A new UU ladder

obi

obi

formerly david stone
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
For those of you who did not read My Suggestion for UU, here's the executive summary of that thread:

Test all non-OU Pokemon in UU. Theorymon need not apply.

The way to definitively test this out would be to have a ladder system to get some stats from all of these battles (and to enforce certain rules).

The test that I am proposing would ban only Uber and OU Pokemon from UU. All Pokemon currently in BL, UU, and NFE would be allowed for the first round of testing. Once this is over, we have discussion and ban a few Pokemon. Then we keep playing as normal with those Pokemon banned for the next round of testing. To be clear, Chansey, Hippopotas, Abomasnow, Pinsir, and any other Pokemon that is not explicitly uber or OU would not be banned.

This thread is for discussing such a ladder system and to explain just what its purpose is for when it is created.

In particular, I'm interested in how long each testing cycle should last.
 
Why not just create a permanent BL ladder? We have an Uber ladder, so I don't see anything wrong with a BL ladder. We could see how the BL metagame plays out, and use that information to help us modify UU from there.

Well, I guess what I'm saying is no matter how UU turns out, having a BL ladder permanently would not be bad. With BL being a "pseudo" tier as well, we could just let NFEs run amuck as they please as well, including snover/hippo without anyone being able to argue about weather, seeing as "we're not trying to balance BL anyway."
 
Is it the best idea to add all the current BL and all the NFE's in one step? I do support adding the NFEs to the UU ladder, but adding both sets of Pokemon in one step may lead to information overload I fear. Accurate data might be harder to come by with too many Pokemon in the list.

I thought this new ladder could simply be added under the title of BL ladder. Usage statistics are compiled at the end of the month, and Pokemon are banned from there. Realize though, this is a lot of pokemon's tier placement to be decided all at once, chaos is bound to ensue.
 
well this is going to be fun. Considering Slaking is legal on this ladder and rain dance teams become damn near unstoppable if run correctly.

time to abuse scarf slaking + hail ;D
 
This might actually be interesting. If this is how we create each and every ladder, then we could end up with a few more tiers than expected. I would support something like, all thought the more hardcore uu players might object to such a thing, but this would be an easy way t figure out who the "suspects" are that centralize the game.

Could an argument be made for not including any pokemon that has been OU at all? That might make a more "balanced" game from the start

Also, which ladders OU will we use? and if we use the suspect ladder, would PorygonZ not be allowed because Porygon2 is not allowed?
 
I see Cythia and I are on the same page here.

Well of course there will be UU players against this, but again-- why do we have to call this new ladder UU? Why can't we just make a BL ladder for starters?

After all, no matter how you split the line between BL and UU, there are always going to be players irritated that they can't use the pokemon banned to BL, so why not make a BL ladder just like we have an Uber one?

Taking that as the first step makes a lot more sense to me than making some "pseud-UU ladder." The same data could be collected from a BL ladder, and then we can look at it and see if we think it has any relevance to UU or not.

edit: I understand Obi wants to raise the bar of UU so that a potentially more competant NU could be made in the future, but ideally there ought to be a certain degree of difference in strength between the botton of OU and top of UU, such that pokemon are not bouncing between the two tiers every month.
 
ChouToshio said:
I see Cythia and I are on the same page here.

Well of course there will be UU players against this, but again-- why do we have to call this new ladder UU? Why can't we just make a BL ladder for starters?

After all, no matter how you split the line between BL and UU, there are always going to be players irritated that they can't use the pokemon banned to BL, so why not make a BL ladder just like we have an Uber one?

Taking that as the first step makes a lot more sense to me than making some "pseud-UU ladder." The same data could be collected from a BL ladder, and then we can look at it and see if we think it has any relevance to UU or not.

edit: I understand Obi wants to raise the bar of UU so that a potentially more competant NU could be made in the future, but ideally there ought to be a certain degree of difference in strength between the botton of OU and top of UU, such that pokemon are not bouncing between the two tiers every month.
Click to expand...

The way I see it and that I've been told, BL is a ban tier for UU, which would hold the pokemon that are

1) Too "powerful", "centralizing" for UU
2) OU some months, not the others.

Having "cushion tiers" looks weird because they aren't made to be balanced, but to balance other tiers.
 
RB Golbat-- I am sorry if I don't understand how that was a response to my post. I know and agree with all the stuff you said.

My point being that we can make a ladder for a "ban tier," and ought to make one for BL regardless. We have a "Ban Tier Ladder" right now, it's called the "Uber Ladder." In the same way, a BL ladder would be valuable for many reasons.

I would accomplish both the same thing as what Obi is describing (in the short run at least), and additionally it would have its own value just like Uber ladder has its own value.
 
ChouToshio said:
RB Golbat-- I am sorry if I don't understand how that was a response to my post. I know and agree with all the stuff you said.

My point being that we can make a ladder for a "ban tier." We have one right now, it's called the "Uber Ladder." In the same way, a BL ladder would be valuable for many reasons.

I would accomplish both the same thing as what Obi is describing (in the short run at least), and additionally it would have its own value just like Uber ladder has its own value.
Click to expand...

I was just saying why i thought a BL ladder wouldn't really work, i don't doubt that it would have its own value, but It should be made a ladder after UU is decided. It wouldn't be a as unbalanced as the ban tier that is Uber, but still somewhat imbalanced (at least as far as I can predict)
 
I think having a Permanent BL ladder would be better not only for the sake of UU, but for BL as well.

When we have this ladder, there will inevitably be a lot of fans for it (myself included). We will have members who want to play it permanently-- and why not? BL now contains tons of unique and interesting pokemon. Moreover, and here's something cool, BL ladder would be truly unique in one regard:

It'd be the only ladder with a continuously changing list of usable pokemon.

While the list of OUs always changes, you can always use BLs in OU. The reverse is not true, so BL would be the first (and possibly only) constantly shifting battlefield, which in my opinion would have its own unique play value.

In other words, I believe that for both the sake of UU and for the many left over BL pokemon, having a BL ladder would be really useful in terms of both data and fun.
 
would this have both ladders running at once, with one where a metagame is already constructed (be it perfectly banaced or not) and one where we're testing everything, like standard/suspect test?

sounds good but we are starting to thin out our populations of battlers.. as long as DJD has enough data points it sounds great. ive actually supported obi's view from the start and i think it's time we got cracking on building a real UU metagame, with platinum just come out
 
Well, "UU" is gonna suck for a while, but at least I can use Alakazam and Mismagius with some success. Considering the best special wall is Chansey it'll be cakewalk!
 
The problem with just calling this the "BL Ladder" is that sure, it might be the same right now, but after the first set of banning Pokemon to BL from this new UU, it would be different. Moreover, it sets up the idea that this is for "BL Pokemon", rather than a way to test UU Pokemon. I suppose you could view it as determining which Pokemon need to be moved to BL...
 
skiddle said:
Well, "UU" is gonna suck for a while, but at least I can use Alakazam and Mismagius with some success. Considering the best special wall is Chansey it'll be cakewalk!
Click to expand...


Not so fast, Alakazam might be OU next month.

Which brings up a question, should pokemon who were once BL but became OU be tested? Examples would be Roserade, Gallade, and Spiritomb, Roserade and Gallade might be dropping out soon.
 
Pokemon that are OU are not allowed in UU and thus would be excluded. Pokemon that are not OU are possibly allowed and thus would be tested.
 
Man, this would allow for some real deadly rain teams. I'm curious though, adding ALL BL's would make this way less of a UU ladder. Frankly, I'd allow NFE's first, then a BL ladder with UUs allowed, otherwise, it's be unfair to call it a UU ladder.
 
Olie said:
Man, this would allow for some real deadly rain teams. I'm curious though, adding ALL BL's would make this way less of a UU ladder. Frankly, I'd allow NFE's first, then a BL ladder with UUs allowed, otherwise, it's be unfair to call it a UU ladder.
Click to expand...

how so?
 
Olie that post is a mystery to me.

@Obi-- How many steps do you think it would take to work out this "new UU"? Your comment now makes me think you are planning some drawn-out process of finding different problem pokes and banning them in multiple steps. In my opinion, that's no better than the current process going on in the BL/UU tier right now, just in the opposite direction.

I thought the whole point was to let everything loose, and then just kick out the problem pokes. If that's the case, we could just take 2-3 months (or more or less depending) to figure out which are the problem pokes on the BL ladder, and then change the UU ban list to just be those problem pokes.

See? What I am saying is we can work in either direction. If you take 1 step like that, your plan makes sense to me. If you are planning on taking that long drawn out process-- frankly, to me that seems no better than what we're doing right now.

edit: Another problem I have with "making another UU tier" (outside that you are deciding to totally ignore all the time and devotion that's gone into UU thus far), is that you still end up with the problem of having BLs that are left out. Regardless of what goes on in UU, I still think we ought to have a BL ladder regardless, for its own purpose. With that in mind, we'd have BL, "UU 2" and UU ladders, which imo seems inefficient and ridiculous.

edit 2: Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to find this "golden line" between UU and BL that you're looking for Obi. If the line between Ubers and OU is hard enough to find, the line between BL and UU is much more vague. In the end, said line is subjective (potentially arbitrary) regardless of where you draw it, so I somewhat fail to see why the current aribitrary line is worse than the one you propose to "look for."

edit 3: Ok, thought I do agree with the logic that "all pokemon be tested." The problem is, tested for what? Months ago when I first read this proposal of yours, it made a lot of sense to me because I thought "Yeah, there is no reason why Vileplume and Mantine should define UU more than Flygon and Medicham." But after playing UU and getting involved in it, and seeing a new UU defined instead by Venusaur and Aerodactyle, I have to say that I don't think you'll find any meaning in so called "testing," because there's nothing really to test for and you can draw the line almost anywhere and find a metagame that can reasoned to be "not broken."
 
The process lasts forever. If a Pokemon ever proves itself needing a banning, it is banned. It's possible that when the tiers are up for reevaluation, people decide that there are no Pokemon needing a banning.

The problem with the current system isn't that it would take too long to get to the "end result", because there is no guarantee that there is an end result (someone might find a new way to use a Pokemon or combination of Pokemon that proves to be overpowering). The problem is that the current system could easily get stuck at a local maximum. Adding more Pokemon makes whatever measure we choose to use worse if we add only a few, but adding several could get past this and improve whatever measure we choose to use.

However, to address the issue of speed, I do think this would converge on the 'ideal' point faster. However, it would be foolish to think that one set of bannings could identify all problem Pokemon. Once those Pokemon are banned, there could potentially be a new set. I find it highly unlikely that this would get us where we are now (just saying that to head off that argument), but even if it did, at least we would be justified in being where we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top