Redefinition of Competitive Terms

[Arzamo]

If you browse around the Smogon analyses, it's only a matter of time before you come across the phrase "late-game sweeper." This basically means that a Pokémon can easily take out remainder of the opposing team after all of its counters are taken out. However, the vast majority of each battle, at least in my experience, is trying to figure out how exactly to get to that late-game stage, which cannot be done quickly or easily with any "early-game sweeper." The lack of an possible operational definition for "early-game sweeper" renders the current definition for "late-game sweeper" obsolete. It practically begs us for new terminology for the functions performed by a "sweeper," if sweepers only work well in late-game anyway.


Also, you probably know that competitive Pokémon is divided into tiers, Uber, OU, BL, UU and NU. Even among experts, there is contention as to the official definitions of the tiers, as evidenced in this thread on Smogon (and many others I'm too lazy to look up):
"The Unban Everything" Mentality and the need to define a cutoff for OU.
Is OU the balanced tier that has the least Pokémon banned? Is it the fewest Pokémon on the Shoddy usage statistics on the standard ladder that make up 50% of the metagame? If we go with that accepted definition, should the same definition be applied to the other tiers as well? Another flaw of that definition is that it makes no reference to the changing boundaries of the tiers, with new Pokémon being banned and unbanned. Any official definition would have to take into account the Suspect Test process.


Another term vague enough to be effectively worthless is balance, as contested in this thread:
Stage three and beyond.
In my opinion, balance should be synonimous with diversity, explained by X-Act in this thread:
Further Notes on Centralisation and Diversity
The more diversity a metagame has, the more balanced it is. Both the total species used and the evenness of usage is taken into account. Would there be a better way to define balance?


Finally, the terms "metagame" and "anti-metagame" Pokémon are frequently misused. To my knowledge, metagame Pokémon are those that are used to beat the most commonly used ones, or the "game" Pokémon. Anti-metagame Pokémon are those that beat the metagame Pokémon. This is mistakenly used in the Heatran analysis, labeling it as an "anti-metagame" Pokémon that is "capable of keeping top threats such as Scizor, Lucario, Infernape, and Salamence in check" (please correct me if I'm wrong about the accepted definitions for "metagame" and "anti-metagame"). It is also frequently misused in the forums.


A large portion of the conflict on this site could be solved if standard definitions for standard terms were created, or even if new terminology were created for the somewhat widely accepted definitions. Feel free to add your own examples of said terms. Standardized definitions will greatly expedite the Suspect testing process, and the activities of Smogon in general.

 

[iss]

Mistake on metagame. "Metagame" is the tier/Pokemon in tier. "Anti-Metagame" is basically the description of Heatran you posted.

 

[eric the espeon]

I'm all for this thread, but the discussion needs to be directed carefully.

Diversity is a good measure of balance, but IMO not perfect. It only checks the balance between Pokemon not sets, so if there was a Pokemon with 3 totally different viable sets, each of which was quite common on its own you could have a metagame that was very non diverse even with none of the sets being broken.

Something else is the definition of a Counter, I recall it going along the lines of:

A counter must be able to switch in with little or no risk to itself, and pose an immediate threat.

Which misses out on Pokemon that don't pose an "immediate threat" but merely use the countered Pokemon for setup fodder (Skarm counters quite a few Pokemon that it does not pose much immediate threat to, but can spike up heal when needed then beat down with BB if they just stay in.).

 

[wildfire393]

Something else is the definition of a Counter, I recall it going along the lines of:
Which misses out on Pokemon that don't pose an "immediate threat" but merely use the countered Pokemon for setup fodder (Skarm counters quite a few Pokemon that it does not pose much immediate threat to, but can spike up heal when needed then beat down with BB if they just stay in.).

I would argue that Skarmory does pose an "immediate threat" to most things it counters. If they are based on setting up, the threat he poses is that he disposes of their boosts and forces them to go through the process of setting up again, which is often not possible due to factors like residual damage, pinch berries, Motor Drive, etc.
If the Pokemon Skarmory counters cannot set up, the threat Skarmory poses is free turns to use Spikes, each use of which can often do more than a single Pokemon's full HP during the course of the game.

 

[-Zer0-]

An immediate threat can be toxic stalling. It doesnt matter how long it takes if it can START killing it right away while not taking enough damage to really hurt it, its an immediate threat.

 

[Veles]

I think trying to define something as a Metagame or an Anti-metagame Pokémon is kind of silly. Heatran is one of the most overused Pokémon, yet it is considered an Anti-metagame Pokémon? Heatran makes people think twice about using fire moves until they know if Heatran is on the opposing team. Heatran might be able to keep a check/counter on many of the top tier threats, but it's more than just a check/counter, it's also a threat in itself, especially with a Flash Fire bonus. I'd consider that a fairly central part of the Metagame.

 

[scorchedsky]

"metagame" is a very broad term. "the metagame" is simply the general, weakly-dominant strategy, and thus "anti-metagame" is a strategy meant to beat this weakly-dominant strategy. Anti-metagame pokemon aren't necessarily good (i.e. they don't need high base stat totals, and don't need to OHKO a good chunk of the metagame), they have to be able to beat the most commonly used "metagame" pokemon. Metagame pokemon, in general, will beat the majority of other pokemon, not simply the most used ones.

 

[Toby]

"metagame"

Sorry if Im completely out of my depth here, but it was my understanding that the "metagame" was the game of prediction within the game itself becuase of the development of "standards" (like "plays" in chess and in pokemon doubles) ?

 

[Arzamo]

The conflict around the definition of "metagame" seems to be one of the main points of contention in this thread. Perhaps we should just disregard all previously accepted definitions of that term and create a new standard to be used and cited in the future? The term "metagame" also needs to be applied to both the state of competitive play in general and to specific Pokémon/sets. In my opinion, scorchedsky has a good definition for both.

The reason I decided not to include the definition of Counter in the first post is that its impact on the metagame (as defined by scorchedsky) was, IIRC, resolved with the introduction of a new term, "check." Last year's philosophy was that uncounterable = Uber. The three characteristics introduced more recently (support, offensive, defensive), which deal with making Pokémon Uber, effectively make the term "counter" obsolete. Many versatile Pokémon don't even have a by-the-book counter (Salamence immediately comes to mind).

 

[Luxormaniac]

The "metagame" is the set of commonly used pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams that are the most common, usual, and generally effective against the set of all pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams collectively. "Anti-metagame" refers to the set of pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams that are designed to primarily be effective against the currently popular pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams, sacrificing all-around utility for the role of specifically addressing pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams that are "popular" at the moment.

Alternatively, the "metagame" is the current set of sets, pokemon, strategies, and teams that are addressed towards being effective against as much of the pokemon "plane" as possible, while "anti-metagame" is the set of pokemon, sets, strategies, and teams that lose coverage either by sacrificing moveslots, team slots, etc., for gaining effectiveness against a single "point."

Basically, metagame is all of the common pokemon, sets, etc., while anti-metagame is only the less-used sets, pokemon, etc., that are less effective for general purposes than the metagame. Let me explain.

HP Fire Gengar is "anti-metagame." HP Fire does not add to its broad effectiveness as a sweeper- it is only useful in a few cases, namely Scizor. It is built around a point. Since HP Fire does not help it to defeat the vast majority of Pokemon, it is anti-metagame.
Heatran is both part of the metagame- he has excellent use against a large sample of opponents- and the anti-metagame- he is perfectly built to counter the single "point" of the metagame's #1 threat, Scizor.