Discussion Ban packages as a way to relieve tiering constipation (DPP OU and maybe more)

[dk]

I'll try to keep it short since half the time policy review feels like it's populated by highschoolers that are too used to padding out assignments with fluff to hit word count requirements

Anyway, this is a genuine issue in matured metagames:

[platonic ideal of a good pokemon metagame benchmark]
---
[metagame with both bans A and B] (good quality)
---
---
---
---
[metagame without bans A and B/status quo] (tolerable quality)
---
---
[metagame with ban A only] (bad quality)
[metagame with ban B only] (bad quality)
---
[benchmark for terrible quality pokemon metagame]

Put another way:

metagame with both bans A and B >>>>>> metagame without bans A or B/status quo >> metagame with ban A only >= metagame with ban B only

This is usually because big staple Pokemon/elements act as important counterbalances to eachother, so removing just one at a time is unappealing in many eyes. With traditional tiering approaches, one thing has to go, then the metagame has to settle, then the rest of the problem can maybe get put on the tiering slate, then maybe get banned, etc. As a community composed of hobbyists that vacilate between invested and not so much due to waning interest or simply more important things coming up, the prospect of your preferred metagame getting kneecapped in quality below the status quo for god knows how long just to EVENTUALLY be better is understandably unappealing when whats there already is frustrating but tolerable to an extent (and you're used to it).

I'm speaking mainly from a DPP OU perspective, where discussions about Jirachi, Clef, TWave, sleep, and even Latias (as a suspected problem if Jirachi or Clef goes) getting banned end up stifled by the dynamic discussed above. No one really wants to do the almost ritualistic "wait for the metagame to settle eighty times" song and dance that the traditional tiering pipeline would dish up.

Ban packages (banning things in batches) are the obvious solution, but you'd ideally set up some ban package trial environment to bring things out of theorymon territory. We had a test tournament for the Latias unban---no reason why that can't be done with a ban package. Crowd funding a prizepool could incentivize people to try and explore every nook and cranny of what the new building landscape would look like. There's also no reason to not trial the ban package itself on ladder for awhile (a month at least---maybe turn it into a ladder tour).

Once/if the trials excite enough interest, actual tiering action would follow.

 

[dice]

mass changes to metagames with exponentially less games and far fewer players doesn’t seem very feasible to me. at this point, we’ve mostly accepted that change has to be somewhat glacial for oldgens. don’t think crowdfunding some one off tournaments changes this fact, even if it would be more ideal to tinker with them more. not to sound defeatist but ultimately it just is what it is.

 

[dk]

mass changes to metagames with exponentially less games and far fewer players doesn’t seem very feasible to me. at this point, we’ve mostly accepted that change has to be somewhat glacial for oldgens. don’t think crowdfunding some one off tournaments changes this fact, even if it would be more ideal to tinker with them more. not to sound defeatist but ultimately it just is what it is.

while this backtracks on what i'd view as ideal, the ban package trialing could still serve as a way to drum up serious interest in just getting the ball rolling on doing the standard piecemeal 1-by-1 ban process while keeping the ban package hitlist in mind long-term. if you trial the complete ban package, you give people a taste of what's waiting at the end of a series of standard individual suspects the community/council is looking to go for. the closed survey takers that carry significant sway in deciding what the council actually suspects getting to try what the metagame could end up as after a chain of suspects could clean up a lot of undue pessimism or whatever underpins the apprehension.

put another way: ban packages can just be how test tours/ladder trial periods are set up, and then actual tiering action can simply use interest or data from the ban package trials to kick into gear (since councils will only suspect things that survey results show may actually have a chance of getting banned) in its usual mode of putting one thing on the ban slate at a time.

in dpp terms, there's a lot of uncertainty that lies ahead of a no jirachi metagame since its such a key glue. if you show people some clear vision (the ban package) that shows the council has the broader picture in mind, people will probably feel more comfortable taking the plunge into saying they're interested in a jirachi suspect on a survey (or twave or sleep or whatever might get put up first).

i suppose the more specific request to the dpp leadership is to get feedback on if there's interest in trialing a ban package and what that ban package would specifically look like. i also have no clue what the precedent may be for trialing banlist changes for a tier's ladder for a month or so is either, which is another thing.

 

[dice]

part of my issue as well is that, in every iteration of “test tournaments”, ppl often just use existing teams that are still legal. not trying to be thoughtful about the metagame or ban implications. unless a ban is official, the effort is just not the same (or existent).

I understand what you’re saying and want the same thing! I love old gens and want their metagames to be as healthy and fluid as possible! and I recognize that, despite their slower progression, the progression does exist and certain elements get refined more and more. teeter the edge of broken-ness. and then it becomes more clear about how we should tier. but imo this approach is a lot of optimism that won’t yield much. you can retool for a better strategy. I don’t have the answers but I have the discernment to know that this approach won’t give us more tiering clarity.

 

[dice]

fwiw I think packaging potential bans together as a future vision is somewhat interesting. I just wonder how you make it practical.

 

[toshimelonhead]

This is an interesting way to sidestep the "broken checking broken" chain reaction, but I hesitate to do it, especially with old gens or metagames without as much popularity. For DPP itself, I don't think it fixes the main issues if there are issues. Thunder Wave at 100 percent accuracy instead of 90 percent like in future generations turns DPP into a parahax nightmare scenario. Jirachi has uncompetitive elements that make this worse, but I don't know what removing multiple pieces alongside Jirachi solves. There is precedent for it with many suspect tests and council votes voting for multiple mons at a time, but old gen testing isn't the right scene for such a technique. For a metagame that's been played so often, at some point the dust has settled and changes have to be more surgical if done at all. It's one thing to do this in a current gen tier, but I don't think old gens are the place for this technique. My "do not ban" sentiment is much stronger for older gens only because people had a decade or more to complain about any problems. Players have held their peace, and complex testing is not the way to speak now.

 

[dk]

part of my issue as well is that, in every iteration of “test tournaments”, ppl often just use existing teams that are still legal. not trying to be thoughtful about the metagame or ban implications. unless a ban is official, the effort is just not the same (or existent).

prize pots was the attempt to address this problem, but given the variables in terms of how much the pot actually motivates honest tries at building ban package meta-specific teams (the pot may not end up big enough, busy participants may outright not have time to build for a test meta, exchange rates and cost of living differences may make the pot a big motivator for some but not others), it's hard to argue against this point

fwiw I think packaging potential bans together as a future vision is somewhat interesting. I just wonder how you make it practical.

it probably starts with including a question intended to gauge interest in a suspect test roadmap in surveys, since surveys are the first roadblock. something like "would you support a suspect roadmap that includes [core ban package parts that council agrees on]?"

and/or adding a "would you support a suspect of [thing] if other problems were slated for suspects?" option to survey items about individual problems, ie survey items like this:

Spoiler

(survey results this was pulled from)

in that case, the structure of the answer options would probably have to change to something like this:

• This Pokemon should have tiering action taken against it fullstop, regardless of if the suspect roadmap/ban package is pursued or not
• This Pokemon should have tiering action taken against it, but only if the suspect roadmap/ban package is pursued
• I'm undecided on how to feel (borderline)
• This Pokemon should NOT have tiering action taken against it

the old phrasing of 'is it balanced' and 'should we suspect it' being rolled into each answer doesn't clarify if the hesitation to banning it despite thinking it's a problem is because the responder wants further bans to offset its removal or just because they think the meta is too old to change---which are two very different camps of thought.

i think it's fair to focus on surveys since those underpin the old gen tiering system. as you can see from that Jirachi survey item I posted above, there's a split in the "Jirachi is a problem" camp that hints at some systematic issues with our conventional tiering approach

tagging Excal since i saw interest from them in banning Jirachi and sleep, but any dpp council responses would be appreciated

 

[toshimelonhead]

I see the data and it makes sense from a DPP perspective, but the wording of the item responses makes it tough to gauge further action. "It's a problem and no tiering action should take place" feels oxymoronic as an answer. Either it is a big enough problem for tiering action or it isn't. It can't be both.