Firestorm
I did my best, I have no regrets!
This is proposing an alternate direction that we can take from the one we used in Generation IV.
As the fourth generation wore on, I felt as if Smogon became a site less for competitive players and more for pseudo designers. I'm not saying we can't have game design aspects in our site - after all it's only natural to want to make things ourselves - but I do feel that should stay within the Create a Pokemon project.
What Smogon has done over the last generation is the equivalent of a developer patching a game. The reason I don't think is positive is explained decently by sirlin in his playing to win series:
Now, if we establish that Smogon should take the university metaphor and be a place of research, analysis, and education rather than that of a game developer, we can spend less time arguing about what game we want to play and more time on how to play it best.
So really what it comes down to is, are we willing to give up control and instead work with what we have like the players of every other competitive game ever made? This ability to be the best we can under the conditions given is what defines competitive play. I believe by tinkering with that, we are no longer playing competitively.
By giving up control, I mean taking Nintendo's rules, which we did used to do, and running with it. Our main metagame will likely be Singles for as long as Nintendo's single-player campaign emphasizes it. Our ruleset is an evolution of that used by the Poke Cup in Pokemon Stadium that mutated somewhere along the way.
Our clauses have been fairly consistent from Generation I through IV:
Sleep Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium
Freeze Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium (removed in Gen IV by us for being unnecessary)
Species Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium
Self-KO Clause -> Not really a clause, tie-breaker method
Evasion Clause -> Unique to Smogon
OHKO Clause -> Unique to Smogon
Our banlist used to be fairly consistent with Nintendo’s, and then changed.
Generation I
- Mewtwo
- Mew
Our banlist mirrored theirs.
Generation II
- Mewtwo
- Mew
- Lugia
- Ho-oh
- Celebi
Our banlist mirrored theirs.
Generation III
- Mewtwo
- Mew
- Wobbuffet
- Lugia
- Ho-oh
- Celebi (later unbanned)
- Wynaut
- Latias
- Latios
- Rayquaza
- Deoxys
- Deoxys-A
- Deoxys-D
- Deoxys-S
- Kyogre
- Groudon
- Jirachi (later unbanned)
The only differences we have is that our banlist had Wobbuffet and Wynaut on it and Nintendo's had Jirachi and Celebi while we eventually removed them.
Generation IV
Mew
Mewtwo
Wobbuffet
Lugia
Ho-Oh
Wynaut
Salamence
Latias
Latios
Rayquaza
Deoxys
Deoxys-A
Deoxys-D
Deoxys-S
Groudon
Kyogre
Garchomp
Dialga
Palkia
Giratina
Giratina-O
Arceus
Manaphy
Darkrai
Shaymin-S
What we have that they don't: Wobbuffet, Wynaut, Salamence, Garchomp
What they have that we don't: Celebi, Jirachi, Phione, Shaymin
---
Really my only point of listing all that out was that people seem to automatically assume that our banlist is that much different from their's when in fact we had the same exact list as theirs until around 2005 or so. Even Generation IV was pretty close to their list.
We would be giving up the use of Celebi, Jirachi, Shaymin, and lol Phione.
We would be re-introducing Wobbuffet, Wynaut, Salamence, and Garchomp.
We would be removing Evasion and OHKO clause.
We would be keeping Species and potentially Sleep clause.
[ This is where the proposed Generation V banlist would go if I could find the Battle Subway list ]
Personally, I think this is a price worth the stability and ability to pass the blame when it comes to decisions being made. In the unlikely event this becomes an unworkable game which players refuse to play, we can go back to the Generation IV method, but it worked well for a good 7 years so I don't see why we couldn't try it again.
I remember Aeolus saying this:
With regards to using the university metaphor, I think our simulators should not be seen as products to sell but tools for learning instead. With that in mind, they should emulate the games as closely as possible so we can beat use them to analyze the game. That gives them a clear purpose which we can use to base decisions on.
---
Unfortunately it looks like I spent most of my post focusing on tiering. The reason I didn't post this in the banlist thread was because it is completely off-topic there. This is not proposing an initial banlist that we refine over time. It's proposing a banlist period. If we start modifying it willy-nilly, it defeats the purpose.
I hope I'm not misrepresenting the past as I am basing all this on secondary research having joined the community in 07 myself. Please feel free to correct me or explain why this should not go into effect. Whatever you do, just do it here and not in secret IRC channels where nobody but the people who agree with you can hear you. It's time to start addressing each other directly.
Edit: Oh god this is long.
tl;dr even though that shouldn't be happening in PR:
We let Game Freak handle the game.
We handle playing it, writing about it, and teaching others the intricacies of it.
As the fourth generation wore on, I felt as if Smogon became a site less for competitive players and more for pseudo designers. I'm not saying we can't have game design aspects in our site - after all it's only natural to want to make things ourselves - but I do feel that should stay within the Create a Pokemon project.
What Smogon has done over the last generation is the equivalent of a developer patching a game. The reason I don't think is positive is explained decently by sirlin in his playing to win series:
Another reason I'm wary of us patching the game we play is that I think there's a conflict of interest there. Smogon should be home to the best players. Bungie and Capcom fly competitive Halo and Street Figher players to headquarters to hear their thoughts, but they do not take everything they say and act on it. Why? As competitive players, we are usually very inclined to serve our own interests and in most cases, that's keeping the status quo or getting rid of things that bother us. Let’s let the designers (Game Freak) design and let’s have the players (us) play.sirlin said:The “constant patching” approach by developers also often leads to laziness on the part of the players; there’s less reward for trying as hard as you can within the given rules, because if you are successful, your tactic will just be patched [in our case, banned] into obsolescence anyway.
Now, if we establish that Smogon should take the university metaphor and be a place of research, analysis, and education rather than that of a game developer, we can spend less time arguing about what game we want to play and more time on how to play it best.
So really what it comes down to is, are we willing to give up control and instead work with what we have like the players of every other competitive game ever made? This ability to be the best we can under the conditions given is what defines competitive play. I believe by tinkering with that, we are no longer playing competitively.
By giving up control, I mean taking Nintendo's rules, which we did used to do, and running with it. Our main metagame will likely be Singles for as long as Nintendo's single-player campaign emphasizes it. Our ruleset is an evolution of that used by the Poke Cup in Pokemon Stadium that mutated somewhere along the way.
Our clauses have been fairly consistent from Generation I through IV:
Sleep Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium
Freeze Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium (removed in Gen IV by us for being unnecessary)
Species Clause -> First implemented by Nintendo in Stadium
Self-KO Clause -> Not really a clause, tie-breaker method
Evasion Clause -> Unique to Smogon
OHKO Clause -> Unique to Smogon
Our banlist used to be fairly consistent with Nintendo’s, and then changed.
Generation I
- Mewtwo
- Mew
Our banlist mirrored theirs.
Generation II
- Mewtwo
- Mew
- Lugia
- Ho-oh
- Celebi
Our banlist mirrored theirs.
Generation III
- Mewtwo
- Mew
- Wobbuffet
- Lugia
- Ho-oh
- Celebi (later unbanned)
- Wynaut
- Latias
- Latios
- Rayquaza
- Deoxys
- Deoxys-A
- Deoxys-D
- Deoxys-S
- Kyogre
- Groudon
- Jirachi (later unbanned)
The only differences we have is that our banlist had Wobbuffet and Wynaut on it and Nintendo's had Jirachi and Celebi while we eventually removed them.
Generation IV
Mew
Mewtwo
Wobbuffet
Lugia
Ho-Oh
Wynaut
Salamence
Latias
Latios
Rayquaza
Deoxys
Deoxys-A
Deoxys-D
Deoxys-S
Groudon
Kyogre
Garchomp
Dialga
Palkia
Giratina
Giratina-O
Arceus
Manaphy
Darkrai
Shaymin-S
What we have that they don't: Wobbuffet, Wynaut, Salamence, Garchomp
What they have that we don't: Celebi, Jirachi, Phione, Shaymin
---
Really my only point of listing all that out was that people seem to automatically assume that our banlist is that much different from their's when in fact we had the same exact list as theirs until around 2005 or so. Even Generation IV was pretty close to their list.
We would be giving up the use of Celebi, Jirachi, Shaymin, and lol Phione.
We would be re-introducing Wobbuffet, Wynaut, Salamence, and Garchomp.
We would be removing Evasion and OHKO clause.
We would be keeping Species and potentially Sleep clause.
[ This is where the proposed Generation V banlist would go if I could find the Battle Subway list ]
Personally, I think this is a price worth the stability and ability to pass the blame when it comes to decisions being made. In the unlikely event this becomes an unworkable game which players refuse to play, we can go back to the Generation IV method, but it worked well for a good 7 years so I don't see why we couldn't try it again.
I remember Aeolus saying this:
I believe the shift in thinking came with the shift of power from Nintendo to us. Much of my line of thinking also falls in line of some of what Articuno64 said in his OP of that same topic which I wish was in Policy Review but isn't, so I will quote here:Aeolus said:This is incorrect. The previous method DID work... it was a shift of attitude that caused the change... not a non-functional metagame.
At some point it became generally accepted that if something isn't absolutely broken it must be allowed and the only way to know if something is broken is to test it. Prior to the implementation of the new system, nobody really made any assertions about the intrinsic "uberness" of Latias/Latios or the brokenness of OHKO/Evasion. People just accepted that the call had been made on those items and played the game they were given... which functioned perfectly well. It may not have included every possible option available in the cartridges... but it was good enough and stable. By changing the system, we've completely traded stability for an uneasy assurance that our game is "better". A balance between those goals (stability and "assurance through testing") is what needs to be sought for Gen 5.
---Articuno64 said:This is a post about the tiering process, but at the same time, it is not. It is really much simpler and more fundamental. It has nothing to do with Salamence, Garchomp, ladders, councils, or any of that.
I've felt this way for a long time, but I've hesitated to speak up because it goes right to the heart of a project that is the brainchild of people who are very good friends of mine. The reasons that I'm bringing it up now are that a) I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm not alone in this opinion and b) with Black and White coming up, we all agree that it's important to start on the right path.
I'm calling into question the assumption that having the freedom to control the rules of the game makes the game more enjoyable. In fact, the thesis of this post is the opposite: The very act of opening up the rules of the game for discussion makes the game less enjoyable.
This is an idea that is counter-intuitive but, given some thought, makes a lot of sense. To better explain it, I'm linking to a TED talk called "The paradox of choice" by Barry Schwartz. It's 20 minutes long, and it's a worthwhile listen even if you don't care about this thread. (not all of the talk applies to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we are not qualified to decide what the rules should be; what I'm saying is that doing so makes us enjoy it less)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
One of the problems that Barry talks about is decision paralysis. We seem to have passed that by moving onto the faster council system. That's fine, I'm willing to accept that we've solved decision paralysis for this.
I would like to focus more on the point made in the story about jeans. The fact is that even if, after all of our hard work, we end up with a metagame that is 'better' or 'more balanced' than we started with, we will actually feel worse about it than if we had just picked a "reasonable default" set of rules and left them untouched.
Before, when you had a problem with a pokemon, your only choice was to figure out how to counter it. Now, you have two choices. You could figure out how to counter it, or you could question whether the pokemon should be banned. Simply having the option to ban things fucks with the way that metagame processes work. You can not play properly because there is always an undercurrent of thoughts about whether something should be banned, will be banned, etc. The foundation is unstable, and although it would be worth having an unstable foundation if it resulted in a better metagame, as I've said, we would not actually feel better about a better metagame anyway. It is a sacrifice which feels noble but is for a perceived benefit which does not actually exist.
It sounds weird, but we need to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for coming up with rule decisions. We need to be desperate to pass the buck as far as we possibly can. How to pass the buck? There are a few ways to do it. Following the rules in official Nintendo tournaments or the stadium game modes is one way. Going with a traditional competitive community ban list (banning the Mewtwos and equivalent stat totals along with the pokemon that have 100 in each base stat) is another way. Really, ANYTHING at all that provides a simple, reasonable, default set of rules that does not need to be constantly up for debate is a preferable system. Then we can finally just play the damn game.
With regards to using the university metaphor, I think our simulators should not be seen as products to sell but tools for learning instead. With that in mind, they should emulate the games as closely as possible so we can beat use them to analyze the game. That gives them a clear purpose which we can use to base decisions on.
---
Unfortunately it looks like I spent most of my post focusing on tiering. The reason I didn't post this in the banlist thread was because it is completely off-topic there. This is not proposing an initial banlist that we refine over time. It's proposing a banlist period. If we start modifying it willy-nilly, it defeats the purpose.
I hope I'm not misrepresenting the past as I am basing all this on secondary research having joined the community in 07 myself. Please feel free to correct me or explain why this should not go into effect. Whatever you do, just do it here and not in secret IRC channels where nobody but the people who agree with you can hear you. It's time to start addressing each other directly.
Edit: Oh god this is long.
tl;dr even though that shouldn't be happening in PR:
We let Game Freak handle the game.
We handle playing it, writing about it, and teaching others the intricacies of it.