I'm gonna preface this with a FACT: The analyses are unarguably the best they have ever been.
I've been involved with this site since 07, and presided over C&C's revival from a purely dead state (with BK / Junior / Stellar / darkie / Caelum / jrrrrrrr... good times) and I can say that with confidence. I have adamantly disagreed with the standard talking point criticisms about "red tape" or "inefficiency" and all of that, and I will continue to do so. I think that throughout the years, whoever the active leadership, we have succeeded in implementing necessary projects / protocols / systems to resolve the needs of the time.
Our analyses are supposed to cater to the newer player, and having information that is relevant and specific is always a good thing, so I don't have a personal "length requirement."
That said, in spite of any hostility that may have resulted from the previous iteration of this thread, I still think it's important that the section responsible for a SIGNIFICANT number of this site's hits (dp/pokemon was #1 in dpp, not sure if bw/pokemon is the same anymore) be open to constructive criticism and be open to forever improving.
I'd like to take 2 posts from the previous thread to highlight where I feel improvements can be made to a system that is already very good and already pumping out what are bar none the best analyses Smogon has ever had.
This isn't the writer's fault imo. C&C should be a fluid system anyway (and from what I can see, it is), and I take this as an opportunity to continue the fluidity and just continue improving.
I've been involved with this site since 07, and presided over C&C's revival from a purely dead state (with BK / Junior / Stellar / darkie / Caelum / jrrrrrrr... good times) and I can say that with confidence. I have adamantly disagreed with the standard talking point criticisms about "red tape" or "inefficiency" and all of that, and I will continue to do so. I think that throughout the years, whoever the active leadership, we have succeeded in implementing necessary projects / protocols / systems to resolve the needs of the time.
Our analyses are supposed to cater to the newer player, and having information that is relevant and specific is always a good thing, so I don't have a personal "length requirement."
That said, in spite of any hostility that may have resulted from the previous iteration of this thread, I still think it's important that the section responsible for a SIGNIFICANT number of this site's hits (dp/pokemon was #1 in dpp, not sure if bw/pokemon is the same anymore) be open to constructive criticism and be open to forever improving.
I'd like to take 2 posts from the previous thread to highlight where I feel improvements can be made to a system that is already very good and already pumping out what are bar none the best analyses Smogon has ever had.
Honko's post was entirely constructive and well stated so I won't add anything to it; I basically agree 100%.
I took out the first part of undisputed's post cause I didn't think it was necessary, but this last part is so necessary that I have bolded the entire part. IN BW OU...Infernape sucks lol. Ok it might not suck but whatever Infernape is, the reader, new or not, does not get that impression from the overview. I'm going to take a different route from undisputed and not pin this on the writer though, as counter-intuitive as that might seem. C&C throughout the past 5 years, ignoring who we cater to, has had significantly different needs and priorities. At one point, it was simply getting people to look at the forum (Bk will remember this). At another, it was getting people to explain how a Pokemon fit on a team. At another, it was making sure the analyses written earlier were still relevant. Different needs on an operational basis (again, independent of who we cater to) caused us to write analyses that, for whatever reason, may not correspond to our needs in the present.
This isn't the writer's fault imo. C&C should be a fluid system anyway (and from what I can see, it is), and I take this as an opportunity to continue the fluidity and just continue improving.
So, what do we need to do to improve? I can't agree with undisputed about length being bad, but I can agree with fluff being bad. I'd like to take a combination of both those posts and formulate the plan for a project with whoever can be bothered to help.
1.) Recruit active players who are willing to consult. <-- LOL Sorry, had to laugh, cause like, this has been a concern / desire forever and it kinda goes somewhere and then kinda dies. But o well..this is still a desire for the optimistic -.-
2.) Get a group together to work on the "overview" section for all analyses. First, we need to define what overview means for us at this time (and not go into hating on how it was implemented in the past, because again, different times mean different needs mean different results). Then, we go through and update (key word, update, not fix) them. Here, we channel the spirit of undisputed's post; in Infernape's BW OU overview, we say "this blows." In C&C talk of course.
1 and 2 work side by side, because the overview is probably all an experienced battler will look at lol.
3.) Get a group together to work on making the individual set descriptions concise. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but again, I have to reiterate that this isn't blaming the writer at all; at the time it was written, the need was different, and the writer adapted to his time's needs / expectations. We're all volunteers working on a hobby we love; none of us are to blame. That said, I think, at the present, the needs are a.) be concise b.) be informative c.) be interesting
This means take out fluff (group might have to define fluff), add specifics, and try to keep the writer's personality evident.
#3 is a lot of work honestly, and, since I'm such a fucking realist, I don't really expect it to pan out. That said, we can make efforts to see something move in this general direction.
In fact, all I really want to see personally is #1 and #2 come to fruition. Since we have tabs / drop down menus for the analyses anyway, it's entirely up to the user what he chooses to read, but the overview should come straight out and smack the reader with a metaphorical cock and say "this is what the fuck this is." Since a person, whether new or experienced, bothering to read the analyses will always read the overview, I agree with undisputed in saying that at the very least, this part of the analysis should be clear, concise (yes, this might even mean emphasizing length and making explicitly short), and straight to the point.
So, unless someone really wants to take the lead on #3, you can refer to this as the "Update Overviews" project.
1.) Recruit active players who are willing to consult. <-- LOL Sorry, had to laugh, cause like, this has been a concern / desire forever and it kinda goes somewhere and then kinda dies. But o well..this is still a desire for the optimistic -.-
2.) Get a group together to work on the "overview" section for all analyses. First, we need to define what overview means for us at this time (and not go into hating on how it was implemented in the past, because again, different times mean different needs mean different results). Then, we go through and update (key word, update, not fix) them. Here, we channel the spirit of undisputed's post; in Infernape's BW OU overview, we say "this blows." In C&C talk of course.
1 and 2 work side by side, because the overview is probably all an experienced battler will look at lol.
3.) Get a group together to work on making the individual set descriptions concise. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but again, I have to reiterate that this isn't blaming the writer at all; at the time it was written, the need was different, and the writer adapted to his time's needs / expectations. We're all volunteers working on a hobby we love; none of us are to blame. That said, I think, at the present, the needs are a.) be concise b.) be informative c.) be interesting
This means take out fluff (group might have to define fluff), add specifics, and try to keep the writer's personality evident.
#3 is a lot of work honestly, and, since I'm such a fucking realist, I don't really expect it to pan out. That said, we can make efforts to see something move in this general direction.
In fact, all I really want to see personally is #1 and #2 come to fruition. Since we have tabs / drop down menus for the analyses anyway, it's entirely up to the user what he chooses to read, but the overview should come straight out and smack the reader with a metaphorical cock and say "this is what the fuck this is." Since a person, whether new or experienced, bothering to read the analyses will always read the overview, I agree with undisputed in saying that at the very least, this part of the analysis should be clear, concise (yes, this might even mean emphasizing length and making explicitly short), and straight to the point.
So, unless someone really wants to take the lead on #3, you can refer to this as the "Update Overviews" project.
I'll even help whoever wants to volunteer to lead this in the right direction...
yee / undisputed / lavos / myzozoa are part of one group ("team west"); iconic / eo / tfc another ("nowhere / elsewhere"); jabba / locopoke / kd24 another ("strongs"); mcmeghan / ginku / cbb another ("etc"). Go to these groups of good players, ask for a few people to help writers in getting right to the brunt of what a specific pokemon's purpose is, and work with them to getting that down on paper in the Overview section. Actually don't go to tfc. But the rest, they're all part of different groups that frequently do well in high level competition, and I know that at least some members of each group will happy to provide assistance in getting to the core of what a Pokemon's purpose in a tier is.
yee / undisputed / lavos / myzozoa are part of one group ("team west"); iconic / eo / tfc another ("nowhere / elsewhere"); jabba / locopoke / kd24 another ("strongs"); mcmeghan / ginku / cbb another ("etc"). Go to these groups of good players, ask for a few people to help writers in getting right to the brunt of what a specific pokemon's purpose is, and work with them to getting that down on paper in the Overview section. Actually don't go to tfc. But the rest, they're all part of different groups that frequently do well in high level competition, and I know that at least some members of each group will happy to provide assistance in getting to the core of what a Pokemon's purpose in a tier is.
- By user:
Aldaron - writer and adviser - Sableye
alexwolf - writer - Xatu
Arcticblast - writer - Magneton
ernesto - writer - Crobat / Slowbro / Tornadus
Iconic - writer and adviser - Sharpedo
JabbaTheGriffin - writer and adviser - Terrakion
lord of bays - writer - Hydreigon
myzozoa - writer and adviser - Deoxys-D
Nachos - writer and adviser - Abomasnow / Metagross / Tyranitar
nyttyn - writer - Blissey
pokemon0078 - writer - Gastrodon / Lilligant / Smeargle
undisputed - writer and adviser - Dragonite / Tornadus-T / Gengar / Heatran / Latios / Latias
yee - writer and adviser - Infernape / Machamp / Tangrowth / Chansey / Jellicent
By Pokemon:
Abomasnow - Writer / Adviser: Nachos
Accelgor
Aerodactyl - Analysis: ballabrown24
Alakazam
Amoonguss
Azelf
Azumarill
Bisharp
Blissey - Writer: nyttyn
Breloom - Analysis: Seven Deadly Sins
Bronzong
Carracosta
Celebi - Analysis: alexwolf
Chandelure
Chansey - Writer / Adviser: yee
Cloyster
Cobalion
Cofagrigus
Conkeldurr - Analysis: ThePillsburyDoughBoy (Abandoned, needs to be taken over)
Crawdaunt
Cresselia
Crobat - Writer / Adviser: ernesto
Darmanitan
Deoxys-D - Writer / Adviser: myzozoa, Analysis - ballabrown24
Ditto
Donphan - Analysis: Arcticblast
Dragonite - Writer / Adviser: undisputed
Dugtrio
Durant
Dusknoir
Empoleon
Espeon
Exeggutor
Farfetch'd
Feraligatr
Ferrothorn
Forretress
Froslass
Gallade
Galvantula
Gastrodon - Writer / Adviser: pokemon0078
Gengar - Writer / Adviser: undisputed
Gliscor - Analysis: Electrolyte
Golurk
Gorebyss
Gyarados
Haxorus
Heatran - Writer / Adviser: undisputed
Heracross
Hippowdon
Hitmontop
Huntail
Hydreigon - Writer / Adviser: Lord of bays
Infernape - Writer / Adviser: yee
Jellicent - Writer / Adviser: yee
Jirachi
Jolteon
Jynx
Kabutops
Kingdra
Kyurem
Landorus
Latias - Writer / Adviser: undisputed, Analysis: shrang
Latios - Writer / Adviser: undisputed, Analysis: Lavos Spawn (abandoned, needs taking over)
Lilligant - Writer / Adviser: pokemon0078
Lucario
Ludicolo
Machamp - Writer / Adviser: yee
Magikarp
Magneton - Writer / Adviser: Arcticblast
Magnezone
Mamoswine
Mandibuzz
Medicham
Meloetta
Meloetta-P
Metagross - Writer / Adviser: Nachos, Analysis: religiousjedi
Mew
Mienshao
Milotic
Nidoking
Nidoqueen
Ninetales
Ninjask
Omastar
Parasect
Politoed
Porygon2
Quagsire
Raikou
Reuniclus
Roserade - Analysis: Arcticblast
Rotom
Rotom-C
Rotom-H
Rotom-W - Analysis: alexwolf
Sableye - Writer / Adviser: Aldaron
Salamence - Analysis: LucaroarkZ
Sandslash
Sawsbuck
Sceptile
Scizor
Scolipede
Scrafty
Sharpedo - Writer / Adviser: Iconic
Shaymin
Shiftry
Sigilyph
Skarmory
Slowbro - Writer / Adviser: ernesto
Slowking
Smeargle - Writer / Adviser: pokemon0078
Staraptor
Starmie
Stoutland
Suicune
Swampert
Tangrowth - Writer / Adviser: yee
Tentacruel
Terrakion - Writer / Adviser: JabbaTheGriffin
Throh
Togekiss
Tornadus - Writer / Adviser: ernesto
Tornadus-T - Writer / Adviser: undisputed
Toxicroak
Tyranitar - Writer / Adviser: Nachos, Analysis: Trinitrotoluene
Vaporeon
Venomoth
Venusaur
Victini
Victreebel
Virizion
Volbeat
Volcarona
Weavile
Whimsicott
Wobbuffet - Analysis: pokemon0078
Xatu - Writer / Adviser / Analysis: alexwolf
Yanmega
Zapdos
Zoroark
