DPP UU Tiering Discussion (was: Perma Weather in DPP UU)

pokemonisfun

Free chess/UU tutoring for UU players Neigh. Perf.
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
I’d support making the requirements easier for DPP UU cup since as it is, it’s 5 games played with 4 wins (that’s what reaching semifinals means).
That seems unreasonably harder than 3 games and 1 win in the team tours.

I think the main counter argument is that there’s some screening mechanism for team tours. 3 points in response: 1) I don’t think we’re necessarily good at screening, particularly for UUWC as the screening isn’t really skill based 2) getting further in an individual tour is harder anyways and 3) the pool in DPP UU cup is very strong anyways.

therefore I suggest making the reqs reaching round 3 or round 4 of dpp uu cup instead of round 5 (semis).

Side note to this discussion: I still think I'm right and hope whoever organizes this will agree with me.

Here's how voting would expand if you follow my suggestion.

If we let round 4 vote:
If we let round 3 vote:


A few notes:

If you do agree with me, please double check the lists before using them. I did this quickly.

It doesn't matter that much if you're tagged and don't want to vote still. The argument I'm making is that making round 3 or round 4 of this tournament is just as significant as playing 3 games in the team tours with 1 win. Which I think is completely fair because to make it to round 3/4, you have to win 2-3 games and play 3-4, which in sheer numbers is the same or more as the team tour reqs.

Also, making the gen4uu cup even harder is that all matches are best of 3, compared to best of 1 in the team tours. So honestly, even round 3 of gen4uu cup you're playing significantly more gen4uu games than the current team tour reqs.
 
Last edited:

esche

Locker flockig die Piste runter...
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Respectfully, I disagree.

People enter these cups mainly to accumulate points for playoffs, not necessarily because they have an interest in the tier. However, when signing up for a tier in team tours there is at least some level interest shown and competence expected from the player. Admittedly, this is much less the case in tours such as UUWC because there the player pool isn't determined by competence but residency, but I would argue that succeeding in team tours does have more significance overall. I also disagree that it's harder to win in these cups (at least in the early rounds) than it is in team tours just because it's BO3. The number of games played is not a reliable predictor for the quality of games played. Within a more competitive environment such as team tour pools or later rounds of the cups, however, you will usually find games of higher quality. You're forgetting how much preparation usually goes into the games played for team tours, whereas for individuals people mostly load samples/proven stuff. This also applies to final rounds of the cups but we already have those covered. Lowering the number of rounds advanced necessary to qualify for the vote will result in more people being able to vote but that is by no means a testament to the abilities and knowledge of these people. Now, I'm aware that quality is far from universally defined, especially in the context of a Pokémon battle. But nonetheless we all seem to be able recognize said quality because some battles between players stand out to us. And we value that. In an ideal world, everybody who wants to gets to vote on this because everybody is capable of assessing the issues at hand. This isn't intented as an insult to anyone but we don't live in that world. We need to draw the line somewhere and unfortunately this line will always be arbitrary to some extent.

Jesus, what a tangent, sorry about that. :psynervous:

In conclusion, the competition in team tours is usually much more capable and it's justified to have the requirements for qualifying for this vote via participating in them set lower than the requirements for advancing in a public single elimination tournament. I do want to stress that the "public" part is not the issue here, it's in fact a good thing. If for some reason you get snubbed in these team tours despite being a DPP UU metagame connoisseur extraordinaire, these individual tours provide a venue to establish yourself as a capable player and deserving of a vote. While I would be delighted to have a suspect ladder up for this and have people meet voting requirements this way, it's not policy to have old generation tiering governed by public participation and even if we did do that I fear such a ladder would be too inactive to be of any real use in that regard.

Perhaps we can manage to organize a live tour as a compromise?
 

pokemonisfun

Free chess/UU tutoring for UU players Neigh. Perf.
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
Respectfully, I disagree.

People enter these cups mainly to accumulate points for playoffs, not necessarily because they have an interest in the tier. However, when signing up for a tier in team tours there is at least some level interest shown and competence expected from the player. Admittedly, this is much less the case in tours such as UUWC because there the player pool isn't determined by competence but residency, but I would argue that succeeding in team tours does have more significance overall. I also disagree that it's harder to win in these cups (at least in the early rounds) than it is in team tours just because it's BO3. The number of games played is not a reliable predictor for the quality of games played. Within a more competitive environment such as team tour pools or later rounds of the cups, however, you will usually find games of higher quality. You're forgetting how much preparation usually goes into the games played for team tours, whereas for individuals people mostly load samples/proven stuff. This also applies to final rounds of the cups but we already have those covered. Lowering the number of rounds advanced necessary to qualify for the vote will result in more people being able to vote but that is by no means a testament to the abilities and knowledge of these people. Now, I'm aware that quality is far from universally defined, especially in the context of a Pokémon battle. But nonetheless we all seem to be able recognize said quality because some battles between players stand out to us. And we value that. In an ideal world, everybody who wants to gets to vote on this because everybody is capable of assessing the issues at hand. This isn't intented as an insult to anyone but we don't live in that world. We need to draw the line somewhere and unfortunately this line will always be arbitrary to some extent.

Jesus, what a tangent, sorry about that. :psynervous:

In conclusion, the competition in team tours is usually much more capable and it's justified to have the requirements for qualifying for this vote via participating in them set lower than the requirements for advancing in a public single elimination tournament. I do want to stress that the "public" part is not the issue here, it's in fact a good thing. If for some reason you get snubbed in these team tours despite being a DPP UU metagame connoisseur extraordinaire, these individual tours provide a venue to establish yourself as a capable player and deserving of a vote. While I would be delighted to have a suspect ladder up for this and have people meet voting requirements this way, it's not policy to have old generation tiering governed by public participation and even if we did do that I fear such a ladder would be too inactive to be of any real use in that regard.

Perhaps we can manage to organize a live tour as a compromise?

I really don't care much about inclusion or letting people vote. I care more about logical consistency.

It all boils down to this: what is a roughly equal achievement to playing 3 games and getting 1 win in the team tour?

In my view and what I thought was plainly uncontroversial was this: winning 3 best of 3s and then playing 1 more best of 3 in an official tournament largely populated by UU mains should be more than enough. But if you and others actually think 3 team tour games with 1 win is significantly harder, then fine, I'm outvoted.

Also re. samples - they are proven they are just as effective as teams specialist built. In fact...samples generally are the teams specialist built. Loading up a sample and knowing which sample to pick, I see no reason this is a bad thing.
 
Last edited:

Tomahawk

waiting for the colour of spring
is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Good afternoon everyone, thanks for the discussion and feedback. It is time to start the vote, but first I will address some points raised in this thread by you:

Reducing the DPP UU Cup Requirements
We will stick with the requirements as noted before: I want to clarify that we did not select the voting requirements based on what is 'hardest' to accomplish, but on what we think will get the most people with investment in the tier and familiarity with it. You could reasonably argue to increase the number of wins for team tournaments too, but we think the current selection is a good number of people who are experienced in the tier.

Complex ban
We definitely understand the desire to add a complex ban to be able to save both sand and Cacturne, but introducing complex bans always should be met with some hestitation and here it does not seem to be necessary. Both options do not significantly impact the metagame (besides the Sand Veil abuse obviously), and if either is not warranted in one's eyes there is still the option to vote no ban.

Splitting up the ban
There is no use for this right now, as the discussion for sand and Baton Pass has both died down. We also don't see the point to split the vote up even more: we are already splitting it up by not doing hail and rain right now.

Suspect live tour
This would be fun for sure, so we might consider it for the next vote when we have the time to incorporate it in the schedule, but for now it will only delay the vote and we will skip it.

The thread for the vote will go up in a few minutes, in the Blind Voting forum, so we should have the results in soon.
 

pokemonisfun

Free chess/UU tutoring for UU players Neigh. Perf.
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
Is there an official/semi official definition of complex ban anywhere that is currently used for the public? I was under the impression any non Pokemon ban is a complex ban and want to confirm that is true or not before voting.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Is there an official/semi official definition of complex ban anywhere that is currently used for the public? I was under the impression any non Pokemon ban is a complex ban and want to confirm that is true or not before voting.
A simple ban is any which results in the ban of a single “thing” from being chosen in the team builder. It can be a Pokémon, a move, an ability, or an item, there are multiple examples of all of these from various past and current meta games so I won’t bother to list examples.

A complex ban is a ban that is not implemented in the above way. For example weather setting abilities + weather dependent speed boosting abilities being banned in BW OU, or the old baton pass ban that banned baton pass + speed/stat boosting moves/abilities (or the smash pass ban from bw ru that preceded that). In these examples you are banned from selecting a “thing” (baton pass/swift swim) only when another “thing” is chosen (shell smash/drizzle).

None of the proposals listed here are complex bans (baton pass, sand veil, and hippopotas are all simple bans).
 

pokemonisfun

Free chess/UU tutoring for UU players Neigh. Perf.
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
A simple ban is any which results in the ban of a single “thing” from being chosen in the team builder. It can be a Pokémon, a move, an ability, or an item, there are multiple examples of all of these from various past and current meta games so I won’t bother to list examples.

A complex ban is a ban that is not implemented in the above way. For example weather setting abilities + weather dependent speed boosting abilities being banned in BW OU, or the old baton pass ban that banned baton pass + speed/stat boosting moves/abilities (or the smash pass ban from bw ru that preceded that). In these examples you are banned from selecting a “thing” (baton pass/swift swim) only when another “thing” is chosen (shell smash/drizzle).

None of the proposals listed here are complex bans (baton pass, sand veil, and hippopotas are all simple bans).
Thanks - is this official or just your opinion?
 

Ren

so happy world
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Thanks - is this official or just your opinion?
It's not just atomic's opinion, although it isn't really official but it's pretty much what everyone goes by. You won't find it in writing, though; It's more of an unwritten shared consensus.

If Rhydon is in the meta and you ban Rhydon on its own, it's a simple ban on Rhydon. If Rhydon and Slugma are in the meta and you ban both Rhydon and Slugma such that neither Rhydon or Slugma can be used, it's a simple ban on both Rhydon and Slugma. If you ban Rhydon and Slugma such that you can't use both Rhydon and Slugma on the same team but you can use Rhydon and Slugma on separate teams, it's a complex ban because you're not banning one element, but rather the combination of multiple elements on a single instance. Not sure if that makes sense?

e: If you can just say "Rhydon is banned" or "Slugma is banned" and that suffices as an explanation, it's simple. If you have to say "You can't use Rhydon with Slugma", it's complex.
 

pokemonisfun

Free chess/UU tutoring for UU players Neigh. Perf.
is a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
Thanks. I just wanted to know if there was an official definition out there as we have official definitions for broken and unhealthy. I know there are definitions that are official that aren’t public but I just wanted to be clear with what I can work with before voting.

Obviously, defining complex ban should be left to another discussion thread or place.

In any case, let’s avoid relying on mysterious unwritten consensuses if possible, please.
 

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

Top