Pet mods and fragmentation

[Arizona]

I think it's really silly to argue against "Pet mods". "Pet mod" is just another word for "Other metagame". The title of this forum is basically "Pet mods"; it's silly to say "we shouldn't have too many pet mods here".

From the sticky "Other Metagames Index"

3 Pokemon Tier
BW Cup
Balanced Hackmons
Clear Skies
Dream World OU
Glitchmons
GSC Redux
LC UU
Middle Cup
Monotype
NFE Metagame
Offstat
PU
Pure Hackmons
Random Battles
RBY Cup
Seasonal Ladder
Six Move Battling
Sketchmons
Tier 10
Tier Shift

None of these are pet mods. OM != Pet mods. They are a small minority.

"There will always be good mods and bad mods in OM."

All the mods are basically doing the same thing, despite each creator's quirks. No one is deliberately reducing metagame diversity; they are trying to expand it. Every team other than HO shouldn't have to carry SR. All five weather states should be equally viable. The spectrum of stall to HO should be equally viable. More pokemon should be viable. In fact, once a large enough number of playstyles are viable, perhaps there would be less need to flit from meta to meta; the finished product would remain eternally fresh. Another would be redundant.

Whatever differences may be asserted, I maintain that they are irrelevant while haunted by the specter of underpopulation. I don't care if hail is buffed by boosting ice defense or ice attack. I don't care if hazards are nerfed or spinners buffed. I don't even care if UUs are buffed via stat increases or other means. It's almost superfluous. I can look at how two mods do the same thing are argue for one or the other method, but it's a non issue if less than ten people are playing.

Now, considering the number of existing metas, I don't think we would have to worry about running out at a rate of one per month, even if we never revisit (I would be in favor of never highlighting the same meta within six months). At the discussion above, does the definition of mod matter for the purpose of Metagame of the Month? Why restrict to some definition of mod at all? Why couldn't LC UU get highlighted? It's not as if LC UU wouldn't benefit from it.

So why not just Metagame of the Month, everything in OM is eligible?

 

[Mr. Uncompetitive]

Wouldn't it be easier to define a mod metagame as any metagame that alters the mechanics in a way that cannot be done with a legal cartridge? It would encompass 6-move and 12v12 as well, and stuff like doubles would fall out of it because the mechanics for that are present in the game (glitchmons, I think, would also not count since it's abusing a glitch in game, but I may be wrong about that; not entirely sure what it's about).

The thing about that is how different 6 Move and 12v12 play. Unlike metagames that are often referred to as "Mod Metas" (i.e. Duskmod, Joimmod, and GenNEXT) 6 Move and 12v12 aren't based on trying to put in countless fixes to the game in such a way so that more Pokemon are viable/make the game more intriguing to play. 6 Move and 12v12, on the other hand, have a few new rule changes that simply makes a whole new metagame rather than trying to expand/balance out an existing one, similar to the likes of Balanced Hackmons, Doubles, and Glitchmons, which are metagames that wouldn't be considered "Mod Metas"

So I guess the best definition I can think of is for this is "A Metagame that focuses on making a plethora of smaller scale tweaks to various aspects of the game rather than anywhere from one to a few larger scale and more simple rule changes present in Non-Mod Metagames. The multiple changes are often done to revamp an existing game (not necessarily the OU metagame) whether that means expanding it, balancing it, or making it more fun or intriguing to play."

And I totally agree with the proposition of "Metagame of the Month"

 

[Stratos]

Going off of what MysteriousGuy said, I'd argue that 6-move, 12v12, and even Tier Shift are closer to a metagame like Doubles or PU than they are to DuskMod or GenNEXT. The general premise of a metagame in OM is "let's introduce some shake-up factor which changes around the meta, then let the chips fall where they may." In Doubles, it was making the meta 2v2. In PU, we removed the most common NU Pokemon. In 6-move, we gave each Pokemon 2 extra moves. I'd even argue that something like Wonkymons follows this pattern. Alternatively, mod games (duskmod, gennext, joimmons) have a completely different approach: rather than starting with a cause and observing the effects, they start with a desired effect (whatever it may be) and observe how to cause it, fiddling endlessly with base stats, movepools, typings, etc to achieve the metagame they want. Even if the goal is just to make what the creator finds to be "cool" or "logical," it still works with this pattern. Now the challenge is to find a definition which encompasses this without subjectivity, but I think i have one: "A Mod is any format in which game mechanics may change in the future."

 

[Arizona]

"A Mod is any format in which game mechanics may change in the future."

Very apt. By the same logic, any format that had mechanic changes (changes other than bans) in the past would also be a mod, so finalized mods would still constitute mods.

 

[Joim]

3 Pokemon Tier
BW Cup
Balanced Hackmons
Clear Skies
Dream World OU
Glitchmons
GSC Redux
LC UU
Middle Cup
Monotype
NFE Metagame
Offstat
PU
Pure Hackmons
Random Battles
RBY Cup
Seasonal Ladder
Six Move Battling
Sketchmons
Tier 10
Tier Shift

You define Joimmons like a pet mod yet by now it has more players and more posts in its thread than some of these.

Btw, I'm all supporting for an OM of the month and I could get it ready for PS every month.

 

[Arizona]

You define Joimmons like a pet mod yet by now it has more players and more posts in its thread than some of these.

That's because, while some are underpopulated, the things in that list aren't even mods. GenNEXT and DuskMod have even more posts. They are still pet mods. Joim presents: Joimmons--a Joim project hosted on Joim's Lab is not going to stop being a pet mod by hitting page three in it's thread. It was literally inspired by the idea to make Mewtwo OP on the level it was in RBY. Ninetales lost Drought and Arcanine gained it because "FU lol". If anything is a pet mod, Joimmons is. Even Gen-NEXT and DuskMod, while still pet mods IMO, have reasons for existing beyond a hobby for the creator.

Again, I quote from the OP of the Joimmons thread: "This mod's target is to make a metagame like I would like Pokémon to be, thus the name". Compare this from Gen-NEXT:

"The goal of NEXT is to improve the diversity of the OU metagame by only doing things that could plausibly be done between gens.

That means:

no base stat changes
no removing from movepools
no removing from ability distribution
no typing changes without strong justification
only numbers that make sense like 60%, 30%, etc, not weird numbers like 65%
no buffing OU mons, except maybe tiny buffs to mons at the bottom of OU
no doing things that make zero sense flavor-wise"

And this from DuskMod's OP:

"As much as I love pokemon, I've never been 100% satisfied with the competitive aspect of it. I feel as if the current metagame is held back by the simulation of in-game mechanics, which forces the existence of a tier system. DuskMod aims to answer this question - if we were to completely disregard the policy of simulation in favor of increasing competitiveness, raising the skill ceiling, and emphasizing balance, what would be the result?"

Even these are pet mods because they remain the creator's pet, controlled purely by one individual. Yet at least they exist for a reason other than "Hmm, having the power to make whatever changes I want is pretty awesome, and those other mods seem pretty cool. I think I'll make my own."

I realize some people have taken umbrage at the term "pet mods," but I've become more and more convinced that's simply because it struck a nerve, and not because the term is flawed.

 

[Joim]

Calm down, I think you missed my point.

First of all, your definition of "pet mod" is flawed. Following it, Seasonal Ladder should be one. Why is it not? Because it's on PS? You should be more clear and consequent on that.

Then, I don't think Duskmod, GenNEXT, or Joimmons are "pet". Some of the non-mods you listed have been designed by one person, yet they are not pet metas. The three mentioned metas have sparked discussion amongst its players that are helping them grow and change for the better. That's not pet at all. That's very cool to have as it stimulates imagination, new game play, fun, and OM activity.

Also stop hating on Joimmons OP (and all "pet mods", really) just because you don't get my humor. Its goal is to have a metagame with different roles and where all Pokémon can be OU and where there's less hax (misses by now). That's pretty clear by its changes. Last but not least, let me tell you that the main difference between "I make this to have a meta I like", "I want a more competitive meta", and "I want a more diverse OU" is the wording. Goals and means are similar but done in a different way.

 

[Stratos]

You define Joimmons like a pet mod yet by now it has more players and more posts in its thread than some of these.

A pet mod could have the most posts in this forum, while a non-pet-mod could have 0 posts, yet one would still be a pet mod and one would not. Why? because a pet mod is simply, clearly defined as a format in which game mechanics are at the discretion of an individual. So no matter how much interest your project picks up, it will always be a pet mod, because you can change game mechanics at a whim. if you really take offense to the phrase "pet mod," then fine, we can call them "proprietary mods" or whatever you want, it doesn't change what they are, which is a group of metas that all cater to the exact same playerbase.

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

Seasonal ladder is also a pet mod. But that doesn't mean it isn't fun, it just classifies it.
Also, fyi, Arizona is voiced on the DM server, so he doesn't dislike mods, he just cares about playerbas.

 

[Joim]

Your definitions are flawed. By it, basically all mods are "pet mods". I don't imply anyone dislikes them, I stats the term is flawed and derogatory. There's more community participation in some pet mods to change they than on other OMs. Also, only the best ladderers vote on suspects, does that mean OU is a pet metagame?

 

[Stratos]

if you really take offense to the phrase "pet mod," then fine, we can call them "proprietary mods" or whatever you want, it doesn't change what they are, which is a group of metas that all cater to the exact same playerbase.

it's clear that you're getting hung up on the use of the term "pet mod" instead of wishing to continue the discussion that this thread is here for. I already said, if you take offense to the term "pet mod," that we can change it.

And no, the Seasonal would not be considered a proprietary mod because, afaik, there is no goal meta that the format is trying to establish and no changes are made after the ladder is introduced. As I said in my definition earlier, "a proprietary mod is any format in which game mechanics changes are not off the table in the future," though to account for the (i believe extremely unlikely) circumstance that any mod ever becomes "closed," it would not be unreasonable to add on "or any format which has ever been considered a proprietary mod under this definition."

I don't even need to freaking comment on why calling ou a pet meta was absurd and a complete logical fallacy. So can we please start discussing what to do about the very real issue of playerbase fragmentation, joim that means if you make another post being offended that your format is being called a pet mod (which is what it IS) i will ignore you

 

[StarmanXL]

Alright how about this: things like replays (and warstories, but I guess those are a relic of the past) help show off strategies and what a metagame can be like, and those could help encourage discussion and liveliness. Also, miniature tournaments seem to be a fun thing; you could have some sort of OM Tour...or something, I dunno.

 

[Joim]

Pwnemon, I wonder why you started posting as if you were Arizona. First of all, a discussion can't be formed upon a flawed, badly chosen description. You are changing the concept of "Pet Mod" in your post, you are not being clear at all.
This is a quote from Arizona:

A name being in the title is a sign. More seriously, a mod that has no reason for existing other than the whim or creative impulse of the creator. Certainly I concede other people may find interest. I just don't see why.

I would also define it such that a nascent mod with a larger aim would also be a "pet mod" as long as the creator holds sole power over the development, with the supposition that after a critical point votes and councils would be formed as we see in established metas and the mod would cease to be the creator's pet.

This is you:

there is no goal meta that the format is trying to establish and no changes are made after the ladder is introduced. As I said in my definition earlier, "a proprietary mod is any format in which game mechanics changes are not off the table in the future," though to account for the (i believe extremely unlikely) circumstance that any mod ever becomes "closed," it would not be unreasonable to add on "or any format which has ever been considered a proprietary mod under this definition."

If everyone is gonna have a different opinion on what's a "pet mod", this thread becomes totally moot.

Moreover, lol at logical fallacy. I'm just showing why your term is flawed when it can apply to practically everything. By the OP description, any large meta is a pet meta. Metas are not defined by a sole user, because they are large, but it's small "elite" councils who decide for the rest of players. Do you decide on bans on OU? Let's take an OM example. By your definition, Doubles is a "pet meta". The rules have not been decided by community consensus and its mechanics might change in the future.

There is a goal on Seasonal Ladder and it is a mod, even if it's a small one that hasn't needed a folder of its own. You're just supporting it and not listing it as a pet mod because it's supported by Showdown. The goal of a Seasonal Ladder is to create a fun mod tier that's flavoured by the current season. You can't count each ladder sepparatedly, it's just an everchanging mod under the control of a few.

Random Battles is too a pet mod according to the flawed definitions of this thread. It's impossible to have a random battle as such in the game cartridges, moreover the mechanics keep changing and the metagame is in control of a few individuals, yet Arizona added it in his list.

Other mods such as 6 moves or 12vs12 are mods in the sense that they can't be reproduced in game -what I think best defines "mod"-, they have been defined by an individual and, while they might not change, they are not fragmenting the player base because they are not played in the first place.

I think I've already explained my point: this discussion is flawed by definition. There is no player fragmentation, either. OMs that are successful keep beiag played (Hackmons, BH, Doubles), the ones that aren't successful or simply do not have the means to be played as often due not being on the main server, not having server support, meta support being discontinued, or just simply became boring just stop being played.

That is a logical fallacy, a player that likes OU won't stop playing OU when NU is created and wants to play it too. He will most likely play less OU, one won't drop a metagame just because he likes another one. A person will drop a metagame when he grows bored of it or think it's not good enough. If that person drops a similar metagame in favour of other, that's because the new one is simply better. That's not bad by itself, since it's weeding out the bad ones to favour the better ones.

Having a meta of the month is a very good idea and it will help players to know Other Metas better, as most will only see what main server has to offer, but that won't change the way OM is. You might cut the creativity and limiting OM creating and posting; or you force it to work like CAP, community driven big mod where all is done slowly by consensus but that would be for the worse, imo, in the case of Other Metas.

 

[Mr. Uncompetitive]

Damnit can we please stop talking about the differences between Mod-Metas and Metas that aren't Mod-Metas. They're both OMs, okay? I think we should mostly focus on what Birkal brought up in his post:

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you want as community members that use this forum. Would you like to place more of a competitive emphasis on rigorously testing a few metagames? Or would you rather have a forum where anyone can freely suggest any metagame for discussion and implementation? Or would you like a hybrid of the two? I'm willing to work with whatever you guys want, but you need to make your voices heard. Let's keep discussing this.

Um...yeah there really isn't a specific statement about all this mod-meta v. non-mod-meta talk. It really is whether or not the Other Metas forum should be more relaxed and make it easier to get into or if it should be more competitive with some emphasis on the more major metagames, or a combination of the two.

I feel that there should be a mix of the two. We should have the forum in general be very relaxed and have people discuss and propose about the metagames they want. This allows people to come into the forum more easily and find what they like. Within this, people can play the metas that are gaining a following more competitive through mini-tours, ladder challenges, viability threads, etc, to keep the interest for some of the metas going and to have more fun outside of simple theorymoning and occasional battling.

OM has had quite an issue in the past in getting popularity and a proper userbase. The surge of "Mod-Meta" OMs might not quite be what we were hoping for in terms of popularity, but we should still capitialize on this and try to garner interest for all kinds of OMs.