Discussion Evaluating the Potential Use of Replays Within Smogdex Analyses

[Sputnik]

Gonna try and keep this short since I don't have a huge amount of time.

The C&C section is one of my favorite parts of the website, and it's a critical resource for both newer Pokemon players as a whole and experienced players looking for new ideas or who are learning a new metagame. However, there is certainly room for improvement within the system as a whole. As we know, Pokemon is a rather complex game, so writers and C&C staff have to walk a tightrope where the articles are both concise and simple enough for new players and in depth enough to give players as full a picture as possible as to what the Pokemon does and how to use it. It is difficult, if not impossible, to walk this tightrope without making analyses unreasonably long and overloaded with detail.

In this PR thread, vapicuno brought up a system that they proposed and attempted to implement a few years ago in ADV analyses. In this system, analyses would include tournament level replays showing the Pokemon being used in an optimal manner. If properly implemented, this would give players an opportunity to visualize the Pokemon or set's role in practice and give players a new way of engaging with our Dex.

Points for consideration:

• What would be the best way to implement this system? Vapicuno's thread for the implementation and submission of replays looked like this. Would there be another way to submit and find replays that would be superior, or would a scaled up version of this be the way to go?
• Would this be a requirement for every analysis, or just a few select ones? Should every metagame with a tournament scene do this? Maybe just official current gen tiers and Old Gen OU tiers? I imagine this would likely be up to the discretion of smaller C&C sections, but this is a main point that must be considered should something like this be tried out.
• What about Pokemon lower on the VRs that don't have significant tournament success? Would replays be required for every single Pokemon in a metagame that decided to implement this feature, or would it only be required for Pokemon higher on the VR that see consistent tournament usage?

There are probably other points that I'm forgetting here. I'm not sure what the best solution is here, or if this should be implemented at all, but I find the idea very interesting and I wanted to start a longer conversation about this.

 

[Siatam]

I really liked vapicuno's original suggestion. In fact I liked it enough to implement replays in the GSC OU Sample Teams thread. To cut to the chase, it was really difficult. I probably spent twice as much time finding (or creating) adequate replays as I spent writing the content of each breakdown. I still like the idea of including replays as a resource, but we should be cognizant of how much effort it takes.

To address your points:

• Crowdsourcing replays like in vapicuno's thread isn't a viable or scalable solution. I attempted it when writing my breakdowns and received maybe one submission. Maybe this could change if the incentives (pixels) are there. I think replays are best implemented on an individual basis by the author.
• I don't think this should be a requirement for any analysis. C&C sections should be welcome to experiment, but I think including replays should be extra credit rather than a hard requirement.
• See the previous point. Finding good replays for lesser used mons becomes exponentially harder.

Sorry to be downer, but I wanted to give my two cents as someone who implemented a similar system at scale.

 

[FayaWizard]

I think this idea is good in theory, though I do have some worries in its implementations. Namely, how to handle updating sets, both for the Pokemon itself and its teammates.

Some Pokémon’s sets fall out of favor faster than others, or change more frequently: for example, the current Moltres analysis for OU was uploaded almost a year ago, with only minor changes in between, while Scale Shot Dragonite was archived a month after its release, only to recently rise back up into prominence. If we implement Vapicuno’s style, what happens if the replay includes an outdated set/Pokemon? I.e. if the analysis had a replay featuring Moltres versus Scale Shot Dragonite, what do we do with the now outdated replay once Scale Shot Dragonite is archived? Do we keep the outdated replayed even though it’s now highlighting an interaction that’s no longer relevant? Or do we have to replace the whole replay and write a new replay analysis, despite the rest of the analysis being perfectly fine?

Even worse, if a prominent Pokemon gets banned, it can render dozens of replays outdated, and change what was once a few minutes of cleanup into one that can take hours.

With a constantly changing metagame like SV OU, the effort to keep these replays updated may put a lot of strain on C&C, which already has a lot to handle.

That being said, if we could figure out a way to smooth out these issues, replays could be a great way to enhance analyses.

 

[giraffefromholland]

New to C&C, but I've been helping in ADV OU recently, and as someone who is confident but still getting better as a builder, I think it's only academically honest to do research for QC (or updates more generally) -- especially for the deeper cuts. I had to dig through several years worth of Invitationals and SPLs to offer updates on Hariyama, and I decided of my own volition to look through a similar sample for Ludicolo. The updated dex entrees for both have been waiting for years now. Both are BLs and have seen exploration at a decent volume, but it's not that Ludi is being seriously discussed or spammed by anyone.

Nobody is getting paid for this, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. I personally would not mind having the option to add the replays, and I think it would be an immense value add. We are a nerdy bunch, but I'm not sure that people are going to consistently do this, especially when these aren't getting updated so frequently. Interested in hearing whether others have thoughts on this.

Obviously the discussion is slightly different for CG, but I think for Old Gens, it's possible to incorporate.

 

[Sputnik]

I really liked vapicuno's original suggestion. In fact I liked it enough to implement replays in the GSC OU Sample Teams thread. To cut to the chase, it was really difficult. I probably spent twice as much time finding (or creating) adequate replays as I spent writing the content of each breakdown. I still like the idea of including replays as a resource, but we should be cognizant of how much effort it takes.

To address your points:

• Crowdsourcing replays like in vapicuno's thread isn't a viable or scalable solution. I attempted it when writing my breakdowns and received maybe one submission. Maybe this could change if the incentives (pixels) are there. I think replays are best implemented on an individual basis by the author.
• I don't think this should be a requirement for any analysis. C&C sections should be welcome to experiment, but I think including replays should be extra credit rather than a hard requirement.
• See the previous point. Finding good replays for lesser used mons becomes exponentially harder.

Sorry to be downer, but I wanted to give my two cents as someone who implemented a similar system at scale.

I'm wondering if a potential solution to the point about replays being hard to find, and crowdsourcing on its own not being an option, could be directly linking a recent tournament usage and replays document to the analysis reservation thread, or making it easily accessible to writers and QC members in some other way. I don't know exactly how common these are across the website (although I imagine National Dex is far only metagame that does this), but the NDWC Replay and Usage thread would be a great place to hypothetically gather replays for use in National Dex analyses. One possible option for gathering replays could be a "hybrid system" where there is an option for people to submit their own replays for writers to potentially access, but people would still have easy access to a Replay and Usage stat thread similar to the above while also having the option to look through a set of crowdsourced replays that could supplement this thread with more options.

 

[Itchy]

Would this be a requirement for every analysis, or just a few select ones? Should every metagame with a tournament scene do this? Maybe just official current gen tiers and Old Gen OU tiers? I imagine this would likely be up to the discretion of smaller C&C sections, but this is a main point that must be considered should something like this be tried out.

The best way I see for it is allowing and supporting replays in site writing but not requiring them. This lets individual metagame sections decide what to do with them. Replays can definitely add to c&c if they're vetted and annotated well

 

[Siatam]

I'm wondering if a potential solution to the point about replays being hard to find, and crowdsourcing on its own not being an option, could be directly linking a recent tournament usage and replays document to the analysis reservation thread, or making it easily accessible to writers and QC members in some other way. I don't know exactly how common these are across the website (although I imagine National Dex is far only metagame that does this), but the NDWC Replay and Usage thread would be a great place to hypothetically gather replays for use in National Dex analyses. One possible option for gathering replays could be a "hybrid system" where there is an option for people to submit their own replays for writers to potentially access, but people would still have easy access to a Replay and Usage stat thread similar to the above while also having the option to look through a set of crowdsourced replays that could supplement this thread with more options.

I used similar resources and they were invaluable. The bottleneck isn't finding a large number of replays per se, but watching and categorizing them as "a good example of X mon."

 

[DIYUSI]

I'm a member of the QC team for SM OU and, while the idea sounds lovely in theory, I find it too unrealistic to be ever included in an analysis. Outside of the technical aspect of its implementation, it requires dedicating a lot of words to ensure that the reader will correctly understand the featured replay(s). Even if we only highlight a small amount of turns (showcasing the set in action), you need to include a lot of explanations about the context of the replay (aka the match-up, the sets, the game state, ...). Otherwise, in the worst case, the reader will misunderstand how the set is used in a competitive setting.

 

[vapicuno]

Maybe this could change if the incentives (pixels) are there. I think replays are best implemented on an individual basis by the author... C&C sections should be welcome to experiment, but I think including replays should be extra credit rather than a hard requirement.

Agree with all this: section-level experiments + rewarding writers who take pride in making analyses relatable.

if the analysis had a replay featuring Moltres versus Scale Shot Dragonite, what do we do with the now outdated replay once Scale Shot Dragonite is archived? Do we keep the outdated replayed even though it’s now highlighting an interaction that’s no longer relevant?

If it's no longer relevant, then the entire move/set would be replaced anyway. If changes are minor, context can still be inferred. This issue comes before the replays.

Even if we only highlight a small amount of turns (showcasing the set in action), you need to include a lot of explanations about the context of the replay (aka the match-up, the sets, the game state, ...). Otherwise, in the worst case, the reader will misunderstand how the set is used in a competitive setting.

More understanding at the risk of misunderstanding is still better than no context no?

 

[DIYUSI]

More understanding at the risk of misunderstanding is still better than no context no?

If we only put a bunch of replays without any kind of explanations, I don't see the plus value of bothering finding qualitative replays. From my point of view, it's either we do it right and the workload is much higher than the current format, or we keep it minimal and that sounds kinda pointless to me.

Moreover, considering how the process of producing an analysis works at the moment, if we want to implement this idea, it would require the writer to be well-versed about the tier. The reality now is that the writer can often be only a mercenary, blindly following what the QC team is saying about the elements to include or not in the analysis. My point is that the responsibility for this new task will likely be taken by the QC team (and not the writer). I'm not saying it's a bad or good thing, but it's an aspect we should not forget in this topic.

 

[Sputnik]

If we only put a bunch of replays without any kind of explanations, I don't see the plus value of bothering finding qualitative replays. From my point of view, it's either we do it right and the workload is much higher than the current format, or we keep it minimal and that sounds kinda pointless to me.

Moreover, considering how the process of producing an analysis works at the moment, if we want to implement this idea, it would require the writer to be well-versed about the tier. The reality now is that the writer can often be only a mercenary, blindly following what the QC team is saying about the elements to include or not in the analysis. My point is that the responsibility for this new task will likely be taken by the QC team (and not the writer). I'm not saying it's a bad or good thing, but it's an aspect we should not forget in this topic.

I don’t really think you would need much additional explanation for each individual replay. Rather, what’s being claimed in the main analysis body should generally line up with what’s being shown in the replay. For example, if I claim that “Ogerpon-W excels at breaking through defensive cores consisting of staples such as Gliscor, Moltres, and Slowbro”, then the replay would ideally show Ogerpon-W breaking through at least one of the aforementioned Pokémon. I don’t think a turn-by-turn analysis of the replay is necessary, it should just line up with what’s being said in the analysis body. It also wouldn’t be particularly hard to edit an analysis to line up with a good replay that I find; if I find a good replay showing Waterpon breaking through say, Landorus-T, then I can just swap Lando in over one of the other examples. Obviously there’s a limit to that (an analysis shouldn’t be written entirely around provided replays) but I don’t think much extra description would be necessary if the replay is of high quality.

 

[gephicka]

Moreover, considering how the process of producing an analysis works at the moment, if we want to implement this idea, it would require the writer to be well-versed about the tier. The reality now is that the writer can often be only a mercenary, blindly following what the QC team is saying about the elements to include or not in the analysis. My point is that the responsibility for this new task will likely be taken by the QC team (and not the writer). I'm not saying it's a bad or good thing, but it's an aspect we should not forget in this topic.

maybe other sections of C&C are different from VGC analysis but basically every analysis writer for VGC analysis is knowledgeable in the tier & are able to output quality work.

why are you characterizing analysis writing like this? if someone has to be ghostwritten to the extent that you describe in this post then they should not be writing that analysis in the first place.

i think it’s a good thing for writers to have be well-versed in the tier that they’re writing about! that’s basically already a requirement for writing!

 

[vapicuno]

If we only put a bunch of replays without any kind of explanations, I don't see the plus value of bothering finding qualitative replays

A common interaction between new players and veterans:
NP: hey that's a cool set, how does it work
V: watch my game vs so-and-so in SPL last year
Are you suggesting people don't learn immensely from this? I did, even when I was learning the tier myself.

it would require the writer to be well-versed about the tier. The reality now is that the writer can often be only a mercenary, blindly following what the QC team is saying about the elements to include or not in the analysis

Rather pessimistic view no?
1) We can just target writers that take enough pride in their work to care and give extra credit as suggested by some others.
2) Even if QC practically top-downs the writers, experienced players usually remember prominent tour games well and can ask writers to scour replay archives for a game they remember.
3) Replays are actually easier to QC. Yes or no. No paragraphs.

 

[DIYUSI]

1) We can just target writers that take enough pride in their work to care and give extra credit as suggested by some others.

I'm fine with this if it stays as extra credit at first. In fact, if after enough experimentation, we figure out that adding replays improves the relevance of the analysis (without adding too much extra work), I'm down to making it the new standard.

but I don’t think much extra description would be necessary if the replay is of high quality.

I'm only talking from my personal experience but, since I helped quite a bit of players to improve in SM OU (and analysing replays is part of the process), I can attest that often new players will be clueless about the ins and outs of even a single turn from a highly competitive replay. Therefore, if replays are only used as an "illustration" (without proper explanations), the plus value of this task sounds a bit low for me.

why are you characterizing analysis writing like this? if someone has to be ghostwritten to the extent that you describe in this post then they should not be writing that analysis in the first place.

Because it's not as bad as it sounds. The "mercenaries" I had in mind are often players with basic (and solid) comprehension of the game in general. So, as long you give them the main lines to follow, they will likely be able to produce an analysis respecting the smogon standards. If I mentioned that in the first place, it was only to highlight that the skills of writing an analysis and finding the correct replays are different.

 

[Dreadfury]

I think a feature like this would be HEAVILY mon-dependent, and sounds pretty demanding on the technical side of things.

For instance, you don't need a replay to tell you that a +2 Tera Water Ogerpon-W Ivy Cudgel's probably OHKOing something.

On the other hand, there are some mons that are very nuanced that can often be a little hard to explain. Galarian Weezing in current SV OU has a lot of applications by cancelling out abilities with Neutralizing Gas, and one of them is forcing opposing Gliscor to play honest because if a Gliscor mirror stalemate drags on for a while G-Weezing can eventually switch in, cancel out Poison Heal, and the opposing Gliscor is taking up to 93% in a single turn since that Toxic poison counter is still ticking up every time Poison Heal heals it. The same applies to Magic Guard Clefable, which is a solid status absorber and would often find itself switching into a Gliscor's Toxic because it doesn't fear anything. But that's annoying to write in text; a replay would be nice to convey it.

I actually think some oldgens would benefit from this more than current ones, ironically.

 

[vapicuno]

For instance, you don't need a replay to tell you that a +2 Tera Water Ogerpon-W Ivy Cudgel's probably OHKOing something.

Would replays not be helpful to show how partners synergize to enable sweeps? Without knowing the tier, I went to the Ogerpon-W analysis page and counted 18 Pokemon that the first set interacts with. That's a lot. Everyone can benefit from context.

 

[Dreadfury]

Would replays not be helpful to show how partners synergize to enable sweeps? Without knowing the tier, I went to the Ogerpon-W analysis page and counted 18 Pokemon that the first set interacts with. That's a lot. Everyone can benefit from context.

Well, in that sense, replays are absolutely useful. SD Oger-W is the tier's finest breaker and does incredibly well into Balance so pivoting it in, supporting it with entry hazards, etc. are some nuanced aspects to its gameplay (things that Pinkacross actually covered very well in a recent video IIRC), so in that sense it's less about the mon windmill dunking on anything in front of it at +2 and more about the mon needing support so it can find opportunities to do so in the first place.

But I often find that a little easier to explain and digest than something as nuanced as Galarian Weezing, which can stallbreak and anchor stall alike by cancelling out abilities but which is very hard to explain without some actual demonstrations (i.e. high ladder/tournament replays; especially since G-Weezing got its start in tournaments loooong before people ran it on the OU ladder). There was actually a big discussion about G-Weezing over on r/stunfisk (which I moderate, since that's another prominent hub for Smogon and VGC discussion alike) and I explained its function at one point, but there's some nuance that even a really good analysis for G-Weezing wouldn't be able to convey through text alone and I think that's where replays showing what all of it means would be really useful.

Looking at some oldgen stuff as well, there's some room for replays to showcase why specific aspects of specific mons are useful. A replay showcasing CB Metagross completely annihilating Skarmory with Explosion to pave the way for the likes of DD TTar or Salamence would be one thing; the many things Utility Gengar accomplishes could be another, given the absurd amount of moves it can run as well as the very specific EV spread and Nature.

Or Double Dance Groudon (and Primal Groudon) in one of many Ubers formats. Sure, there are opportunities for it to set up both a Swords Dance and Rock Polish and wrap the game up on the spot, but often times it's limiting its overall coverage in favor of having the choice to excel against offense (Rock Polish) or bulkier teams (Swords Dance) later in a game. That's nuance that two different replays could showcase.

So on second thought, I think there are applications for even some simple-seeming mons getting some replays in their analyses just to showcase how good players get these things to work, or how good players capitalize on what these mons accomplish. You present a very good point.

The question becomes how we can implement something like this on-site, at that point. I'd be very interested in seeing some ideas, because I'm wholeheartedly in agreement that finding replays is daunting for new players.

 

[Runo]

Would replays not be helpful to show how partners synergize to enable sweeps? Without knowing the tier, I went to the Ogerpon-W analysis page and counted 18 Pokemon that the first set interacts with. That's a lot. Everyone can benefit from context.

This obviously isn't referring to replays in my suggestion but a fairly "easy" way to rectify a situation like this could be to use example teams to visually and clearly show what a good team showcasing the mon/set looks like.

Rough example, tier is NatDex UU:
[SET]
Nasty Plot (Moltres-Galar) @ Flyinium Z
Ability: Berserk
EVs: 252 SpA / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Modest Nature
- Nasty Plot
- Agility
- Fiery Wrath
- Hurricane

[Blurb that doesn't need to be read for the purposes of this suggestion, but mons that support Galarian Moltres are listed]
Galarian Moltres is used as a mid to late game cleaner on Hyper Offensive teams as it acts as both a stopgap against Aegislash and Alakazam while using them as setup fodder. Also gets great opportunities against Slowbro and Mega Venusaur. Agility avoids Mega Aerodactyl and Choice Scarf Enamorus from revenge killing. Flyium Z shatters Hippowdon, Blissey, Gastrodon, etc. Galarian Moltres struggles to setup against Mega Aerodactyl, Enamorus, Clefable, etc so Iron Moth, Aegislash, Scizor, pick a mon with a SE move that doesn't get punished on switch, help shore up that matchup. Tyranitar is also a big issue for Galarian Moltres so Iron Moth, Blacephalon, Iron Crown and Lead Wisp Mew help to wear it down to a comfortable level by luring it in and forcing chip damage. Excadrill is an alternative as a lead as it can near guarantee hazards are removed before Galarian Moltres enters the field.

[EXAMPLE TEAM] (NOTE - made this team for the purposes of this suggestion, its untested)

https://pokepast.es/e36cc94f3650c5ed

This seems significantly easier to conduct than looking for quality replays. Writers (who presumably know what they are writing about) can add their own team as an example or be given one by the QC team. Replays on analyses are still good tho this suggestion is meant to be on top of it.

e: s/o Iride as i compressed their OG analysis

 

[chimp]

If C&C contributors can make this work then that would be really Cool. However, might the solution be to connect analyses with the Flying Press? I feel like the Flying Press is a really great resource forgotten by most of the userbase. There are some really incredible articles in there written by some really passionate players.

Imagine a section added to analyses called something like “further reading.” Now imagine someone wrote a Flying Press article called “Analyzing Five Tournament Replays Featuring Ogerpon-W.” It can be published as all other Flying Press articles are, but a link to it could be added to that new section in the Ogerpon-W analysis.

The same thing as adding replays to analyses is accomplished overall, without much extra work from the C&C team… They just have to work with the Flying Press QCers on relevant articles, which, to my knowledge, they already do. This would be pretty evergreen, too, as we could link to other Smogon Media, like YouTube videos and such, which I hear are starting to make a comeback. And it can include other elements beyond just articles about replays. Right now the most recent Flying Press article covers ten different Pokemon, shares eleven sets. This one article could be linked on ten different analyses.

It’s symbiotic, too. I would imagine doing this would galvanize the community to writing more quality articles, knowing they’ll be linked onto the analyses- the most front-facing aspect of the website. Just an idea, though.

 

[glitched]

this would give players an opportunity to visualize the Pokemon or set's role in practice

these points prolly have been talked about, but speaking in a 1v1 perspective, especially with some difficult matchups such as the aromatisse analysis i'm currently writing with a few people, i think putting replays in analyses as a non mandatory up to the writer thing is an overall positive change, especially when it comes to things difficultly explained such as the aforementioned aromatisse sequences. below is an excerpt from the stuff im writing about currently, and i think replays would benifit in the visualisation of complex gameplay, while additionally letting writers play with a new medium of analysing the pokemon that they write about.

Versus Choice Band Azumarill, Aromatisse should use Disable on turn 1. However, versus non-Choice Band Azumarill, Aromatisse should use Encore turn 1. If Azumarill reveals itself to be its stall set based on the moves it uses on turn 1, Aromatisse should then follow up with Disable, then Moonblast twice. Then, Aromatisse should continuously repeat this following sequence: Trick Room as Azumarill uses Rest, then use Encore, followed by Moonblast, then Disable, followed by Encore again, then Moonblast twice. Aromatisse has an approximately >70% chance to KO Azumarill with 2 instances of Moonblast, Struggle, and Rocky Helmet damage (a 25% chance to KO for every Disable sequence for a total of 4 Disable sequences).

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen81v1-2402685137-ahkwm751lro8vl653vomci0e2vvvnf1pw

sorry bad formatting im on mobile and rembered i forgot to post here

 

[Dreadfury]

If C&C contributors can make this work then that would be really Cool. However, might the solution be to connect analyses with the Flying Press? I feel like the Flying Press is a really great resource forgotten by most of the userbase. There are some really incredible articles in there written by some really passionate players.

Imagine a section added to analyses called something like “further reading.” Now imagine someone wrote a Flying Press article called “Analyzing Five Tournament Replays Featuring Ogerpon-W.” It can be published as all other Flying Press articles are, but a link to it could be added to that new section in the Ogerpon-W analysis.

The same thing as adding replays to analyses is accomplished overall, without much extra work from the C&C team… They just have to work with the Flying Press QCers on relevant articles, which, to my knowledge, they already do. This would be pretty evergreen, too, as we could link to other Smogon Media, like YouTube videos and such, which I hear are starting to make a comeback. And it can include other elements beyond just articles about replays. Right now the most recent Flying Press article covers ten different Pokemon, shares eleven sets. This one article could be linked on ten different analyses.

It’s symbiotic, too. I would imagine doing this would galvanize the community to writing more quality articles, knowing they’ll be linked onto the analyses- the most front-facing aspect of the website. Just an idea, though.

I'm a little late to the party with a response to this, but I think some crossover between C&C and the Flying Press would be nice as well. I think both parties would benefit immensely from something like this and a Further Reading section kinda has that Wikipedia sort of vibe that makes it useful as a starting point for some research topics.

C&C does work with TFP a decent bit here and there (I.E. QC tends to approve articles here and there, QC the actual articles sometimes, give ideas, etc.) but this would be a good way to really bridge the gap between those two facets of Smogon literature.

 

[MrAldo]

Glad this discussion is getting started cause I feel there is a need to make these analyses feel less rigid and more visually appealing towards new users.

As someone that had to deal with leading a chat that many new people will go to simply because we exist for that (trainer academy, competitive tutoring back then) to see sending someone to read the analyses always felt like the non-mean way of saying "you dont know what you are doing, here have a read" but in the end from experience people DO NOT want to read. The average pokemon showdown user doesnt even wanna calc, let alone read something, so efforts to make more visual impact are definitely something that everyone would appreciate.

And honestly, you dont need to have tournament level replays in order to explain the function of a set, I believe there are more than competent battlers that can give a replay example on how a set works, or on what situation a set will work. Have Cloyster setup on a choice locked weavile and briefly how chances like that are setup opportunities, scouting sets, etc. I can give pointers if needed, tournament replays ARE ideal, but hardly the standard needed for an analysis.

Providing a sample team in team options also sounds pretty good too tbh, always felt these sections are always pretty complete but showing more is always a good thing if you ask me. Also if you ask me, there is no need to archive whole sets, many times these sets fall out of favor due to meta trends but always keep in mind the nature of the game that is Pokemon is very cyclical, a set that is "outdated" can simply return cause of favorable trends or people "forgetting" it does that. I think labelling a set [outdated] but keeping it in the analysis for reference is something that should be considered if you ask me.

Some food for though

 

[Karxrida]

Something I'm curious about is if it would be worth purposely setting up games that are explicitly planned around showing off sets for replays. Kind of like how some action games have combat/combo tutorial videos.

For example, maybe you want to highlight the Defensive Pivot set for Galarian Slowking. You whip up a team of 2-3 (including Glowking obvs) and set up a match against someone with a team of nothing but Pokémon that Glowking can check or counter. Plan out the moves ahead of time, have Glowking switch in a bunch, fire off moves to scare off or cripple the opposing mons, and then end the match (and thus replay) prematurely once it's sufficiently shown off what it can do.

This would obviously be super ideal lab conditions and not entirely realistic, but it would ensue you're actually illustrating what a Pokémon can do with a specific set and not sharing too much time with other mons.

Alternatively: the short write-ups that I presume would accompany the replays would point out what specific turns to watch.

 

[toshimelonhead]

The best way I see for it is allowing and supporting replays in site writing but not requiring them. This lets individual metagame sections decide what to do with them. Replays can definitely add to c&c if they're vetted and annotated well

This is my stance as well. The issue with replays is to what extent is the "gatekeeping" enough to prove the validity of a set. For example, is a mid to high ladder level replay (1700ish for OU) enough for evidence? New players might benefit from that, but experienced once can easily go into snob mode and dismiss the set entirely because the replay isn't "good enough". This isn't a written analysis where it's possible to lab the exact conditions for a set to work.

 

[MrAldo]

This is my stance as well. The issue with replays is to what extent is the "gatekeeping" enough to prove the validity of a set. For example, is a mid to high ladder level replay (1700ish for OU) enough for evidence? New players might benefit from that, but experienced once can easily go into snob mode and dismiss the set entirely because the replay isn't "good enough". This isn't a written analysis where it's possible to lab the exact conditions for a set to work.

This perspective doesnt really matter. The purpose of a replay is to showcase what a set is supposed to do and on what conditions the set can be pulled off (like if it is an agility set for example). The quality of a replay is arguing over semantics. Now, the better the replay the merrier but one doing an analysis the writer shouldnt be scratching their head cause the replay isnt "good enough".

In the end the replay should showcase what the set is supposed to do and the opportunities it has to pull it off in action. Dueling on hypotheticals will do no good. Just gotta keep it straightforward, as an introduction to the set, and explain how to use it. From there, the user just needs to keep testing.