It was yesterday when I was about to fall asleep when I came up with this idea, so I hope it doesn't come across as too far-fetched or irreverent.
Do you remember playing Pokemon Stadium 2? I do. Most of all, I remember my sense of wonder when I used the "Rental" system, which allowed me to use basically ANY pokemon as I saw fit. I remembered my feeling of freedom, utter freedom to choose anything I wanted - and the sheer diversity that resulted from this system. I remember my joy at finding the monster that was Ampharos - amazing, it had ALL 3 elemental punches!
And now I ask myself when the last time I had used Ampharos was.
I have always believed in both a diverse and fair metagame, which, though not necessarily exclusive, results in numerous balancing problems, most of which have been partially resolved by the system we currently use - the tiering of Pokemon based on their competitive viability. Though this undoubtedly balances the metagame, it severely limits the potential of Pokemon - a game that should, in theory, pertain near-infinite combinations of teams, movesets, POKEMON - it should not be a game of Top Trump, see who has the better counter and ANTI-METAGAME composition, but a game of tactical finesse, as we use our favorites to our advantage, in the way we want. Sure, perhaps we already have a diverse OU environment, but I don't want just 50 or so Pokemon to get the spotlight while the rest rot and whither away. When was the last time YOU had the team of *your* individual liking? That mono-poison team you always dreamt about as a kid? Where is it? Each time I see someone utilize a non-standard team on Shoddy, I will always smile to myself, and commend the user on his or her courage. And each time another one of my favorites is delegated into the dreaded NU - a part of me would cringe at this indignation. Peoples, what are we PLAYING? Pokemon? Or THE TOP 50 Pokemon?
So I wonder - I wondered if there was a way to create a balanced, fair metagame where each and every pokemon have the chance to participate. This is my proposed solution. Instead of simply tiering each PKMN with a ranking on usability and game viability, each and every pokemon should be given a quantitative ranking that represents their overall strength - I believe 1 to 10 should suffice - in fact, this number should not differ too greatly from the tiering system we use right now, save for the quantitative differences we can allocate for top-tier and bottom-tier OU, or "terribad" NU (luvdisk) and "eccentric" NU (think octillery). One then combines the ratings from all 6 PKMN, resulting in your "overall team ranking". Your team can then compete with like-strengthed teams, resulting in balanced matchups. Perhaps around 3 differing tiers can be used, a standard one much like the OU of today, but a tad weaker (to account for the mass of UU and NU that are, well, never used), and two corresponding tiers representing Uber and UU.
An example:
I choose to make my dream team of say, mass priority users.
I pick the following PKMN, each with their (made up) ranks.
Scizor (8)
Lucario (7)
Hitmonchan (4)
Infernape (6)
Weavile (6)
to balance (and for the lols) Luvdisc (1)
I have a OTR of 32 (mean 5.33) I am able to play against anyone else with a similar (+-x) OTR.
Advantages of this system would be the re-introduction of both overtly strong and weak PKMN into the "Standard" metagame - teams will no longer be 6 powerhouses or 6 spindas - and interesting combinations of both "weak" and "strong" can result - should I have a team of 6 standard, run-of-the-mill PKMN, or one with polar opposites from both extremes? Obviously, the diversity of teams will also go shooting through the roof, and people will be able to compensate for overtly strong or weak PKMN by balancing their teams. This also eliminates the problem that arises when people have 5 UU and a single OU - and are hence delegated to OU to be slaughtered. Not really an advantage but more of a change, would be the anti-power creep resulting from having "weaker" teams. This might possibly slow down the pace of the metagame, and lead to less all-out offensive teams. Last advantage - people can finally use what they personally like.
(Some possible counterarguments and my counter-replies) -
*We choose the pokemon we like, not the ones we'll win with, but what if we like them BECAUSE we win with them?*
Nothing to say against that. Still, for those of us that actually think of PKMN OUTSIDE of "shoddybattle", (I daresay most of us), we have A LOT more to think about outside of TTar, Bliss, and Specsmence. (ack, repeating words, hate that). But if they DO coincide, power to you. Gengar <3
*Pokemon are not isolated - the way the team combines and operates together is as important as the individual strengths of the PKMN themselves.*
This is true, and one of the larger flaws of this system. I suggest creating modifiers for the scores, e.g. weighted scores - 6 average PKMN combined might weigh more than 4 bad 2 uber. Another problem would be when players place all their eggs in one basket - for instance, entering UU with 5 ludiscs and an Arceus (which proceeds to 6-0 sweep the enemy team). To counter this, limitations may be implemented e.g. mean discrepancies between individual PKMN may not exceed 7.
*What does this have to do with Gen-V?*
Everything. If we wish to implement a new system, we might as well as do it before everything has settled down, and people are more open to change.
*Over-diversity will create a environment with too much unpredictability.*
Which means that games will be broken as one cannot have every possible counter and solution? This is a good thing, as it encourages more diverse tactics and strategies, instead of the tried and true YES DRAGON DANCE TWICE I WIN YOU LOSE. I mean, think about it. Did gamefreak make all the other PKMN just for fun?
*The proposed method is too impractical, code-wise and workload-wise.*
Well, I never said it was going to be easy, but that's what this community is for, isn't it? ;)
*The old system was how we did it, how my father did it, and how my grandfather did it too! No way in hell am I going to change!*
When new ideas are implemented, people are always at first against them. This is due to our inherent resistance to change. But please try to overcome this initial resistance, and instead seriously consider my proposal.
Any and all proposed numbers are easily changeable. However, I do not think having more PKMN rankings is a good idea, as it makes it more ambiguous, and are hard to calculate so precisely.
Please reply with suggestions, criticism, and of course, any relevant comments. And thank you for reading this ridiculously long post! ^^;
Do you remember playing Pokemon Stadium 2? I do. Most of all, I remember my sense of wonder when I used the "Rental" system, which allowed me to use basically ANY pokemon as I saw fit. I remembered my feeling of freedom, utter freedom to choose anything I wanted - and the sheer diversity that resulted from this system. I remember my joy at finding the monster that was Ampharos - amazing, it had ALL 3 elemental punches!
And now I ask myself when the last time I had used Ampharos was.
I have always believed in both a diverse and fair metagame, which, though not necessarily exclusive, results in numerous balancing problems, most of which have been partially resolved by the system we currently use - the tiering of Pokemon based on their competitive viability. Though this undoubtedly balances the metagame, it severely limits the potential of Pokemon - a game that should, in theory, pertain near-infinite combinations of teams, movesets, POKEMON - it should not be a game of Top Trump, see who has the better counter and ANTI-METAGAME composition, but a game of tactical finesse, as we use our favorites to our advantage, in the way we want. Sure, perhaps we already have a diverse OU environment, but I don't want just 50 or so Pokemon to get the spotlight while the rest rot and whither away. When was the last time YOU had the team of *your* individual liking? That mono-poison team you always dreamt about as a kid? Where is it? Each time I see someone utilize a non-standard team on Shoddy, I will always smile to myself, and commend the user on his or her courage. And each time another one of my favorites is delegated into the dreaded NU - a part of me would cringe at this indignation. Peoples, what are we PLAYING? Pokemon? Or THE TOP 50 Pokemon?
So I wonder - I wondered if there was a way to create a balanced, fair metagame where each and every pokemon have the chance to participate. This is my proposed solution. Instead of simply tiering each PKMN with a ranking on usability and game viability, each and every pokemon should be given a quantitative ranking that represents their overall strength - I believe 1 to 10 should suffice - in fact, this number should not differ too greatly from the tiering system we use right now, save for the quantitative differences we can allocate for top-tier and bottom-tier OU, or "terribad" NU (luvdisk) and "eccentric" NU (think octillery). One then combines the ratings from all 6 PKMN, resulting in your "overall team ranking". Your team can then compete with like-strengthed teams, resulting in balanced matchups. Perhaps around 3 differing tiers can be used, a standard one much like the OU of today, but a tad weaker (to account for the mass of UU and NU that are, well, never used), and two corresponding tiers representing Uber and UU.
An example:
I choose to make my dream team of say, mass priority users.
I pick the following PKMN, each with their (made up) ranks.
Scizor (8)
Lucario (7)
Hitmonchan (4)
Infernape (6)
Weavile (6)
to balance (and for the lols) Luvdisc (1)
I have a OTR of 32 (mean 5.33) I am able to play against anyone else with a similar (+-x) OTR.
Advantages of this system would be the re-introduction of both overtly strong and weak PKMN into the "Standard" metagame - teams will no longer be 6 powerhouses or 6 spindas - and interesting combinations of both "weak" and "strong" can result - should I have a team of 6 standard, run-of-the-mill PKMN, or one with polar opposites from both extremes? Obviously, the diversity of teams will also go shooting through the roof, and people will be able to compensate for overtly strong or weak PKMN by balancing their teams. This also eliminates the problem that arises when people have 5 UU and a single OU - and are hence delegated to OU to be slaughtered. Not really an advantage but more of a change, would be the anti-power creep resulting from having "weaker" teams. This might possibly slow down the pace of the metagame, and lead to less all-out offensive teams. Last advantage - people can finally use what they personally like.
(Some possible counterarguments and my counter-replies) -
*We choose the pokemon we like, not the ones we'll win with, but what if we like them BECAUSE we win with them?*
Nothing to say against that. Still, for those of us that actually think of PKMN OUTSIDE of "shoddybattle", (I daresay most of us), we have A LOT more to think about outside of TTar, Bliss, and Specsmence. (ack, repeating words, hate that). But if they DO coincide, power to you. Gengar <3
*Pokemon are not isolated - the way the team combines and operates together is as important as the individual strengths of the PKMN themselves.*
This is true, and one of the larger flaws of this system. I suggest creating modifiers for the scores, e.g. weighted scores - 6 average PKMN combined might weigh more than 4 bad 2 uber. Another problem would be when players place all their eggs in one basket - for instance, entering UU with 5 ludiscs and an Arceus (which proceeds to 6-0 sweep the enemy team). To counter this, limitations may be implemented e.g. mean discrepancies between individual PKMN may not exceed 7.
*What does this have to do with Gen-V?*
Everything. If we wish to implement a new system, we might as well as do it before everything has settled down, and people are more open to change.
*Over-diversity will create a environment with too much unpredictability.*
Which means that games will be broken as one cannot have every possible counter and solution? This is a good thing, as it encourages more diverse tactics and strategies, instead of the tried and true YES DRAGON DANCE TWICE I WIN YOU LOSE. I mean, think about it. Did gamefreak make all the other PKMN just for fun?
*The proposed method is too impractical, code-wise and workload-wise.*
Well, I never said it was going to be easy, but that's what this community is for, isn't it? ;)
*The old system was how we did it, how my father did it, and how my grandfather did it too! No way in hell am I going to change!*
When new ideas are implemented, people are always at first against them. This is due to our inherent resistance to change. But please try to overcome this initial resistance, and instead seriously consider my proposal.
Any and all proposed numbers are easily changeable. However, I do not think having more PKMN rankings is a good idea, as it makes it more ambiguous, and are hard to calculate so precisely.
Please reply with suggestions, criticism, and of course, any relevant comments. And thank you for reading this ridiculously long post! ^^;
