Announcement VGC Analysis Format Discussion

[gephicka]

having got my first analysis in the new format into QC, just wanted to say that the new format felt very intuitive & easy to write and bullet points made it really easy to chunk out the work & put everything together even w. how busy I was this week.

overall like the new format for the moment, just wanted to chime in & state my opinion after writing

 

[Code]

meant to give my opinion on this but completely forgor.

- I've done some analyses between Reg G, Reg H, and now my first for Reg I, and I must say I do appreciate the new format. It has similar content to the Reg G one, but it's not absolutely ridiculous to write like Reg H. The process has been much smoother, quicker, and easier, so thanks a lot for the change!
- If I had any suggestions, it would probably be that the bullet point style would be more effective if it was enforced to keep it as short and concise as possible. More importantly, it wasn't made clear in the OP for the analysis format, but in my QC, I was told to separate the teambuilding section into more than 2 bullets (which made a lot of sense given the length), but the same trend isn't present in every analysis thus far, so there seems to be some grey area there.

 

[a blue banana]

Speaking as a frequent GP checker for these analyses, I think the overall analysis skeleton suits it well both for VGC's nature as a seasonal format and for the overall analysis style of most modern gen formats.

 

[R0gue_VGC]

As a new writer, I found that this analysis format was super intuitive and easy to pick up and write with little to no experience, which I think is good as it makes it easier for more writers to get involved, which could be really good for this already amazing community.

 

[pengu]

While I do think this writing format is great, there is one thing that I think would be really nice: A section for other options. While I was initially writing for Sash Calyrex-S, I was like "hmm, I want to slash things like Pollen Puff and Will-O-Wisp but they just aren't common enough". A short paragraph for other options (or OO for short) would be really nice and would fix this, kind of how ZU does it. An example paragraph would go something like this:

Focus Sash Calyrex-S can fill a more supportive role, carrying moves such as Will-O-Wisp to cripple physical attackers like Zamazenta-C, or it can carry Pollen Puff to heal up partners such as Terapagos. These options, however, mean that Calyrex-S must take away from its own offensive presence, being forced to either drop one of its offensive options or its invaluable disruptive options.

Another example I had written for ADV ZU Horsea for a better idea

Horsea can choose the more consistent STAB option of Surf, but means that Horsea loses a lot of its firepower. Toxic can be used to chip away at Special walls such as Porygon, yet it is at the cost of Horsea lowering its offensive presence or losing the ability to set Rain. Lum Berry can be used to protect Horsea from things like Toxic or Paralysis but it means that Horsea will lose a lot of the firepower it gains from Mystic Water.

I feel like this would be really useful and only takes a bit of extra work, any thoughts on this?

 

[Flarefox]

While I do think this writing format is great, there is one thing that I think would be really nice: A section for other options. While I was initially writing for Sash Calyrex-S, I was like "hmm, I want to slash things like Pollen Puff and Will-O-Wisp but they just aren't common enough". A short paragraph for other options (or OO for short) would be really nice and would fix this, kind of how ZU does it. An example paragraph would go something like this:

Focus Sash Calyrex-S can fill a more supportive role, carrying moves such as Will-O-Wisp to cripple physical attackers like Zamazenta-C, or it can carry Pollen Puff to heal up partners such as Terapagos. These options, however, mean that Calyrex-S must take away from its own offensive presence, being forced to either drop one of its offensive options or its invaluable disruptive options.

Another example I had written for ADV ZU Horsea for a better idea

Horsea can choose the more consistent STAB option of Surf, but means that Horsea loses a lot of its firepower. Toxic can be used to chip away at Special walls such as Porygon, yet it is at the cost of Horsea lowering its offensive presence or losing the ability to set Rain. Lum Berry can be used to protect Horsea from things like Toxic or Paralysis but it means that Horsea will lose a lot of the firepower it gains from Mystic Water.

I feel like this would be really useful and only takes a bit of extra work, any thoughts on this?

Other Options are fine we just don't need a whole different section for it. We can have a bullet point under moves or even just merge it with moves (we do this with evs already). I also do not really want to encourage niche moves that a lot of times become irrelevant later in the metagame, a lot of our sets/analyses become irrelevant as metagames progress anyways. I think it's best left as a "ask the QC team if you want to add other options" rather than something actually written out.

 

[Code]

While I do think this writing format is great, there is one thing that I think would be really nice: A section for other options. While I was initially writing for Sash Calyrex-S, I was like "hmm, I want to slash things like Pollen Puff and Will-O-Wisp but they just aren't common enough". A short paragraph for other options (or OO for short) would be really nice and would fix this, kind of how ZU does it. An example paragraph would go something like this:

Focus Sash Calyrex-S can fill a more supportive role, carrying moves such as Will-O-Wisp to cripple physical attackers like Zamazenta-C, or it can carry Pollen Puff to heal up partners such as Terapagos. These options, however, mean that Calyrex-S must take away from its own offensive presence, being forced to either drop one of its offensive options or its invaluable disruptive options.

Another example I had written for ADV ZU Horsea for a better idea

Horsea can choose the more consistent STAB option of Surf, but means that Horsea loses a lot of its firepower. Toxic can be used to chip away at Special walls such as Porygon, yet it is at the cost of Horsea lowering its offensive presence or losing the ability to set Rain. Lum Berry can be used to protect Horsea from things like Toxic or Paralysis but it means that Horsea will lose a lot of the firepower it gains from Mystic Water.

I feel like this would be really useful and only takes a bit of extra work, any thoughts on this?

I would like to weigh in here and say, while to the best of my knowledge VGC hasn't done that kind of thing, it would be a nice idea in some cases. When I was writing my own analysis as well as helping a little with others, there were a couple instances where I found there to be a move that general usage might not reflect that fact that there are more niche options that still work well, especially in tandem with certain common partners, and shouldn't be discounted. Still, this leaves a lot more room for grey area, especially with newer writers or more volatile metagames, so it might make things a little less consistent, if that makes sense.

 

[Flarefox]

As we're heading into champions, we would like to hear everyone's feedback for our analysis format. To look at all of our formats for this generation, look here. Below I added a few questions we want answered, however feel free to add any suggestions for this format.

1. Do you want to continue with bullet points or change back to short paragraphs?
2. What's the ideal length for the analyses?
3. Are there any sections/clarifications that could be added to our past formats?

 

[bdudeinthehouse]

One section we could add for champions (specifically for mega pokemon) is stating how necessary it is to mega the specific pokemon for example, Garydos could be holding the mega stone, but does not always need to mega evolved to play viably.

 

[pengu]

1. Continue with bullet points
Far easier to both write and read. Paragraphs felt too large and unnecessary tbh. I don't think anyone REALLY wants to go back to those lol. I'd look closely at the Regulation I and Regulation F formats here, as they are probably the best (Regulation G kinda sucked with the paragraphs, and Regulation H was agreed to be way too much of a hassle for writers and qcers alike).

2. Something like the Regulation I or Regulation F format
I think these two templates had the ideal length as far as analyses formats go. I personally prefer Regulation I thanks to the Teambuilding section but I think it's a good start.

3. Add an Overview to each format
I feel this should be pretty easy to implement. Similar to what we did recently with Regulation F, have an Overview section for each Pokemon.

I think my ideal analysis format would look something like this:

Hide

[OVERVIEW]
.....

[SET] Repeat this section if you are writing different sets for the pokemon
Name (either the item or role of the Pokemon ie. Choice Item, Bulky Set Up Sweeper, Glass Cannon, etc.) (Pokemon) @ Item 1 / Item 2 / etc. (If applicable)
Ability: Ability
Level: 50
Tera Type: Type 1 / Type 2 / etc. (If applicable)
EVs: Stats
Nature
IVs: IVs
- Move 1
- Move 2
- Move 3
- Move 4

[SET COMMENTS]

* Provide a short summary on what the specific set does

* Explain any non-obvious moves

* Explain the item options

* Explain the ev spread and nature

* Then discuss tera type(s)

[TEAMBUILDING]
- Mention checks to this Pokemon/set
- Mention good partners for this Pokemon/set

 

[RauSakura]

I agree that bullet points feels nicer to write rather than having 2 big paragraphs like the Reg G format. However the length of each bullet point can be concerning imo so we may need to ensure we aren't waffling too much.

Might come across as weird after I just mentioned a concern about bullet point length but the overall analysis length shouldn't be an issue. They can be as long or as short as desired as long as all relevant information is included.

I don't really have anything to add in response to the third question but reading pengu's answer I support the idea of having an overview as long as it doesn't lead to a lot of information repetition.

 

[Skwovetboi]

1. Continue with bullet points
Far easier to both write and read. Paragraphs felt too large and unnecessary tbh. I don't think anyone REALLY wants to go back to those lol. I'd look closely at the Regulation I and Regulation F formats here, as they are probably the best (Regulation G kinda sucked with the paragraphs, and Regulation H was agreed to be way too much of a hassle for writers and qcers alike).

2. Something like the Regulation I or Regulation F format
I think these two templates had the ideal length as far as analyses formats go. I personally prefer Regulation I thanks to the Teambuilding section but I think it's a good start.

3. Add an Overview to each format
I feel this should be pretty easy to implement. Similar to what we did recently with Regulation F, have an Overview section for each Pokemon.

I think my ideal analysis format would look something like this:

Hide

[OVERVIEW]
.....

[SET] Repeat this section if you are writing different sets for the pokemon
Name (either the item or role of the Pokemon ie. Choice Item, Bulky Set Up Sweeper, Glass Cannon, etc.) (Pokemon) @ Item 1 / Item 2 / etc. (If applicable)
Ability: Ability
Level: 50
Tera Type: Type 1 / Type 2 / etc. (If applicable)
EVs: Stats
Nature
IVs: IVs
- Move 1
- Move 2
- Move 3
- Move 4

[SET COMMENTS]

* Provide a short summary on what the specific set does

* Explain any non-obvious moves

* Explain the item options

* Explain the ev spread and nature

* Then discuss tera type(s)

[TEAMBUILDING]
- Mention checks to this Pokemon/set
- Mention good partners for this Pokemon/set

I agree with what pengu has to say about this. The format pengu shows is the clearest and will probably be the most descriptive analysis format. It will probably be the easiest to edit, read, and write as well

 

[Tbolt]

1. Continue with bullet points
Far easier to both write and read. Paragraphs felt too large and unnecessary tbh. I don't think anyone REALLY wants to go back to those lol. I'd look closely at the Regulation I and Regulation F formats here, as they are probably the best (Regulation G kinda sucked with the paragraphs, and Regulation H was agreed to be way too much of a hassle for writers and qcers alike).

I personally am still a fan of paragraphs, but if most people prefer bullet points, then that is also fine.

3. Add an Overview to each format
I feel this should be pretty easy to implement. Similar to what we did recently with Regulation F, have an Overview section for each Pokemon.

My gut tells me that an overview is just another part of the overall analysis that is liable to be made out of date once the metagame develops. VGC analyses are prone to this happening. Additionally, VGC C&C gives out analyses by sets, not by Pokemon, so overviews would have to be written later anyway.

I agree that bullet points feels nicer to write rather than having 2 big paragraphs like the Reg G format. However the length of each bullet point can be concerning imo so we may need to ensure we aren't waffling too much.

Looking at the analyses of Reg F and Reg I, I found that Reg F's analyses felt a bit short to me. I like the length of the Reg I analyses. Whether that is because of excessive repetition or because of the additional teambuilding section is up to the individual. However, individual bullet points are also a good length in Reg I in comparison to Reg F, which is too short to me.

 

[Carrotman]

I personally am still a fan of paragraphs, but if most people prefer bullet points, then that is also fine.



My gut tells me that an overview is just another part of the overall analysis that is liable to be made out of date once the metagame develops. VGC analyses are prone to this happening. Additionally, VGC C&C gives out analyses by sets, not by Pokemon, so overviews would have to be written later anyway.



Looking at the analyses of Reg F and Reg I, I found that Reg F's analyses felt a bit short to me. I like the length of the Reg I analyses. Whether that is because of excessive repetition or because of the additional teambuilding section is up to the individual. However, individual bullet points are also a good length in Reg I in comparison to Reg F, which is too short to me.

As an avid paragraph enthusiast i'd like to support this post

I know that unfortunately reader retention is a bit of an issue nowadays.... and i personally dislike bullet points because of the way it just feels like im reading a shopping list or a recipe. Paragraphs always felt more engaging to me, and they allow for a more natural flow of the analysis

 

[bdudeinthehouse]

respectfully, fuck paragraphs.

 

[gephicka]

i think paragraphs are harder to write and generally serve to obfuscate the point of a given analysis. i think my most common note in the most recent few waves in analysis has been related to including unnecessary or irrelevant information/repeating information and that's with clearly defined bullet points about what should be discussed.

i do think there's a few instances where the greater nuances of sets can be lost in translation but ultimately that's our job to correct. the entire point is for these to be approachable to people who are newer to or less experienced with vgc and vgc formats— they should be as convenient and clear as possible. bullet points helps to crystalize the important information in an easily-readable format in a way paragraphs just don't.

My gut tells me that an overview is just another part of the overall analysis that is liable to be made out of date once the metagame develops. VGC analyses are prone to this happening. Additionally, VGC C&C gives out analyses by sets, not by Pokemon, so overviews would have to be written later anyway.

i think this isn't a super big issue, it would be very easy for members of the C&C team to go back and correct these or just have them rewritten in later waves. we aren't super lacking in writers who'd be willing like some other sections of the site. for example, i overhauled the Regulation F Ursaluna-Hisui analysis, i'd imagine it wouldn't be super difficult to do similar things for other similar analysis in the future

 

[a blue banana]

If analyses are going to use bullet points, it might be worthwhile to take a page or two from how BSS and Draft analyses format theirs. In particular, they preface most of the bullet points with a name based on the subject they're going to talk about, such as a move, EV spread, or item. Let's say, for a bullet point talking about move choices for a theoretical M-A Garchomp set analysis, an example can be something like:

* **Stomping Tantrum vs. Rock Slide**: Stomping Tantrum provides Garchomp with a risk-free method to deal Ground-type damage, while Rock Slide is an alternative, safe spread move that severely damages Mega Charizard Y and can put odds in your favor with flinches.

BSS also expands on potential EV spreads for the analysis Pokemon if they're applicable; given the free-form nature of teambuilding, it might be a good idea to provide newer players a few different spreads for a particularly versatile set. That way, it can make it easier for them to have a starting point based on their needs and playstyle and take creative liberties after playing with a specific spread for a period.

I think the disadvantage with these suggestions would be that they would inherently make each individual set analysis longer, which goes against the general reading length of most prior set analyses, based on my experience doing GP work on them.

 

[gephicka]

BSS also expands on potential EV spreads for the analysis Pokemon if they're applicable; given the free-form nature of teambuilding, it might be a good idea to provide newer players a few different spreads for a particularly versatile set. That way, it can make it easier for them to have a starting point based on their needs and playstyle and take creative liberties after playing with a specific spread for a period.

would be greatly in favor of this, especially because of how adaptable vgc evs can be. would be a superb way to add depth to analysis

 

[RauSakura]

BSS also expands on potential EV spreads for the analysis Pokemon if they're applicable; given the free-form nature of teambuilding, it might be a good idea to provide newer players a few different spreads for a particularly versatile set. That way, it can make it easier for them to have a starting point based on their needs and playstyle and take creative liberties after playing with a specific spread for a period.

Fwiw we usually do include mentions of alternate EV (will be called SP now) spreads as a small side note in bullet points see the regulation H Ursaluna-B analysis for example. Personally I wouldn't want to include multiple SP spreads unless they have very noteworthy differences, I wouldn't care about using a Choice Scarf Basculegion EV spread which speed creeps Aerodactyl and has one or two SPs remaining that are moved to HP which don't even let it survive anything notable vs a simple 32/32/2 spread.

 

[a blue banana]

Personally I wouldn't want to include multiple SP spreads unless they have very noteworthy differences, I wouldn't care about using a Choice Scarf Basculegion EV spread which speed creeps Aerodactyl and has one or two SPs remaining that are moved to HP which don't even let it survive anything notable vs a simple 32/32/2 spread.

BSS analyses like Champions M-A Hippowdon and SV Reg I Flutter Mane include a section on viable and diverse stat spreads that can be used for each set. I don't understand why you brought up the case of a superfluous spread when that isn't what I'm suggesting.

 

[RauSakura]

BSS analyses like Champions M-A Hippowdon and SV Reg I Flutter Mane include a section on viable and diverse stat spreads that can be used for each set. I don't understand why you brought up the case of a superfluous spread when that isn't what I'm suggesting.

Ohh I misunderstood what you meant, in that case I do like your suggestion. I do see how it can inflate the length of the analyses but presenting multiple viable spreads in that way makes sense to me.

 

[RauSakura]

Gm, we would like to start planning the layout for regulation M-B analyses. Before we can do that, I would like to get feedback on the regulation M-A format.

M-A Format

[SET]
Set Name (Pokemon) @ Item 1 / Item 2 / etc.
Ability: Ability
Level: 50
SPs: SPs used
Nature
- Move 1
- Move 2
- Move 3
- Move 4

[SET COMMENTS]

* Use the first bullet as an introduction to quickly explain the main selling point of the set

* **Label your bullet points!**: Anything after the first bullet point should be labeled. If you're justifying a move, then name the bullet point after the move. If it's about an single SP spread, important mechanic, or teammate, then come up with a label that best describes the topic!

* **No need to talk about obvious stuff**: If a move is obvious (Protect, Tailwind etc), there's no reason to give it a bullet. Avoid dex info (information which can be easily searched for) when talking about moves and items. An example to describe a reason for a move choice while avoiding sounding like dex info would be: "Mega Charizard Y uses Heat Wave for a spread STAB attack which threatens Kingambit."

* **Iron Head versus Low Kick**: Move choices can be worth a bullet too. For example if Iron Head lets Kingambit threaten Mega Floette, while Low Kick beats opposing Kingambit, that is worth mentioning.

* **Mega Evolving Charizard**: Plenty of Pokemon don't need this, but some Mega Evolutions have reason to mega evolve at strategic times besides "right away". Timing when Charizard Mega Evolves is key to ensure it wins the weather war against Pelipper and Tyranitar for example. This is really worth bringing up for the few Pokemon that don't Mega Evolve right away!

* **Rock Slide Spamming**: Not every Pokemon needs this, but if there's a REALLY specific and important thing to say about a Pokemon, you can label it in a descriptive way. An example would be how you could win with enough flinches from Rock Slide alone.

Other Options (Note: not every Pokemon needs this section!)
========

* **Put niche moves that don't fit on the moveset here**: This is for moves that do exist / are viable, but are tough to fit in for whatever reason. Feel free to describe why the move can be harder to justify too. An example would be some Mega Aerodactyl run Ice Fang so it can threaten Garchomp.

Items
========

Abilities
========

SP Spreads
========

* **13 HP / 32 Atk / 21 Spe with Adamant**: If a Pokemon has a rather non obvious stat point spread, explaining it is generally worth it!

* **32 HP / 32 Atk / 2 Spe with Adamant**: Generally, only list 32 / 32 / 2 spreads if the Pokemon has multiple EV builds. Otherwise, those tend to be pretty obvious, and don't need any writing at all!

Teambuilding
========

* **Checks and Weaknesses**: Mention general checks and weaknesses of the set eg White Herb Sneasler is prone to being OHKOed by Mega Delphox with Psychic.

* **Good Partners and Synergies**: Simply mention partners and synergies which pair well with the pokemon and explain why they work well

* **How to Overcome (The Pokemon you are writing about)'s Weaknesses**: Talk about how the pokemon overcomes its weaknesses/beats its checks, this could be by mentioning partners that threaten its checks or talking about how the pokemon should be played to get out of a bad position

[SET CREDITS]
Written by:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/members/user1.100/
Quality checked by:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/members/user2.101/
https://www.smogon.com/forums/members/user3.102/
Grammar checked by:
https://www.smogon.com/forums/members/user4.103/

Please let us know if you liked this format, what you didn't like about it, anything that could be change to make this a better format and whether you're satisfied with this format and would be happy to use a similar if not the same one for regulation M-B!

 

[forkuser]

I personally like the M-A format, easy to understand and write, and it doesn't make analyses too long. I know the M-B format has to change in some way, but I wouldn't mind using the same M-A format, I think it's fine the way it is.

 

[Flarefox]

I personally like the M-A format, easy to understand and write, and it doesn't make analyses too long. I know the M-B format has to change in some way, but I wouldn't mind using the same M-A format, I think it's fine the way it is.

The format doesn't have to change for M-B, we only change the format if we find a problem with it or we want to try out an alternative format

 

[Magicalarcher57]

I enjoy the m-a format for analysis , the point form chunks are very easy to navigate. Only thing I'd suggest is maybe asking writers to list the synergies before going into depth about them

Example:

Good partners and synergies:
Aerodactyl pairs well with sylveon, garchomp, mega floette and charizard. (Listing the pairs out before explaining)

Then explain the pairings, I think may help make it easier to digest espically for newer players