i still don't really understand the necessity for the added layer of evaluation that you're adding. the point of the analyses isn't to pidgeonhole pokemon into predetermined roles, it's to show the range of viables sets they can run. if someone faces a ninetales they want to know what viable sets it has, not just what viable sweeping sets it has.
whether houndoom has sweeping sets on-site or not should not have an impact on the viability of this set. arcanine has sweeping sets on-site too; does that necessarily mean we should reject defensive arcanine sets? obviously not -- because defensive arcanine sets are good. and that's the point i'm making. if a set is good, it shouldn't matter whether it is a "good <stereotype for pokemon> <pokemon>" set; all that should matter is if it is a "good <pokemon>" set.
similar sets and experience. if the set is a sweeper, how does it work in relation to other sweepers in uu? if it's a defensive pokemon, how does it work in relation to other defensive pokemon? obviously, that would result in us saying this set doesn't work as well as arcanine, in the vast majority of cases. but we can still use the comparison to determine that the set works relatively well. also... when you're using a good set you can kind of just tell that it's good because it is productive. bad sets are worthless when you use them.
if someone really wants to spend (waste) their time writing an analysis on such a Pokemon, I would advocate just writing all the sections of an analysis except for the sets. that gives an idea of what the pokemon can do if someone is playing against it but doesn't actually tell the user to go and use any specific non-viable set (since putting a set in the analysis basically has that effect). in any case, if a Pokemon has no sets on-site, that's an extreme example and should be treated as a special condition for policy purposes.
Flare said:
whether houndoom has sweeping sets on-site or not should not have an impact on the viability of this set. arcanine has sweeping sets on-site too; does that necessarily mean we should reject defensive arcanine sets? obviously not -- because defensive arcanine sets are good. and that's the point i'm making. if a set is good, it shouldn't matter whether it is a "good <stereotype for pokemon> <pokemon>" set; all that should matter is if it is a "good <pokemon>" set.
Flare said:
similar sets and experience. if the set is a sweeper, how does it work in relation to other sweepers in uu? if it's a defensive pokemon, how does it work in relation to other defensive pokemon? obviously, that would result in us saying this set doesn't work as well as arcanine, in the vast majority of cases. but we can still use the comparison to determine that the set works relatively well. also... when you're using a good set you can kind of just tell that it's good because it is productive. bad sets are worthless when you use them.
Flare said:
if someone really wants to spend (waste) their time writing an analysis on such a Pokemon, I would advocate just writing all the sections of an analysis except for the sets. that gives an idea of what the pokemon can do if someone is playing against it but doesn't actually tell the user to go and use any specific non-viable set (since putting a set in the analysis basically has that effect). in any case, if a Pokemon has no sets on-site, that's an extreme example and should be treated as a special condition for policy purposes.
