1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

UU Test

Discussion in 'Pokémon Policy' started by RBG, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. RBG

    RBG But I keep cruising, can't stop, won't stop grooving.
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Facebook Manager

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,349
    Personally, i see no problem with that honestly. (species clause)

    About admins, Well, Jump posted in the topic without saying "No"

    chaos seemed to have no problem with it when mentioned to on IRC

    all that is left to see what Aeolus has to say
  2. david stone

    david stone Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,150
    The first test should be the longest, not the shortest, because that's the one in which the largest change from the previous has occurred. Moreover, you need to give people time to get over their biases. This is even larger than actual experience, I would say. You have some people who are going to go into this thinking "omg Rhyperior must be BL, and thus I will only look at data that confirms this bias". Giving them more time will allow this to dissipate somewhat. Remember how 'broken' Rhyperior was in early DP? Gyaravire? Cresselia? U-turn teams?

    I am somewhat concerned with your theory that Rhyperior is obviously BL. Yes, I am fairly certain that we will need to ban a few Pokemon to BL. However, I will most definitely not state that any particular Pokemon is going to be BL, because that would be a much stronger statement than I am willing to make.
  3. Caelum

    Caelum qibz official stalker
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,656
    Er, obviously I'm going to agree with obi 100%. Obi, did you have a particularly time frame in mind or that it should just be the longest?
  4. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    We aren't talking about things like the perceived hype of Gyaravire and Rhyperior before d/p even came out, that is not an accurate comparison at all.

    We have a UU metagame with a fairly concrete list of stats on usage and trends. We know what the metagame that Rhyperior is going into is like, we already know what pokemon we have to counter to play effectively and we know what strategies/moves are/aren't effective, and you dont even have to theorymon to see how dominant Rhyperior will be in UU...just look at the usages list and tell me what can switch into or beat a Sub Rhyperior lol

    and when I single out Rhyperior, I am speaking for things that will be at the top in usage in general. I do not mean just Rhyperior, I could substitute it for things like Abomasnow, Empoleon, Raikou, etc and it would still mean the same thing...it's not about an individual pokemon but instead all of the clutter that will actually need to be cleared once this testing starts. Basically, if you are taking offense to "Rhyperior" getting all the mention then just replace it with <potential BL candidate> to make it more objective, which is what I plan on doing in the thread. I'm just using this thread as a non-objective means to discuss things, so I can fill you in with much more specific analogies and ideas.
  5. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,059
    Don't assume that the new UU metagame will look anything like the current metagame. I thought the goal of this was to define the balanced metagame below OU. Yes, that metagame may be called "UU". But that doesn't mean it necessarily will be like the current UU. What if the combination of BL's, current top UU pokemon, and OU NFE's -- yields a balanced metagame? What if it is determined that there are NO borderline pokemon at all? Meaning, what if there is no need for a buffer in order to produce a balanced metagame below OU? Would everyone be prepared to accept that?

    I think a lot of people are carrying preconcieved notions about the "power level" of an Underused pokemon. If that's the case, then this whole test is probably not the right way to go. Because people aren't really looking for a playable metagame, they are determining which BL's and NFE's "fit" with the current UU metagame. If so, then don't go through the motions of moving everything down.

    (I think I am piling on Obi's point about bias)
  6. Havak

    Havak I'm the Best. You're a Towel.
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,279
    I basically agree with Obi and Doug at the moment.

    The first test should definitely be the longest, and that's exactly why my first suggestion was to make the first test last until at least the start of 2009. My reasoning is that it will allow roughly 6-7 weeks for a metagame to balance and allow people to get over their "biases" (we may need even longer). This was also the reason I brought up the slight "prior UU experience" issue. As this metagame might just simply "work", as Doug, and I (as well as RB Golbat IIRC) suggested.

    We'll also actually get two sets of statistics by then to back up any "arguments" we might have.
  7. gorm

    gorm
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,191
    I guess i can agree, but i think we need to start with a textbook definition of what a balanced metagame is. From what i know that means "with the max amount of useable pokemon" but what does that entail as far as banning? what statistic threshold are we looking for here, will it be similiar to the OU stat thresholds we use?

    looking back i guess im looking for more answers from x-act re:
  8. RBG

    RBG But I keep cruising, can't stop, won't stop grooving.
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Facebook Manager

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,349
    10 weeks??????????

    That seems a lot longer than everything else everyone else was suggesting. But since it is the first stage, I can understand the need to have it long, but I thought 6 weeks would be fine. I doubt as many people are as enthusiastic about this as me, but i think that 10 weeks would allow people to experiment a lot more and try new things, PROVIDED, that if their is a pokemon or two that are obviously centralizing NEW UU, then they will be removed after a quick discussion.
  9. zfs

    zfs Everything old is new again
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Mentor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,204
    10 weeks seems excessive. Isn't 6 weeks enough for the first test?

    I'm in agreement with this process, though. In the past (and recently), BL has resembled its own tier/metagame instead of what it should be, an actual borderline: things rarely used in OU but too broken for UU. A BL tier with 10-15 pokemon seems much more sensible than one with 50 (not saying we should target 10-15, just making a baseless prediction about how many things will eventually be trimmed from the new "inclusive" UU metagame).

    Things that get displaced from UU by the addition of more powerful pokemon will be shifted to NU, and things that get displaced from NU....well, you can't please everybody, and some things just won't be feasible in any metagame. No matter how much you exclude, Unown and Kakuna are never going to dominate in any meta, and making a "Super NU" tier would be excessive and basically pointless, because no one would play it.

    That aside, I am interested in helping with this process. I have DP experience with most of the current BLs, but surprisingly little with the UU metagame. Still, I adapt quickly, and as stated earlier, my lack of experience means I won't tailor my reccommendations to fit my personal idea of what the UU meta "should" be.
  10. Havak

    Havak I'm the Best. You're a Towel.
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,279
    Where did 10 weeks come from?

    Not that I feel it's too long, but I want to know who suggested it.
  11. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    I might be underestimating the amount of pokemon that will be entering from BL but I really doubt that anything more than a month will be needed for any stage of this test, let alone the first week.

    A month is a really long time. Waiting until the end of the year before we have our first vote is absurd (assuming that we start this within the next week or so).

    I can see where Obi's argument is coming from, I just think that I may not be expressing myself clearly. If we did a similar thing to this in OU, do you think we would need an entire month, or almost two months as some people here have suggested, to realize that Rayquaza and Mewtwo were broken in OU? Yes, things like Latias and Deoxys-Speed may be "questionably uber" and would obviously take longer to settle, but I think that we need an initial phaze to cut the fat off the top.

    There are quite a few pokemon that will stand out above the others with no competition very, very quickly. These should be removed as fast as possible so that we can actually study how the competitive pokemon will play out.

    I think Obi's argument is correct, I just think that it is more applicable to the SECOND round of testing. The first round is going to be pretty much an entire topic saying that a select few are broken, the second round is where the tier will actually start to form.

    This is why I suggested that we put a limit on the number things that we ban in the first round and make it faster, so that we could get the obvious ones out of the way quickly while still giving us lots of flexibility in case things dont look like they "should".
  12. ODDish

    ODDish

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,013
    The UU metagame has been "fairly concrete" at several different stages, (its just less people were playing it) but then the introduction of one or two pokemon ended whatever stability existed (now matter how arbitrary) into turmoil, radically shifting trends ... remeber DP UU pre-Claydol/Steelix?

    The current metagame has only recently settled, after the introduction of Venusaur, Weezing, Milktank, Articuno and Aerodactyl (who has now gone), and lets be honest theirinclusion has not been universally popular, leading to many long standing "UU" battlers abandonning the metagame. So I wouldn't be too keen to use the current metagame as representative of anything ...

    I suppose this is just a long winded way of echoing Obi/Doug's point about abandonning preconceptions of "UU" ...
  13. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    We can abandon preconceptions of UU and still maintain the common sense to get rid of broken shit in a quick, reasonable manner.
  14. ODDish

    ODDish

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,013
    *shrugs*

    The "common sense" approach and an eagerness to get things moving, arguably, resulted in UU getting in the state its currently in, so in all honesty I'd rather things take a little longer and get sorted ... but each to their own.
  15. zfs

    zfs Everything old is new again
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Mentor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,204
    If there is unanimous/near-unanimous concensus than something is broken after, say, a few days of testing, then I think we can just use executive discretion and remove them before the end of the first testing period. I don't think it's appropriate to speculate WHICH pokemon will be early removals, but assuming that at least one or two will end up being broken seems reasonable.
  16. jrrrrrrr

    jrrrrrrr wubwubwub
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,172
    If I am leading this, a lack of common sense will not be an issue. I am one of the UU players that Venusaur, Miltank and Aerodactyl scared away and I know what you are going through, comrade.

    And zfs, I think you just stumbled on my next suggestion, although I was starting to like the idea of having pre-announced, "set in stone" type checkpoints before each round so that executive decision plays less and less of a part as time goes on.
  17. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,059
    Let's ignore the current UU tier for a second.

    There are currently 53 pokemon in BL. Just eyeballing that list, nothing stands out as being obviously better than everything else in BL. Everyone keeps mentioning Rhyperior as almost a sure-fire broken pokemon. But, I see a lot of stuff in BL that could give Rhyperior trouble. Perhaps the rest of you don't agree with me -- but Rhyperior doesn't strike me as "OMG Amazing!" compared to the rest of the BL's. Yes, it's a great pokemon, but if it was head-and-shoulders better than the other BL's -- it would be OU. And it's not. It's BL.

    My point is this -- the current BL list has a bunch of solid pokemon in it. They obviously aren't as good as OU pokemon, that's why they are BL. But, they are quite powerful. And there are a lot of them - 53, in fact. If you just took the current BL's and tossed in a few top UU pokemon (Steelix, Claydol, Venusaur, etc) -- that might be a playable metagame right there. We'll have no idea until we try. I don't know how you could possibly sort it out in a couple of weeks.

    I think people are way too hung up on the name "UU".

    Imagine this -- what if we created a BL Ladder right now? Only Borderline pokemon are allowed. How long would it take to figure out which BL's were completely dominant and which BL's were severely outclassed? Two weeks? I don't think so. It's possible it would never happen. Because if all the current BL's were relegated to their own metagame, it's very possible that no pokemon would stand out as "way too good" or "completely crappy". They all might be "good or bad, depending on the team". You could argue that if 53 pokemon fit that description, you have a balanced metagame right there.

    Basically, the "BL Ladder" is what is proposed here. The difference is that this new ladder will not be exclusive to BL pokemon. Anything below BL will also be allowed. How many below-BL pokemon (intentionally avoiding the term "UU") will be playable with all these powerful BL pokemon? I don't know. It's possible that UU pokes like Persian are completely irrelevant in a metagame with Rhyperior running around. But then again, pokemon like Tangrowth and Flygon may have a field day, and keep Rhyperior in check. Who knows? I don't. But, I think it will take a lot longer than two weeks for people to figure it out.
  18. Caelum

    Caelum qibz official stalker
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,656
    What? You will not know a single thing after a few days of testing, why would you want to make a decision after a few days of testing? Give the metagame time to develop before you start deciding what is and is not broken. As Obi, myself, and Doug stated that is not enough time to get over perceived bias. It's even obvious from this thread some of us has bias going into this test for what exactly BL is going to be. I agreed to compromise for a 3 week test, but I don't think this can even be called a legitimate process if you start banning things after a few days. If that is the route this is going to go down, we mine as well not do anything at all.

    I still stand by my 6 weeks for the first test, but I'm honestly not comfortable going lower then 3 weeks before things start being banned. I'm with Obi & Doug on this.

    Hey guys, remember what everyone thought about Skymin for the first 2 weeks of Platinum? The hysteria over how uber it was. The majority of players believed that Skymin was incredibly broken, now a days, that complaint is hardily even heard. The same thing will happen with the BL testing if you make calls on it way too quickly. If that is the route we want to go down, so be it, but that shouldn't be the purpose of this.
  19. JabbaTheGriffin

    JabbaTheGriffin Stormblessed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,030
    I'm personally not going into this thinking "x is going to be way too broken, we need to move it up immediately." I'm just saying we should be aware of the possibility that one or two pokemon may immediately take hold of the game and refuse to let go of it. I feel forcing people to sit through 6 or 10 or whatever weeks of this kind of metagame is a bit overboard and we need to be flexible in dealing with these pokemon. I just don't want to see a situation where after 10 weeks the only thing people can ascertain is "x, y and z should be moved up, but since they had such a stranglehold on the metagame that i have no clue about anything else"

    Basically, we'd be fucked if we spend 10 weeks only to realize that the metagame couldn't yield any longterm results due to a few overwhelming pokemon.
  20. Caelum

    Caelum qibz official stalker
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,656
    I don't know who suggested 10 weeks but I suggested 6 weeks for the first test and 3-4 weeks for each additional period before we make a judgement call.

    Do you remember the usage stats for when Skymin was first released? That thing was basically on every team, now, it's not even in the top 5. That is a prime example of once you give the metagame time to develop you'll find what was once perceived as dominating the game, not.

    Obviously, this can be flexible but to go in with the mindset that after a week / two weeks that something is going to be banned is completely wrong.
  21. TAY

    TAY You and I Know
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,542
    Well, it seems like it should be possible to say that the first test will go on for 4 or 6 weeks or whatever, but if anything pops up as "obviously broken" then we can remove it after two weeks. I'm assuming we're going to keep a running discussion in Stark and / or here, so if 75% of the players are saying "jesus [pokemon] is way too powerful" we can remove it or take some sort of action. Honestly I think we're overcomplicating a process which should be incredibly easy to manage.

    Can we just get started with this?

    EDIT: Once again I agree with Jabba entirely...my this entire post could be summed up with the word "flexibility."
  22. JabbaTheGriffin

    JabbaTheGriffin Stormblessed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,030
    I think you're getting the wrong idea of what I mean by overwhelming. I'm talking about a Rayquaza in OU kind of overwhelming where there are really no counters, no checks and only a few ways of working around it to the point where if it were in OU it'd be on every team. Skymin immediately had counters/checks and plenty of ways of working around it. That doesn't mean it's not uber, that just means it's not overwhelming to the degree I'm talking about. Hell and to be quite frank I'm not quite sure any pokemon in the BL test will meet my standard of overwhelming, but if something does I feel we need to act accordingly with common sense. That's really all I'm trying to get across here - flexibility in the process is necessary, strict timelines are not the best route.
  23. gorm

    gorm
    is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,191
    This is getting derailed.. i think a new thread in policy review with whatever policy we have fleshed out should be posted explicitly so that specific points can be argued over and refined. Hopefully it helps us move forward and it gives the public a chance to see what's up.

    as far as i can tell 6 week increments is pretty much agreed upon, we just need to decide whether we're banning extremely strong mons early on. I kind of have to side with caelum/obi, with the option of early bans if the populace is overwhelmingly in favour of them with good reasons. anyways it's not like uu/bl is low on water/grass types ~__~

  24. RBG

    RBG But I keep cruising, can't stop, won't stop grooving.
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Facebook Manager

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,349
    Well, I would like Aeolus or Jumps permission to start a new thread there, And sorry bout the 10 weeks, my math was off

    Lets just do the 6 weeks for the first part and then afterwards we can decide what it NEW BL. If there is any major UU that is broken, then we can move it to BL only in EXTREME circumsatances, which i doubt we will have.
  25. Aeolus

    Aeolus Bag
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,639
    please wait for instructions on this before doing anything.

    This I can say: The UU test should be conducted in the same way as the OU test that we are currently running. Once we have a defined process (which I think we have), that can be applied to a new list of priorities concerning the UU game. Until then, hang on.


    Project For Now: Define a list of priorities (i.e. Which Pokemon you want to test and in what order)

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