Changing the Current Analysis Format (Second Attempt)

Colonel M

Not very Cash Money of you
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Personally, I would rather take the action as soon as possible rather than wait for the next generation. On top of just being something that can be forgotten in less than a week, it's best to get a head start on getting everyone on the same page and doing it effective immediately.

How I propose our options is as follows:

- Cut out unnecessary fluff and redundancy. Mentioning something as a perk like how Landorus-T can use its defensive typing and Intimidate is fine, but we don't need to regurgitate Intimidate for every other instance. This also includes instances where a 252 spread and a few other things such as items are mentioned. It's fine to mention some small examples such as how Scarf Keldeo out speeds +1 Volcarona (just an example don't lecture me on what's in meta or I'll just ignore you).
- Cut down on useless Other Options and be allowed to either leave the section blank or to simply state "there are no other viable alternatives worth considering for this Pokemon."
- Allow QC to tackle fluff to help with GP.
- Allow GP to kick back an analysis if there is too much fluff or redundancy. I feel that while we should hold the writer and QC team responsible, GP should also feel free to tell a writer to cut down on unnecessary content.

It feels like the majority agree on these things. I understand the minority and definitely want to express that we should help guide users to exploring a Pokemon and its viability and usage, but we should not take this as a measure of hand holding either. This also includes bringing back damage calculations, a suggestion made earlier, as that is also plagued with a myriad of issues that I can list from way back when we did them in Generation 4. If a player really wants to explore a better way to play Pokemon (ie a newbie who has 0 clue on competitive battling) , we have much better resources such as articles that can help go into further detail with these things.

I want to stress something that bugmaniacbob even seemed to fail to understand - sometimes the best information is short and to the point. People should not see these suggestions personally first off. Secondly, people should understand that we want to provide information, but we want to treat the reader to be at least a little more intelligent than we make them out to be. Yes there are newer players, but if they wanted to learn the best way is to go into action and do it. There are other sources of content these days that help average people learn as well and I think overloading an analysis is not the approach to it. Let's treat our viewers more like humans and less like robots fresh out of the factory.

Finally - If you want my personal take - I agree with lyd on Usage Tips and Set Details being the most merge able of the bunch here. I think Moves on its own seems bland but it makes some sense especially with different move options. EV sections often have some information in Usage Tips as is.
 
Last edited:

Lemonade

ᗜbleep bloop I am a robotᗜ
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Immediately starting is good because it isn't going to be trivial to find the balance of what to cut out and what to keep; people need time to experiment and practice. It would also be useful to be able to discuss analysis writing constructively outside of the QC / GP process since QC deals a lot about adding / removing information and GP tends to be at the writing itself rather than how the concepts are conveyed, if that makes sense. By somehow reviewing the writing, it would be easier to agree on a direction and such. This would be keeping in mind no one is being called out personally since it's still an exploratory stage.

For now, I'm kind of in favor of rebranding Usage Tips and essentially merging them with Move / Set Details. As I have brought up many times, and as other posts have noted, current Usage Tips offer too generic advice. But, how to properly present newer players with gameplay information requires a thread on its own. Rather, this combination section should focus on, as yogi and others mentioned, how the given set piece helps the Pokemon function. e.g.,
- Cut out unnecessary fluff and redundancy. Mentioning something as a perk like how Landorus-T can use its defensive typing and Intimidate is fine, but we don't need to regurgitate Intimidate for every other instance. This also includes instances where a 252 spread and a few other things such as items are mentioned. It's fine to mention some small examples such as how Scarf Keldeo out speeds +1 Volcarona (just an example don't lecture me on what's in meta or I'll just ignore you).
or how an offensive variant might use Intimidate to create setup opportunities.

edit: I don't mean a new group that goes through every analysis, but a temporary group that goes through some number of analyses where they say what they think is effective, what is redundant, and why. This way, there can start to be concrete guidelines as to what actually constitutes fluff in what situations.
 
Last edited:

Oglemi

step up, snap ya back
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Late but I have a lot to say on this topic, as a past C&C leader and someone that's still working on stuff in the old format. Sorry in advance for how my post is set up, I'm kinda just typing this on the fly

First and foremost, I think we need to sort out who actually reads our analyses. The number of hits some of the Pokedex pages get is outrageous, which means there are a lot of different people reading and using our analyses for different purposes. In general, I think the readers can be sorted out into four different categories:
1) Tournament players/Smogon regulars that know every Pokemon, their stats, moves, abilities, etc. by heart
2) Casuals that mostly just play and ladder a little bit on PS, their Poke-knowledge being hit or miss but mostly hit
3) In-game users that are looking at our Dex for cool sets to use to ladder with in BSS or against their friends
4) Person that doesn't even play Pokemon and is just here to lurk/nostalgia purposes

Now, each of these readers are using the dex for different information. Category 1 is probably mostly using the Dex as a refresher, using it to gain an idea of a tier they haven't played, or just bored and looking at stuff during their downtime. Category 2 is mostly using the Dex as a guidebook, using it for how sets work and using it for actual teambuilding. Category 3 by and large knows jack all shit, so any information we put up is going to help them outside of fluff and obvious things. Category 4 can be mostly ignored for our purposes but is important to make note of.

With this in mind, using one format to cater to all four readers has always been a challenge. Our analysis format has changed a lot over the years to try and organize it in a way that a reader can pick and choose what they need out of it while still being pleasurable to read.

My current issue with the current format is that it is not pleasurable to read. At all. It's impersonal, boring, and redundant or obvious, and this comes down to writers trying to meet the information needed for each header section. The positive of it is that it's very easy to find specific info if that's what you're on the page for.

The old format of just paragraphs was pleasurable to read, but the downside was that it was hard to pick out the information you needed by looking at it at a glance. However, they were personable, allowed for sections of unique information, and for the most part, not redundant or obvious if the mods chose to cut that info out.

We need to find a good middle ground. Analyses that are easy to read but also pleasurable to do so. I have no opinion on bullet points vs paragraphs and never have. I find bullet points work in some cases and I find that paragraphs work better in others. It really comes down to writing style and the information that we're trying to get across and how we want to present it.

The difficulty with making changes to our analyses format has always been technical limitations. Some of the best suggestions that I've seen over the years had to be laid by the wayside because it required new coding. This is not a crack at anyone, it's simply a fact that if we want to change how our analyses look, it requires us to do so within a limited framework which always makes it difficult to really try something new.

With the above in mind, my proposal is this: let's allow our writers (or tiers to keep consistency if wanted) to add or remove whatever sections/headers they want.

As far as I'm aware, set comments can be customized however we want, there's no need to stick to a particular mold as we were in the past ([SET COMMENTS] and [ADDITIONAL COMMENTS] followed by [Other Options] and [Checks and Counters], etc.) Right now, you can add whatever header you want under [SET COMMENTS].

So, for example, we could have Landorus-T look like this:

[SET]
name: Choice Scarf
etc

[SET COMMENTS]
At a Glance
==========

EV Spreads
==========

Fitting Landorus-T on your Team
=====================

To Defog or not to Defog
==================


This allows not only for extreme customizability to meet the needs of something as metagame-defining as Landorus-T, but also allows the writer to put the information they find the most pertinent to using Scarf Landorus front and center.

The "problem" here is the inconsistency issue. However, I don't think this is as big of a deal anymore with how many different kinds of metagames and tiers we now support. Every meta needs something different, it's time we meet that imo.



As for immediate fixes, I agree with C_M to start cracking down on removing unnecessary baby-grade information. Saying obvious details is unneeded. Whether this comes down to QC, GP, or the moderators is an entirely different ballgame though. I've always been of the opinion since the start of Gen 6 that we place way too much responsibility on QC. IMO, QC should be focused almost entirely on making sure that our sets work and presented correctly. I really don't understand the current method of going line-by-line and piecing out every piece of information that goes into an analysis. I think that should be picked up by the mods as they read through the analyses either with GP or when they upload. This is mostly a tangent rant but imo not every detail needs to be "perfect" on the analyses. The metagame is going to shift anyway, as long as the information isn't wrong or it sounds like the person writing doesn't actually play the meta, I don't think it's the end of the world if that info ends up onsite.


I could go on but anyway, overall I agree with conciseness and agree with any endeavor to cut out fluff. However, I want readability back.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Can be abrasive at times (no joke)
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
So after talking with OU QC and Hootie/CM I decided to use the most recent revamp, Mega Mawile, as a test subject. Here is the before and after, you should be able to see the differences almost immediately.


I chose to not make any format changes but I cut out a lot of random useless information such as describing self-explanatory EV spreads or how Mawilite is used for it to Mega evolve for example. I still made sure to leave in specific EV spread descriptions such as why it runs 164 Speed, but chose to omit the part that mentions throwing the rest in HP or 252 Attack for example, as it is entirely self-explanatory even if you are new to competitive.

As for team options, I chose to leave those alone considering they are very important and I haven't played OU in quite some time so I don't feel comfortable making any of those changes. I'm sure there are ways to make it more appealing to read without removing important information though. Personally I think the overview can get away with some "fluff" just as long as isn't drawn out and doesn't take anything away from the analysis. I think a summary of the Pokemon can suffice but I know some people enjoy the overview sounding less robotic. Usage tips could also probably be cut down a bit more because I feel like bringing Mawile in as much as possible vs defensive Pokemon is again, something even an inexperienced person could figure out, but I chose to include it because I guess it's not really doing any harm. The QC team already did a good job gutting OO to be specifically niche moves/sets have their uses.

In conclusion, while I could have done a better job, I didn't want to change too much just because it had already gone through the entire QC/GP process. I think if this analysis was made after this thread was created, it could be even better. As you can see by the very short set details, I think it's very practical to merge this with Moves. It can be just called "Set Details" where it talks about the important coverage moves as well as the specifics of the set, such as ability or EV choice if they aren't self-explanatory. I implore other tiers to start experimenting with their analysis ASAP so we can be fully prepared for next gen when it comes.
 

talkingtree

Workin' out, sleepin' in, takin' vitamins
is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Past Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Doubles Captain
I really like the look of this, I'll try doing something similar with a Pokemon in Doubles sometime soon and update here with results. Also, if someone updates an analysis like this and isn't already credited as writer / QC, I think we should add them there to further incentivize the immense amount of work that will suddenly be available with this overhaul.
 

Estronic

mechanical fever
is a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
Might as well give my two cents.
First off, the updated Mega Mawile analysis is much better than the original, no fluff that would otherwise be common knowledge to competitive players. I also agree with the merging of Set Details and Moves. To be honest, I always wondered why they wouldn't combined in the first place, but with them together it makes the analysis shorter without the fluff. I only skimmed a bit through the thread, so apologies if it has been mentioned, but I wanted to see what you guys think:

How would you feel if Team Options was in bullet format a la Checks and Counters?

Both are similar in that they describe Pokemon in a sentence or two, and with bullet format I feel like it would be easier to read. I'm also going to echo the majority of people in this thread that the only section I really go on the Smogon Dex to see are Team Options and Checks and Counters, really only anything else if I'm messing with a Pokemon I've never or rarely used. Curious to see what you guys think.
 
Last edited:

Oglemi

step up, snap ya back
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
That looks much better Gary, well done

This following topic is kinda related, maybe not, but what do you guys think about adding minisprites into our analyses in the checks and counters section (and possibly team options if we bullet point it as suggested in the above post)?

https://www.smogon.com/dex/xy/pokemon/corsola/


You can see how it looks here in the checks and counters section.

It's nothing that's "essential", but it does make the section more pleasant to look at imo, and it really isn't any extra work to include it.
 

Gary

Can be abrasive at times (no joke)
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I'm all for visual aesthetics so I'd be down with something like that for checks and counters, team options not so much though just because most analysis will have like 6+ teammates minimum so it would be a clusterfuck. Only issue is that it just adds another layer to analysis that some people might not want to get into, especially considering the other proposed changes presented in the thread are something we still need to try and push out to other tiers before worrying about anything else. Maybe we can look at some kind of "beautification" later down the line when shit gets sorted out but right now I'm just more concerned about the current issues at hand. I guess if people wanted to start doing the sprites regardless it wouldn't do any harm, it just runs into the whole "consistency" issue again.
 
So after talking with OU QC and Hootie/CM I decided to use the most recent revamp, Mega Mawile, as a test subject. Here is the before and after, you should be able to see the differences almost immediately.


I chose to not make any format changes but I cut out a lot of random useless information such as describing self-explanatory EV spreads or how Mawilite is used for it to Mega evolve for example. I still made sure to leave in specific EV spread descriptions such as why it runs 164 Speed, but chose to omit the part that mentions throwing the rest in HP or 252 Attack for example, as it is entirely self-explanatory even if you are new to competitive.

As for team options, I chose to leave those alone considering they are very important and I haven't played OU in quite some time so I don't feel comfortable making any of those changes. I'm sure there are ways to make it more appealing to read without removing important information though. Personally I think the overview can get away with some "fluff" just as long as isn't drawn out and doesn't take anything away from the analysis. I think a summary of the Pokemon can suffice but I know some people enjoy the overview sounding less robotic. Usage tips could also probably be cut down a bit more because I feel like bringing Mawile in as much as possible vs defensive Pokemon is again, something even an inexperienced person could figure out, but I chose to include it because I guess it's not really doing any harm. The QC team already did a good job gutting OO to be specifically niche moves/sets have their uses.

In conclusion, while I could have done a better job, I didn't want to change too much just because it had already gone through the entire QC/GP process. I think if this analysis was made after this thread was created, it could be even better. As you can see by the very short set details, I think it's very practical to merge this with Moves. It can be just called "Set Details" where it talks about the important coverage moves as well as the specifics of the set, such as ability or EV choice if they aren't self-explanatory. I implore other tiers to start experimenting with their analysis ASAP so we can be fully prepared for next gen when it comes.
I still feel there’s an opportunity to consolidate redundant info that applies to both sets. For instance, it’s stated twice that Mawile pairs well with hazard setters and Volt Switch/U-turn users; how often are people skipping down to a particular set rather than reading the analysis top to bottom and therefore already seeing this info when they read the first set? Unless they already have a particular set in mind and just want to check a specific detail like an EV spread, in which case they probably don’t need that info? Maybe we could create a single usage tips/team building section at the top with info that’s generally applicable and then if there’s really anything unique to be noted for a certain set, there can be a much shorter (ie 1-2 sentence) explanation below.
 

Colonel M

Not very Cash Money of you
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
I'm definitely for more aesthetics, and I at least agree that it's fine with Checks and Counters. Team Options maybe, but like Gary said there's a lot of team options usually. On the other hand, you could add the sprites to the top of the paragraph. Something to consider further down the pipeline. Perhaps in the other thread in C&CStaff for now?
 

Lemonade

ᗜbleep bloop I am a robotᗜ
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I think sets should be self contained. Also, I think people do check a specific set, or at least skim the sets to find the role they are looking for and then read that one in detail. Not a fan of separating that information because scrolling back and forth is a pain too.
 

Gary

Can be abrasive at times (no joke)
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I still feel there’s an opportunity to consolidate redundant info that applies to both sets. For instance, it’s stated twice that Mawile pairs well with hazard setters and Volt Switch/U-turn users; how often are people skipping down to a particular set rather than reading the analysis top to bottom and therefore already seeing this info when they read the first set?
I would say a lot actually. Speaking from personal experience, I'm definitely not going to read both team option sections if I'm wanting to know the teammates for a specific set. Especially something like Landorus-T or PU Mesprit, both of which have like 5+ sets and each set has varying team options. I think looking at each set in a vacuum is kind of important, otherwise it forces people to read the entire analysis to understand everything about one specific set, which basically goes against the entire premise of why I made this thread in the first place; forcing people to read more than they need to. Imagine having a single team options section for a Pokemon that has anymore than 3 sets. It would be like trying to find a needle in a hay stack, and it would also be very frustrating to organize properly, especially if new sets are added or removed in the future. Repeating information throughout one set is one thing, but sets themselves are treated more as individuals than part of one main part. This is mostly because viability changes and it makes it a lot easier to update sets as time goes on if they are all self-contained. I think what your suggesting would create more issues than fix.
 
I would say a lot actually. Speaking from personal experience, I'm definitely not going to read both team option sections if I'm wanting to know the teammates for a specific set. Especially something like Landorus-T or PU Mesprit, both of which have like 5+ sets and each set has varying team options. I think looking at each set in a vacuum is kind of important, otherwise it forces people to read the entire analysis to understand everything about one specific set, which basically goes against the entire premise of why I made this thread in the first place; forcing people to read more than they need to. Imagine having a single team options section for a Pokemon that has anymore than 3 sets. It would be like trying to find a needle in a hay stack, and it would also be very frustrating to organize properly, especially if new sets are added or removed in the future. Repeating information throughout one set is one thing, but sets themselves are treated more as individuals than part of one main part. This is mostly because viability changes and it makes it a lot easier to update sets as time goes on if they are all self-contained. I think what your suggesting would create more issues than fix.
That’s valid; I personally tend to read top to bottom when I’m trying to figure out how to build around something or learn about a rising threat in the meta to understand what variants I might see. My suggested change is definitely not efficient for Pokemon with a ton of sets where the usage tips/team options will actually have notable differences but for something like Mawile that only has two sets that are relatively similar in terms of building around them I do think it makes more sense. I don’t know how much appetite there is for having varied formats in different analyses so it’s probably moot since this won’t work for more flexible mons, but that might be something worth thinking about. Are we crippling ourselves by trying to force mons that need way more explanation into the same format as much simpler mons? Even your edited version feels like it contains extraneous info for anyone moderately familiar with the OU meta.
 

Martin

gamer boy
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
I like the new super slim standards bc it means not having to write "252 speed evs with a jolly nature makes it as fast as possible XD" and "stealth rock helps [wallbreaker] net kos" but can we merge set details with usage tips? Seeing an entire section dedicated to a whole one–two sentences is really ugly and offputting, and honestly I think separating the two is mostly redundant anyway.
 

Martin

gamer boy
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Just a question, but why merge it with usage tips instead of moves? Is there any particular reason for that? Because I think Moves and Set Details would make far more sense to merge.
yeah actually that'd probably make more sense.
 

yogi

Adventure!
is a Tutoris a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Just a question, but why merge it with usage tips instead of moves? Is there any particular reason for that? Because I think Moves and Set Details would make far more sense to merge.
Actually I'm far more for it being merged with Usage Tips. I've QCed probably around 100 analyses and time-after-time I see Usage Tips repeat the same things that have been said in Set Details, be it item-, ability-, or even spread-based ones. Merging with moves doesn't quite make as much sense as while they do share similar sections the information is often very different and you still have the issue of people then repeating in Usage Tips in more detail. Merging with Usage Tips will almost certainly decrease the amount of fluff seen in analyses as a whole.
 

Jordy

is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
I've QCed probably around 100 analyses and time-after-time I see Usage Tips repeat the same things that have been said in Set Details, be it item-, ability-, or even spread-based ones.
Could you provide like 2 or 3 samples of this because I don't think I've seen this myself?

I also think we should ask ourselves if it should be like this(that stuff similar to set details is mentioned in usage tips).
 
Last edited:

talkingtree

Workin' out, sleepin' in, takin' vitamins
is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Past Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Doubles Captain
I'm curious what people would like to call these new merged sections, either the current Moves + Set Details or Set Details + Usage Tips. I'd personally lean towards the former because that contains all information containing decisions about what to put in the imported set in one place, which imo is easier to explain and contain than (Moves) (Spread / Item / Ability / How to use these and the moves) (Team Options). If we make the former combination into a reality, I'd suggest a title like Set Description; this is similar to Set Details, but differentiates itself from the old version of Set Details with a slightly different word that potentially is more all-encompassing.
 

Gary

Can be abrasive at times (no joke)
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Okay so today I was making updates to an older OU analysis, Mega Diancie, and decided to go ahead and remove the fluff/filler from that as well. The reason I'm bringing this up is because I think it's a perfect example as to why this new method of removing self-explanatory info makes the "Set Details" section almost entirely obsolete for Pokemon with 252 spreads or one useful ability. Here's what I mean:


There is virtually nothing there that needs to be kept. The only thing that's even remotely worth explaining is a Hasty > Naive because some people might not know the specifics but even that is a stretch, and is ONE sentence. The maximum attack investment part is irrelevant because Mega Diancie almost always runs near max SpA or at least nothing near full Attack, so that can be removed. Because of this, I decided that this was the best time to test out what talkingtree suggested, and chose to simply merge moves, set details, and usage tips into once section. Here is the finished product.

As you can see, all three were removed and replaced with a universal "Set Description". One paragraph talks about Mega Diancie's moves, the other talks about its usage tips. For Pokemon that can actually afford to have Set Details, we can either choose to always merge all three for every analysis or allow the writer/QC to merge or omit on a case by case basis. Consistency aside, this would allow for flexibility and prevent Set Description from being EXTRA THICC on some analysis and more organized, while other analysis can choose to condense them if there isn't really much to add in these sections. Personally I think this is the best analysis have ever looked in a long time, and I'd be interested to see how this would look on other analysis.
 

Eien

is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Battle Simulator Administratoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
Monotype Leader
In Monotype, Team Options is actually probably the least valuable of them all, which is part of why I disagree with this concept. Usage Tips is easily the most valuable, which is clearly completely different from, say, OU. That's part of why I don't really understand why Usage Tips ever gets merged into "Set Description". I feel the purpose and content of the Usage Tips section is too different from Moves and Set Details to combine. Moves and Set Details talk about what why you use what's on the set. Usage Tips talk about how you use it. The two ideas got separated into two paragraphs in that section anyway, so why not have two sections for organization's sake? This is important for Monotype in particular because we describe how to use Pokemon both generally and in important type-specific matchups.

Either way, I think I have misunderstood the purpose of this thread or we might be going off track towards something else. Merging sections is an organizational change that puts two paragraphs next to each other in the same Markdown block; I don't see how it could possibly be a change to the content itself without QC and writers deciding to change, which I thought was the problem we wanted to address. With this new setup, nothing stops a writer from writing the same old paragraphs but now having only a linebreak in between them instead of Markdown. They could have one new section of three paragraphs instead of three sections of one paragraph. Unless QC steps in and says they don't want it that way.

That's why I feel we should focus more on communicating to our writers and QC instead of making drastic format changes. If QC decides they want to have analyses be more concise, then they can work on analyses to look like the two you made here in terms of content. In my eyes, the different format is purely aesthetic (possibly even less descriptive and, thus, negative). The only difference between the two Mega Mawile analyses to me was QC wanted the uploaded one to be more straightforward, so they stepped in (perhaps by proxy) and made those changes with the authority they have. I'm all for these QC and writer-based changes and it's something Monotype has been working on over the past couple of years.

However, if we go through with this merging anyway, I would absolutely prefer it to be optional and section-dependent as suggested. I'm not sure I personally like having analyses be so different to the point of one section's "Set Description" meaning an entirely different thing from another section's. That being said, every section has its own needs, so I don't want to hold back the others that feel this is very important to them if Monotype can simply ignore these changes and use what works best for us.
 

Megazard

The turtle moves
is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Top Team Rater Alumnus
PU Leader
Whatever the outcome, I really don't like the idea of doing a completely new analysis format for a few uploaded analyses before actually deciding the outcome. I really don't think the diancie analysis is improved with the way all three sections are folded into each other, the format probably wouldn't work as a general template all that well for Pokemon that do need more in-depth descriptions for moves and set details, and it just doesn't look great aesthetically imo.
 

Gary

Can be abrasive at times (no joke)
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
As I said in my post, I think merging should be optional and not mandatory. My main point with the Mega Diancie analysis was that there was simply no reason at all to include Set Details due to cutting out all the useless information. With the current structure, people feel forced to include useless information in these sections in order to fill them out, and I don't think it should be that way. If a set simply doesn't need to be explained, than it shouldn't need a "Set Details" section at all. Same could apply to Usage tips or OO (although it's usually rare that the former is completely blank).

It's really hard to compare Monotype to basically any other tier so I can't really give any input on that. For all I know, the current format could be the only possible way to properly explain everything. My thread is mainly targeted towards standard tiers, so if you don't really agree with what's being presented because you feel like it would hurt your analysis, than I'd just keep doing what you're doing. This is another reason why I feel like keeping all analysis "consistent" can be problematic. The main goal of this thread was to just cut out useless information first and foremost, the format suggestions are merely just solutions to removing sections that are oftentimes not even worth including anymore (Mega Diancie example).

Megazard The Mega Diancie is by no means permanent, it was just to gauge what people thought of the idea. It is currently the only analysis with a different "format", anything else has just been excluding unimportant information but still maintaining the same format. I'm just trying to take some sort of initiative because every time this has been brought up in the past, a conclusion was never met, and it's always just been shoved back under the rug.
 
Last edited:

talkingtree

Workin' out, sleepin' in, takin' vitamins
is a member of the Site Staffis a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Past Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Doubles Captain
As a disclaimer, I've done my best to read through the posts in this thread but we're all seasoned analysis writers so some of them were very long and I may have misunderstood certain details. With that said, I think at this point we've come to two important points in this thread.
  1. The general consensus suggests that our current standards for analysis writing are too focused on hand-holding and are thus weighed down by unnecessary information, burying the actually useful tips in lines readers might be tempted to skim. This proposed change is largely philosophical, so QC Teams (working together with GP) will be largely in charge of changing their process in what goes into an analysis, especially in noted problematic sections like Set Details.
  2. Speaking of Set Details, if unnecessary information is cut out, many Set Details sections are likely to be considerably smaller than those that surround them. A potential merging of some sections of [SET COMMENTS] could lessen the impact of this issue, though the effects would be quite variable across tiers and leaping into this without making sure it's the right move may just lead to a lot of unnecessary work being done that's later undone.
Going further into detail on #2:
My original proposal was meant to only combine Moves and Set Details, leaving three headers in each [SET COMMENTS]: Set Description, Usage Tips, and Team Options. Gary's interpretation also works and is especially nice for Pokemon with straightforward spreads and abilities, but I think the merge of only Moves and Set Details should be reasonable across all sections and is also a natural consequence of Z-Moves, which span the two sections.

For example, take Icium Z Kyurem-B. Currently, in the OU analysis that's on-site, we have "Freeze Shock turns into an incredibly powerful Subzero Slammer thanks to Icium Z, but it is really unreliable otherwise because a regular Freeze Shock takes an extra turn to charge" and "Icium Z allows Kyurem-B to use Subzero Slammer" in Moves and Set Details, respectively. This is the case for every Pokemon that uses a moveslot exclusively for the Z-Move it unlocks, and merging the two sections would remove the added redundancy, which clearly falls under the original intent of the thread.

Deciding to merge two sections from here on out is a huge decision and maybe one I've made light of too much in my earlier posts, so I agree that it should ideally be fully discussed across tiers and C&C leadership before making this change; keeping the structure uniform when possible will vastly improve quality of life for readers of analyses in multiple tiers.
 

lyd

my rhymes so unspeakable
is a Top Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
My main issue with Usage Tips though, is that it barely adds anything, at least for OU, I don’t know how valuable it is for Monotype or Doubles, but at least from an OU standpoint, you can cut quite a lot of things. My main idea here is just to show how this section can be cut and reallocated. Sections in red are overly broad information that doesn’t quite help anyone. Sections in blue can be reallocated elsewhere. Here are three examples:
It's really important to preserve Subzero Slammer and only use it at the right time, since a skilled opponent will likely try to play around Kyurem-B, attempting to figure what set it is running. In a scenario where a potential Subzero Slammer target such as Mega Venusaur or Chansey is likely to switch out, go for Ice Beam or Fusion Bolt instead of using Subzero Slammer straightaway. It's also important to be careful with Pokemon that generally run Protect, because they can waste Kyurem-B's Z-Move. However, Subzero Slammer may not be so important against certain teams, so there's no problem in using it early-game just to heavily damage an opposing Pokemon in these situations. Switching Kyurem-B in on a resisted move or a weaker neutral move is a great idea if you don't have any better switch-in; however, attempt to remove Stealth Rock and Spikes before recklessly switching Kyurem-B in, since they can easily wear Kyurem-B down. Additionally, avoid letting Kyurem-B get afflicted with a status condition, as they severely hinder Kyurem-B's wallbreaking potential.
  • #1 could be mentioned alongside the Z crystal.
Due to Choice Band locking Kartana into one move, it is important to predict your opponent's move to use Kartana to its fullest potential. Kartana has the tools to heavily threaten several balance and bulky offense teams, but good opponents will try to pivot around and circumvent its power, thus it's important to ponder risk and reward and keep up the prediction game to prevent your opponent from taking advantage of Kartana. Knock Off is usually a great move to spam early-game, as it does solid damage to most walls. Meanwhile, Leaf Blade is usually ideal to use later on, once Steel- and Flying-types are successfully weakened. Also, try to find opportunities to get Kartana in. It can be after one of your Pokemon has been knocked out, with the use of a slow U-turn or Volt Switch, or even on an expected switch from your opponent. For the latter, just be careful to not risk Kartana too much, as it will often be important to break your opponent's defensive core. For Kartana's success as a wallbreaker, try to keep entry hazards on your opponent's side of the field for as long as possible, since they really help Kartana's duty as a wallbreaker, allowing it to take down walls and enable teammates to seal the game down the line. Finally, Kartana shouldn't be used as a revenge killer, as even if it can outspeed and knock out a threat, it is still going to be locked into a move and taken advantage of, thus losing valuable momentum.
  • #1 could be mentioned in moves.
  • #2 could be mentioned alongside Choice Band.
Try to put your opponent into a position in which Magnezone can trap the Steel-types it should, namely Celesteela, Mega Scizor, Ferrothorn, and Skarmory. Switching into Magnezone as you expect them to go into their Steel-type is a solid option; similarly, sacrificing an expendable Pokemon to entry hazards or a predicted attack from one of these Steel-types can let Magnezone come in freely. Magnezone can switch into the likes of Clefable and Ferrothorn without getting punished provided they lack Knock Off, so try to take advantage of these Pokemon to switch Magnezone in. However, be careful not to leave it low on HP. When Magnezone is on the field, opponents could attempt to pivot a Ground-type in to block its Volt Switch; under these scenarios, hitting the likes of Landorus-T, Zygarde, and Gliscor with a Choice Specs-boosted Flash Cannon is more often than not the best bet. If your opponent's team lacks a Ground-type or if their Ground-type has already been taken down, spamming Volt Switch can be a great idea on something Magnezone forces out, as it is surprisingly strong after Choice Specs is factored in. After Steel-types have been successfully trapped and removed, Magnezone can act as a regular wallbreaker.
  • #1 could be mentioned alongside Magnet Pull.
  • #2 could be mentioned alongside the respective moves.
I just feel this section as a whole adds way too little that should be kept. Here’s an example of how the format could work from my point of view:
Before said:
[Moves]

Avalanche is Avalugg's only notable Ice-type physical move and is important for OHKOing the likes of Landorus-T, Zygarde, and Mega Pinsir. Its added effect of increasing power when Avalugg is hit by a move also makes it surprisingly strong in tandem with Avalugg's considerable Attack stat. Recover is important to keep Avalugg healthy and let it continually check what it needs to. Rapid Spin may seem counterintuitive on an Ice-type, but it allows Avalugg to switch into entry hazard setters such as Landorus-T and Mega Swampert as they set up their hazards and spin them away as the aforementioned Ground-types switch out. Finally, Toxic gives Avalugg the possibility to threaten foes outside of Avalanche, allowing it to beat Kyurem-B, for example.

[Set Details]

Leftovers gives Avalugg some additional passive recovery, allowing it to better handle physical attackers. Sturdy enables a last-ditch hit on an out-of-control wallbreaker if Avalugg is at full health. 252 HP EVs are used to maximize Avalugg's bulk, whereas 88 Attack EVs allow Avalanche to OHKO Mega Pinsir; 64 Special Defense EVs make it so Avalugg isn't 2HKOed from uninvested Kyurem-B's Hidden Power Fire, which is often used on its Subzero Slammer or Gigavolt Havoc set; and finally, the rest of its EVs are dumped into Defense along with an Impish nature to further increase its already impressive physical bulk.

[Usage Tips]

Avalugg acts as a switch-in for some physical attackers such as Kyurem-B, Zygarde, and Mega Pinsir. However, watch out for entry hazards when switching it in, as the likes of Stealth Rock and Toxic Spikes can wear it down quickly. Avalugg should also be switched into Stealth Rock setters it can beat, such as Landorus-T and Mega Swampert, removing their hazards while not getting damaged by them. If a wallbreaker is a threat to Avalugg's team and it can be taken down by a 120-Base Power-Avalanche, it might be smart to keep Avalugg at full HP for it to be able to make use of its Sturdy ability and act as a last-resort-countermeasure against said wallbreaker. The likes of Tapu Lele, Hoopa-U, and Kartana take a considerable amount of damage from Avalanche and thus can be taken down by the aforementioned method after some slight prior damage.
After said:
[Set Comments]

Rapid Spin may seem counterintuitive on an Ice-type, but it allows Avalugg to switch into entry hazard setters such as Landorus-T and Mega Swampert as they set up their hazards and spin them away as the aforementioned Ground-types switch out. Toxic gives Avalugg the possibility to threaten foes outside of Avalanche, allowing it to beat Kyurem-B, for example. Leftovers gives Avalugg some additional passive recovery, allowing it to better handle physical attackers. Sturdy enables a last-ditch hit on an out-of-control wallbreaker if Avalugg is at full health, even special wallbreakers like Tapu Lele and Hoopa-U can be taken care of, considering Avalugg’s surprisingly high Attack stat, with that in mind, watch out for entry hazards when switching it in, as the likes of Stealth Rock and Toxic Spikes can cancel its Sturdy and wear it down quickly. 88 Attack EVs allow Avalanche to OHKO Mega Pinsir, meanwhile, 64 Special Defense EVs make it so Avalugg isn't 2HKOed from uninvested Kyurem-B's Hidden Power Fire, which is often used on its Subzero Slammer or Gigavolt Havoc set.
I feel like this method is much conciser and helpful. That being said, I don’t know how this format would work for tiers like Monotype and Doubles, so I’d love to hear soms feedback on that. I’d also understand if people are unwilling to have a format change, but just cutting fluff and obvious statements is already a big step I’m happy we’re taking!
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top