Using The Gen 4 UU Testing Process For Gen 5

[Seven Deadly Sins]

While there's really been a lot of fuss about the way that tiering "sucked (for lack of a better word) in Generation 4, I'd like to point out that it created probably the best testing process for the situation we now find ourselves in. UU's testing began in a turbulent time, when a great big pile of previously banned Pokemon got dropped directly into what was believed to be a stable metagame. Things sucked for a while, and there were some metagames that weren't especially popular (Cresselia, anyone), but I think it'd be fair to say that since testing began, and especially in the latest iteration of the process, testing was smooth, and at this point it looks like the UU metagame may actually be balanced, or at the very least close to a balance (depending on your opinion of venusaur and/or milotic).

Considering that we have a proven testing system which works, has very few complaints (if any), and basically had to cope with the exact same issue that Generation 5's Standard Metagame has had to deal with, it makes exact sense to adopt this working system for the beginning of Generation 5.

 

[cim]

I thought this was pretty much the consensus, with the slight modifications Cathy suggested in my thread.

The main things I disagree with in the UU process are minor, like having to write arguments about why you're voting not to nominate a Suspect for banning and using judges rather than high ladder ranks, but that's all up for debate I assume?

Small issues aside, no one can argue that the system is anything less than fantastic at doing its job.

 

[Alchemator]

As of posting, the general consensus of the current #is discussion (hopefully someone will post the log later) is:

Requirements to vote
- Lower Reqs + Sentences*
or
- Upper Reqs

*Previously the UU voting method has used the term "paragraphs". It is agreed that paragraphs are far too long and do not produce enough reward for the effort put in. It is believed that the reviewing of the paragraphs can be too pedantic at times. Instead, a mere 3 sentences of justification are being suggested.

 

[cim]

Can you save the log of that conversation? Seems relevant to the thread at hand. (i would but i can't get on IRC right now)

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

blah blah blah

(for the sake of people that weren't around)

<SevenDeadlySins> honestly i'd like the uu process to be adopted for ou
<SevenDeadlySins> not even any modifications
<SevenDeadlySins> absolutely the uu process
<Kevin_Garrett> that would be fine
<SevenDeadlySins> it's been effective
<umbreon_dan> agreeing
<SevenDeadlySins> proven
<ete> and yea, we'll be ok in the long run doug
<SevenDeadlySins> and basically dealing with the exact same situation as new uu did
<umbreon_dan> i want to use my kyogre on pokelab again
--> |ibojangles (~ibojangle@i.dare.you) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v ibojangles by Porygon2
<Persistence> I read the UU megathread when I was bored
<Kevin_Garrett> this system is even better for ou because there is nothing dropping in usage
<SevenDeadlySins> yup
<Persistence> and I can say that 9/10 predictions were incorrect
<SevenDeadlySins> there's no worry about new stuff getting dropped in
<Kevin_Garrett> as for the here are our tiers thing you said before
<Kevin_Garrett> i can only agree with that for the intitial part of dp
<Kevin_Garrett> the community got to decide
<Kevin_Garrett> and by the end the community picked its suspects
<Kevin_Garrett> RE: Mence
|<--stellar has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: stellar)
<SevenDeadlySins> in fact
<Kevin_Garrett> so it took steps in evolving to something close to UU
<SevenDeadlySins> i'm going to start a new thread for saying "use the uu tiering process"
<RBG> Jabba and Reach in charge of gen 5 tiers
--> |evan (~TheBM@897A003F.1C842690.517FC2EC.IP) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v evan by Porygon2
<SevenDeadlySins> hahaha
<SevenDeadlySins> i'd be totally ok with that
<Persistence> in the politest and most naive way possible, I think the main problems within the smogon framework is that there are too many arguments over pedantry
<RBG> and jrrrrrr
=-=firecape is now known as firecafk
<Kevin_Garrett> lol rbg
<Persistence> I don't think we need to be clear cut on absolutely everything
<Persistence> if we attempt to be, nothing will ever get done [as has already been said]
<DougJustDoug> Jabba and Reach did a pretty good job of keeping things moving along in UU. I didn't follow it too closely, but I don't recall seeing a bunch of people complaining about their leadership.
<Persistence> I don't recall anyone making any sort of complaint
<Kevin_Garrett> The only complaints I had with UU leadership was before they were in charge
<Rising_Dusk> There are a lot of issues with that process that I'd want amended if we move to take it for BW OU.
<Heysup> reach and jabba were great
<Rising_Dusk> For instance, the whole submitting paragraph nonsense.
<Rising_Dusk> Anyone that meets the thresholds should be automatically allowed to vote.
<Heysup> The mods before that were....
<RBG> Me, Caleum and GS
<Persistence> I think that was resolved in a way rd
<Kevin_Garrett> the threshold should be higher then, shouldn't it be?
<Persistence> with upper requirements
<Heysup> yes i remember that
<RBG> i was at summer camp during the second segment and wasn't active
=-=jc104|away is now known as jc104
<RBG> caelum was never on IRC
<Rising_Dusk> The threshold should not be unattainable.
<Persistence> the way to get the fairest of votes is to ensure the largest voting pool
<RBG> and i don't remember GS being on much either then
<Rising_Dusk> But it should force you to thoroughly know the metagame to vote.
<Heysup> gs wasn't really around much iirc
<Persistence> so I think the current UU system is fine
<Rising_Dusk> So I imagine it as somewhere inbetween the lower and upper reqs right now.
|<--ibojangles has left irc.synirc.net (Connection reset by peer)
<Rising_Dusk> But not as low as lower or high as upper.
<DougJustDoug> RD, the expert players in the community were the ones that demanded we implement additional measures to ensure people were voting intelligently.
<Persistence> maybe submitting paragraphs is the wrong way to go about filtering out borderline voters, but it still needs to happen
<DougJustDoug> That's where paragraphs came about.
--> |ibojangles (~ibojangle@i.dare.you) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v ibojangles by Porygon2
<Kevin_Garrett> I remember I was rejected from voting for 3 different reasons from you guys. I think I should have gotten the benefit of the doubt because I was a tiering contributor.
<DougJustDoug> I have never seen a paragraph. Ever.
<Rising_Dusk> I was rejected from voting a few times as well in UU.
<Rising_Dusk> For very silly reasons that were never consistent between the two mods.
<Persistence> hm
<Kevin_Garrett> Most of the voting I did was without writing paragraphs
<Kevin_Garrett> I only had to write for Manaphy and Stage 3 i think
<Persistence> I still believe that the voting should consist of lower reqs + filter method *or* upper reqs
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> the question is what the filter method should be
<Kevin_Garrett> i always liked that
<Persistence> as apparently paragraphs don't work
<DougJustDoug> I honestly was shocked that Jumpman and Aeolus continued with paragraphs. Just because the sheer workload was such a pain.
<Kevin_Garrett> maybe they dont have to be paragraphs
<Persistence> the key being to show that the reader is capable of making a "good" decision on the subject
<Kevin_Garrett> why not just explain why you think it is what it is
<Kevin_Garrett> why does it have to be long
<Rising_Dusk> I hate the idea of SEXP, paragraphs, and other nonsensical overhead designed just to make the process harder and more painful.
<SevenDeadlySins> http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3029959#post3029959
<Persistence> I agree with kg here
<RBG> YEAH!
<Kevin_Garrett> I had to ask people how to make my paragraphs longer every time i wrote them
<SevenDeadlySins> i think the best argument for using the uu testing process for gen 5 ou
<Rising_Dusk> I dislike the idea of someone reading my paragraphs and judging me based on my english skills.
<Kevin_Garrett> just because saying why something is uber or ou only takes a few sentences
<RBG> 7 threads in Policy review now
<Persistence> also someone needs to post this log in sds' thread
<RBG> woooo
<DougJustDoug> Jumpman was meticulous as hell with paragraph evaluations. Most people have no idea how much time and effort he put into that stuff.
<SevenDeadlySins> is that the uu testing process absolutely had to deal with the exact same situation that gen 5 is in
<Persistence> I think moderator discretion is a key point in distinguishing stupid voters from intelligent ones
<SevenDeadlySins> and "is successful"
<dubs> i like the idea of paragraphs
<Persistence> the process does not need to be without human input
<dubs> but perhaps they should be judged based more on content?
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> yes
<Rising_Dusk> That's probably very true, Doug, but it is not worth the effort for either party.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: from what I can tell, the paragraphs were judged primarily on content and reasoning
<dubs> i honestly can't think of another way to filter
<Persistence> but overly so sds
<Rising_Dusk> One has to write these meticulous and carefully thought out paragraphs that present the case well, and then someone else has to review them.
<SevenDeadlySins> i don't think there's an "overly so" ther
<Kevin_Garrett> I think if you have a good (1) paragraph on explaining why you think something should be voted a certain way it should be acceptable
<SevenDeadlySins> there*
<Rising_Dusk> Why do we need a filter at all? Let the players who play the game vote.
<DougJustDoug> I agree completely. I would never expend that kind of effort just to evaluate voters.
<Heysup> some players are stupid
<Persistence> because there are stupid people
<Persistence> to put it bluntly
<SevenDeadlySins> but yeah, as long as a concise paragraph contains no major logical failures
<Kevin_Garrett> I think you just need a check so you don't get FiveKRunners
<Rising_Dusk> Some people lie on the stupid paragraphs too just to push their agenda.
<SevenDeadlySins> and yeah
<Heysup> that's true
<Rising_Dusk> The filtration process fixes absolutely nothing.
<Persistence> "moderator discretion"
<Heysup> but at least they're smart
<DougJustDoug> Particularly considering that the work he put in was never something people thanked him for.
<DougJustDoug> I wouldn't do it.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: if they "lie
<SevenDeadlySins> then they have to have legitimate reasoning anyway
<SevenDeadlySins> it doesn't matter if they have a "secret agenda"
<SevenDeadlySins> if they manage to present their logic in a reasonable manner the process has done its job
<Kevin_Garrett> rising duck, the only way they can lie is if they come up with a reason that matches their vote
<Kevin_Garrett> in which case it could be viable
<SevenDeadlySins> even if they didn't intend to vote for that reason
--> |atticus (~GuyLaroch@livinrooms.bedrooms.dinettes.OH.YEAH) has joined #insidescoop
=-=Mode #insidescoop +v atticus by Porygon2
<Rising_Dusk> Which, KG, is very easy.
<SevenDeadlySins> they had to come up with a logical one
<SevenDeadlySins> so?
<Kevin_Garrett> but if its a good reason
<Kevin_Garrett> why not count it
<SevenDeadlySins> if logic backs their reasoning
<Persistence> I think the key to this conundrum is selecting the best leaders for the job
<SevenDeadlySins> then who cares
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Kevin_Garrett> if they can make it sound good, let them vote
<Rising_Dusk> Yes, my point is that you solve nothing by making them present that logic.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: maybe i want crobat banned because it's purple
<SevenDeadlySins> and i hate purple
<Persistence> I'm sure most will be able to tell the difference between kg and oompaloompa3245
<SevenDeadlySins> but i can't say that
<dubs> sure you do Rising_Dusk
<SevenDeadlySins> so i present a significant argument for banning crobat
<dubs> presenting the logic proves that they care enough to vote
<SevenDeadlySins> therefore
<SevenDeadlySins> even though i intended to vote for a bullshit reason
<Kevin_Garrett> i think that 95% of the people that make any threshold have good intentions for voting
<Rising_Dusk> That they voted at all means they care enough to vote.
<SevenDeadlySins> my vote is backed up by a "logical" reason
<Rising_Dusk> They could play the game and never vote if they wanted.
<Rising_Dusk> All votes are backed up by a "logical" reason to the person making the vote.
<Rising_Dusk> Otherwise you would not vote it.
<dubs> nah there are for sure some personal agendas in voting
<Persistence> unless you were trolling, but that's a useless tangent
<Rising_Dusk> And in forcing paragraphs, you do not avoid any personal agendas.
<Rising_Dusk> That is my point.
<dubs> "porygonz counters my favorite pokemon, i want it voted bl"
<dubs> paragraphs prevent that kind of reasoning
<Rising_Dusk> And they could still think that and BS a paragraph or two to justify it.
<Persistence> I'm pretty sure we are agreed on not having 'paragraphs' as such, at least those of the previous nature
<dubs> right and i don't have a problem with that
=-=WildEep is now known as AFKEep
<Rising_Dusk> Because the reviewer has to be 'fair' and can't assume that they're lying if they present sensible points - even if the reviewer blatantly disagrees with the voter.
<dubs> since they were able to successfully justify it
<Kevin_Garrett> who cares if they are lying though
<SevenDeadlySins> you don't care if they're lying
<Persistence> if something was obviously right then we wouldn't have a vote in the first place
<SevenDeadlySins> you only care if they're using bullshit
<Rising_Dusk> So you're ok with people lying if they justify lying to you, but not if they don't?
<Kevin_Garrett> if their logic is sound, they should vote despite any other motives
<Rising_Dusk> How does that make any sense?
<DougJustDoug> I just don't think paragraphs affect the end result significantly enough to justify all the work and controversy required to implement a paragraph evaluation process.
<Persistence> even if their reasoning is terrible it's worth hearing if only for saying "hey, it's fair"
<SevenDeadlySins> i'm okay with people lying about the reasoning for their vote, as long as their submitted reasoning "makes sense"
<Rising_Dusk> They don't, Doug.
<Rising_Dusk> People will make the metagame they want.
<Rising_Dusk> No matter what you do.
<ete> ^
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Kevin_Garrett> pretty much
<ete> And that is a good thing
<ete> we have to accept it
<Kevin_Garrett> honestly, you can make any pokemon sound uber or ou in a paragraph
<Kevin_Garrett> latais is a perfect example
<ete> you can't exclude it.
<DougJustDoug> I agree. That was the essence of my post in the "What did we learn from gen4 tiering" thread.
<DougJustDoug> @RD, thas is
<DougJustDoug> *that
<Rising_Dusk> Yeah.
<Persistence> I don't believe that there is a better way
--> |Pride (~Pride@synIRC-4433025.msjc.edu) has joined #insidescoop
<Rising_Dusk> So if people make the metagame they want, why are we making them jump through a dozen hoops to do it?
<Rising_Dusk> Why are we forcing our staff to do additional work reviewing?
<Rising_Dusk> Why are we complicating the process at all?
<Kevin_Garrett> maybe we should just have an upper tier
<Kevin_Garrett> with no review
<Persistence> if we drastically cut the length of paragraphs we gain the best of both worlds
<SevenDeadlySins> yup
<DougJustDoug> But, for the record, I don't have any regrets about Gen 4. I agree with eric that it was a "grand experiment".
<SevenDeadlySins> basically do what they did with the council
<SevenDeadlySins> say "submit a short paragraph you assholes"
<Rising_Dusk> Yes, Doug.
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Rising_Dusk> I really don't understand what the obsession with paragraphs is.
<Rising_Dusk> > .<
<Kevin_Garrett> stop using the word paragraphs. if its shortened, does it sound better to say sentences
<Persistence> the word paragraph is thrown around too much
<Rising_Dusk> I'll settle for something like "in 3 sentences explain why this thing should be tiered how you want"
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Persistence> darnit kg
<Rising_Dusk> But I refuse to make people type an essay.
<Kevin_Garrett> yeah
<Rising_Dusk> You should see my effing 3-4 vote paragraphs.
<Kevin_Garrett> thats what i want
<Persistence> rd, that is exactly what I'm proposing
<Rising_Dusk> It was retarded.
<Kevin_Garrett> and reading a few sentences from 50 people isnt a lot of work compared to 2,000+ word paragraphs
<Rising_Dusk> I'll "survive" with a 3 sentence justification.
<Persistence> lower reqs + minor justification / upper reqs - skill level assumed to be high enough to not need justification
<Rising_Dusk> But I honestly think it's still unnecessary.
<Rising_Dusk> However, it's better than 3 pages.
<Persistence> ^
<Persistence> though not so much the former sentence
<SevenDeadlySins> right, that's how it worked in uu
<SevenDeadlySins> give a concise justification
|<--Pride has left irc.synirc.net (Ping timeout)
<Kevin_Garrett> excellent
<SevenDeadlySins> unless you have a high enough level
<Rising_Dusk> Except "Minor justification" was the same extended shit that existed in OU.
<SevenDeadlySins> at which point you go "awesome"
<Kevin_Garrett> hell
<Kevin_Garrett> i think people can even make bullet points if they want
<Rising_Dusk> And you could still get rejected from higher reqs if Jabba thought you were a retard.
<SevenDeadlySins> Rising_Dusk: cap the submission length
<Rising_Dusk> Which was amusing that you worked so hard just to get shot down.
<Persistence> Jabba has good judgement
<Persistence> chances are that they *were* retards
<Rising_Dusk> I do not consider Plus a retard.
<SevenDeadlySins> obviously things can get streamlined slightly
<Rising_Dusk> Thank you very much.
<Persistence> this leads smoothly into my next point
<SevenDeadlySins> but these are all minor squabbles and they really "do not matter" in terms of the framework of the process

 

[Hipmonlee]

Sentences are not necessary.

A supermajority can cope with a couple of idiots getting through, and honestly I dont see what you are going to find out from people with a couple of sentences anyway. Especially considering they could be faked anyway.

It's easy to look at one or two cases and think that on the whole the community cant be trusted, but I am convinced the overwhelming majority of people will vote according to the issues that concern us if we just make it clear what we are asking them to do.

Have a nice day.

 

[capefeather]

I agree with Hip. 5KR is one guy. We don't really have to filter out every bad apple, especially if it might mean filtering out good apples or straining them for no reason.

 

[eric the espeon]

Let the top players vote for the reasons they feel are best for the metagame. Even if it goes against the consensus it should not be a problem since any strong consensus will have a large enough majority to overwhelm the few people qualifying to vote for unusual reasons. Large paragraphs are an unnecessary strain, sentences are so easy to fake they are literally useless. Middle ground solutions have a bit of both problems. The only sensible and consistent solution seems to be to allow the players to direct their own metagame within a framework which needs almost no top down control or judgment calls on who gets to vote by leaders. Agreeing with Hip and capefeather really.

Also, what exactly would you suggest doing differently from Cathy's proposal?

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't have anything to add to what Hipmonlee, capefeather, and eric the espeon said.

I like that Cathy's proposal intends to impose some sort of limit on the length of time we'll spend testing, though. Dream World abilities may or may not make that less appealing though, so I don't know. Either way, I second eric's question.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I honestly didn't read Cathy's proposal, I just think that we don't need to spend a lot of time "developing a testing protocol" when we have literally the perfect one already sitting here refined and waiting for us.

Anyway, I disagree with the whole "limit on testing" thing. The testing will finish when things become stable. That is the "natural end" of testing. The fact that new stuff (dream world) looks like it'll be dropped into the metagame on a regular basis makes continuous monitoring more appealing as well.

 

[cim]

Anyway, I disagree with the whole "limit on testing" thing. The testing will finish when things become stable. That is the "natural end" of testing. The fact that new stuff (dream world) looks like it'll be dropped into the metagame on a regular basis makes continuous monitoring more appealing as well.

The problem with the UU process is that for testing to "end", people have to "vote" No Suspects and this number of "votes" is compared to votes for the other Suspects. You have to argue that everything in a metagame is not broken, which is kind of difficult as that's hundreds of Pokemon and if you truly believe there is nothing Suspect, you shouldn't be able to "guess" what is being nominated from a pool of 6 or 7 or so anyway.

I feel the testing period is GREAT, but a different nomination system that doesn't take some arbitrary number of "votes" and say if something gets X% of all nominations it "passes".

 

[lilyhollow]

I just do not like the idea of an ongoing test. It encourages a "playing to test" mindset that is not consistent with a competitive community. Dream World abilities could change everything though, so I feel like Nintendo may have forced our hand to some extent. In the event that Dream World abilities aren't released continuously, though, I definitely prefer Cathy's proposal.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I just do not like the idea of an ongoing test. It encourages a "playing to test" mindset that is not consistent with a competitive community.

This. On one hand the UU system has done an impressive job, and I think it is even more notable for its initial success (with all hell broken loose initially).

On the other hand, I think it would be a good idea to incorporate some organized time-line into the process-- ie. put in some hard deadlines for when a fairly "permanent" list should be completely compiled.


I also will note that it really isn't the exact same scenario here-- the power level between "old UU" and "new UU" is fairly big, but nothing compared to the power gap between "4th Gen OU" and "allow everything." It's not even the difference between "4th Gen OU" and "allow all 600 BST or less pokemon." Even if all we did was take 4th Gen's list and add in the new pokes up until the "Pseudo Legends", 5th Gen would still have a massive power jump. It's no longer a "power creep," it's more like a power sprint!

While the new attacks and abilities are . . . fairly . . . tame overall (almost to the point of being disappointing in some respects), the new pokemon themselves--mostly type combinations and base stats-- are absolutely unprecedented!

Remember the days when we said "near flawles-STAB combo is an extremely rare commodity."

hahahahahaha . . . lol

I am not saying that it cannot work, but I am saying that the gap in power is unprecedented and on a whole different scale from what we saw in re-building UU.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The problem with the UU process is that for testing to "end", people have to "vote" No Suspects and this number of "votes" is compared to votes for the other Suspects. You have to argue that everything in a metagame is not broken, which is kind of difficult as that's hundreds of Pokemon and if you truly believe there is nothing Suspect, you shouldn't be able to "guess" what is being nominated from a pool of 6 or 7 or so anyway.

I feel the testing period is GREAT, but a different nomination system that doesn't take some arbitrary number of "votes" and say if something gets X% of all nominations it "passes".

That implies that if something gets nominated, it's going to get banned, which isn't really the case. It's easy to account for the idea that something may be nominated, then overwhelmingly shot down once it gets to voting (see the votes re: dugtrio and moltres 2 rounds ago, in which they were nominated and then promptly not banned). Nominations don't immediately equal bans, and things that get nominated but not banned may pretty much become non-issues later once the metagame shifts (again, see dugtrio and moltres).

I just do not like the idea of an ongoing test. It encourages a "playing to test" mindset that is not consistent with a competitive community. Dream World abilities could change everything though, so I feel like Nintendo may have forced our hand to some extent. In the event that Dream World abilities aren't released continuously, though, I definitely prefer Cathy's proposal.

The major issues that I find with Cathy's proposal are the upper limit on simultaneous nominations (though that may change if we actually get a reasonable banlist), which limits the progression of testing earlier on, and the disallowing of consecutive nominations. The big problem with disallowing consecutive nominations is that Pokemon that are borderline enough to be nominated but not banned in the last round may have some of their potentially broken counters banned, in which case the round they become more effective and potentially legitimately broken is the round in which they cannot be brought up for nomination.

Also, continuous testing will likely be necessary if Dream World abilities are released consistently, which I suspect will be the case. Besides, considering the similarities between the two testing protocols, it's fairly easy to transition into the "second phase" of Cathy's proposal if it turns out that Dream World abilities aren't being released regularly and the metagame appears to be stabilizing.

Also, for all you people that doubt the potential for metagame stabilization through this method, might I remind you that despite this "playing to test" mindset, the vast, vast majority of nominations during the last 2 months have been for the No Suspects option, which means that even though it's been a "testing-oriented" metagame, this isn't causing an overwhelming push to just ban stuff. Just a note.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I think that, regardless of how they're voting SDS, the point is we want people to play to play, not play to test (and again, I despise the word "test").

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

And you think people are actually "playing to test"? There's a relatively low amount of nomination and voting, and just in general, I'd be willing to bet that despite the testing protocol in place, testing isn't the primary goal of the average player.

 

[Syberia]

I am obviously against the use of anything other than a set of hard, objective criteria which are known in advance in order to filter voters. In other words, shoddy rating more than likely.

Otherwise, though I have not played UU recently, it seems that the system there worked well for things like Cresselia.

 

[Firestorm]

Also, continuous testing will likely be necessary if Dream World abilities are released consistently, which I suspect will be the case. Besides, considering the similarities between the two testing protocols, it's fairly easy to transition into the "second phase" of Cathy's proposal if it turns out that Dream World abilities aren't being released regularly and the metagame appears to be stabilizing.

This sounds to me like we're trying to reach an ideal that will never be reached. Something that definitely needs to be discussed in the What Do We Want in a Metagame topic.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I think the idea is that once people feel the metagame is what they're looking for in a metagame, they'll start voting No Suspects, such that by the time the majority of votes are for No Suspects, the community has found its "ideal" without having to define it or overthink it.

 

[Heysup]

There are a lot of people posting here about the UU ladder mentality that don't play UU. If you aren't familiar with something, don't post about it. Believe it or not, you don't need to post in every topic.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this "playing to test" mentality is nonexistent. We analyze the metagame just like in the OU process. The only difference is how the suspect test is run rather than the mentality. We play to play competitively, and remove whatever is making the metagame less competitive. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TAY]

I think the idea is that once people feel the metagame is what they're looking for in a metagame, they'll start voting No Suspects, such that by the time the majority of votes are for No Suspects, the community has found its "ideal" without having to define it or overthink it.

The ideal you're talking about is actually very easily well defined. You are trying to make a metagame that is more enjoyable for the best players. And while it is important to make a game in which the better players have a distinct advantage over an inexperienced player (i.e. a game of skill), it is not important to continue to change the tiers in an attempt to reach a "best" metagame. Even with Dream World abilities released slowly, only a small number of them will actually have a large impact on the game, and I doubt that more than a couple would actually "break the game" to the point of having to ban the pokemon in question.

There are a lot of people posting here about the UU ladder mentality that don't play UU. If you aren't familiar with something, don't post about it. Believe it or not, you don't need to post in every topic.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this "playing to test" mentality is nonexistent. We analyze the metagame just like in the OU process. The only difference is how the suspect test is run rather than the mentality. We play to play competitively, and remove whatever is making the metagame less competitive. Nothing more, nothing less.

I used the term "competitive metagame" in the "what do we desire in a metagame" thread and got berated for it...for good reason. What makes us a competitive pokemon community is that we play to win. It has nothing to do with the metagame. What you really mean when you refer to a competitive metagame is either a metagame which is enjoyable to the best players or a metagame in which the better player always wins (practically, they are the same thing). And while this is the case for the ideal game (i.e. chess), it is not the case for pokemon, and we should not try to make the game into something it isn't. Whether we use a never-ending ban process or not, the best players will still usually win; we are not playing a game of pure luck. Why bother continuing to change to game for no other reason than to make the best players win slightly more often? Is this even what we should be doing? What reason is there to no play with a static tier list other than "the best players won't win quite as often"? The UU process encourages players to ban pokemon they find merely annoying.

I would support a testing process which bans enough pokemon to pass a certain threshold of "enjoyment for the best players" and then stops testing unless something absolutely ridiculous comes along. I absolutely will not support a never-ending testing process which produces only marginally better results than doing nothing (and thereby saving a lot of time and effort).

 

[Heysup]

The ideal you're talking about is actually very easily well defined. You are trying to make a metagame that is more enjoyable for the best players. And while it is important to make a game in which the better players have a distinct advantage over an inexperienced player (i.e. a game of skill), it is not important to continue to change the tiers in an attempt to reach a "best" metagame. Even with Dream World abilities released slowly, only a small number of them will actually have a large impact on the game, and I doubt that more than a couple would actually "break the game" to the point of having to ban the pokemon in question.

I'd rather not bring Dream World abilities into this, but if you have to please don't make baseless assumptions. It could change a lot. It could also not change anything. We can't know until they're implemented. When anything in a metagame is changed, it's kind of important to see if something else is causing a problem to the point that you basically lose if you don't use that Pokemon.

And can you please elaborate on why it's not important to create the most "competitive" (as you defined it) metagame that we can? You kind of just said it isn't important.

Why bother continuing to change to game for no other reason than to make the best players win slightly more often? Is this even what we should be doing? What reason is there to no play with a static tier list other than "the best players won't win quite as often"? The UU process encourages players to ban pokemon they find merely annoying.

Because any slight advantage that one player has over another, without factoring in skill, makes the "best players" have less of a chance of winning if they don't use said Pokemon. Additionally, if they are forced and you're ok with that, then this creates a metagame that no "good" player enjoys.

And on what grounds are you saying that the UU test encourages people to ban Pokemon they merely find annoying? You are encouraged not to ban anything, actually.

I would support a testing process which bans enough pokemon to pass a certain threshold of "enjoyment for the best players" and then stops testing unless something absolutely ridiculous comes along. I absolutely will not support a never-ending testing process which produces only marginally better results than doing nothing (and thereby saving a lot of time and effort).

Not only is this ridiculously subjective, but it's also always assuming that you're only producing marginally better results, which is legitimately impossible to know at this point.

Why is it better to settle for mediocrity when this test takes something we do for the metagame anyway (analyze it) and just simply allows us to do something about it?

 

[lilyhollow]

We play to play competitively, and remove whatever is making the metagame less competitive. Nothing more, nothing less.

You think that this is true, but there's no way to tell. There is no way to avoid encouraging players to "play to test" on some level, so long as a testing process is currently active. Even if Pokemon were only banned by unanimous decision, that still encourages a "just ban it" mentality more than a system that simply doesn't allow for any bans, ever.

You're also talking about the 4th gen UU process, which will be decidedly different from the 5th gen OU process. For one thing, we'll be dealing with a lot more people.

I would support a testing process which bans enough pokemon to pass a certain threshold of "enjoyment for the best players" and then stops testing unless something absolutely ridiculous comes along. I absolutely will not support a never-ending testing process which produces only marginally better results than doing nothing (and thereby saving a lot of time and effort).

I agree with this almost entirely. I'm just skeptical about Dream World abilities. I don't really know what to make of this situation, actually. I can only hope that Dream World abilities are released in pretty big batches.

 

[Firestorm]

And can you please elaborate on why it's not important to create the most "competitive" (as you defined it) metagame that we can? You kind of just said it isn't important.

Because that's how a competitive game works. We don't purposefully create a metagame as we see fit. A metagame evolves. As some strategies become dominant, other strategies are developed to counter it. As Wobbuffet runs rampant, Shed Shell use starts going on everything. This restricts Choice Band or Specs on many Pokemon. With Shed Shell frustrating many Wobbuffet users, they start dropping him. As Wobbuffet usage decreases, Shed Shell usage may decrease as well and we see more Specs / Bands etc. What this settles down to is unknown. What they risk is the player's choice. This is the metagame.

Artificially restricting the metagame does not make it "more competitive". All multiplayer versus games are inherently competitive if you are playing to win. Artificially restricting items from something when it's not making it an unplayable mess creates situations like the Japanese and American Street Fighter players in the linked article in the metagame thread. They were playing different games. The Japanese were playing the real game. The Americans were playing the game where they had a player imposed-restriction on roll-cancelling.

We can go this route you want where we try to create a metagame which the "best" players find fun. But if that's what we want the Smogon standard to be, we need to change our tagline because we will no longer be a competitive community.

Not only is this ridiculously subjective, but it's also always assuming that you're only producing marginally better results, which is legitimately impossible to know at this point.

Why is it better to settle for mediocrity when this test takes something we do for the metagame anyway (analyze it) and just simply allows us to do something about it?

I wanted pull this out again even though I think I've addressed it so I can stress that we should not be doing anything about it. That is not our role. That is Game Freak's role. We take a game, and we play it competitively. The metagame is changed by playing it not by creating policies for it that hardcode it to work differently.

 

[Heysup]

All of your arguments are based around the misconception that we don't know enough about this way of testing. You guys seem to be forgetting that we have evidence of this working, and creating a substantially more competitive metagame - something you would know if you participated in (or payed attention to) the UU test. That was SDS's original point. You're acting as if we don't know the results to the tests, but we do. You're acting as if we don't know how the test works out in the end (and how fast). And again, we do. You're accusations are partially true I guess, since you don't know. People who even occasionally get involved in the UU tests, however, do know. We played our metagame this way, and we watched it work significantly better than any other test on Smogon. Read the threads if you like, the evidence is there.

There are a lot of people posting here about the UU ladder mentality that don't play UU. If you aren't familiar with something, don't post about it. Believe it or not, you don't need to post in every topic

.