if people don't want to play Little Cup because they think it's shit because everyone circlejerking on #pokemon says it is. Please keep such opinions private.

    I believe the above shows my dedication for the tier and how I won't just quit. Even if I quit everything else on Smogon, I will see XY LC through in its entirety, I promise. I can't expect LC to prosper if I quit on it, can I? Also I agree--fuck PO. Those niggas banned sandstream! And Clamperl! And Scraggy I'm pretty sure! And they don't even use legal Pokemon--they take level 100 Pokemon and scale them down to level 5. Bullshit!

    RESPONSE TO CONCERN ABOUT COUNCIL

    I personally disagree with the removing of council. I am currently sticking to my guns about the suspect procedure I proposed because it in my opinion includes the players the best while keeping troll or entirely unskilled opinions out of the voting pool. My primary concern is how stereotypically easy the Little Cup ladder is. While a suspect requirement can ensure that an individual has played enough matches to know what's up, it doesn't in any way ensure that an individual that votes actually plays LC or cares for it at all. In early BW, people just shot up the LC ladder for TC votes since it was really easy, not caring for the tier at all or the Pokemon they were voting on. In a tier as small as ours with as many people willing to troll and insult it as there are, I am very apprehensive about allowing any Dick and Joe vote. I know that sounds elitist, and I apologize for it. But, considering the fact that people have on many occasions voted without giving a shit, played LC for 1 day and topped the ladder (FUCK YOU AUGUST), would be willing to get the requirements for TC because it's easy and not give two shits about the tier, be willing to vote to just troll, or what have you, I'm willing to sound slightly elitist. I never once said the council was a permanent conglomeration of people. Members can shift according to differences in activity or if I think someone is more deserving at the time. If I offend you be removing you from the council from a vote or for an extended period of time, I will openly apologize here and now. Ray Jay is right...no one should be content that they are on the council and can vote whenever. Your position on the council is subject to change. I likewise believe that by adding four members from the suspect threads to each vote (which would give you more in regards to TC than just voting on a suspect...probably a half TC vote if you pick a suspect, and another half if you make it and vote on council), I am encouraging further participation and non shallow voters.

    @Dcae @Swirlix @cxinlee

    1) overcentralization (will address later)
    2) LC UU
    responses to Dcae (open)

    LC UU is cool. If any of you want to play it more or discuss it more, join #lcuu on IRC, a channel maintained by players of the metagame that enjoy it. I will likewise accept LC UU projects in the forums, and encourage discussion of the project in #littlecup. While I can sadly and almost assuredly say it will never be official, I can likewise definitely say it's a ton of good fun. If you want to talk about it or make a project about it, just let me know. I might say no to some things about LC UU though unfortunately, considering how even less people play it than LC, but we'll work on it.

    RESPONSE TOWARDS THE OVERCENTRALIZATION PROBLEM AND OVERALL STALENESS

    I know guys, I get it. I've been aware of this issue for ages, as have we all, and the issue is figuring out what to do about it. In my personal opinion, the best way to deal with overcentralization is to have more available, viable options. This is why I am not making any promises or guarantees regarding my stance on banning to reduce overcentralization or something along those lines--we don't know what XY will bring. Everything I can preempt, I am doing so--I'm unbanning almost everything that we have currently banned. This brings more options to the table. We'll get a bunch more Pokemon. That brings more options to the table. We will have new moves, items, and abilities. That brings more options to the table. Previous standards might still excel, but new threats or new possibilities brought about by a new generation and new metagame will likewise be present. I cannot tell you what the tier will look like, but I can tell you more things will be used, more options will be available, and intrinsically, there will be less centralization.

    That being said, I understand the possibility (likely, a high possibility) of their still being centralization issues like that of XY. Considering that, and how much nobody wants to see that again, I will say this. I am not opposed to complex bans for XY. Under two conditions: 1) the complex ban actually solves the problem without being needlessly complicated (think Aldaron's proposal instead of "no Mienfoo + Misdreavus on the same team") and 2) the complex ban provides enough extra available options to merit it. Understand that his is a very subjective criteria--just like everything else, I will be eyeballing here.

    If I was to take my current stance on overcentralization, it would be: hope things are better in XY. That's really all we can do right now. Regarding complaints about BW LC...I would not ban Mienfoo, Misdreavus, or Murkrow from the tier. They may merit a ton of usage, but they are not broken, have a ton of checks, can be played around, etc. The key component is they are not broken. In the same way, I do not think I would ever vote to ban something if it's not broken for LC. In XY, I do not consider the big 3 necessary on a team, and have made teams without them. I do not think a team with Murkrow is always better than a team without it. However, if there comes a Pokemon in XY that is not "broken" but legitimately defines the metagame, then things might get different. I am not promising anything, as considering the metagame itself, our definition of what is broken might change. With the lack of information, I cannot promise anything to the degree that it's desired. But, as said, what I will do is try my absolute fucking hardest to keep as many options available as possible. With more options comes more fun and less centralization.

    Thank you to everyone who read this through to the end...I know it's a big tl;dr. Please continue posting your thoughts and responses to what I have said, or to what others have said previously. There's a lot of reading and writing in this thread, but I need as many opinions as possible, essays or not. Thank you for your time and your continuing input.

    tl;dr: I will keep suspect processes well spaced apart and do my absolute hardest to keep as many options available in XY in order to combat overcentralization. I will do all I can to make people feel welcome and want to contribute by almost always letting projects and threads get posted if people want to post them and by keeping the family feel that Little Cup currently has. I do not think the metagame will be or can be perfect, but we will all try together to get as close as we can. I am still pretty content with my "community votes on suspect, council of 7 + 4 votes on chosen suspect" plan as I think it encompasses exactly what I need from a suspect plan, but obviously I'm not 100% about anything. I likewise desperately beg you keep your LC bashing to yourself, and not do anything that could jeopardize an individual picking up LC for XY (or BW). It's just not fair.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
  25. GlassGlaceon

    GlassGlaceon Immerse me in the wonder of Your love...
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    671
    With the new unbanning will come a lot of new teambuilding options if we go through with that, including a core I've wanted to try out, but they banned one of the pokemon before I started playing LC. but drastically shifting the meta with the unbannings is what I feel we need, taking stupid mienfoo of the top of the charts, who ISN'T as great as everyone claims him to be. (he has the slowking syndrome if you play RU imo) I'm still thinking about what would happen with not per se crappier pokemon (some are though) had a better movepool like nincada with recover and SR, diglett with Stone Edge, drilbur with stone edge, abra with focus blast, ledyba with better everything, murkrow with u-turn pls and thank you or munchlax with head charge (a boy can dream, can't he?) to change the metagame a litl bit. LC is getting overcentralized which is why I've been asking good players to build teams with me around underated/"outclassed" mons, like the frillabite team which is iirc #1 on PS right now that revolves around vullaby as the underrated mon. people just haven't found creative ways to use the mons, some aren't BAD (some are horrible tho) they're just overlooked and underappreciated. I hoped we could go into XY LC with an open mind to new cool movesets and pokes, unless they're flat out terrible. Also scyther would mutilate LC unban it for a day pls <3

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)