The NU Tier

[twash]

This thread holds a lot of things that I I have mentioned to a couple of people before (mostly because I love playing NU on CAP :P) but nothing really solidified, so this thread should hopefully help me gain a few answers.

Currently, there is no real NU process going on, just a ladder on CAP, which gets poor recognition on the forums. There are OU and UU processes currently taking place - the latter will go on for as long as possible I believe. I really don't see any clear reasons that have been said as to why we aren't running any kind of NU process yet, though...

According to the SCMS, NU currently contains 149 Pokemon, although that includes Clamperl, Pikachu, Trapinch, and Vigoroth, all of whom are in there because they have analyses (so arguably they aren't NU-worthy statistically). This also does not contain any other NFE Pokemon. 149 (or 145) is a hell of a lot of Pokemon so, like it has been said before, there may be tiers put below NU.

Anyway, going back to my main point, I see few reasons to not adopt some kind of NU process. UU suspect testing doesn't really effect NU at all, the only link between UU and NU is the statistical changes where Pokemon previously UU or NU swap over to another tier...but we currently have that with OU and UU anyway. Perhaps the biggest problem is the amount of tests currently going on with tiers...there may not be enough "interest", and it simply may be too many. So arguably it might be best to wait until Stage 3 of OU is over, however that long it may take. The other reason is mostly analysis work, we may get a bit overloaded. But we could probably cope.

So basically, is there a particular reason that nothing is really happening with NU? I find it kind of weird how even Little Cup gets more attention than NU.

 

[X-Act]

I don't think that many people would want another metagame below NU at this stage, but I agree that NU getting even less publicity than Little Cup is weird. So maybe a tier between UU and NU as a banlist for NU is worth investigating...

 

[Great Sage]

I've advocated for adding a tier for a long time, to account for the very long tail of Pokemon that are currently in NU, and I haven't seen any substantive opposition to that proposal. But before we move on to lower tiers, I think we should finish up with OU and be largely done with UU. The main issue, in my view, is making lower tiers more stable and less dependent on the tiers above them. I understand that UU is "supposed" to be what OU throws away, but having the metagame change, often significantly, every three months is good for neither the players nor the analysis writers.

 

[X-Act]

I understand that UU is "supposed" to be what OU throws away, but having the metagame change, often significantly, every three months is good for neither the players nor the analysis writers.

I agree completely with this. When I spoke about it in Policy Review, however, the people in charge of the UU process thought that this isn't too much of a problem. A bigger problem than what you mention is the fact that there's a new UU process every three months to determine BL.

I sympathise with the testers and the analysis writers. I think we need to solve that problem.

 

[twash]

I've advocated for adding a tier for a long time, to account for the very long tail of Pokemon that are currently in NU, and I haven't seen any substantive opposition to that proposal. But before we move on to lower tiers, I think we should finish up with OU and be largely done with UU. The main issue, in my view, is making lower tiers more stable and less dependent on the tiers above them. I understand that UU is "supposed" to be what OU throws away, but having the metagame change, often significantly, every three months is good for neither the players nor the analysis writers.

I fully understand about finishing OU, but not UU. We can't really "finish" UU with the current process because some OU Pokemon may move down to UU every so often which, unfortunately, often changes the metagame a lot (same with UU Pokemon moving up). While that continues to happen, UU is likely to change a lot..and I don't really see an easy way to fix it. If someone can think of a way, superb, but that's primarily my thought as to why I think the UU process should not mean that we cannot run a current NU process.

 

[diinbong]

Can't we just open up NU like an inverted Ubers (don't have any tests but still encourage discussion and activity)? I don't think there's any harm in creating a subforum and ladder for it. I'm sure we already have some form of analysis for every NU Pokemon atm anyway.

 

[twash]

Can't we just open up NU like an inverted Ubers (don't have any tests but still encourage discussion and activity)? I don't think there's any harm in creating a subforum and ladder for it. I'm sure we already have some form of analysis for every NU Pokemon atm anyway.

A lot of those analyses are aimed at wrong tiers though, and are outdated.

There's already a ladder for NU on CAP. I agree with you though - I don't really see harm in opening up a subforum and creating a broader discussion that is likely to publicize the ladder and the tier at the moment. I do plan on asking Doug for consistent statistics if he would be so kind; at the moment it's just odd at how little attention it is getting.

 

[obi]

If it gets low activity, that can be countered by just increasing the length of time used for each section of tiering. For instance, rather than updating every 3 months, do votes on which Pokemon to ban every 6. We will obviously need a ban tier for NU. I don't really care what it's called.

 

[mtr]

I also support making NU more than just a disuse list, by actively testing and banning overpowered and overcentralizing Pokemon. Also, we should at least have a stickied thread for it in Stark if its not ready for a subforum.

 

[Xia]

Jumping on the bandwagon and agreeing that a NU tier would be beneficial. It would also help analysis writers, since Pokemon like Dunsparce and Chatot need analyses that actually refer to a tier they can logically compete in.

 

[X-Act]

While obi's suggestion to lengthen the amount of time to update the tiers is a good idea, we need to be careful not to lengthen the time too much. I believe that, in 6 months, the metagame would be changed too much, which would make the tiers a bit outdated after 4 months or so.

I think that increasing the amount of time to update the tiers from 3 months to 4 months is enough. That way, we'll have 3 yearly updates to the tiers instead of the current 4, and is not as bad as having only 2 yearly updates. So I would propose to have the tiers change in January, May and September, instead of the current January, April, July and October months.

However, I would actually update the tiers more regularly for a new metagame, which usually changes very rapidly in its first few months (like NU). I'd actually make two monthly updates to a new metagame, then a new update would be done after two months, and then start updating the metagame every 4 months after that. Basically this means that a new metagame would have the same updates as all the other metagames except that it would have an extra update in February in its first year, if it starts in January.

 

[obi]

I would argue that a new metagame needs more time before the first round of banning, not less, precisely because of how much it's changing. We shouldn't ban stuff off the bat because people haven't figured out a way around it yet, we need to give lots of time for new strategies to emerge so we know which ones actually are powerful, and which just seem powerful. We can update the "top of NU" list however often we want, it's the banning to "banned from NU" that I'm concerned about.

 

[mtr]

On a related note, I don't think that we should have further tiers generated from disused NUs. The reason for this is that it would prove cumbersome to regulate testing and discussion of such tiers, and it would further split NU's already small player base.

Maybe after the Little Cup metagame solidifies, though, we could start an 'LC UU' metagame, though that is a far-future consideration.

 

[twash]

If it gets low activity, that can be countered by just increasing the length of time used for each section of tiering. For instance, rather than updating every 3 months, do votes on which Pokemon to ban every 6. We will obviously need a ban tier for NU. I don't really care what it's called.

That's a satisfying idea. One thing I would say is that at some point, if it becomes more popular, we may feel the need of voting every 3 months as opposed to 6. I don't particularly see an excellent stage at which we can say "this is popular enough to go to 3 months" (maybe after we get so many testers or something), but it might become obvious in time anyway (also I have no idea how popular it would be at this current stage). On top of this, 6 months every time may be unappealing to players who may feel as though they have to play the tier consistently for this time period to get voting rights.

While obi's suggestion to lengthen the amount of time to update the tiers is a good idea, we need to be careful not to lengthen the time too much. I believe that, in 6 months, the metagame would be changed too much, which would make the tiers a bit outdated after 4 months or so.

I think that increasing the amount of time to update the tiers from 3 months to 4 months is enough. That way, we'll have 3 yearly updates to the tiers instead of the current 4, and is not as bad as having only 2 yearly updates. So I would propose to have the tiers change in January, May and September, instead of the current January, April, July and October months.

However, I would actually update the tiers more regularly for a new metagame, which usually changes very rapidly in its first few months (like NU). I'd actually make two monthly updates to a new metagame, then a new update would be done after two months, and then start updating the metagame every 4 months after that. Basically this means that a new metagame would have the same updates as all the other metagames except that it would have an extra update in February in its first year, if it starts in January.

The main issue in this case is when Pokemon drop from UU to NU: their impact on the metagame could often be large. It would be very frustrating for Pokemon to drop down and take effect at the point where it may affect testing while there has been little time to experiment with the Pokemon in NU. I don't mind the idea of changing the update of the tier list to every 4 months (barring bannings/testings), although it doesn't really fit in if we wanted some kind of schedule with 3/6 month tests...(although arguably it takes a while for paragraphs to be submitted, voting to take place, etc). In fact, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it.

I would argue that a new metagame needs more time before the first round of banning, not less, precisely because of how much it's changing. We shouldn't ban stuff off the bat because people haven't figured out a way around it yet, we need to give lots of time for new strategies to emerge so we know which ones actually are powerful, and which just seem powerful. We can update the "top of NU" list however often we want, it's the banning to "banned from NU" that I'm concerned about.

I agree that the first round before voting should be longer to help the metagame develop properly before voting. One thing we really need to avoid is banning Pokemon prematurely because there has been a lack of time development wise.

On a related note, I don't think that we should have further tiers generated from disused NUs. The reason for this is that it would prove cumbersome to regulate testing and discussion of such tiers, and it would further split NU's already small player base.

Maybe after the Little Cup metagame solidifies, though, we could start an 'LC UU' metagame, though that is a far-future consideration.

The potential tier(s) below NU would be exactly like UU is to OU, and what NU should be to UU. I don't see why it's "cumbersome" to regulate testing for lower tiers. Also, it's hard to judge NU's potential player base, because it currently recieves little publicity.

 

[X-Act]

I would argue that a new metagame needs more time before the first round of banning, not less, precisely because of how much it's changing. We shouldn't ban stuff off the bat because people haven't figured out a way around it yet, we need to give lots of time for new strategies to emerge so we know which ones actually are powerful, and which just seem powerful. We can update the "top of NU" list however often we want, it's the banning to "banned from NU" that I'm concerned about.

I see your point. But when generating a new NU list from usage, nothing is banned, right? Arguably, a new metagame will never have another metagame below it... it will always be at the bottom of the tiers. Thus, it won't affect any bans if it gets updated more often. Unless I'm not seeing something...

 

[obi]

I mean banning from NU to NU's 'uber' tier.

 

[mtr]

The potential tier(s) below NU would be exactly like UU is to OU, and what NU should be to UU. I don't see why it's "cumbersome" to regulate testing for lower tiers. Also, it's hard to judge NU's potential player base, because it currently recieves little publicity.

What I meant is that moderators and admins, who regulate the testing process for each tier, are a finite resource, as is their time. Its just a consideration before we start on any new endeavors. This is why I proposed a stickied megathread for NU as a precursor to a forum.

 

[lilyhollow]

On a related note, I don't think that we should have further tiers generated from disused NUs. The reason for this is that it would prove cumbersome to regulate testing and discussion of such tiers, and it would further split NU's already small player base.

Maybe after the Little Cup metagame solidifies, though, we could start an 'LC UU' metagame, though that is a far-future consideration.

I think it only makes sense to generate modes of play ("tiers") based on popularity, which stems from a number of factors including how "cumbersome" an additional mode would be to organize, whether it is viewed as redundant (so maybe a Little Cup UU mode seems more worthwhile than NU despite UU being more popular than Little Cup, though in practice I somewhat doubt that), etc.. I can't think of any reason to avoid forming a "tier" that has significant demand, since the factors you're describing are all necessarily taken into account by gauging interest alone anyway.

 

[twash]

What I meant is that moderators and admins, who regulate the testing process for each tier, are a finite resource, as is their time. Its just a consideration before we start on any new endeavors. This is why I proposed a stickied megathread for NU as a precursor to a forum.

If we have enough reliable members willing at the necessary time, I really don't see a problem. We are probably getting ahead of ourselves looking at tiers after NU though - right now NU should be the main focus in my opinion (currently I don't see many issues with running NU).

 

[X-Act]

I was chatting with Twashley yesterday about this thread and came up with the following idea:

Suppose there's a 6 month test going on in UU or NU, and a tier update is done in the middle of this test. Pokemon that should go down from upper tiers to one of these tiers go temporarily to the BL tier in between instead, until the test is finished. Pokemon that should go up from one of these tiers are copied to the BL tier above them also, until the test is finished. Then, when the test finishes, they can go to their respective tier. This way, tier updates can continue to be done without affecting testing.

I know that this complicates the tier system somewhat, which is probably the biggest disadvantage of this system. But, in return, testing will not be hindered by tiering updates at all, and analysis writers will have to rewrite their Pokemon analyses every 6 months instead of every 3, which, in my opinion, amply counterbalance this disadvantage.

The other solution is to update the tiers as soon as the testing finishes, i.e. every 6 months as obi said. This is a much simpler solution but has the disadvantage that the tiers are outdated.

 

[X-Act]

Sorry to double-post, but I require feedback on my last post, since it is obviously up for discussion, and nothing has been decided yet.

 

[Bologo]

Can't we just use the currently empty Limbo tier for pokemon like that who have an undecided tier? It seems a lot easier to just dump pokemon that would screw up the testing into the Limbo tier instead of complicating the tier system like you mentioned.

 

[X-Act]

Can't we just use the currently empty Limbo tier for pokemon like that who have an undecided tier? It seems a lot easier to just dump pokemon that would screw up the testing into the Limbo tier instead of complicating the tier system like you mentioned.

I have no problems with putting them in the Limbo tier, and I actually discussed this with twash. However, I think that involving the Limbo tier is actually complicating the system more than using the already-existing BL and (BL for NU) tiers that already are well-established tiers. There seems to be a general agreement for the existence of a BL for NU tier as well.

Which brings me to the point: we need a name for this tier. I suggest renaming 'BL' to 'BUU' and the BL for NU tier to be named 'BNU'.

 

[twash]

Most of my views are basically the same as X-Act's on this. I like the idea of putting an awaiting Pokemon in the nearest banlist above the tier it should be in (ie. the 'BL' equivalent), simply because Limbo can sometimes be unclear as to where to a Pokemon is allowed.

Name wise, presumably we can either create a newly named 'BL' for NU, or alternatively just rename the current BL and use a name which can is similar to the rest, just with a change to the tier. I prefer the latter option, and expanding on your point X-Act, BUU could suggest 'Borderline UU' or 'Banned UU' or - so BNU could mean 'Borderline NU' or 'Banned NU'. While either works, I think the 'Borderline Tier' version is probably better.

Also, I think that January or the subsequent tiering update would be a good time to start, simply because it means tier updates are less likely to interfere. If anybody has any opinions on this, feel free to post.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Six months for revising tiers seems a bit long... We could probably get away with every four months with still being current with the tiers.

What we might need is more specific time frames (ex. after x months testing there's a set amount of time for people to get approved to vote, voting, tally, and the decision after that). People shouldn't be too upset over the extension of a few tests.

If we were to explore NU a lot more I could see some mons hopping up a tier or two. There's bound to be an undiscovered set or two lying around that could be quite useful in OU among NU pokes. At Smogon we want to have as much knowledge available for the various metagames of mons, right? Given the size of OU and UU though... will a tier like... Never Ever Used emerge?

I'd love to see the results of testing NU, giving it ladders, etc. It would be fun.

We probably should have a more public discussion about this though, that way we can gauge how many potential players we'd have for it. All of this NU discussion would be kind of moot if we didn't have any players...