Should Ubers become an official metagame?

[PK Gaming]

Locopoke's thread has brought us serious question. Should the Uber tier be treated as an actual metagame? Or is it simply a banlist for the standard
tier and nothing more. Since the beginning of Pokemon, the Uber tier has been filled with Pokemon too strong for standard metagame. However over the years it has transformed into a playable metagame. It has been deemed competitive by the majority of users and it has been included in various tournaments, including the Smogon Tour and the SPL.

Should we change Ubers from a banlist into an actual metagame?

 

[Aldaron]

Interesting question.

It is already an "official metagame" since spl and tour recognize it.

However, if you're asking if it should go from what is perceived as a "just a ban list" to "a metagame we strive to maximize (a potentially unique) playability factor," then yes, we should.

Note that we already ban things from Ubers (clauses), and it has enough of a determined following to warrant expansive analyses and articles.

I see this more as a general attitude shift but one that apparently needs to be emphasized.

 

[LonelyNess]

My Ubers opinion probably doesn't mean much, but I think that the Ubers players share a similar view on their metagame that the UU players have on theirs, and that's that they LIKE the quirky, irrational parts of their tier. UU players don't want a more standardized way of determining the OU / UU line because we LIKE the fluctuation every 3 months, even though this obviously goes against the desires of stability. In that same vein, I imagine that Ubers players LIKE that there are no Pokemon bans, regardless of whether or not it makes for a 100% balanced game.

So as far as banning things from Ubers, I don't think it'd be a bad idea per say, I just think that you won't garner a lot of support from the Ubers players, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[cim]

If Ubers is a regulated tier, then wouldn't it become Standard?

 

[Aldaron]

Why would it?

The least bans tier doesn't need to be the standard one (note ubers already has bans).

 

[cim]

The least bans tier doesn't need to be the standard one (note ubers already has bans).

At the risk of being a pedant (who? me? Never!), I would argue that all clauses are rules, not bans. A good analogy would be Species Clause to a popular TCG rule limiting decks to 4 of any card. Species Clause is not a ban, it is a standard rule for Pokemon. Sleep Clause is similar.

Evasion and OHKO are more slippery, but the moves aren't banned; they just force a loss. There could be far fetched semi-competitive reasons for this if you were a complete idiot (a Mimic counter, for example)

---

All of that being said, coupled with a tier rename ("Tier 1" "Tier 2") this could be a pretty good compromise! Any "no banz" purist can play Tier 1 (Ubers now) where only the most over the top stuff gets banned, if at all. People seeking a metagame closer to Base 600 could play Tier 2, then so on and so forth. Not saying I totally agree with it but there's merit to the idea, I guess.

 

[Ice-eyes]

Ubers is already an official metagame. I don't understand what treating it as an 'actual metagame' would entail beyond what already happens - it's featured in official Smogon tournaments etc. If that means suspect testing etc. I would be completely against it because it defeats the point of what Ubers is; a fun, semi-balanced metagame. If in future it is no longer fun or has no semblance of balance then fair enough, either drop it from tournaments or possibly ban stuff. But for the moment I think it should be left alone in that context.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

Ubers is currently both a metagame and a banlist, if only by virtue of the fact that we have not banned any Pokemon from it. We could arguably treat it as either; however, considering that we have and are continuing to play it as a serious tier in official tournaments, we should treat it as a metagame. As such, we should be able to make changes to it to increase its playability. Say a Pokemon that was so powerful that it turned every game into a coin flip (Speed tie) were released. We should be able to ban it under the premise that it makes Ubers less playable. This is NOT to say that we should necessarily ban Arceus. Perhaps more people will think conserving the Uber tier's purity is a fair trade-off for keeping around an Uber noticeably harder to prepare for than most, or perhaps more people don't view Arceus as broken. Maybe not. The important thing is that we should have the choice to ban Arceus if it lowers the playability of the Uber tier.

 

[locopoke]

If the upcoming Inconsistent ban affects Ubers (which I imagine it would), it proves that Ubers is just as much a metagame as it is a ban list and that we should be able to customize it to our liking, especially if it's going to be included in official tournaments. I feel as though the hypothetical "coin flip" Pokemon that Eo mentioned in his post is basically Inconsistent and Arceus (to a lesser extent) in a nutshell.

 

[lilyhollow]

If Ubers is a regulated tier, then wouldn't it become Standard?

Because we voted on the baseline for Standard, and we voted for one with a gigantic initial banlist. Remember?


Anyway, we should like, clearly make Ubers an "official metagame" or whatever. We are already treating it like one in every way except, teehee, we can't ban Pokemon from it! Well, isn't that convenient >_>

The most legitimate objection to allowing for an Ubers metagame is that people will start trying to ban things that would probably be considered broken by OU standards, but, due to Ubers' "flavor" as a sort of wonky, imbalanced environment, shouldn't be banned from Ubers. I don't see how that's an issue, though, if the people voting for it actually have a stake in the results of whatever tests might happen (as in, they play and will continue to play the Ubers metagame). The only problem I can foresee is that a lot of people suddenly become interested in the "new" Ubers metagame, but really want to see it balanced out and made "playable" by OU standards. I imagine this could alienate the "classic Ubers" players, but it seems pretty unlikely--and if it did happen, it would still produce a popular new metagame (just not one that perfectly fills the niche that the Ubers banlist 'metagame' did).

 

[bojangles]

If Ubers is a regulated tier, then wouldn't it become Standard?

As far as I knew, OU was called Standard simply because it is the most popular of the supported metagames. Ubers and UU were still in SPL and the Tour, because they are official metagames, just like OU. The only difference is that OU is more popular.

As for the "Should we make Ubers a real tier," I would reply with "It isn't already?" We have subforums in UT, Stark, and C&C, with official sponsorship, discussion on IRC and the forums, and representative moderation staff. I'm not sure of any way to make it more of "an official metagame" outside of knocking the idea of "it's just a ban list" out of people's heads.

 

[cim]

For the past four generations, we made Standard a metagame with a small ban list (as few things as banned as possible for a stable metagame). RBY had 2 bans, GSC had 5?...

Is our goal to make Standard "as like RBY Standard as possible" or "the 'first' stable metagame possible"? I was always under the impression it was the latter, but it seems what's happened is that we've banned so many things that Ubers has become "Standard".

At which point, why are we picking one particular metagame to be Standard over another? It's completely arbitrary compared to what we've at least tried to do for the past four gens.

 

[Colonel M]

*Grumble*.

OU was a "Standard" tier not because of its limited banlist. I don't even know where you got that from just by looking at two generations. Standard metagame had a small ban list due to the # of "Uber" Pokemon within the standard tier on top of the so-called viable Pokemon as well. That does not suddenly dictate the definition of a Standard Metagame.

Regardless, I don't see why Ubers should be restricted from being an official metagame. At least from Gen 4 perspective, it was an often played tier and it has the crowd. It was sponsored in official tournaments and what not, so it's not like it is something alienated from the majority of the community anyway (by this I mean people objecting it from being a metagame). Still, the bigger debate is how to handle the tier. Do we attempt to do something similar to OU and arrange bans, or do we keep the premise of it being a tier that has everything unrestricted barring some circumstances (in particular, clauses)? At the current time frame it seems to be tilted toward the concept much like OU, so in this case we would attempt to "balance" (using the word roughly here) the tier to make it competitively viable. Still, I think that in regards to Pokemon bans within the tier we should make it rather strict. There has to be room of consideration since Ubers is its own monster.

I'm for making it an official metagame. I'm just curious how the system wrt bans is going to work. That should be clearly defined.

Now to await persecution from every side of the table. P.S. Moxie is a stupid word.

P.S. With the Uber players deciding the procedures. Not fucking outside influences here.

 

[undisputed]

It already is. Have we been giving out Tour Trophies for winners of a metagame that doesn't exist and we dont support? If so why have there been 100s of man hours invested in writing analyses for that metagame that doesn't exist? I think the answer to this question is pretty obvious - Ubers is here to stay as an official tier.

 

[zfs]

If the upcoming Inconsistent ban affects Ubers (which I imagine it would), it proves that Ubers is just as much a metagame as it is a ban list and that we should be able to customize it to our liking, especially if it's going to be included in official tournaments. I feel as though the hypothetical "coin flip" Pokemon that Eo mentioned in his post is basically Inconsistent and Arceus (to a lesser extent) in a nutshell.

Shouldn't that be a separate vote for uber players to determine? If Shadow Tag gets banned in the initial ability voting, that won't ban ST Wobba from ubers. If Drizzle gets banned, that won't ban Kyogre from ubers. Why would Inconsistent be the only ban to automatically apply to both Standard OU and Ubers?

The idea of a tier that allows Mewtwo but not Octillery is pretty hilarious, though. (Yes, I know you could use Sniper or Suction Cups.)

 

[capefeather]

Honestly, with respect to ability/move bans, the vast majority should be pretty obvious. All of the non-Pokémon stuff banned from OU currently other than (if they get banned in like 35 minutes) Drizzle and Shadow Tag heavily restrict the emphasis on skill by placing removable luck into the metagame. Evasion, OHKO, Sleep, Inconsistent (again, if it's banned) - it's clear that they impose extraneous luck-based situations on the metagame no matter what, and that if they're banned in OU it makes sense to ban them in Ubers as well. I doubt that they'd even need to be put to a vote.

 

[zfs]

Honestly, with respect to ability/move bans, the vast majority should be pretty obvious. All of the non-Pokémon stuff banned from OU currently other than (if they get banned in like 35 minutes) Drizzle and Shadow Tag heavily restrict the emphasis on skill by placing removable luck into the metagame. Evasion, OHKO, Sleep, Inconsistent (again, if it's banned) - it's clear that they impose extraneous luck-based situations on the metagame no matter what, and that if they're banned in OU it makes sense to ban them in Ubers as well. I doubt that they'd even need to be put to a vote.

If Snow Cloak/Sand Veil get nominated as suspect abilities and voted out of OU, will they be treated the same, or will they require their own uber vote?

 

[zapzap29]

I think that the big questions here are "If ubers becomes a metagame can we ban things from it" and "If we can ban things from ubers, how do we go about banning it?" For the most part I think Ubers already is a metagame of it's own. However, to people who don't play Ubers it seems that it's just a banlist. I don't see why the people who view Ubers as a banlist should care at all if Ubers has a metagame or not. The people who care about the Ubers metagame are obviously the ones this decision will impact most. That being said I propose that if bans are implemented in Ubers there should be suspect testing like in the other tiers. As for the question on abilities I think that inconsistent should be banned in ubers as well due to the fact that it turns the game into a crapshoot. However, as for snow cloak and sand veil I think they might warrant further testing due to the fact that the ubers metagame is vastly different than the standard/OU metagame.

Not saying bans should or shouldn't be implemented in ubers, just that if bans are implemented in ubers we should get as much of the Uber's community's say on it as we do the other tiers. If Ubers is it's own metagame it deserves the same treatment that other tiers/metagames get.

 

[shrang]

*Echoes "I thought it already is an official metagame" sentiment*

I mean, why can't we have a banlist as well as a metagame?? The whole point of Ubers is to play a metagame where "overpowered" is acceptable. I've read the Arceus thread and don't think it really affects much. It's not a balanced metagame. However, it's competitive enough, with enough players and interest to make an official metagame (as opposed to something like Middle Cup, which at the moment doesn't get all that much attention).

 

[Ulevo]

For the past four generations, we made Standard a metagame with a small ban list (as few things as banned as possible for a stable metagame). RBY had 2 bans, GSC had 5?...

Is our goal to make Standard "as like RBY Standard as possible" or "the 'first' stable metagame possible"? I was always under the impression it was the latter, but it seems what's happened is that we've banned so many things that Ubers has become "Standard".

At which point, why are we picking one particular metagame to be Standard over another? It's completely arbitrary compared to what we've at least tried to do for the past four gens.

I find this post to be of exceptional interest, because it reflects some thoughts I've had on the "standard" metagame we've had ever since entering Gen IV.

The only reason we ever banned Pokemon in the early generations was because they were broken by the actual definition (not this flaky spin off term everyone shoots around at to label something they seem to dislike or find irritating). You could not win without playing these Pokemon, would they have been allowed to roam free in standard. This was also acceptable because these Pokemon were limited in number, so it wasn't like we were simply trimming off the top of OU for the sake of "balance". It had limitations as to how far it went.

Right now we have an entirely different set of circumstances. Where we once banned Mewtwo in RBY because it was virtually invincible, we now ban Pokemon like Salamence because it's "unpredictable". We've slid down our original path of traditions, but that is likely a consequence of the change in times.

To be honest, it seems like we're playing this make believe tier that everyone has different visions for, and those that politically debate the loudest and involve themselves the most get the final say in what that tier shapes in to. There is little to no reason why Ubers couldn't be the standard tier given how many Pokemon are accessible to it in comparison to the days of RBY. People would argue that it couldn't be OU due to inbalances and viable Pokemon, but I mean... Didn't RBY have like, 8-10 viable Pokemon by itself? I can imagine GSC isn't that much better.

I'm by no means an avid Ubers player, but it all seems unnecessarily confusing if you ask me.

 

[Tobes]

Going with the mentality that Standard should be the metagame with the fewest number of bans possible (which it should be), there is no reason Ubers shouldn't be Standard (although a few bans may or may not be necessary). However, this is clearly not the prevalent mindset, as indicated by beginning 5th gen with an initial banlist.

As others have pointed out, Standard did have it's intended definition in RBY, GSC (bar Snorlax) and RSE. It only became questionable during 4th gen when a legitimate Ubers metagame that was actually reasonably balanced emerged. If anything is keeping people from embracing Ubers as Standard it is because of the sense of familiarity and tradition that accompanies OU, which, although it will inevitably bring up resistance to the change, is not a reason to rework the definition of Standard to our liking. The "as close to RBY OU" Standard that Chris is me brought up should be dismissed just as the counter mentality of 3rd gen was dismissed in 4th gen, in that the game has changed and mentalities become outdated.

 

[Ulevo]

Going with the mentality that Standard should be the metagame with the fewest number of bans possible (which it should be), there is no reason Ubers shouldn't be Standard (although a few bans may or may not be necessary). However, this is clearly not the prevalent mindset, as indicated by beginning 5th gen with an initial banlist.

As others have pointed out, Standard did have it's intended definition in RBY, GSC (bar Snorlax) and RSE. It only became questionable during 4th gen when a legitimate Ubers metagame that was actually reasonably balanced emerged. If anything is keeping people from embracing Ubers as Standard it is because of the sense of familiarity and tradition that accompanies OU, which, although it will inevitably bring up resistance to the change, is not a reason to rework the definition of Standard to our liking. The "as close to RBY OU" Standard that Chris is me brought up should be dismissed just as the counter mentality of 3rd gen was dismissed in 4th gen, in that the game has changed and ideas become outdated.

What holds this point back from implying that Ubers is in fact the "standard" metagame and not OU is the term "standard" is simply given to the most played and popular metagame, which OU happens to be.

Now, for whatever reasons you interpret as to why this is in fact the case, I leave to you. I'm sure there are numerous ones you could come up with. One in particular that you pointed out is familiarity.

 

[lilyhollow]

The reasons don't really matter, because that isn't the community's standpoint anymore. We just very very clearly do not want Standard to be defined as the "metagame with the fewest number of bans possible." That ship has just completely sailed and I don't see any reason to continue pursuing it. I don't really understand why that keeps coming up as if it's even a point of contention anymore. The community is one-sidedly in favor of not caring at all about the "Standard is the metagame with the least bans" mentality. There are maybe some inconsistencies between that and our tiering decisions in previous gens, or maybe there aren't. That doesn't matter though, because there seem to be almost zero people in the community who would care at all about any of those inconsistencies.

 

[Zystral]

All of that being said, coupled with a tier rename ("Tier 1" "Tier 2") this could be a pretty good compromise! Any "no banz" purist can play Tier 1 (Ubers now) where only the most over the top stuff gets banned, if at all. People seeking a metagame closer to Base 600 could play Tier 2, then so on and so forth. Not saying I totally agree with it but there's merit to the idea, I guess.

I absolutely agree, this was discussed in IRC not too long ago - calling it OU or Standard isn't correct, it happens to be what we play the most. The reason OU was standard in RBY was because there were so few. And we've been working with that same metagame over the years - the one with Starmie, Snorlax, Gengar, and Zapdos. This is why our ban list now seems so large - because we want to keep the metagame we've become accustomed to. There's nothing wrong with that, but the fact that our ban list has now evolved into a fully playable metagame where there are only two or three very specialized exceptions to what is banned shows that we need to rethink our logic.

OU is the standard because it is the most popular. It will always be the most popular, there's no avoiding that. We have to bear in mind that until recently Ubers was basically people using what wasn't allowed in OU as they pleased. There have been one or two little bans put into place, but I think right now, Ubers is still what it basically is - a chance to use whatever you want. And I think Eo has the right idea - when Ubers becomes unplayable, that is, when we get a Garchomp situation in Ubers, that's when we should consider banning them. And quite honestly, at that point, we then need to make a new tier, eg "Beyond Uber" for this renegade pokemon. and considering pokemon wont stop for several years, this renegade pokemon is gonna come sooner or later.

So obviously, changing the tier names makes it easier. Little Cup should be preserved, but NU should become Tier 0, UU is Tier 1, OU is Tier 2, etc. I know this is completely counter-intuitive in that Tier 1 is usually regarded as the best of the best, or in this case, Standard, but like I said, Pokemon is an ever growing game, and when the current ubers gets something too powerful for it, that will be banned. This will go on and on, and eventually, "too good for ubers" will become it's own tier. And what happens when that gets something way too powerful? This way we can keep adding new tiers with ease.

However, more to the point of the original topic - Ubers already is an official metagame. it is also a ban list. It just happens to be a playable banlist with its own meta. OU is a ban list for UU, technically, and UU is a ban list for NU. I don't think it's "making people get the idea that Ubers is a ban list out of their heads" sort of thing, it's a "OU isn't really the Standard, it is just the most played."
Just because we base most of our policy around it doesn't mean our world has to rotate around it. I think every tier should have its Policy and Metagame treated with equal importance.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Equal importance? I would disagree.

The tiers which have the most players inherently have the most intellectual capitol (man power), and decisions for said tiers also affect more members of the community.

Right now, both Ubers and UU policy or play respectively are directly related to OU, and decisions regarding OU have the most lasting benefits/repercussions across smogon and the larger competitive pokemon community. It is inherent that larger player bases must be dealt with more care. This is why OU tiering is such a tremendous organizational undertaking where as Mods in the UU/LC communities are pretty much free to guide tiering/policy without (over-inflated) whole-community interference.

For instance, just change the "cut off" for which pokemon are defined as "OU" and the whole UU tier shifts. This gen's UU could very well consist of Infernape, Kuuremu and Metagross for instance.


OU isn't the standard tier only because it is competitive and has traditional links from RBY (let's face it, none of the traditional OUs Starmie, Gengar, Zapdos or Snorlax will be top threats this gen, if even OU). It is the most popular too for having much less over-centralization, much more variety of usable pokemon, and being the first tier ahead of UU or NU.

I'll say it again, but PR never fails to leave me thinking it needs a swift [kick to the rear] dose of pragmatism. Look at the actual administrative realities and group dynamics.