What sets go on-site?

[Heysup]

It has been an issue recently (not any major problems or anyone in particular, however) that we simply do not have a guideline as to what sets we are to allow on site. Well I've come here to hopefully help create that guideline (with help from you guys as well). I want to set an official standard as to what sets we let on site and which sets we reject. This will solve many of the disputes that have arisen in the QC forums. Obviously, many people see the actual purpose of analyses completely differently. Some see them as a guideline for which sets are good and how to use them. Some see them as tools to show information on what Pokemon could possibly be running. Neither of these are wrong, because it's how we use them that gives them their purpose.

Unfortunately, we need to come to some sort of conclusion as to exactly which sets we allow on site. I think, if we want to be more inclusive and have a larger database, then it would seem that whatever set is "viable" by someone should be listed. So therefore, I think we should follow this guideline about which sets are "viable" and thus should be on-site:

• It has nothing to do with other Pokemon. For example, SubLO Espeon is still viable even though Alakazam does it better.

• It has very little to do with the Pokemon's other sets. For example, just because Venusaur's best set is the Special Life Orb set, that does not mean that it's other good sets don't get on site. The one exception here is that we do not allow 2 sets per Pokemon that do the same thing, one is better than the other or they can be slashed.

• Usable does not necessarily mean viable, because anything can be used. Viability implies that the set is effective at doing its job, and if it isn't it won't be approved (because it isn't competitive). Note: This creates a bit of an inconsistency between QC and stats, however I think QC should be the final authority on this matter. It is their job to figure out if anyone could remotely use this set viably. There will likely not be many incidents in which QC will be inconsistent with stats, however we should have a plan if the situation occurs. If there are many users that feel strongly against QC's decision, then that set should be reevaluated.

Anything further becomes significantly more subjective, so I would prefer to leave it out.

Anyway, here's where you guys come in. What do you think? Did I nail it or do you think there is a better way to do it?

Thanks for reading (but, please actually read it...it's not that long).

​

 

[FlareBlitz]

No one has commented on this yet >_>

Anyway, I'm good with everything, but I think you should clarify the last bullet point. You mention "effective at doing its job", but I think it should be "effective at doing its job while not being a significant liability if it can't".
What this means is, if we have a set that "works" in its specific niche, but its niche is so specific and obscure that its viability against an average team is going to be near-nil, then we shouldn't approve it. An example of this would be a hail/sand attack glaceon set or an acupressure set or a power trick shuckle set or, to take less ridiculous examples, an agility/sd blaziken. These "work" (unlike, say, specs relicanth) but which are not worth the trouble it takes to set them up.

Also, you might want to make a "the best a pokemon can do" exception for viability. I don't think Castform would be viable at all, for example, but a specially-oriented weather abusing set is probably the best it can do.

Those are just my comments on this :)

 

[Oglemi]

I have to agree with FlareBlitz on this.

One thing I have a question on is, what if a set is simply OK?

Take for example my Bellossom revamp. The set I have proposed is what I believe the best Bellossom can muster in this UU metagame. Granted, I went way out of my way to find a set that made sure Bellossom was not outclassed by any other UU Grass-type (back when sets were getting rejected for simply being outclassed), but I ended up finding a set that was actually pretty decent while at the same time not outclassed by anything. However, after testing the set Orly proposed and a regular Sunnybeamer set, I found that neither performed that well. They were OK, (they worked at least half the time), but other times I found myself wishing I was using something else because Bellossom was either missing out on the KOs that I needed, or she would die too easily to certain attacks.

So, should those sets that were simply OK be included?

 

[Heysup]

I disagree. Think about it, we would need to remove Blissey / Chansey if we used that logic since they (especially Chansey in UU) are major liabilities if the opponent is running mostly physical mons since they can set up and sweep.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

It has very little to do with the Pokemon's other sets. For example, just because Venusaur's best set is the Special Life Orb set, that does not mean that it's other good sets don't get on site. The one exception here is that we do not allow 2 sets per Pokemon that do the same thing, one is better than the other or they can be slashed.

I have to disagree with this just slightly. If there is a set that, while not "doing the same thing" as another set, is just blatantly outclassed or outdone by a set on the same Pokemon, that set shouldn't go on-site.

Basically, when you pick a Pokemon and decide to choose a set, you should go "Why am I using this instead of <insert other set for this pokemon here> on my team?" Much of the time, the answer to that question is obvious for a viable set that differentiates itself enough from the rest of that Pokemon's viable options, but in some cases, that question doesn't have many answers.

Also, on the whole "similarity to other Pokemon" issue, I agree that something as close as SubLO Espeon/Alakazam can go on-site, especially if you want to use the two Pokemon in tandem. However. I feel that when something is either vastly outclassed by a specific Pokemon to the point that there is nearly no merit in running the set in question over said other Pokemon, or when there are multiple viable site-worthy sets on multiple Pokemon, all of which directly outclass that Pokemon, then it should be looked at. I feel that "heavily outclassed" sets deserve an OO (yes it should be other options and not optional changes because that section commonly refers to things that are not technically a "change" to any set) mention, saying "yes this pokemon *can* do this, but you're probably better off running <other pokemon> instead for the same purpose" so as to ensure that while the set is not entirely ignored, it is not emphasized in such a way that players may not realize how much better the other Pokemon is at the set.

 

[Heysup]

I have to disagree with this just slightly. If there is a set that, while not "doing the same thing" as another set, is just blatantly outclassed or outdone by a set on the same Pokemon, that set shouldn't go on-site.

Basically, when you pick a Pokemon and decide to choose a set, you should go "Why am I using this instead of <insert other set for this pokemon here> on my team?" Much of the time, the answer to that question is obvious for a viable set that differentiates itself enough from the rest of that Pokemon's viable options, but in some cases, that question doesn't have many answers.

Also, on the whole "similarity to other Pokemon" issue, I agree that something as close as SubLO Espeon/Alakazam can go on-site, especially if you want to use the two Pokemon in tandem. However. I feel that when something is either vastly outclassed by a specific Pokemon to the point that there is nearly no merit in running the set in question over said other Pokemon, or when there are multiple viable site-worthy sets on multiple Pokemon, all of which directly outclass that Pokemon, then it should be looked at. I feel that "heavily outclassed" sets deserve an OO (yes it should be other options and not optional changes because that section commonly refers to things that are not technically a "change" to any set) mention, saying "yes this pokemon *can* do this, but you're probably better off running <other pokemon> instead for the same purpose" so as to ensure that while the set is not entirely ignored, it is not emphasized in such a way that players may not realize how much better the other Pokemon is at the set.

The point of analyses - at least as far as the policy is concerned - is to (for lack of a better word) "analyze" a Pokemon. It is not merely just a list of which sets "we" would use. We should aim to include an analysis for any set that is viable, otherwise it doesn't help the users to the fullest potential.

For example, say you are on the UU (I don't know shit about other metagames so..) ladder. Your opponent then sends in Haunter....and you have no idea what to expect. You imagine it could run a Choice Scarf...or Life Orb? It could use Hypnosis....? The analysis should tell you what sets are viable that Haunter runs. Sure, Mismagius is better than Haunter in basically every way, but Haunter's analysis should show what it's good at. Haunter doesn't need to use shit like Sludge Bomb / Hypnosis / Explosion to be used. It can still be an effective Life Orb sweeper with Substitute, Thunderbolt, Hidden Power Ground, and Shadow Ball or something like Substitute with Will-O-Wisp. The analysis should reflect all of these viable options even though Rotom / Mismagius are better, otherwise they are simply incomplete.

 

[whistle]

there are lots of words in this thread so I'll make this simple

if a set is viable in an official metagame, it gets an analysis. if a set is not viable in an official metagame -- even if it is the "best" a given Pokemon can "do" -- it doesn't get an analysis.

out of IRC:

aldaron agrees
Eo agrees
Rising_Dusk agrees
Heysup agrees
whistle agrees
Philip7086 agrees since his opinion is that of the majority

Matthew disagrees

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I fail to see how the second part of that "rule" is applicable for Pokemon like Honchkrow and Umbreon, where even the "best" they can do is essentially completely inviable. Are you suggesting that those 2 Pokemon get no analysis?

 

[whistle]

no, I am suggesting that you are incorrect in saying that the "best" sets of Umbreon and Honchkrow are not viable in OU. debating who is correct isn't the point of this thread. to use a clear example, I am suggesting that a Pokemon like Spinda does not get a serious analysis.

joke analyses are another issue (and fine for Spinda) since they are done in the interest of humor rather than information.

 

[Matthew]

I find that utterly ridiculous, whistle. If you're facing a pokemon you should be able to look at the analysis page, see what sets the pokemon can run best, and then judge what it's going to do out of those options. I'm not arguing that 'joke analysis' aren't necessary (See: Unknown or Spinda) but for pokemon like Solrock or Parasect who are terrible (are in NU) but have a few sets which they could use then they should be listed. Really the line which needs to be drawn is when is a pokemon terrible enough to allow a joke analysis over it getting what it can run best (no matter how bad it may be).

 

[Rising_Dusk]

To go off of the initial goal of this thread and not directly respond to any one post besides the OP, I have come up with what I feel is the best approach for which sets go on-site and which don't.

I propose the following set of rules for C&C:

1. Viable and competitive sets are presented in analyses, regardless of if they are common or not.
​

This is the good stuff. I mention that they don't have to be common, either, and for good reason. If the set is viable and competitive, it'll become common after we put it on-site! Good examples of this are the Attacking Lead Machamp set and the ChestoRest Kingdra set. They're great, we all know that, but when they were submitted they weren't popular. They still got approved. This rule is the one that lets QC test new things and validate them on their own merits.

2. If a Pokemon is ineffective in the tier that it exists in, but banned from lower tiers, then the best set that it can perform must be presented in the analysis.
​

This rule applies to the Umbreon and Honchkrow of the world. They are not good Pokemon in the tier, but the best that they can do must be given and no more. This means that whatever it is deemed this thing can do better than all other things it can do gets the analysis. We need to give them competitive analyses, and we need to list something, even if it's truly and thoroughly bad. We cannot have an empty analysis; that helps no one.

3. If a Pokemon is ineffective in the tier that it exists in, but competitively viable in the hands of a good player, then the best set that it can perform must be presented in the analysis.
​

This is for the Parasect and the Solrock of UU, pretty much. If these Pokemon are not so bad that they are non-competitive, like Spinda or Unown, then they must get the 1 set that is most effective in their analysis.

Consider that if they 'can' run some other sets, but they fall into rule 5 below, they can and should be mentioned in OC for that analysis but not written up! This way people can still reference the analysis for valuable information on bizarre things the Pokemon might do, but we are not endorsing that set as competitively viable in the metagame within which it exists. That difference is crucial to grasp.

Note that QC and only QC determines whether or not these Pokemon are 'competitively viable' or not.

4. Sets that are outclassed by other sets on the same Pokemon are not presented in analyses, even if they are common.
​

A good example of this would be how a mixed attacker Tyranitar pretty much outclasses a Choice Specs Tyranitar in every manner of speaking. We would not put a Choice Specs Tyranitar analysis on-site because it is awful compared to mixed Tyranitar that can lure in and eliminate certain threats. Another good example of this is Choice Band Heatran. Sure, it can Fire Fang something, but a Choice Specs Fire Blast is far more effective.

I qualify this rule with "even if it is common" to prevent us from listing poor sets that people are popularizing by spamming the ladder with their buddies all with the set. The quality of our analyses and the veracity that "These are the most competitive things this Pokemon can do" should not be put in jeopardy by trends on the ladders.

5. Sets that are totally outclassed by other sets on different Pokemon should not be presented in analyses, even if they are common.
​

So let's say that a set is totally outclassed. Choice Band Honchkrow versus Choice Band Tyranitar. Sure, you can probably run a Choice Band on Honchkrow, but it is outclassed in absolutely every single necessary way (defenses, offenses, typing, movepool, coverage) by Tyranitar. Sure Honchkrow is slightly faster, but it is not sufficient for the set to be regarded as even remotely on-par with Tyranitar. These sets should not be approved to be presented in analyses unless they are the sets forced into the analyses by rule 2 above.

6. Sets that are partially outclassed by other sets on different Pokemon may only be presented in analyses if Quality Control agrees that the differences between the two Pokemon are substantial enough that both are legitimately viable in different ways.
​

This is one of the stickiest and likely most debatable of all of my proposed rules. Let's consider the pioneering set that defines this rule: Curse Umbreon. We all know that it's outclassed by Curse Tyranitar, which has higher Special Defense, higher base Attack, better all around stats, a better ability, and better team support options. However, Tyranitar is weak to Water-, Grass-, and Steel-type attacks, with a 4x Fighting-type weakness in there; Umbreon doesn't have that. Umbreon also has access to Wish, which doesn't force it to use Rest and Sleep Talk to heal itself. Of course, this then makes Umbreon vulnerable to poison and burn! As you can see, Curse Umbreon is partially outclassed by Tyranitar. As a competitive player, you would probably use Curse Tyranitar—not to say that Curse Umbreon is necessarily bad or non-viable, however!

In this case, I place that it is up to QC to determine whether this set is useful or not. They weigh the options, both sides, and they decide whether this set is 'good enough' to get an analysis. Then, once QC decides, we stick with it through thick and thin. QC decided that Curse Umbreon was terrible and poor enough to not merit a set. That means that if someone submitted Curse Umbreon to QC now, it'd get rejected because QC made their decision and nothing about the game has changed to improve Curse Umbreon. In this case, you would say that QC has determined that Curse Umbreon is not viable enough for a set, despite that people use it. These almost-sets get described in OC, as usual.

So you see, some things that are outclassed can and will get analyses. A good example of one that succeeded was Espeon (Substitute + 3 Attacks), which is partially outclassed by Alakazam. It was decided by QC that it was viable enough for a set, so it got a set. It's that simple; it's all up to QC.

Note that QC generally decides upon the degree of outclassing as well. They decide if "X is totally outclassed" and thus meets rule 5 above or if it's "partially outclassed" and they must test it to decide if it should get an analysis or not. This and the last rule are just formal representations of how QC functions.

7. Poor performing sets are not presented in analyses, even if they are common.
​

This is pretty straight-forward. We do not list bad sets in analyses even if they are common. I can think of one good example of a very common set for a competitive Pokemon that is very popular, but that the set is so bad that it really does not deserve an analysis: Encore Lead Machamp. Some would say "Hey, that's outclassed by the Attacking Lead Machamp!", but I would say that they do slightly different things. This set was actually remotely common, believe it or not; it was used on 8.7% of OU Machamp back in June! This set, however, was considered not viable enough by QC, and was rejected from Machamp's update at the time. It is important that we don't just put anything popular on-site and that we qualify what is good and what is not. Just because you might run into Encore Machamp in-game does not mean that we need to list it as a set! We have OC for those bizarre and weird things people might run that aren't really that good.

8. If a Pokemon is so bad in all tiers that using it in battle is attributable to not playing the game competitively, then that Pokemon is a candidate for a joke analysis.
​

These are the Spinda, Luvdisc, and Unown of the world. No matter what anyone says, using these Pokemon is a bad idea. The Pokemon are bad, the things they do are laughable at best, and you are not playing competitively if you are using these Pokemon. When you can say that, you can write a joke analysis for that Pokemon.

Note that I mention all tiers. This means that BL Pokemon cannot get joke analyses just because they are bad in OU. They are BL, meaning they were too good for UU, which prevents them from getting joke analyses. I think this rule covers pretty much any time we would ever want to make a joke analysis.

A joke analysis may be written for any tier. This means that Spinda might get written for UU, while Farfetch'd might get written for OU and Magikarp might get written for Uber. That's fine. Because these are joke analyses and the Pokemon is non-competitive anywhere, the joke analysis can be written for any tier.

--------

And those rules cover pretty much everything. They delegate exactly which sets go on-site, exactly which sets don't go on-site, and they allow us to accommodate for bad Pokemon and Pokemon that deserve joke analyses. If you guys have comments or criticism of my proposal, please feel free to lay it on thick; I'm open for discussion on the matter.

 

[Heysup]

1. Viable and competitive sets are presented in analyses, regardless of if they are common or not.​

​

Agreed. In fact, you should have just stopped here in my opinion (I'm actually serious). I don't feel the need to overcomplicate this whole thing. If a Pokemon sucks to the point that the person isn't playing competitively, then it doesn't make sense to list that analysis. If the Pokemon is good, regardless of any other factors, it deserves a spot.

2. If a Pokemon is ineffective in the tier that it exists in, but banned from lower tiers, then the best set that it can perform must be presented in the analysis.

3. If a Pokemon is ineffective in the tier that it exists in, but competitively viable in the hands of a good player, then the best set that it can perform must be presented in the analysis.

This is where I begin to disagree. If a Pokemon isn't competitive, then we shouldn't list it at all. You can write a joke analysis, I don't really care. The point is that we shouldn't be allowing sets that recognize (note: I'm not using the word advertise) sets that aren't competitive.

I do not for a second believe that Umbreon cannot be used competitively. I also do not believe for a second that Honchkrow cannot be used competitively. I also do not believe this true for Parasect, etc.

These Pokemon, though they are quite bad, do have specific niches that they are used in. There may be Pokemon that do similar things better, but they have specific roles. I.E. Umbreon has Baton Pass Curse w/e while Honchkrow has the hardest hitting STAB Sucker Punch and Sleep immunity.

4. Sets that are outclassed by other sets on the same Pokemon are not presented in analyses, even if they are common.

As long as we're defining outclassed as in: It does the thing completely 100% better. IE Physical Doom is not outclassed by Special Houndoom. Life Orb sets vs Choice Sets are fine, because Choice sets are either slash-worthy or not. For example, Choice Band Nidoking makes utterly no sense to slash because the Life Orb set is 100% better at that specific thing.

We do list two sets that have remotely a hint of an advantage, but not ones that are 100% stupid to use over another.

5. Sets that are totally outclassed by other sets on different Pokemon should not be presented in analyses, even if they are common.

I 100% disagree with this. There is one scenario in which case your logic doesn't apply: The two Pokemon can be used in tandem with another for a "double X" strategy.

I'm almost certain there are no Pokemon that are both viable AND 100% outclassed. 100% outclassed is almost impossible, but if it did happen, these two Pokemon would have to be in UU and be walls (ie no benefit when used together) with the exact same move pools, or one would have to have the same move pool but just less moves. Every time I come close to an example, something always jumps out at me and I see the main difference between the two.

One could still argue that it's double coverage as well. I don't see me ever agreeing with this rule.

If a Pokemon is outclassed, we mention it in the analysis. It should go in there if it's a competitive Pokemon.

6. Sets that are partially outclassed by other sets on different Pokemon may only be presented in analyses if Quality Control agrees that the differences between the two Pokemon are substantial enough that both are legitimately viable in different ways.

If a Pokemon is outclassed, we just mention it in the analysis.

7. Poor performing sets are not presented in analyses, even if they are common.

If the sets aren't competitive, don't list them. I agree.

8. If a Pokemon is so bad in all tiers that using it in battle is attributable to not playing the game competitively, then that Pokemon is a candidate for a joke analysis.​

Sure, though I don't care much about joke analyses, if a Pokemon is deemed not competitive, then yes a joke analysis can be done.

 

[whistle]

@ Matthew

Solrock and Parasect are viable Pokemon. I never implied otherwise. Spinda is not a viable Pokemon, which is why it gets a joke analysis. the line that you are asking for is the line that separates the set of viable Pokemon from the set of non-viable Pokemon... basically exactly what I said. I get the feeling we agree in principle but you are assuming that I have a broader view of "non-viable" than I actually do.

@ Rising_Dusk+

#2 completely agree with this one and it might be controversial so I'm posting in support. it doesn't look bad if we don't have a Corsola analysis because no one gives a shit about Corsola (I am aware we do have a Corsola analysis). it looks very bad if we don't have an Umbreon analysis because it is OU. end of story, imo.

#3 is incorrect/contradictory/confusing. if a Pokemon is effective "in the hands of a good player", then it is not ineffective; given the mentions of QC throughout your post, it can probably be assumed that we are evaluating sets in the context of good players.

#7 prolly isn't needed since it's basically #1 restated differently... I don't disagree with it though. perhaps reword #1 to say that we include exclusively viable and competitive sets, even though that is already heavily implied.

everything else looks great.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Really sorry in advance, but the best approach to the discussion at this stage is to mass quote.

#3 is incorrect/contradictory/confusing. if a Pokemon is effective "in the hands of a good player", then it is not ineffective; given the mentions of QC throughout your post, it can probably be assumed that we are evaluating sets in the context of good players.

Yeah, heh, I see what you're saying. This rule was mostly for the Parasect and stuff. They are generally ineffective, but have niche value in the tier for specific cases. Those sorts of Pokemon are the ones that rule would cover.

In fact, you should have just stopped here in my opinion (I'm actually serious). I don't feel the need to overcomplicate this whole thing.

Unfortunately, that you even made this thread and that there isn't an immediate consensus automatically forces this to be more complicated than any of us would like. We do need to decide when something doesn't get an analysis.

If a Pokemon isn't competitive, then we shouldn't list it at all. You can write a joke analysis, I don't really care. The point is that we shouldn't be allowing sets that recognize (note: I'm not using the word advertise) sets that aren't competitive.

Those 2 rules are specifically so that we don't have empty analyses. To some extent, we need to at least present one set for the reader. Let's say some casual player wants to use Chatot in his UU team. We should have at least one set for the Pokemon so that he can without having to make it up himself. Note that these Pokemon are largely outclassed and largely ineffective, but they can be useful in certain niches. This is the distinction I'm trying to make.

I do not for a second believe that Umbreon cannot be used competitively. I also do not believe for a second that Honchkrow cannot be used competitively. I also do not believe this true for Parasect, etc.

These Pokemon, though they are quite bad, do have specific niches that they are used in. There may be Pokemon that do similar things better, but they have specific roles. I.E. Umbreon has Baton Pass Curse w/e while Honchkrow has the hardest hitting STAB Sucker Punch and Sleep immunity.

Bingo. That's what I'm hitting on with those 2 rules. Parasect, Honchkrow, and Umbreon are not unusable competitively, but they are quite bad. We should list only their best and most viable set and not try to overdo it. Note that this is slightly different for UU than OU. UU you can get away with more sets because the tier's diversity forces it, whereas in OU, Umbreon should never get its Curse set because it's outright bad and easily taken advantage of by most of the metagame, whereas Tyranitar doesn't have that problem.

As long as we're defining outclassed as in: It does the thing completely 100% better. IE Physical Doom is not outclassed by Special Houndoom. Life Orb sets vs Choice Sets are fine, because Choice sets are either slash-worthy or not. For example, Choice Band Nidoking makes utterly no sense to slash because the Life Orb set is 100% better at that specific thing.

We do list two sets that have remotely a hint of an advantage, but not ones that are 100% stupid to use over another.

Yes, that is exactly what that specific rule is saying, and I agree with you entirely, Houndoom reference and all.

I 100% disagree with this. There is one scenario in which case your logic doesn't apply: The two Pokemon can be used in tandem with another for a "double X" strategy.

I'm almost certain there are no Pokemon that are both viable AND 100% outclassed. 100% outclassed is almost impossible, but if it did happen, these two Pokemon would have to be in UU and be walls (ie no benefit when used together) with the exact same move pools, or one would have to have the same move pool but just less moves. Every time I come close to an example, something always jumps out at me and I see the main difference between the two.

One could still argue that it's double coverage as well. I don't see me ever agreeing with this rule.

If a Pokemon is outclassed, we mention it in the analysis. It should go in there if it's a competitive Pokemon.

I agree that "double X" strategy is legitimate, and I will edit the rule to account for it. That said, there are many times where you'd never want to use a Pokemon that is "totally outclassed" in tandem with the mon that outclasses it. Blissey totally outclasses Chansey, and you would never double them up on a competitive team. Same goes for Dusknoir and Dusclops and other such things. Offensive mons tend not to have this issue because they can beat each other's common checks and enable the other to sweep. That is where "double X" is valid.

A good thought experiment is this. Let's say that both Blaziken and Infernape are UU. Let's also pretend that Blaziken is worse at everything Infernape does (yeah I know, there are differences, just humor me). I would argue that we should give Blaziken only its best set in its analysis, then mention all of the other sets that it can run in OC and how Infernape does them better. (Note that this is exactly what we did with Monferno's UU analysis, just with Blaziken doing the outclassing) This accomplishes everything you want and yet does not clutter the analysis with assorted and unnecessary repetition.

• Reader is aware that Blaziken is outclassed by Infernape in X, Y, and Z sets
• Reader is aware that Blaziken's best set is the listed set
• Reader is not overwhelmed by 8 sets all that the same thing: "Infernape does this better"

Everything else in your post is largely in agreement with me, so I didn't bother quoting and talking about it.