Let me start by saying this. I am relatively new to Smogon and I am not involved in the PR sub forum or have had any formal vote in any tiering decision. Having said that I would like to make my observations regarding centralisation.
Centralisation seems like an easy enough term to define. It is most commonly seen as forcing the metagame to be focused around a certain move/Pokemon/strategy. Probably the most classic examples of this in the DPPt metagame are Stealth Rock/Garchomp/FWG cores post Salamence. Yet if centralisation is a term that is thrown around commonly in possible ban discussions then I think there needs to be some clarity shed on it. I think some issues are:
1. Is centralisation necessarily bad? Whilst this may seem like a question that can be answered intuitively I ask this question. When Salamence was allowed in OU there was a growth in usage of "counters," specifically Ice Shard users and Cresselia (who most likely will drop in the August stats). Now he is banned they don't have as much as a use. So is centralisation bad given that it forces the use of creative Pokemon?
2. Is centralisation ever avoidable? Look at the June and July stats side by side to represent the Salamence banning. If you just gave rankings based soley on numbers and ignored whatever Pokemon that stat corresponded to then you would have a similar list. Therefore is the centralisation argument valid given that the metagame will reshift?
3. Is any "type" of centralisation inherently worse than any other? For instance it was argued in the Salamence ban thread that "it should be banned since it centralises by forcing you to use random things solely to beat it" and that "it shouldn't be banned since it stops FWG core and stall centralisation." Is any of these any worse than the other?
4. Finally, is centralisation something that can be measured in stats alone? Whilst it obviously seems like it can, it is probably more subtle changes that reflect centralisation better, such as putting, say, HP Ice to check Mence. If it can't be measured in statistics then its value as an argument to ban something comes under fire because it becomes subjective, along the lines of "X should be banned because I always use Y to beat it."
So that's it. Any thoughts?
Centralisation seems like an easy enough term to define. It is most commonly seen as forcing the metagame to be focused around a certain move/Pokemon/strategy. Probably the most classic examples of this in the DPPt metagame are Stealth Rock/Garchomp/FWG cores post Salamence. Yet if centralisation is a term that is thrown around commonly in possible ban discussions then I think there needs to be some clarity shed on it. I think some issues are:
1. Is centralisation necessarily bad? Whilst this may seem like a question that can be answered intuitively I ask this question. When Salamence was allowed in OU there was a growth in usage of "counters," specifically Ice Shard users and Cresselia (who most likely will drop in the August stats). Now he is banned they don't have as much as a use. So is centralisation bad given that it forces the use of creative Pokemon?
2. Is centralisation ever avoidable? Look at the June and July stats side by side to represent the Salamence banning. If you just gave rankings based soley on numbers and ignored whatever Pokemon that stat corresponded to then you would have a similar list. Therefore is the centralisation argument valid given that the metagame will reshift?
3. Is any "type" of centralisation inherently worse than any other? For instance it was argued in the Salamence ban thread that "it should be banned since it centralises by forcing you to use random things solely to beat it" and that "it shouldn't be banned since it stops FWG core and stall centralisation." Is any of these any worse than the other?
4. Finally, is centralisation something that can be measured in stats alone? Whilst it obviously seems like it can, it is probably more subtle changes that reflect centralisation better, such as putting, say, HP Ice to check Mence. If it can't be measured in statistics then its value as an argument to ban something comes under fire because it becomes subjective, along the lines of "X should be banned because I always use Y to beat it."
So that's it. Any thoughts?