Granted, I completely forgot about Double Dragon, but without Rayquaza, Mence is just outclassed.
-
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.
(Un)Official Smogon University PO Stats -- August 2011
- Thread starter Antar
- Start date
- Status
Granted, I completely forgot about Double Dragon, but without Rayquaza, Mence is just outclassed.
I wouldnt at all be opposed to counting stats for those >1000. There are a bunch of people running around with pokemon that arent very competitively viable which can affect the stats (albeit not much, but enough decide the tiering of a pokemon). I also like the six-turn rule as well. But to me, ALL pokemon in the party, whether they are shown in battle or not, should be counted. It could just so happen that you only needed one 'Mon to sweep a team, but it doesnt mean the other 5 dont exist.
As for a "new OU cutoff", i dont think that is determinable at this point. It's gonna take at least two consistent periods of usage data to determine that (seeing as the last two were gathered in different ways). BUT, if in fact it does turn up that the 3.41% line makes our OU shrink, then I believe a new number is what it would need to come down to. It needs to be proportional to other generations, or at least somewhat.
P.S.- Thanks a ton Antar for what you're doing, impressive! I've been waiting on pins and needles for these.
P.S.S.- I wish i could help, but programming and the likes isnt my strong suit. But if you need some hard numbers crunched, i can definitely help there! :D
As for a "new OU cutoff", i dont think that is determinable at this point. It's gonna take at least two consistent periods of usage data to determine that (seeing as the last two were gathered in different ways). BUT, if in fact it does turn up that the 3.41% line makes our OU shrink, then I believe a new number is what it would need to come down to. It needs to be proportional to other generations, or at least somewhat.
P.S.- Thanks a ton Antar for what you're doing, impressive! I've been waiting on pins and needles for these.
P.S.S.- I wish i could help, but programming and the likes isnt my strong suit. But if you need some hard numbers crunched, i can definitely help there! :D
I've come up with an idea for making the usage stats a bit more compatible with the old ones. I don't think it'll work for LC and Ubers, since there just weren't enough battles in those two tiers, but the others should be fine.
It'll probably be a few days before I can post the results, but the end-result will be a comparison of several different counting (read: exclusion) rulesets.
It'll probably be a few days before I can post the results, but the end-result will be a comparison of several different counting (read: exclusion) rulesets.
Oh I never said that this way to calculate the stats is bad. Infact it gives us a little leeway with the stats and shows us what is actually being used. The biggest difference is that those pokemon will eat up a bit more of the stat total (total percentage should equal 600%), but that doesn't matter too much, if needed we can move the OU Cutoff around till we find the optimized point.
So, quick question:
People seem to be talking about how it's a little hard to compare these stats to those gathered by Rising_Dusk because of how the collection method was different. Also, they've been talking about how it wouldn't be possible to do Rising_Dusk style stats for this month because the thing that allowed that to be done wasn't running in August. However, couldn't we do Antar style stats for May and June? If the logs are still around, it would give us a chance both to get more Antar style data and to get a better understanding of what the difference is when each is used on the same set of information.
People seem to be talking about how it's a little hard to compare these stats to those gathered by Rising_Dusk because of how the collection method was different. Also, they've been talking about how it wouldn't be possible to do Rising_Dusk style stats for this month because the thing that allowed that to be done wasn't running in August. However, couldn't we do Antar style stats for May and June? If the logs are still around, it would give us a chance both to get more Antar style data and to get a better understanding of what the difference is when each is used on the same set of information.
Very good. Someone give this man (woman?) a cookie. I contacted R_D this morning and am waiting to hear back, but I wouldn't count on these stats still existing.
referring to your previous comment, garchomp isn't "outclassed" by the others in the Ubers. The choice scarf set is fantastic and the SD set is also decent (though I do consider the sd set sort of outclassed by the other two sd dragons)
oh well, at least i tried
however i am still really interested in seeing usage stats for people above the voter cutoff :)
Are you a wizard.
Dragonite is hanging ten with the big boys. Finally getting the recognition you deserved. The original bad boy.
Metagross is looking to be the first titan[pseudo legend] to drop. Never thought I would see that.
Metagross is looking to be the first titan[pseudo legend] to drop. Never thought I would see that.
Update: R_D says he didn't keep the battle logs. I don't blame him--the files are huge, and he wasn't using them for anything, so, alas, we can't use my method(s) on May/June.
However, things are proceeding decently well on the other front, so hopefully I'll have some shiny new comparison stats for you guys in a few days.
Edit: Further update
R_D *didn't* use a rating cutoff, after all. So while I'll still be looking into taking rating into account in usage statistics, I won't be advocating using it for official stats this cycle.
I'll go ahead and say, I'm going to look at what happens if we only look at teams where all six pokemon are known. IIRC, 35% of all battles had all twelve pokemon appear, and another 23% had eleven, so that means that upwards (probably significantly upwards) of 46% of all teams will be represented. Obviously, this has the same problem as the current method: some pokemon will be overrepresented, some underrepresented. Specifically, I expect sweepers to plummet further in the rankings, while pokemon that work well on stall- and switch-heavy teams will rise. The purpose of this set of stats will be to determine how much this stuff matters. If there are essentially no differences between the two rankings, I think it would be valid to assume that the rankings aren't very different than the ones R_D compiled. It will also mean that MaestroXXVI's suggestion of just multiplying all the stats by 1.17 is indeed the way to go.*
However, things are proceeding decently well on the other front, so hopefully I'll have some shiny new comparison stats for you guys in a few days.
Edit: Further update
R_D *didn't* use a rating cutoff, after all. So while I'll still be looking into taking rating into account in usage statistics, I won't be advocating using it for official stats this cycle.
I'll go ahead and say, I'm going to look at what happens if we only look at teams where all six pokemon are known. IIRC, 35% of all battles had all twelve pokemon appear, and another 23% had eleven, so that means that upwards (probably significantly upwards) of 46% of all teams will be represented. Obviously, this has the same problem as the current method: some pokemon will be overrepresented, some underrepresented. Specifically, I expect sweepers to plummet further in the rankings, while pokemon that work well on stall- and switch-heavy teams will rise. The purpose of this set of stats will be to determine how much this stuff matters. If there are essentially no differences between the two rankings, I think it would be valid to assume that the rankings aren't very different than the ones R_D compiled. It will also mean that MaestroXXVI's suggestion of just multiplying all the stats by 1.17 is indeed the way to go.*
for future cycles, we need, as a community, to discuss exactly what we want "OU" to mean. I think the old definition--that a pokemon is OU if there's greater than a 50% chance of it appearing in at least one of twenty battles--is a good one, but it leaves open the question, what about pokemon that don't appear in battle? Should they count? I can see this one of two ways:
Please note that these are not issues for the current discussion. Let's get August squared away in such a way that we can use it with May/June. THEN let's discuss the future.
- Yes, they should count: the OU list is essentially a threat list. If you want to succeed in OU, you should make sure your team can deal firstly with all the pokemon on this list. Victory in battle is only achieved if you can defeat ALL SIX of your opponent's pokemon, even if your opponent usually only uses four in a battle.
- No, they should not count: OU only exists in contrast to the lower tiers. And the purpose of the lower tiers is to give less-seen pokemon a chance to shine. Pokemon that don't appear in battle are, by definition, not seen, and are DEFINITELY not shining. Ergo, they should have a chance to make their mark on the lower tiers.
Please note that these are not issues for the current discussion. Let's get August squared away in such a way that we can use it with May/June. THEN let's discuss the future.
I've kinda been outta the pokemon thing for a while, so can someone explain why Gastrodon is OU now. lol, the tier list for this generation is seriously playing games with my head....
UU Mew..
UU Zapdos...
UU Mew..
UU Zapdos...
I'll try to give you the short version.
Gastrodon: Counters or checks the better portion of the top ten Pokes. The only one I can remember that it doesn't check/counter is Ferrothorn.
Zapdos: Outclassed in most cases by Thundorus.
Mew: The former hype is over. It was finally figured out Mew isn't that good, despite it's near bottomless move pool. All it's really good at now days is Baton Passing.
That isn't Zapdos' only problem. There are also many faster mons like Lati@s, and the sand sweepers, and high power dragons that make it hard for Zapdos to switch in. Latias, which is increasing in popularity, also walls and sets-up on Zapdos.
Mew is better than you suggest and looks to be heading towards OU in the coming months. It is quite bulky and can check many threats as well as being an offensive presence with attacking sets or Baton Pass.
Zapdos is actually somewhat decent, but thanks to Thundurus its forced to take on a more defensive role of using Pressure + Substitute to stall. And well, when a defensive Pokemon is weak to SR, this isn't exactly ideal.
also everybody's flying-type of choice is Dragonite anyway :/
Eh i wouldnt say jirachi's a better wall...meta has cb pursuit, priority, higher defence...and toge is hardly comparable. Personally i think jirachi is used more because it can abuse rain more then meta and toge is weak to rotom-h.
Except sub roost is horrible now due to shit like the fetus (forget the name), ferothorn, exadrill, etc
Yeah, just reading this made me laugh out loud. Your ghetto ranking collection method is most definitely badass. Like, bare-hand-underwater-great-white-shark-wrestling badass.
Out of curiosity, how heavy are a month of battle logs ? It's probably waaaay too massive for my crappy connection to download, so I won't touch the logs and make a low-sized data dump instead (which will be more convenient to work with anyway), from which I'll be able to extract pretty much anything. However, unless the higher-ups ask me to, I don't plan on releasing high cut-off stats. With such a small sample, they will be highly biased and might create noob trends, and we really want to avoid that.
I actually use offensive Zapdos in OU to a lot of success. Unlike Thundurus (where its either NP or rare Scarf variants), Zapdos has a bit of unpredictability, and that is pretty crucial. You won't believe how many Gliscor's I've nailed with HP Ice, thinking they can wall a defensive Zapdos, then send the opponent into a panic. Plus the extra bulk you have when carrying Zapdos and the fact it has Roost are great additions, although I admit that having only 100 base Speed does make Thundurus have the edge. I'm pretty sure Zapdos is taking Thundurus's spot on (some) Rain teams if/when Thundurus is banned.
August was a light month, with only about 3/4 of the battles of previous months (IIRC), and the zip file was 800MB. I didn't even check how large it was unzipped.
For large file transfers like this, SCP is great, especially if you have a client that can resume downloads. Too bad the Smogon server is on a Windows machine...
Zapdos gets Heat wave.
Gastrodon is OU primarily because of Drizzle, Thundurus, and Rotom-W. Drizzle makes even resisted Water moves hurt, so having a Pokemon that is immune to water helps with damage control. Also unlike other Water-immune mons, such as Jellicent and Toxicroak, Gastrodon is also immune to Electric, which is another common offense seen in Drizzle. Thus, Gastrodon provides a safe defensive foundation against most Rain offense (except for Hurricane spammers).
waterwarrior said:
IMO, not being able to use Heat Wave makes Zapdos a poor choice for Drizzle teams. Moreover, its lack of speed hurts. I'd say Jolteon or Raikou would be a more fitting replacement of Thundurus as a speedy Rain Sweeper than Zapdos. They have lower SpAtk, but their speed tiers are great. Although not recommended, Jolteon can go Modest and end up with an almost identical special offense as Thundurus, with 350 SpA / 359 Spe, still checking most of the significant threats (except Starmie).
Subroost normally uses Sub Roost Toxic Tbolt in my experiences
Timid LO Zapdos Heat Wave 2HKO's max/ max Sassy Ferro (plus it outdamages Raikou's Aura Sphere on the same Ferrothorn) and has a 79.5% chance of OHKO'ing standard CB Scizor (gaurenteed OHKO with SR or one layer of Spikes) in Rain. Not something to shrug off just because of the weather. Also, if you lose your Rain due to Sand or Sun (or Hail... I guess), full power Fire move.
EDIT: max/ max Sp. Def Rachi takes 44.5-52.2% from the same Zapdos's Thunder. Just putting it out there
And on a completely different note:
| 2 | Blastoise | 4744 |15.58169%|
| 4 | Cresselia | 3545 |11.64357%|
I mean, Blastoise is great and all but... really?!?!
- Status