Uber Characteristic Definitions: Discussion/Questions

[Ciaran]

So I was helping a friend proof his justifications for his votes for the Suspects and he explicitly mentioned/quoted the definition of an Uber in terms of the Offensive, Defensive, or Support characteristics.

This got me thinking, and bear in mind this is only theory and conjecture so it may be incorrect, but say you have a random Pokemon. This Pokemon is very powerful offensively, and a lot of people think it's Uber quality but there's a large division and it's decided non-Uber offensively, if only barely. The same Pokemon has the same quality and the same resulting classification for it's Support role. Neither are defined as Uber, but both characteristics are quite close, so much so that some define them as Uber quality. Can this Pokemon be safely qualified as OU? Realistically it could run either set (or any in between), making it difficult to tell what role it is, and by the time it's discovered it's possible a kill is already marked up.

My question is this: If no single aspect should define the Pokemon as Uber, can a combination of them define it as Uber under the classification of "Versatility"? If not, why not? Wouldn't a single Poke that's 90% Uber in Offense and Support be more Uber than something 100% Uber in any single aspect?

Discuss.


*Jibaku said this was the more appropriate place to post this

 

[ultimifier]

well this was the case before in UU with crobat. It didnt really fir into one characteristic fully, but partially fit all three of offensive, defensive, AND support. The people who voted wrote convincing paragraphs, all of their votes counted and he was voted BL by a 20-0 margin iirc.

Also I dont believe the uber characteristics are a black and white division betweem Uber and Non-Uber. They are a guidline, can be interpreted differently by different people and should be used as a BASIS for arguments. There was a thread on blissey posted by KD24 that touched on this, but it quickly got filled with uninformed users theorymoning completely irrelevany facts and got locked. iirc once again.

So i believe that if a pokemon does not clearly fit one "criteria" like salamence for example**. But comes pretty damn close to 2 (offensive and support [whatever that even is?]) it should still be voted uber.

I'm not saying sala is uber im using him as an example as we have all seen that thread about salamence linger on for the past month

 

[reachzero]

Speaking of Salamence, the fact that it is so dangerously close to the example in the OP suggests that this thread coud de-rail very quickly, so let me warn people now: this thread is about how we use and apply the characteristics, so please stay away from using it to discuss any specific Pokemon's tiering!

Regarding the topic in the OP, I need to give it a little more thought before I really put a strong opinion forward....

 

[Jumpman16]

People have been interpreting the Support Characteristic creatively in such cases. From the thread I linked in the latest Suspect Voting thread. The best example of this (in that I accepted his reasoning) would be Legacy Raider's submission:

I consider Latios to also be uber under the Support Clause. Not the Memento set, which is great at supporting in its own right, but actually the Specs set once again. Because of its lack of switchins and reliable answers, Specs Latios is nigh on guaranteed to do big damage to an opposing team member every time the Draco Meteor button is pressed. This creates gaping holes in the opponent's defenses which are incredibly easy to exploit with other Pokemon. Latios' wallbreaking power consistently sets up a situation that makes it considerably easier for other Pokemon to sweep. That is the very definition of uber under Support, and Latios fits it perfectly.

The same would apply to a hypothetical pokemon who is borderline on both counts, if the voter is intelligent enough to present it in such a manner.

 

[Bluu]

Is there a way to compare a pokemon to the uber tier without comparing it to a metagame? It's a good question though, how does a pokemon even get into the uber tier? I'm going to look up the arguements because right now all I can think is "How would this fair in the metagame" but that assumes that the tier is already complete before this pokemon has a chance to be ranked. Maybe there could be a point system to rank a pokemon's overall versatility or at least potency at what it does best and give negative points for things such as typing and shallow move pools.

 

[mtr]

If the typing and shallow movepool are problems, then the Pokemon won't be fulfilling any of the characteristics to begin with.

It's a good question though, how does a pokemon even get into the uber tier?

IIRC, obvious Ubers, such as Dialga and Palkia, are banned from the outset. The rest are banned through Policy Review and Suspect Tests, while some other Pokemon can be unbanned. Someone else might be able to give you more detail.

 

[flashbolt]

My question is this: If no single aspect should define the Pokemon as Uber, can a combination of them define it as Uber under the classification of "Versatility"? If not, why not? Wouldn't a single Poke that's 90% Uber in Offense and Support be more Uber than something 100% Uber in any single aspect?

The most obvious answer is No. This can be circumvented in the way in which Jumpman described.
The versatility of a pokemon within criteria (different offensive sets) and across criteria (offensive and supportive sets) is, imo, NOT accounted for in the criteria. Though some read it into them. However, i will also mention that the voting system does mean that the versatility of a pokemon are tacitly a factor in the process. The versatility of a pokemon usually affects people's opinions on the danger of a pokemon before their arguments are formed.
The last point won't help you or your friend write a proof of Suspect status but i hope you sleep a little easier knowing that if a pokemon is dangerous due to versatility, it will most likely be banned (see crobat).

As a slight aside, which i think ultimifier was getting at;

Also I dont believe the uber characteristics are a black and white division betweem Uber and Non-Uber. They are a guidline, can be interpreted differently by different people and should be used as a BASIS for arguments.

I think there is a discussion to be had to clear up/decide the exact role of the characteristics. If they are being used as guidelines; how useful/productive to debate are they in that capacity? If they are being used as rule; are they too vague to be useful?
But i am not the man, and this is not the place, for that argument.

 

[capefeather]

From what I can see, the "original" Uber list is ultimately the result of arbitrary decisions on what the everyday Pokémon team should not contain. (I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.) One could argue that the Uber metagame is not truly broken, but the Smogon community (as well as the other Pokémon communities) has simply decided that Pokémon on the calibre of the cartridge legendaries should get their own arena separate from the other, clearly lesser Pokémon. These lesser Pokémon then form the standard metagame, and Uber/OU decisions are made based on each suspect's ability relative to this environment. There really is no absolute measure of "broken", which is why this is how Smogon has done things.

I guess I could give an opinion on the specific topic at hand when I have more time.

 

[Jumpman16]

Is there a way to compare a pokemon to the uber tier without comparing it to a metagame? It's a good question though, how does a pokemon even get into the uber tier? I'm going to look up the arguements because right now all I can think is "How would this fair in the metagame" but that assumes that the tier is already complete before this pokemon has a chance to be ranked. Maybe there could be a point system to rank a pokemon's overall versatility or at least potency at what it does best and give negative points for things such as typing and shallow move pools.

Actually, the assumption is that the "Suspect Metagame" isn't a metagame at all, since it very self-consciously contains, by definition, a pokemon that may be better suited elsewhere. Standard is essentially not a "complete" metagame until all Suspects are tiered where they are supposed to be. The best way to determine this has been the Suspect Test as we've carried it out thus far, with individual tests then Stage 3.

 

[Aminar]

Is there a way to make the criteria less subjective? As it stands they are so incredibly vague that only an extreme example can be used. There is no cutoff point. What is little effort. Is it one turn of setup while taking less than half damage against x% of the metagame. Is it being faster, and 1hkoing x% of the metagame. I hear Scizor being able to revenge something as a good reason to make it non-uber constantly. That seems ludicrous. Is a sweep defined as 3 pokemon, 4, 300 of your total 600% health?

And the support characteristic is worse yet. A Pokemon being assured 1 kill makes it pulling it's weight on a team. Nothing more. If your team dies without one Pokemon surely it's poorly designed.

In essence, can we be less subjective. Can we have a cutoff % combination as the topic creator is discussing. Say for Pokemon x fits 10% of the defensive characteristic, meaning it totally walls x% of the metagame. It fits 30% of the support characteristic(which is so vague I'm not sure how to explain) and 20% of the offensive characteristic(IE it sweeps well against x% of the metagame) Then because it is only 60% of the way to being uber. Whereas a Pokemon that is say 30%, 40% 30% would be Uber.

When I say x% of the metagame approximations of usage should be counted. For instance a pokemon that has 30% usage(is on 30% of teams) is one in every 18 pokemon. Roughly 5% of the metagame(a little less).

Regrettbly I lack the experience or clout to actually come up with what the percentages should be, but I'd think it would be quite a bit less controversial if the system were objective.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Is there a way to make the criteria less subjective? As it stands they are so incredibly vague that only an extreme example can be used. There is no cutoff point. What is little effort. Is it one turn of setup while taking less than half damage against x% of the metagame. Is it being faster, and 1hkoing x% of the metagame. I hear Scizor being able to revenge something as a good reason to make it non-uber constantly. That seems ludicrous. Is a sweep defined as 3 pokemon, 4, 300 of your total 600% health?

And the support characteristic is worse yet. A Pokemon being assured 1 kill makes it pulling it's weight on a team. Nothing more. If your team dies without one Pokemon surely it's poorly designed.

In essence, can we be less subjective. Can we have a cutoff % combination as the topic creator is discussing. Say for Pokemon x fits 10% of the defensive characteristic, meaning it totally walls x% of the metagame. It fits 30% of the support characteristic(which is so vague I'm not sure how to explain) and 20% of the offensive characteristic(IE it sweeps well against x% of the metagame) Then because it is only 60% of the way to being uber. Whereas a Pokemon that is say 30%, 40% 30% would be Uber.

When I say x% of the metagame approximations of usage should be counted. For instance a pokemon that has 30% usage(is on 30% of teams) is one in every 18 pokemon. Roughly 5% of the metagame(a little less).

Regrettbly I lack the experience or clout to actually come up with what the percentages should be, but I'd think it would be quite a bit less controversial if the system were objective.

But that's the point, the characteristics were made subjective on purpose. And you're suggesting objective means to define an Uber, but don't realize the "cutoff point" would also be subjective to begin with, which makes all such work pointless.

 

[Bluu]

I was thinking about the uber status a little more just now. Truthfully the metagame we should be concerned with is standard. If a pokemon is too good against the standard field, then no matter how bad it is in Uber, shouldn't it be classified as such? I mean the way they ban and restrict cards in magic the gathering is determining, based on play percentage, whether, in order to be competitive, a deck MUST play this card or must have an answer for this card or they will lose

Perhaps you could use the same logic to determine if a pokemon is uber or not. "Against the standard field does this pokemon break the game? Are there enough pokemon in the field to create a variety of different kinds of battles? Are the teams of pokemon people choose to use varied enough? Do you have to have an answer for this pokemon? 90% of the time would you pack this pokemon against the field"

Then stuff like sweeper/wall/support status don't matter as much. Is it "unfair" to put this pokemon up against the rest? garchomp, Palkia, Dialga all have that status due to high base stats great moves available and great typing. If any of them were in standard you'd either have to have an answer for them or just play them yourself.

 

[Aminar]

All definitions at some point are subjective. The point is to reduce the subjectivity of the process as a whole. Yes the original definitions would be subjective, but after that point the process would not be.

 

[Ciaran]

Someone I talked to about this...realization/question, had used Salamence as an example to say he agreed to the point, so it's not impossible there's a little bias towards his situation in the OP without intent. It's not about any specific Pokemon, just about the system.

So what I've gathered from the posts here is that the characteristics are used as guidelines and that a Pokemon's ability to fulfill the various roles is also taken into consideration, but like Aminar asked, given how subjective this is, can you say anything that isn't obviously Uber is sweeping or walling a "significant" portion of the metagame? I mean, what qualifies as significant?
And on that subject given the common practices of the Metagame changing around in something of a cycle (Lum Metagross coming back, sleep leads take a hit in usage, Ape increases to better combat the non-Occa Gross, Gross runs Occa, Lum leads are rarer so Sleep leads come back to popularity) does how commonly a strategy or Pokemon appears affect it's role in "significant" does something less common at a particular time, like fewer Swampert leads or higher than normal Heracross usage, change what significant is for those on the line?

The guidelines seem kind of vague to me, and it seems that someone with better linguistic skills than I could manipulate their intent convincingly enough to make Garchomp seem OU again if they really wanted to (although I know that's not the case, I just needed an example that was more on the borderline than, say, Rayquaza) on the basis of those characteristics.

So another question I could pose is twofold: Is there a more specific method of confirming whether a Poke qualifies under one of the characteristics than simply subjective personal accounts/experience of the suspect testers? How much bearing do the characteristics have when deciding if something becomes Uber or BL? Is it heavily relied upon, or just used as a point of reference?

EDIT: Also does the number of checks to a Pokemon, regardless of how common they are, affect the definition of "significant"? Like assume in one scenario there are 4-5 swap ins for a particular set, and 4-5 for another, but only 2 overlap and an additional 2-3 can revenge. Assume in another scenario it has the same number, but in the second the Pokemon that are reliable swap ins are far less common. Does the first Pokemon have a greater chance of being Uber? Less of a chance? The same? I mean one could argue that in the initial example the existence of that Pokemon in the metagame drives up the usage of the 13 or so checks to it's specific sets, but at the same time one could argue the prevalence of those checks in the metagame makes the initial threat less deadly than the secondary one who has different and rarer checks despite them being the same in number. It's a chicken or the egg type scenario. How does one determine which camp is the correct one and make sense of those two viewpoints to make a decision about centralization?

 

[Bluu]

so then the classification of uber is in itself always subjective. But isn't that the point? How can it not be subjective at least to the metagame? We clearly can't go by just stats because there is so much else that factors into how well a pokemon performs in a given environment. And to be honest if you took away the tiers you'd have the uber pokemon always being used based on raw power, survivability, abilities, moves, items, and combination with other pokemon. Several things factor into each of those but how can you not take them all into account?

i wish there was some way to pit each pokemon up against one another with the vacuum being pure 1 V 1 and ranking each one. This wouldn't help fix the tiers right away but it would give you an idea based on raw data how well each pokemon would fare and you could take a percentage of them that fared well (top 50%) and divide them into teams with every possible combination. Then you could determine based on win percentage which teams were uber and which were the common factors on the winningest teams.

But then you're data is subjective to level of play, predicting etc.

However that would be really time consuming and would have to take a lot of things into consideration including "what if this move was used" eliminating of course weaker moves of the same variety (IE Quick attack versus Extreme Speed on non-technician pokemon or mega punch versus tackle versus pound etc based on relative percentage accuracy and power factoring in PPMax of the move relative to length of battle)

In cases like that a Garchomp using even the widest variety of moves should be able to handle, alone, 50% of the lowest side of the field. Minimum. Sure all things being equal it might get a quick claw sheer cold or something like that but the chances of that are low and it would show. You'd have to battle more than once i'd think to weigh the percentage chance that a pokemon will beat another one in a 1 V 1.

It just seems like in order to be extremely objective you'd have to battle with a lot of different combinations of teams with a variety of move-sets items ev spreads but still assuming optimal IVs and natures (with variety based on EV spreads and move sets)

Doing that are there some things we could eliminate right off hand?

 

[Jumpman16]

All definitions at some point are subjective. The point is to reduce the subjectivity of the process as a whole. Yes the original definitions would be subjective, but after that point the process would not be.

From this post:

Everything about deciding voters for the Suspect Test Process is subjective. Doug and I have disqualified voters who made the Rating and Deviation thresholds because we found out they cheated. Aeolus and I have had to wade through the reasoning of hundreds of voters for Manaphy, Latios and Latias and subjectively decide who had enough experience to vote. Tangerine and I had to wade through hundreds of straight up bold votes votes on Wobbuffet and Deoxys-S last year and subjectively decide who had enough experiece to vote.

Even you personally have even argued that there shouldn't even be an Upper Tier, one of the few suggestions of yours I have agreed with and put in place. This change did nothing else but do away with the only objective, carte blanche manner in which players could 100% cast their votes without being required to write submissions for the Tiering Conributors' critique. Chris, you are being pessimistic to a fault here with your resistance to the only objective metric in the Suspect Test Process that pertains to the Suspects themselves, and it is not coming off well.

I don't know if you're not aware of SEXP, but it is indeed the only objective metric in the entire Suspect Test Process. It aims precisely to "reduce the subjectivity of the process as a whole". The cutoff(s) of any percentages you or someone with "clout" could come up with to determine the extent to which a given Suspect would meet any of the characteristics would be every bit as subjective as asking our experienced players to interpret the characteristics in the first place.

 

[MrIndigo]

Guys, you're using the word "subjective" when you mean "arbitrary". There is a difference.

Having specified statistical cutoff points for Uber criteria would be objective; the statistics speak for themselves, it is not a case of each player viewing it differently in their own way.

Those cutoffs would, however, be arbitrary to a certain degree. There's no fixed definitive reason for any particular value, and they would be subject to pile-of-sand arguments as to where they should sit.

The hope would be that the Policy Review could decide on a particular number that near-enough represented what the community at large saw as the problem cutoff point. Obviously, you'd probably get near misses/hits (e.g. things going Uber that may not deserve it in most peoples' views, or things staying OU in the same fashion), but they would be disregarded in favour of the objectivity of the system.

The only problem then is coming up with suitable statistical definitions of Uber clauses (i.e. not the cutoff numbers, but what statistics are the relevant ones to look at), which is not easy at all.

 

[capefeather]

I was thinking about the uber status a little more just now. Truthfully the metagame we should be concerned with is standard. If a pokemon is too good against the standard field, then no matter how bad it is in Uber, shouldn't it be classified as such? I mean the way they ban and restrict cards in magic the gathering is determining, based on play percentage, whether, in order to be competitive, a deck MUST play this card or must have an answer for this card or they will lose

I thought that was exactly what we were doing.

 

[Bluu]

I thought we were trying to find a way to look at a pokemon in a relative vacuum to determine just from stats move pool ability typing and whatever other criteria we come up with if that pokemon can meet an imaginary benchmark that qualifies it for Uber status. The question the OP posed was if a pokemon can be 90% in one stat but still be considered uber based on versatility.

But what is currently uber qualified by? I'm going to look around the site a little more because as you can tell from my post count, I haven't had much time to read up. Not sure to what you guys are referring when you talk about Suspects.

Off the cuff I'd say that if a pokemon breaks the standard metagame then it needs to be uber no matter how bad it is in the uber tier.

 

[Aminar]

Bluu, that fact is widely agreed upon. Judging a Pokemon "in a vacuum" doesn't tell us if it's broken. What the characteristics try to do is dtermine if a Pokemon is broken to the point it breaks the metagame. The problem being that the definition of Breaks the metagame is ridiculously hard to determine and the current criteria are very vague to the point where from a scientific perspective they are rather ludicrous.(Scientific meaning researchable.)

I understand the SEXP system's purpose. It's a sound system to make sure the voters are reliable voters. My point is that just because they have experience with the subjects and have valid reasons for their opinions doesn't mean the voting is reliable. It seems to me that in a medium like Pokemon where all the variables are known and calculable that there is no reason to have such a subjective system. It's seems silly to me. It isn't too hard to rum some en masse damage calcs. I'll bet when you run statistics you could gain the most common stat numbers for every pokemon. From there look at the usable moves on the pokemon and their BP. Correlate this all with the speed tiers. Figure out the survivability of everything in the metagame by correlating it to the defensive stats and typing. You could theoretically calcualte exactly how much of the metagame(as in to the exact %) any given Pokemon could sweep through. Once the program was made you could use all of that information. Accounting for 4 moveslot syndrome would take a little work, but an optimum set could be figured out the same way.

The defensive characteristic is just a reverse engineering of that same list.

And I still don't understand the support characteristic beyond Mew and Wobufett. It's possible this one cannot be done objectively, but leaving a subjective spot for things like Wobufett where he is broken but not statistically so is a good idea anyway.
I'd love to actually do this, but I lack the programming knowhow to do it. I can just see that it is in fact possible.

 

[Quaily]

I think 'well x has a counter'(speaking generally) is not a very useful way of measuring if something is uber. Scarf primeape counters darkrai, that doesn't mean darkrai can go down to OU and not fuck everything up. To me it needs to be reasonable counterable without having the usage statistics being darkrai at 90% use and primeape at 90% use because of darkrai.

 

[cantab]

I was thinking about the uber status a little more just now. Truthfully the metagame we should be concerned with is standard. If a pokemon is too good against the standard field, then no matter how bad it is in Uber, shouldn't it be classified as such?

And it is. As is emphasised in my signature after some many newbies in the Salamence debate said "Salamence will be useless in Ubers because it's outclassed by Rayquaza".

If Suspect voters are being decided subjectively, IMHO that's a serious problem. I believe the tier lists should be determined democratically. Since Smogon has a monopoly on Anglophone competitive Pokemon (strengthened by the close relationship with Shoddy), I feel it's important that our tiering process be transparent and fair. Usage tiering provides that, but if the suspect test organisers are personally deciding whose vote counts and whose doesn't, then that creates an obvious risk of bias, which might swing a fairly close vote.

 

[MrIndigo]

And it is. As is emphasised in my signature after some many newbies in the Salamence debate said "Salamence will be useless in Ubers because it's outclassed by Rayquaza".

If Suspect voters are being decided subjectively, IMHO that's a serious problem. I believe the tier lists should be determined democratically. Since Smogon has a monopoly on Anglophone competitive Pokemon (strengthened by the close relationship with Shoddy), I feel it's important that our tiering process be transparent and fair. Usage tiering provides that, but if the suspect test organisers are personally deciding whose vote counts and whose doesn't, then that creates an obvious risk of bias, which might swing a fairly close vote.

I agree; it should be rating keyed, I think. If you can get to a certain level, then it's apparent you know what you're talking about. There's still a level of arbitrariness there, but that's unavoidable.

EDIT: The reason to have democracy, even if it's a conditional one, is because the ultimate responsibility of a rule administration body for any game is to make sure it's as enjoyable as possible, and part of that is maintaining a balanced metagame, and getting rid of things that discourage a sizeable (not necessarily majority) of people from playing or enjoying the game.

 

[capefeather]

Ultimately, the problem with any "algorithmic" banning process is that it will never account for everything. A non-degenerate game simply cannot be "figured out", no matter how long it's been played or how well-studied the players are. Look at chess, still enjoying dynamic play after over 100 years of organized competitive play, and well over 1000 years of play in general. Look at the Uber metagame, where the same 20 or so powerful Pokémon duke it out, and you are restricted to at most nine options per turn; it still changes quite dynamically, and options that were previously considered ridiculous for Uber play are now enjoying wild popularity there.

If the tiering of a suspect could come down to damage calculations, why is there so much controversy? I'm sure everyone's seen by now what certain Pokémon are capable of, and yet arguments continue back and forth. Damage calculations already show that certain Pokémon can potentially dominate a vast portion of the metagame 1v1 (i.e. an "uncounterable" Pokémon); that's why they're suspected as being in the wrong tier in the first place. And even that isn't enough to consider a Pokémon broken; the top ten or so OUs fit that description!

The other problem is us, the posters on Stark Mountain. Honestly, most people that come on Stark Mountain are not really capable or willing to make a compelling case for the banning or not-banning of a Pokémon that correctly describes how the environment deals with the Pokémon. Tangerine has mentioned this quite bluntly a few times, recently in the semi-stall thread, and on the #stark IRC chat the so-called idiocy of Stark Mountain comes up quite regularly. Many people simply don't even know what they're talking about and make false claims like Weavile being a reliable Rayquaza revenge killer.

Obviously, there's something missing from the theorymon, and that's where the Suspect ladder and Suspect Experience come in. The tiering contributors want to make sure that you have at least used and faced each suspect enough to write an accurate account of what the suspect does in a typical situation in the Suspect environment. The problem here is that, even despite the experience, many people still don't really know what they're talking about, or they look at the process from the wrong perspective. There's a lack of an ability to translate experiences into a convincing interpretation there. There are also people who have already decided their opinions on a suspect based on their own theorymon, and whose experiences are therefore coloured; these people ladder grind really hard so that they can get their already-decided vote through, not to make a real conclusion on their actual observations. The paragraph filtering process is in place to deal with these and filter them out. Of course, you could question the integrity of Jumpman16 or Aeolus all you want, but is there really another way?

 

[Bluu]

And it is. As is emphasised in my signature after some many newbies in the Salamence debate said "Salamence will be useless in Ubers because it's outclassed by Rayquaza".

If Suspect voters are being decided subjectively, IMHO that's a serious problem. I believe the tier lists should be determined democratically. Since Smogon has a monopoly on Anglophone competitive Pokemon (strengthened by the close relationship with Shoddy), I feel it's important that our tiering process be transparent and fair. Usage tiering provides that, but if the suspect test organisers are personally deciding whose vote counts and whose doesn't, then that creates an obvious risk of bias, which might swing a fairly close vote.

Ok. Glad things work that way.

Ultimately, the problem with any "algorithmic" banning process is that it will never account for everything. A non-degenerate game simply cannot be "figured out", no matter how long it's been played or how well-studied the players are. Look at chess, still enjoying dynamic play after over 100 years of organized competitive play, and well over 1000 years of play in general. Look at the Uber metagame, where the same 20 or so powerful Pokémon duke it out, and you are restricted to at most nine options per turn; it still changes quite dynamically, and options that were previously considered ridiculous for Uber play are now enjoying wild popularity there.

If the tiering of a suspect could come down to damage calculations, why is there so much controversy? I'm sure everyone's seen by now what certain Pokémon are capable of, and yet arguments continue back and forth. Damage calculations already show that certain Pokémon can potentially dominate a vast portion of the metagame 1v1 (i.e. an "uncounterable" Pokémon); that's why they're suspected as being in the wrong tier in the first place. And even that isn't enough to consider a Pokémon broken; the top ten or so OUs fit that description!

The other problem is us, the posters on Stark Mountain. Honestly, most people that come on Stark Mountain are not really capable or willing to make a compelling case for the banning or not-banning of a Pokémon that correctly describes how the environment deals with the Pokémon. Tangerine has mentioned this quite bluntly a few times, recently in the semi-stall thread, and on the #stark IRC chat the so-called idiocy of Stark Mountain comes up quite regularly. Many people simply don't even know what they're talking about and make false claims like Weavile being a reliable Rayquaza revenge killer.

Obviously, there's something missing from the theorymon, and that's where the Suspect ladder and Suspect Experience come in. The tiering contributors want to make sure that you have at least used and faced each suspect enough to write an accurate account of what the suspect does in a typical situation in the Suspect environment. The problem here is that, even despite the experience, many people still don't really know what they're talking about, or they look at the process from the wrong perspective. There's a lack of an ability to translate experiences into a convincing interpretation there. There are also people who have already decided their opinions on a suspect based on their own theorymon, and whose experiences are therefore coloured; these people ladder grind really hard so that they can get their already-decided vote through, not to make a real conclusion on their actual observations. The paragraph filtering process is in place to deal with these and filter them out. Of course, you could question the integrity of Jumpman16 or Aeolus all you want, but is there really another way?

Hm. Makes sense. A lot of people play with the knowledge that other people hand them instead of from actual experience. And some people play and know what they're talking about they just don't know how to say it.

in that case you don't really need a committee to come to conclusions about a pokemon's characteristics when you can just have one person playing a battle with a given set of moves/stats etc and calculate the probabilities in battle to always make the right decisions (right move based on probability that it is the right thing to do rather than what the outcome of that decision ends up being) and from those results determine if a pokemon is uber based on win percentage.

Can someone link me to where the characteristics are now? Or is it sitckied somewhere?