"Uncompetitive" and "Overcentralization": What do they really mean?

Woodchuck

Woodchuck

actual cannibal
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I've been linking people to this recently but the main point of this thread was that UNCOMPETITIVE HAS NO MEANING IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
If you want to say "luck-based" say that. The post I made in that thread about Evasion basically sums up my views on this.
Oh and also I wanted to add that there are basically two main goals of tiering and making rules for pokemon:

1. Make the game more fun
Click to expand...
Sub goals would include: making more variety of play possible, trying to avoid staleness in the metagame, etc.

2. Make the better player win more often
Click to expand...
This is the main reason for Evasion and OHKO clause. A competition is one that aims to determine who is better at whatever the competition is centered around. The more often the better player wins, the more 'pure' the competition is. This also arguably would make Pokemon more enjoyable as the better player winning more often means more meaningful suspect tests, more meaningful ladder scores, and more meaningful play in general.
Click to expand...
If you are arguing for a luck-based metagame, then just say that the better player should win more often. Leave it at that.

For people who want to follow the old discussion: (i do not recommend just taking the position of the original OP as I was resoundingly proved wrong, and gladly so...)
In the Suspect thread, a lot of people have been throwing around the words "uncompetitive", and we all know that "overcentralization", for better or worse, has been part of our vocabulary for years.

But what do these terms really mean?
People are arguing against Evasion and allowing Sand Veil to remain in the metagame by stating that it is "uncompetitive".

To my knowledge, our use of the word "uncompetitive" is
Removing a level of competition from the game; taking the game out of the hands of the players and (presumably) making the outcome of the game more reliant on luck/non player factors.
Click to expand...
Sometimes in the discussion it doesn't appear that everyone is agreeing on a single definition of "uncompetitive". While this may not be the right definition, it's important we discuss it so we know what we're talking about.

The same goes for "overcentralization".
Back when the discussions of banning Garchomp for the first time were rampant on Stark, Tangerine posted this thread, hoping to discuss how to define overcentralization. We still haven't really done that.

Tangerine said:
In the end I feel as if everything just boils down to this - that overcentralization is a very arbitrary definition that has the potential to mean everything to absolutely nothing - and the overcentralization is defined based on what people want in the metagame - people who are fine with it and people who want "more variety". This is what I feel as if the argument waters down to - and it's a question that needs to be answered - that "What Makes a Solid Metagame?" - aka "What do you want in your metagame, how much variety is good?"
Click to expand...

As Tangerine said, "Discuss, answer questions, question the points, etc. Make sure you read the post carefully and fully before posting and making your point."

This should be an interesting discussion.

EDIT: Yes, I did read Haunter's sig.

Another edit: People seem to agree with Expeditious on the concept of overcentralization, so here is his post for future reference:
Expeditious said:
Overcentralization: Are you using ______? Do you have something to deal with ______? If the answer to one or both of these is no, can you still win reliably, all else being equal? If you have to use something and/or its counters to win, there is overcentralization. Merely being popular, or even powerful is not overcentralization. Even being common is not overcentralization, as long as it can still be beaten without specific counters.

Whatever definition you use though, it's very important that definition be clearly and objectively defined. Otherwise you just get people dismissing it as "things top players don't like" or otherwise not taking it at all seriously. Subjectivity must be avoided here at all costs.

There will always be those that will insist on dismissing facts as opinions, no matter what you do. But when those people are right, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Along the same lines, whatever definition that is used needs to be used as close to universally as possible. Otherwise you have two people saying the same words and meaning different things, making clear communication impossible.
Click to expand...

Another edit: This is not a Blaziken discussion thread. This will never be a Blaziken discussion thread. THIS is a Blaziken discussion thread.
Thank you.
 
I don't know what there is to discuss. You answered your own question, didn't you?

"competitive pokemon" is an oxymoron. Making it less of an oxymoron has been the goal since the beginning. Although it isn't possible to make it completely skill-based, it is possible to take certain measures (like banning evasion) to make it at least slightly competitive. The problem with this is that it requires an objective viewpoint to decide what is uncompetitive and what isn't, and objectivity is nearly impossible among humans (especially anonymous humans on the internet). But there is no question that evasion is ridiculously uncompetitive.

Overcentralization is bad because it is counterproductive to one of the most enjoyable things about pokemon: teambuilding. Without taking measures to prevent overcentralization, every team would either be forced to use some combination of the same seven or eight pokemon after the metagame evolves fully, or lose every game they play (see RSE). I personally don't particularly enjoy pokemon if i'm forced to use pokemon i don't particularly enjoy using, and i'd imagine many others would feel the same way.
 
"Over-centralization" is used to describe the phenomenon where an element of a competitive environment causes most, if not all, discussion of the environment itself boil down to discussion of said element.

In example: Pre-ban Garchomp last Gen.

All team discussion would have to take Garchomp into consideration because of how strong he was. Beyond that, if someone used Garchomp, a team would have to be built specifically to take him down. This is called over-centralization. "Centralization" is okay because that's what the OU environment is all about. Specific pokemon centralize the playing field because they're strong, but not overly strong enough to over-centralize the environment.

Am I understanding the OP or did I miss the mark?
 
Green Mage said:
I don't know what there is to discuss. You answered your own question, didn't you?

"competitive pokemon" is an oxymoron. Making it less of an oxymoron has been the goal since the beginning. Although it isn't possible to make it completely skill-based, it is possible to take certain measures (like banning evasion) to make it at least slightly competitive. The problem with this is that it requires an objective viewpoint to decide what is uncompetitive and what isn't, and objectivity is nearly impossible among humans (especially anonymous humans on the internet). But there is no question that evasion is ridiculously uncompetitive.

Overcentralization is bad because it is counterproductive to one of the most enjoyable things about pokemon: teambuilding. Without taking measures to prevent overcentralization, every team would either be forced to use some combination of the same seven or eight pokemon after the metagame evolves fully, or lose every game they play (see RSE). I personally don't particularly enjoy pokemon if i'm forced to use pokemon i don't particularly enjoy using, and i'd imagine many others would feel the same way.
Click to expand...
The idea is to discuss exactly what "overcentralization" and "uncompetitive" means.
Yes, discussing what is uncompetitive does have a level of subjectivity, but the point is to get an idea of what the consensus in the community is. By discussing these terms we can make discussions in Suspect threads easier, and answer the far more important question of what we want out of our metagame.
 
Skorpius47 said:
"Over-centralization" is used to describe the phenomenon where an element of a competitive environment causes most, if not all, discussion of the environment itself boil down to discussion of said element.

In example: Pre-ban Garchomp last Gen.

All team discussion would have to take Garchomp into consideration because of how strong he was. Beyond that, if someone used Garchomp, a team would have to be built specifically to take him down. This is called over-centralization. "Centralization" is okay because that's what the OU environment is all about. Specific pokemon centralize the playing field because they're strong, but not overly strong enough to over-centralize the environment.

Am I understanding the OP or did I miss the mark?
Click to expand...

but where do we draw the line? Scizor for example is centralising, and so are Reuniclus and Conkeldurr, and they have hard counters that every team must pack or die and they're certainly not uber.
 
min min said:
but where do we draw the line? Scizor for example is centralising, and so are Reuniclus and Conkeldurr, and they have hard counters that every team must pack or die and they're certainly not uber.
Click to expand...

Both Reuniclus and Conkeldurr share the same downside, which is both are slow and bulky, and rarely strike first, making it easier to kill them before they land a hit.

Garchomp broke the game by being a strong, bulky and fast pokemon. Now it's standard checks handle many other threats too, so it isn't just garchomp.

Blaziken, which was recently banned, was also a strong, bulky in sun, and obscenely fast pokemon.

The biggest balancing force this gen has to be team preview. Without it, a surprize garchomp or conkeldurr would be Uber.

Uncompetitive is mostly being thrown around when trying to ban sand veil or agility moves. As someone who plays mostly random wifi (sleep is broken.... evasion is not) I find the whole thing a bit silly.

Even dreaded moves such as double just buy you a few more turns, and can help stall. Used on frail pokemon they'll cost more games than they win.
 
A question I would like to ask is this:

Why is it that sometimes something (be it a Pokemon, a move or an ability) that is claimed to be overcentralizing does not have a high rank in the usage ratings? Shouldn't there be a correlation?
 
zyrefredric said:
A question I would like to ask is this:

Why is it that sometimes something (be it a Pokemon, a move or an ability) that is claimed to be overcentralizing does not have a high rank in the usage ratings? Shouldn't there be a correlation?
Click to expand...
Just saying, I read that in Brock's voice.

But not necessarily, because if something is overcentralising then either a) everyone uses it or b) everyone uses a counter to it. Okay maybe not everyone, but the majority. So even though Reuniclus may be overcentralising (I'm not too sure about this) the effect of that is not only high Reuniclus usage but high usage of stuff that counters it.
 
min min said:
but where do we draw the line? Scizor for example is centralising, and so are Reuniclus and Conkeldurr, and they have hard counters that every team must pack or die and they're certainly not uber.
Click to expand...

Min Min's hit the nail on the head here. "Overcentralisation" is what happened with Garchomp pre-ban in Gen4, where every team wasn't just designed to beat Garchomp, but was also running Garchomp itself or losing. In this gen, there is a lot of centralisation (see: Tyranitar, Reuniclus, Ferrothorn) but no overcentralisation. Centralisation is where you have to keep a threat in mind when building a team. Overcentralisation is where every team both runs and looks to counter that threat and fails completely if it doesn't do both.
 
Yoshiken said:
Min Min's hit the nail on the head here. "Overcentralisation" is what happened with Garchomp pre-ban in Gen4, where every team wasn't just designed to beat Garchomp, but was also running Garchomp itself or losing. In this gen, there is a lot of centralisation (see: Tyranitar, Reuniclus, Ferrothorn) but no overcentralisation. Centralisation is where you have to keep a threat in mind when building a team. Overcentralisation is where every team both runs and looks to counter that threat and fails completely if it doesn't do both.
Click to expand...
Its probably much easier to explain if we looked at what would happen if, say, Arceus was dropped down to OU. Quite obviously everyone would use it, and if you didn't have a counter to it then you lose.
 
Yoshiken said:
Min Min's hit the nail on the head here. "Overcentralisation" is what happened with Garchomp pre-ban in Gen4, where every team wasn't just designed to beat Garchomp, but was also running Garchomp itself or losing. In this gen, there is a lot of centralisation (see: Tyranitar, Reuniclus, Ferrothorn) but no overcentralisation. Centralisation is where you have to keep a threat in mind when building a team. Overcentralisation is where every team both runs and looks to counter that threat and fails completely if it doesn't do both.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Overcentralization is when in order for a team to be competitively successful, it must run a specific Pokemon and severely limit the rest of the team in countering that same Pokemon. Anything less is not overcentralization, and we are nowhere close to that happening with any Pokemon in Gen 5.

A key part of this is that it must be one specific Pokemon. A metagame cannot be overcentralized around two Pokemon, if being concerned with just one of them is enough. This is why weather wars will never be overcentralizing.
 
no weather *is* over-centralizing.

you have to severely gimp your team if you don't run a weather yourself or run a weather yourself to keep weather sweepers in check if not you lose because weather teams have a massive advantage over non weather teams.

this is why permanent weather is actually game-breaking.

it turns the game from just KO 6 of your mons to win to ko the other guys weather starter so you win the weather war so you sweep his other 5 unopposed.
 
AJC said:
no weather *is* over-centralizing.

you have to severely gimp your team if you don't run a weather yourself or run a weather yourself to keep weather sweepers in check if not you lose because weather teams have a massive advantage over non weather teams.
Click to expand...

Just gonna casually mention that I've been running a team containing Machamp/Garchomp/Starmie/Lucario lately, and it's been shredding things. Weather isn't a threat to the team outside of a single Pokemon, and I wouldn't call that overcentralising at all - that one Pokemon has obvious counters, I'm just not running them. (Well, I'm trying to adapt my team to contain them now, but still.)

Either way, there are a variety of weathers. Weather can't be overcentralising when there are 4 different types - it can be centralisation, but not OVERcentralisation.
 
AJC said:
no weather *is* over-centralizing.

you have to severely gimp your team if you don't run a weather yourself or run a weather yourself to keep weather sweepers in check if not you lose because weather teams have a massive advantage over non weather teams.

this is why permanent weather is actually game-breaking.

it turns the game from just KO 6 of your mons to win to ko the other guys weather starter so you win the weather war so you sweep his other 5 unopposed.
Click to expand...
You didn't even read my post, did you?

None of that is in any way relevant to whether or not something is overcentralizing.
 
Luck is not uncompetitive. There are many games that include significant to massive luck elements played at a high level. Competitiveness is the attitude of players (affected by rewards), NOT the game itself.

The "better" player does not always win. This is not a bad thing, it is part of the game. Skill shows over many matches, not a few. And skill includes luck management.
 
From the competitive link: "5. likely to better competition"

This is what people are referring to specifically when luck factors are referred to as uncompetitive. (Not to say I agree - I agree with you in that skill includes factoring in and accounting for a level of luck)
 
Alright, as a pro lurker in this society and studying the society rather than the pokemans (I play too, just not as high leveled), I think I can give some input on this matter.
Overcentralization (not even a word in the dictionary) is when people can not come up with counters for something. An example of this is Aldaron's proposal. Even before the starting of aldaron's, Sand had higher usage stats then Rain; with Ferrothorn being the premier used pokemon as being very well usable on both. Even though Sand had higher usage stats, Rain was being found overcentralizing, whereas the top 6 most used pokemon now (Ttar, Latios, Ferro, Scizor, Garchomp, Gliscor, IIRC) all fit quite well on a sandstorm team.
So, overcentralization in the community is when something gets used a lot and the most liked playstyle does not have an effective way to counter it.

Uncompetitive is when something spoils the fun in game, because of the prevalence of hax around it. Evasion moves are perfectly competitive, but they frustrate the opponent a lot, and in cases of luck by one player they can freely sweep your team. Evasion + stall is totally sick; how on earth are you going to bring down a clefable with +6 in Defense, SpDef AND evasion? The only answer here is Haze; clear smog will most likely miss (IIRC it has only 100 acc). Because of this, it's overcentralizing too; Either you run Haze, or you run Evasion boosting moves, or you need helluva lot of hax to win.
 
Clear Smog never misses, but it can't remove the boosts of Steels. No reason why Roar would ever miss, ever.

Evasion boosting simply forces you to run some random crap with Aura Sphere(limited distribution), or one of those shitty 60 BP moves, or Lolwut Throw. Simply put, you are forced to use a shitty move, or a certain Pokemon(Lucario, Mienshao, easily owned by priority/Togekiss, pathetic in the first place and better off for parahaxing)

Evasion sucks, and when stalls like Substitute, Protect and Double Team exists AND it's available to everyone and their mom who can learn TMs(aside from Regigigas who cannot learn Protect, the sucker), you know shit can happen.
 
Uncompetitive - what makes them lose.

Overcentralization - what makes them lose constantly.

Seriously through, it's just an extremely subjetive term to help strenghten arguments against something that doesn't show clear sights of brokeness. They shouldn't be considered when banning something.
If we'd apply those to RBY, Tauros and Alakazam would be uber since they're in every single team and luck plays around those two so much that isn't even funny.

If something is truly broken it doesn't even need those two words - it just rapes stuff like Salamence in DPPt.
 
Overcentralization is nothing. There is no such thing.

Uncompetitive is simply random chance... usually. Except Pokémon is not a normal competitive game, it is a game with large elements of probability management. Thus random chance is a very large part of the game, and removing it makes the game into something that isn't Pokémon.
Thus there isn't any real definition of "uncompetitive" within Pokémon. Ubers in RBY without species clause - teams of 6 Mewtwo, maybe the odd team having Mew - can be competitive, even though 2 Pokémon would likely make up 75+% of the usage, probably as high as 90%. LC and Ubers, despite being highly centralized, are very much competitive. Thus, the imaginary meaning of overcentralization as being a synonym for uncompetitiveness is quite silly. If you don't want to play the metagame because there are elements you don't like, go play something else. There's no shortage of competitive games.
 
When it comes to the term "uncompetitive," I have to agree 100% with eric the espeon. There is no strict definition of what makes something uncompetitive. People really need stop tossing that term around as if it's a universal description about certain elements of the game. If you create a game that completely revolves around luck, and you get enough people together who enjoy that game and want to compete in it for some type of prize, then you have created a competitive game. If we got enough people to willfully participate in a Pokemon metagame that included Evasion-altering moves, then we would have created a competitive metagame. The levels of skill and luck may impact your personal opinion about whether you want to participate in a certain competition, but they have no bearing on what actually makes a competition.
 
The words are synonyms and mean "player ranked highly in the ladder dislikes this element of the game".
 
To be fair on the whole weather idea, I'd argue that if we simply added more complex bans like they did with Swift Swim + Drizzle (I.E. Sand Rush/Veil + Sand Stream, Drought + Chlorophyll). It would completely halt the massive amounts of abuse that go along with it. People would stop crying and move along their way. Also, more complex bans could also mean non-broken Pokemon like Blaze Blaziken can come back to the competitive metagame.
 
Roosh said:
To be fair on the whole weather idea, I'd argue that if we simply added more complex bans like they did with Swift Swim + Drizzle (I.E. Sand Rush/Veil + Sand Stream, Drought + Chlorophyll). It would completely halt the massive amounts of abuse that go along with it. People would stop crying and move along their way. Also, more complex bans could also mean non-broken Pokemon like Blaze Blaziken can come back to the competitive metagame.
Click to expand...
Last I checked Blaze Blaziken and Speed Boost Blaziken are the same Pokémon: Blaziken. But this isn't a place for an argument that I quite frankly don't care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top