The way I read this post is that the base tiers (OU/UU/NU) are based on usage, but the "limbo" tiers (Uber/BL/the proposed Limbo tier) are based on something more concrete. Just given by the examples, should Tentacruel suddenly lose usage, it would go to UU, but if Gengar did, it would drop to BL without much testing. No one here would argue that point, mainly because of the movepool difference and the orientation (Gengar is a straightforward attacker for the most part, while Tentacruel is more a tank/wall). Perhaps that point could be driven home a lot harder.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The purpose of the tiers
- Thread starter obi
- Start date
you're correct in your conclusion, venusaur, but not in the logic behind it.
gengar would drop to bl because it is too powerful for uu, not because it's a sweeper. likewise, tentacruel would drop to uu because it isn't broken there, not because it's a wall.
the role a pokemon plays has very little to do with tiering.
gengar would drop to bl because it is too powerful for uu, not because it's a sweeper. likewise, tentacruel would drop to uu because it isn't broken there, not because it's a wall.
the role a pokemon plays has very little to do with tiering.
Honestly I love this tier system. Obviously subjectivity is what forms the "unbalanced" tiers, but the fact that we use the top 75% as OU cuts down subjectivity a lot. The only real "flaw" (if you want to call it that) is for those people who whine about "If Caterpie is used a lot it becomes OU". Pointless theories like that is what keeps me out of most of the Stark Mountain debates.
Thanks for posting this Obi. Even though most of us know the whole gist of things, this is an excellent tool to sharpen out the edges on understanding all the tiers.
Thanks for posting this Obi. Even though most of us know the whole gist of things, this is an excellent tool to sharpen out the edges on understanding all the tiers.
I always wondered why there wasn't a BL for UU, I felt it showed a lack of concern for the nu tier.
Too powerful, or too easy to use? Tentacruel actually has a higher base stat total than Gengar, but it's a lot more difficult to use it competitively than it is to use Gengar.
Useful post, when NU is created based off of usage in the UU ladder it will make sense to perhaps ban some Pokemon from this tier to balance NU.
Also if an OU Pokemon were to fall out of the usage requirement to stay in OU, it could possibly fall to UU instead of BL if it is decided that the Pokemon in question would not unbalance the UU tier. This is unlikely, though possible. Most of the Pokemon that are near the OU/BL line are too good for UU, though some former OU's are up for consideration for a dropdown to UU (Weezing and Aerodactyl.)
Also if an OU Pokemon were to fall out of the usage requirement to stay in OU, it could possibly fall to UU instead of BL if it is decided that the Pokemon in question would not unbalance the UU tier. This is unlikely, though possible. Most of the Pokemon that are near the OU/BL line are too good for UU, though some former OU's are up for consideration for a dropdown to UU (Weezing and Aerodactyl.)
Well said, Obi, though I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I have seen your posts about the tiers, and I'm trying to figure out if you're just trying to explain things, or if you're talking their own language back at some of these guys so they see how dumb they sound.
I'm hoping it's the latter, because your principle point of Ubers is dead on: there would be 10 or so Pokemon. So why set an arbitrary number for OU, at 75%, rather than doing something sensible and _letting the existing balance_ decide? From my analysis, that'd put OU around 25, 30 tops. Come on, people, open your eyes. I didn't come back just to laugh.
Is Pokemon so badly designed that every tier would wind up as 6 Pokemon if that happened? I'm leaning towards no. Really, you have a small group of Ubers, a small group of pseudo-ubers (OU), a good middle ground, then the useless crap.
LET the lower tier of UU drift into NU. LET the lower tier of OU drift into UU. Get rid of BL. Watch what it does. You'll be impressed. I know, because I've seen enough of it to understand. Also...if you _really_ want a usage based tier, just separate it! Have a balanced tier list without considering usage, then if you want a usage-based metagame, you won't need ban lists anymore.
Usage measurements are not a substitute for thinking, which is what they've become. I have to question if this place deserves the name Smogon "university".
I'm hoping it's the latter, because your principle point of Ubers is dead on: there would be 10 or so Pokemon. So why set an arbitrary number for OU, at 75%, rather than doing something sensible and _letting the existing balance_ decide? From my analysis, that'd put OU around 25, 30 tops. Come on, people, open your eyes. I didn't come back just to laugh.
Is Pokemon so badly designed that every tier would wind up as 6 Pokemon if that happened? I'm leaning towards no. Really, you have a small group of Ubers, a small group of pseudo-ubers (OU), a good middle ground, then the useless crap.
LET the lower tier of UU drift into NU. LET the lower tier of OU drift into UU. Get rid of BL. Watch what it does. You'll be impressed. I know, because I've seen enough of it to understand. Also...if you _really_ want a usage based tier, just separate it! Have a balanced tier list without considering usage, then if you want a usage-based metagame, you won't need ban lists anymore.
Usage measurements are not a substitute for thinking, which is what they've become. I have to question if this place deserves the name Smogon "university".
Does it really have to be?
Suppose that Nidoqueen is used so much that it rises to OU. But we see that Nidoqueen doesn't break the UU metagame at all. So why does Nidoqueen be banned?
I know there are a lot of people calling for the OU Metagame to be more diversified - even to the point where people are trying to consider banning Stealth Rock.
So why must we ban Pokemon just because of usage?
I was under the impression that Pokemon tiers were based on usage simply because usage gives a pretty decent degree to how useful a pokemon and thus "how powerful it is".
I simply disagree with the tiers being based sheerly on usage. If we are going for balanced and varied metagames we should simply take into account whether or not a Pokemon is overpowering (see definition in "What is Ubers" thread) not how much it is used in the other metagames. This may actually limits what is possible in the lower tiers without real solid definition at all other than what seems to be an arbitrary cut off.
To illustrate my point, I will use this example. Suppose that we base OU simply on usage based on Ubers. The top 75% of Ubers metagame is then banned from being OU. Blissey and Metagross are now gone, despite that most people find them perfectly fine in OU. And now, because Blissey is gone, we find that special attackers simply rip through the game.
Yes, I know that OU is simply meant to be a balanced metagame, but this example illustrates my point (or "suspicions" but I do believe that it isn't baseless at all) But the thing is we can balance the lower tiers better simply by allowing "OU lites"(NFEs like gligar) and unbanning Pokemon that may not overpower the game.
Tiering would be improved significantly IMO if Smogon was more liberal in the bannings/unbannings in order to experiment. It will take forever for a numerical cutoff for "overcentralizing" to be available if this isn't done. Pokemon is about statistics - and if this definition applies even onto the Pokemon metagame then it's time that people actually try to put some tests to the data and try to figure out exactly what causes what rather than try to just say "usage" determines everything because it just feels completely arbitrary.
If you want Pokemon to be a much better competitive game, I recommend you all work for it by being a bit more competitive.
I think that the main reason is because we want to use the less used Pokemon. What I mean is that it may be possible that a Pokemon be considered "UU" when considering "power", but seen a lot in "OU" because it fulfills a certain role that is useful there.
Let me give an example. Let us take Tentacruel, a current OU Pokemon because of its high usage. Now, let us assume that we have a different tier system that takes into account if a Pokemon is too powerful for a metagame (in this case, UU) and doesn't ban it because of usage. Then, by testing and discussion, it is proven that Tentacruel is not too powerful for the UU metagame, thus it is allowed there. Assuming Tentacruel is still used as much as it is today in the OU metagame, then that means that Tentacruel will be present in both metagames, and most probably in a high amount (assuming, again, that it is used a lot in UU as well).
So, what we are currently doing is giving those less used Pokemon a chance to be used in a competitive environment. I know the example above is just theorymon, and may not even happen, but I think it shows the flaw in a system that does not ban Pokemon due to usage.
I hope that this was understandable :justin:
The purpose of UU is to have Pokemon that you don't see in OU, hence the name "Underused". If a Pokemon ceases to be underused, it cannot be used in a tier based entirely on that Pokemon being underused.
We use usage as a direct measurement of usage.
This gives exactly one balanced tier. We have all the Pokemon, and some are found to be unbalancing. Those are banned. All Pokemon remaining are by definition balanced together. No new Pokemon can be banned because our only criterion is whether that Pokemon is necessarily an overpowering agent.
To create a new tier, you would have to define a new, arbitrary cut-off point. The only two sound measures for this cut-off point that I can think of are usage and power. Usage is objective, power is subjective. Even if you could objectively determine the power of a Pokemon, I would prefer using usage for reasons mentioned above.
Subversion said:
Yeah, like I said I was just nitpicking wording which could - as the purpose of the first post is to explain this stuff to new members - cause confusion because it isn't strictly true.
here's an ambiguity in your post obi, how do we find it? by our definitions/our observation after testing/general deductions?
to me these ways are kinda blurry since a tourney is a small percentage of the metagame on a whole, and you can probably see that it's just [less accurate] statistics with fewer data points.
do you aspire to a time when we can calculate "unbalancing" via usage numbers, or do you think such a formula is impossible?
Actually, the idea of a "Limbo" Tier which functions as a ban-list for NU has not been established before for a reason - NU is just not competitive enough to begin with.
If you play NU matches (Smogon does not have a Tier List, but other sites do), you have to limit your choices to about a good dozen pokemon, because the others are simply much inferior (i.e. Arbok > Farfetch'd or Qwilfish > Kricketune). Put Arbok and Qwilfish in UU? No one will use them. Put them into this new "Limbo" Tier? No one will use them. That also defeats the point if done with a big number of pokemon.
I'm also curious to know where all of the NFE's fit into your Tier System. Do they simply not get used?
If you play NU matches (Smogon does not have a Tier List, but other sites do), you have to limit your choices to about a good dozen pokemon, because the others are simply much inferior (i.e. Arbok > Farfetch'd or Qwilfish > Kricketune). Put Arbok and Qwilfish in UU? No one will use them. Put them into this new "Limbo" Tier? No one will use them. That also defeats the point if done with a big number of pokemon.
I'm also curious to know where all of the NFE's fit into your Tier System. Do they simply not get used?
That's the fate of current BL's, why should this be any different?
That is the main reason I want to expand UU by pushing most of the BLs into it. A higher standard for UU means we will also have a higher standard for NU.
BLs would be treated like every other Pokemon under my vision for the tiers.
Kittymew, I have no idea what you are saying. I'm not proposing anything here I don't believe in.
BLs would be treated like every other Pokemon under my vision for the tiers.
Kittymew, I have no idea what you are saying. I'm not proposing anything here I don't believe in.
Pushing BLs into UU would not necessarily expand UU. In addition, it might not necessarily create a metagame that would fit the mindset of a UU player. For me personally, UU still carries its Advance flavor; I am comfortable at the power levels established in UU characterizing the current UU metagame. Whether or not the BL list is becoming over-large, players play UU because of the different feeling that the pokemon available in that tier provide; if we change the pokemon there to become more OU-ish, the atmosphere of UU that makes it UU would vanish.
Sure, the definition might be more accurate in one sense. But it's all subjective anyway.
Obi's saying that if we have a higher bar of UU pokemon, that is a generally "more powerful" UU tier, we can create a more powerful NU tier.
Hopefully such that we can minimize the # of pokemon stuck in BL and BL-NU-version, and have 2 very fun and playable metagame.
Nice vision Obi. Won't be easy, but I personally see it as a good idea.
Hopefully such that we can minimize the # of pokemon stuck in BL and BL-NU-version, and have 2 very fun and playable metagame.
Nice vision Obi. Won't be easy, but I personally see it as a good idea.
If we assume the OU tier is near enough the ideal size (if not something needs banning/unbanning to fix it, or the rules need some sort of change).
There are 434 below OU Pokemon (including NFE's, which by the looks of the PR thread will be allowed), if we implement your tiering plan for them (BL, UU, Limbo, NU) each tier will have on average >100 Pokemon. I really doubt that they will be metagames in which more than 100 Pokemon are top 75% usage viable so most the Pokemon would eventually settle into the psudo tiers (BL and Limbo) or into total disuse at the bottom of NU.
I propose that we do as Obi suggests near the top of the tiers (unban all BL's ban some of them, apply the usage formula on UU to define NU, ban some NU's into limbo) but then if we are left with a massive NU tier as I am sure we will be (think about it, 434 Pokemon in 2 metagames and 2 ban lists. Its not all going to fit.) we should continue to make tiers below NU via the same method, until all Pokemon are ether in a tier that they can be used in (top 75%) or are in one of the ban lists.
I estimate that we would end up with between 4 and 7 sub OU playable metagames, complete with their own ban lists. I know many people will say "its too much effort" well really if you give people a ladder it will happen on its own. It may take a few months, or even a year but we would have a much more satisfactory system at the end.
thats my first wall of text in a while... hope it makes sense.
There are 434 below OU Pokemon (including NFE's, which by the looks of the PR thread will be allowed), if we implement your tiering plan for them (BL, UU, Limbo, NU) each tier will have on average >100 Pokemon. I really doubt that they will be metagames in which more than 100 Pokemon are top 75% usage viable so most the Pokemon would eventually settle into the psudo tiers (BL and Limbo) or into total disuse at the bottom of NU.
I propose that we do as Obi suggests near the top of the tiers (unban all BL's ban some of them, apply the usage formula on UU to define NU, ban some NU's into limbo) but then if we are left with a massive NU tier as I am sure we will be (think about it, 434 Pokemon in 2 metagames and 2 ban lists. Its not all going to fit.) we should continue to make tiers below NU via the same method, until all Pokemon are ether in a tier that they can be used in (top 75%) or are in one of the ban lists.
I estimate that we would end up with between 4 and 7 sub OU playable metagames, complete with their own ban lists. I know many people will say "its too much effort" well really if you give people a ladder it will happen on its own. It may take a few months, or even a year but we would have a much more satisfactory system at the end.
thats my first wall of text in a while... hope it makes sense.
What "flaw" is there other than the possibility that Pokemon X is going to be used in both environments? I wouldn't call this a flaw - and I wouldn't call Tentacruel to be a dominating Pokemon in UU, and actually, a very good Pokemon considering how many people talk about Ninetales being annoying. If a Pokemon will make UU more enjoyable by giving people more variety, then why not? I mean, there isn't an Infernape to counter in UU, nor is toxic spikes/spikes as prevalent (I'm ONLY judging by the war stories so ignore this sentence if it's so terribly wrong)
In the meanwhile, the UU metagame then is so horrendously dependent on the OU metagame. The UU metagame isn't it's own metagame because of its definition - it is affected by the OU metagame. If OU is supposedly as varied as people are saying then what is UU/BL should be changing every month (and it is, then again, we see that OU hasn't materialized yet). A tier should be independent of the other.
Yes, I know how a new tier would be created. But the point is after the arbitrary cut off point (and thus creating UU), the goal should be to unban as many Pokemon in order to give UU the most variety possible without breaking it.
I find the current tiering system of basing things just on usage to have a lot of flaws if we are actually aiming to create a competitive metagame. Why not base it on usage (to create an arbitrary cut off point) and then the subjective "power" and test them out?
I don't believe the UU and NU metagames will be expanded by adding NFE's. I believe that it will push some completely viable pokemon into NU and unbalance the whole tier system. For example, with Haunter allowed, who would want to use Rotom? It does everything Rotom does better, with the exception of Trick and the lol defensive set. Who would use Grumpig or Hypno when they could use Chansey? Kadabra would take precident over most special sweepers, aside from Haunter. Magneton would dominate most steels, allowing things like Dragonair and Gabite to sweep. Dusclops would wall everyone and everything, just like in Advance. I don't believe NFE's should be allowed into UU/NU unless they meet the current criteria of different type, higher stat, or special item. Pokemon like Charmeleon, Scyther, and Pikachu are allowed in, while clones like Gligar aren't. This allows the metagame to have a destinct "flavor", and makes it so it just isn't OU-lite. OU-lite is actually a misnomer, because UU is, in essence, OU-lite by its nature. But playing with pokemon just like OU pokemon makes it just like OU, which isn't what most people playing UU want. Also, about Obi's "every NFE has some advantage over its FE counterpart" argument, Trick Room isn't enough to justify the use of say, Bronzor over Bronzong. Both can set up Trick Room, and Bronzor is much slower. However, it has 24 base attack instead of 89. The extra speed is quite negligible compared to the loss of power, so I don't see how it is an advantage.
I have a question, is there a way to make the arbitrary line seperating OU from UU better, as in differentiating between OU and BL/UU clearer? I assume there isn't really a way (hence arbitrary), but I still do not feel OU should be calculated by the current line alone, since there are quite a lot of OUs which are near borderline and not common. Would drawing the line on usage (i.e. this pokemon needs to garner at least 2% of total weighted usage to be considered OU) be better, or would it be like or worse than the current method?
I support your suggestion on moving BL pokemon to UU, hence increasing the size of the UU tier. Most of the pokemon in the BL tier were not seriously tested in UU, and it has been based mostly on Advance usages, which I feel is quite inaccurate. I still feel that you should keep the current UU for a while, and make another ladder for this testing since it most probably will make for an unbalanced tier at first.
I'm split on the "allowing OUs in UUs, provided that they do not overpower it", it makes sense but it would make for a confusing set of rules, and it goes against the definition of "UnderUsed", and by using this it would involve measuring the pokemon in questions' power which is subjective and not really reliable.
I support your suggestion on moving BL pokemon to UU, hence increasing the size of the UU tier. Most of the pokemon in the BL tier were not seriously tested in UU, and it has been based mostly on Advance usages, which I feel is quite inaccurate. I still feel that you should keep the current UU for a while, and make another ladder for this testing since it most probably will make for an unbalanced tier at first.
I'm split on the "allowing OUs in UUs, provided that they do not overpower it", it makes sense but it would make for a confusing set of rules, and it goes against the definition of "UnderUsed", and by using this it would involve measuring the pokemon in questions' power which is subjective and not really reliable.