Cross Referencing

Echo-Landon

I've noticed how hard it is to search for a particular kind of pokemon for a team on pokemon sites. What my idea is, and you can do this already to a point, is to create a page where you can take two criteria, (leads, types, tier, moves, tanks, ect.) and get a result which is all the pokemon who match both.

The page will be separated into X and Y. X will have choices on it marked with the diferent selections like type, tier, learning of a move, moveset (lead, tank, baton pass) and you click one of them. Right next to it pops up all the selections you can make, (all the types, all the basic moveset names, all the tiers) and you select one specification for X and Y. Then underneath you see all the pokemon that match what you typed in.

What do you think?
 
insert my normal objection to promoting overgeneric role based team building here

Other tools exist to let you find everything else (i.e. electric types with thunder in BL), just not (yet?) on Smogon.
 
The thing is, a good team isn't just generic lead, generic physical sweeper, generic special sweeper, generic physical tank, generic special tank and generic whatever else. A good team is really not so much a team of six pokemon as a strategy that is fulfilled by a specific combination of six pokemon with certain EVs, IVs, natures, abilities and movesets.

EDIT: I disagree, it does not take too long to research them one at a time. In the list of pokemon, you can see the base stats and abilities immediately, and you should already know the typing of what you're looking for. This usually eliminates all but five pokemon at most (and this is across all tiers). If you're looking for pokemon with a specific move, there's a list of moves here and when you click the move you're after, you get a list of pokemon that learn the move. What you're suggesting might make searching easier if we limit it to typing, ability, base stat and move searches, but searching by role would be impossible without having an entirely objective definition of "lead", "tank", "sweeper", etc. that a computer could understand.
 
I understand that. All I am saying is that sometimes when your making a team you have a slot open that you need filled with a pokemon that can do specific things. It takes too long to reasearch them one at a time and this allows you to look at them without clicking lists of pokemon with one specification and clicking between the two to find pokemon who fit both, or looking at pokemon individually to see what they can do.

Im not saying we should put teams together generically. Im saying it will make seraching, which we all do, easier.
 
i agree with this. for example the other day i was making an ubers team so i was looking at the ubers tier. I was planning on using Latias and Scizor so i had to repeatedly go back anf forth between ubers and ou. Cross referencing would really be nice would make it easier
 
Magikarp use Schplash, now counter-attack w/ yo own schplash!

Just joking.

This is the kind of idea that I support, but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that it's a feature that I like to call 'super-functionality' - yes it has uses, but it's really quite superfluous and won't be a priority of the developers of this site for a long time if ever.
 
Did you by any chance mean cross referencing?

Anywho, I'm not too fond of this idea, since it kinda tells newer players: Pokemon X is a wall, and stuff along those lines and to be honest, it really kills the learning process.
 
+1 for a move cross referencer.

While I agree that I don't like generic team building (good sweepers, good tanks, etc, etc), I often find myself banging my head against a wall having to sift through list after list to find a pokemon for my team that learns both move X as well as move Y

also, hello Smogon. :D
 
Hee hee, silly Chris with his ad hominem arguments! ^_^

The thing is, though, even if there were nothing wrong with role-based team building, role-based searches just won't work. What makes a good lead? What makes a good tank? What makes a good sweeper? What is good defensive typing? What moves are good for coverage? These are just some of the things that would need to be specified entirely objectively in order for any kind of role-based search function to work, and specifying those things objectively is time-consuming and difficult at best, and impossible at worst.
 
A problem for me has always been that the tiers are based on performance in OU, so, for example, Gardevoir being an NU tells me nothing about how well she does in UU.

I'm not saying there should be separate tier-labels for each tier, but what I'm saying is that, under "Opinion," there should be a breakdown of how it performs in each eligible tier. Some articles already do this, like Ninjask, and I greatly appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top