Yes, they did. I am sorry >_>@Hyra: Dragontamer's calculations had an error.
1) I prefer a weighting.1) Should we go for the three months having the same preference, or should we give preference to the last month? (My suggestion: give preference to the last month.)
2) If we give preference to the last month, how will the preference be? (My suggestion: October is 2/3 as important as November, November is 2/3 as important as December.)
3) Should we update the OU list every three months, or maybe every month is better (using the last three months either way)? (Either way is fine with me.)
I don't see why the list should be that stable in the first place if the metagame changed within three months. If, three months from now, Gallade, say, is in half of the teams, then it should be OU in three months from now, and if Zapdos, say, is used by nobody, then it should be BL. The stability of the OU list depends solely on the stability of the metagame. If the metagame is stable, the OU list will be relatively the same after three months. If there were huge changes in the metagame, then the OU list should reflect those changes and have a huge overhaul.Time Mage said:...as I commented, the goal of my suggestions is to make the fluctuations as small as possible, so taking into account only the new data each time doesn't seem ideal to me. As a starting point, I think it' fine, but as more months are added, I think they should be taken into account, with lesser weights. They work would be to add stability to the list.
Again I don't see a problem with a Pokemon jumping from OU to BL to OU, if its use dropped and then increased. After all, we're talking about a three-month wait for each jump, so it's not like we're seeing huge fluctuations going on. Maybe the word "borderline" for BL would have more than one meaning here, lol. They are "borderline" for a reason. It simply wouldn't be fair for Alakazam, say, being left in the OU list if it was at 74.6% and then goes to 75.2% after three months, while Dragonite, say, goes to BL if its percentage goes from 67.9% to 75.1%. They should both go to BL. If 75% is the cut-off point we agreed upon, then we stick to it.Time Mage said:And speaking of stability: What about minimal fluctuations in the OU border? Has a pokémon that was at 75.1% in the previous list the right to be labeled "OU" if it's at 74.9 three months after? Such small fluctuations seem pointless to acknowledge to me, for two reasons: One because they only add confusion. And two, because those pokémon jumping up and down will most probably be BL pokémon, who already compete in the same tiers as the OU ones, so including them in OU won't really change anything. That's why I suggested in my post a minimum % increase/decrease to grant a promotion/demotion.
You've convinced me with that single phrase. No point in forcing stability to something that should be stable enough by its own.The stability of the OU list depends solely on the stability of the metagame.
Well, going into the "future" thing... if it was OU once in the past, there is a good chance it will be OU again in the future.Again I don't see a problem with a Pokemon jumping from OU to BL to OU, if its use dropped and then increased. After all, we're talking about a three-month wait for each jump, so it's not like we're seeing huge fluctuations going on. Maybe the word "borderline" for BL would have more than one meaning here, lol. They are "borderline" for a reason. It simply wouldn't be fair for Alakazam, say, being left in the OU list if it was at 74.6% and then goes to 75.2% after three months, while Dragonite, say, goes to BL if its percentage goes from 67.9% to 75.1%. They should both go to BL. If 75% is the cut-off point we agreed upon, then we stick to it.
So you're saying that if something drops from 68% to 73% it's BL, and if something climbs from 80% to 74% it's OU? That doesn't make sense to me. One cut-off point is the way to go. If you think the cut-off point is too high, then we lower it.We can keep this mechanical if you want. A pokemon has to drop to say... 72.5% usage before it is BL, and a pokemon has to grow to 75% usage before it is OU.
If something drops to 73% from 76% it is still OU. Drops to 72% it is then BL.So you're saying that if something drops from 68% to 73% it's BL, and if something climbs from 80% to 74% it's OU? That doesn't make sense to me. One cut-off point is the way to go. If you think the cut-off point is too high, then we lower it.