Announcement VGC Analysis Format Discussion

[a blue banana]

Regarding the teambuilding section for M-B analyses, I noticed that some writers opt to preface bullet points with header names for their set analyses, while others don't. A clear example of this is Garchomp; the Life Orb "Fast Attacker" set sticks with the basic "Checks and Weaknesses" and "Good Partners and Synergies" headers for its Teambuilding section, while the bulky set has a header for nearly every bullet point under Teambuilding. I'm concerned that this would make the writing structure too inconsistent if this keeps going forward for future regulations, and it also makes it a little harder for readers to distinguish when the set analysis transitions from talking about a Pokemon's checks to discussing its synergies with other Pokemon.

That's why I think it might be wise to revise the Teambuilding portion of the analysis skeleton for the upcoming Regulation M-C format. My idea would be to remove the Teambuilding header altogether and instead split that section into two, with headers labeled "Checks and Weaknesses" and "Good Partners and Synergies," like so:

example skeleton portion

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!

Checks and Weaknesses
========

* **Use multiple bullet points!**: Break this section up into multiple bullet points, try not to make each point too long

Good Partners and Synergies
========

* **Use multiple bullet points!**: Break this section up into multiple bullet points, try not to make each point too long

example writing

Checks and Weaknesses
========

* **Ice-types**: Mega Salamence's 4x weakness to Ice leaves it vulnerable to being OHKOed by Ice-types like Mega Froslass.

Good Partners and Synergies
========

* **Steel-types**: Kingambit is an excellent ally to Mega Salamence, as it can threaten an OHKO against Mega Froslass with Sucker Punch before it can attack Salamence with Blizzard.

I think doing something like this should make it clearer to readers on what the writer is talking about while still giving the writer agency on customizing the analysis to a specific Pokemon with the bullet point header names.

 

[RauSakura]

Regarding the teambuilding section for M-B analyses, I noticed that some writers opt to preface bullet points with header names for their set analyses, while others don't. A clear example of this is Garchomp; the Life Orb "Fast Attacker" set sticks with the basic "Checks and Weaknesses" and "Good Partners and Synergies" headers for its Teambuilding section, while the bulky set has a header for nearly every bullet point under Teambuilding. I'm concerned that this would make the writing structure too inconsistent if this keeps going forward for future regulations, and it also makes it a little harder for readers to distinguish when the set analysis transitions from talking about a Pokemon's checks to discussing its synergies with other Pokemon.

That's why I think it might be wise to revise the Teambuilding portion of the analysis skeleton for the upcoming Regulation M-C format. My idea would be to remove the Teambuilding header altogether and instead split that section into two, with headers labeled "Checks and Weaknesses" and "Good Partners and Synergies," like so:

example skeleton portion

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!

Checks and Weaknesses
========

* **Use multiple bullet points!**: Break this section up into multiple bullet points, try not to make each point too long

Good Partners and Synergies
========

* **Use multiple bullet points!**: Break this section up into multiple bullet points, try not to make each point too long

example writing

Checks and Weaknesses
========

* **Ice-types**: Mega Salamence's 4x weakness to Ice leaves it vulnerable to being OHKOed by Ice-types like Mega Froslass.

Good Partners and Synergies
========

* **Steel-types**: Kingambit is an excellent ally to Mega Salamence, as it can threaten an OHKO against Mega Froslass with Sucker Punch before it can attack Salamence with Blizzard.

I think doing something like this should make it clearer to readers on what the writer is talking about while still giving the writer agency on customizing the analysis to a specific Pokemon with the bullet point header names.

Click to collapse...

Thank you for this suggestion! We're currently looking at revamping the format once again for M-C and our current iteration doesn't have this issue. However, if we return to a similar format to M-A and M-B again, we will implement this in the next format update!

 

[a blue banana]

I've done a lot of GP work and dabbled a bit in writing and AMQC stuff for VGC atp, so I feel like I'm knowledgeable enough on the general C&C process to bring these questions up in regards to the next format's analysis structure:

Is there a reason why writers usually need to specify Pokemon's STAB moves?
A fair amount of bullet points in some analyses' Usage Tips often group together foes that share an advantageous typing against the analysis Pokemon, yet the authors still list the specific STAB moves, which often lengthens the bullet point artificially. Take Mega Golisopod's analysis, for example:

* Incineroar can cut Mega Golisopod's damage output with Intimidate and OHKO it with Flare Blitz. Hisuian Arcanine can also OHKO Mega Golisopod with Flare Blitz without utilizing Intimidate to weaken Mega Golisopod. Mega Charizard Y also resists both of Mega Golisopod's STAB moves and threatens to OHKO it with sun-boosted Weather Ball or Heat Wave. Armarouge can OHKO Mega Golisopod in rain with Armor Cannon.

Click to collapse...

The main point of this part is that Fire-types instantly fry Mega Goli. I don't see why it needs to state "Cat can fry Goli w/ Flare Blitz" when it's an obvious STAB move that nearly every competitive player would always run on their Cat. I feel like this point can be shortened down to:

* Fire-types like Incineroar, Hisuian Arcanine, Mega Charizard Y, and Armarouge can OHKO Mega Golisopod while resisting at least one STAB move. The first can also weaken it with Intimidate, while the last can OHKO it even in rain.

Click to collapse...

Tbolt's Armarouge analysis is the best example of the above style of writing, showing how a writer can say "X-type Pokemon like X1, X2, and X3 beat Y" without specifying too many details.

* Certain Dark-types like Incineroar, Hydreigon, and Mega Tyranitar shrug off Armarouge's STAB moves and threaten it in return with their Dark-type STAB moves.

* Ghost-types like Gholdengo and Mega Gengar threaten to outspeed and OHKO Armarouge, as do Ground-types like Garchomp and Excadrill.

Click to collapse...

Why do the usage tips of an analysis need to list the checks of a Pokemon first before potential teammates?
M-C's format skeleton is nearly identical to VGC 2013's, except it switches the partners and checks sections around and groups them into one big portion of the analysis. Why not just directly copy 2013's skeleton for the next format? It clearly has labeled sections on which Pokemon are allies and checks, and it more closely follows the idea of putting the checks as the last section similarly to a full analysis for 6v6 formats.

In general, does a VGC analysis's overview need to state the Pokemon's flaws?
I'm not just talking about M-C's overviews; I'm also taking retro formats into account.

Most 6v6 formats featured on Smogon require overviews to state the weaknesses of a Pokemon. This is a general copypaste set of directions for most of Smogon's tier-based formats' analyses:

[OVERVIEW]

In the Overview, you want to generalize what the Pokemon in question accomplishes in the metagame and where it stands. You will also want to cover its drawbacks and anything else that may hold it back. This should be a pretty basic recap of the Pokemon; the Overview typically does not need to be much longer than seven or eight sentences, though of course this varies from Pokemon to Pokemon and compromises can be made.

Click to collapse...

VGC's stance on this seems to be somewhat inconsistent. While most of the uploaded M-C analyses with overviews do state the Pokemon's flaws, Mega Golisopod's doesn't. A few of VGC 2013's analyses, such as Conkeldurr, Tyranitar, and Jellicent, also don't mention any of the Pokemon's flaws in the overview or, in TTar's case, briefly give a flaw a few words.

 

[Radio Free C-Side]

I've done a lot of GP work and dabbled a bit in writing and AMQC stuff for VGC atp, so I feel like I'm knowledgeable enough on the general C&C process to bring these questions up in regards to the next format's analysis structure:

Is there a reason why writers usually need to specify Pokemon's STAB moves?
A fair amount of bullet points in some analyses' Usage Tips often group together foes that share an advantageous typing against the analysis Pokemon, yet the authors still list the specific STAB moves, which often lengthens the bullet point artificially. Take Mega Golisopod's analysis, for example:

The main point of this part is that Fire-types instantly fry Mega Goli. I don't see why it needs to state "Cat can fry Goli w/ Flare Blitz" when it's an obvious STAB move that nearly every competitive player would always run on their Cat. I feel like this point can be shortened down to:

Tbolt's Armarouge analysis is the best example of the above style of writing, showing how a writer can say "X-type Pokemon like X1, X2, and X3 beat Y" without specifying too many details.


Why do the usage tips of an analysis need to list the checks of a Pokemon first before potential teammates?
M-C's format skeleton is nearly identical to VGC 2013's, except it switches the partners and checks sections around and groups them into one big portion of the analysis. Why not just directly copy 2013's skeleton for the next format? It clearly has labeled sections on which Pokemon are allies and checks, and it more closely follows the idea of putting the checks as the last section similarly to a full analysis for 6v6 formats.

In general, does a VGC analysis's overview need to state the Pokemon's flaws?
I'm not just talking about M-C's overviews; I'm also taking retro formats into account.

Most 6v6 formats featured on Smogon require overviews to state the weaknesses of a Pokemon. This is a general copypaste set of directions for most of Smogon's tier-based formats' analyses:

VGC's stance on this seems to be somewhat inconsistent. While most of the uploaded M-C analyses with overviews do state the Pokemon's flaws, Mega Golisopod's doesn't. A few of VGC 2013's analyses, such as Conkeldurr, Tyranitar, and Jellicent, also don't mention any of the Pokemon's flaws in the overview or, in TTar's case, briefly give a flaw a few words.

Click to collapse...

Agree with most of this, though I do think checks/counters often gets across flaws well by relation. I think a basic one sentence in overview is usually more than enough if written competently.

 

[Tbolt]

Why do the usage tips of an analysis need to list the checks of a Pokemon first before potential teammates?
M-C's format skeleton is nearly identical to VGC 2013's, except it switches the partners and checks sections around and groups them into one big portion of the analysis. Why not just directly copy 2013's skeleton for the next format? It clearly has labeled sections on which Pokemon are allies and checks, and it more closely follows the idea of putting the checks as the last section similarly to a full analysis for 6v6 formats.

Click to collapse...

I'd argue that logically, it makes sense to talk about a Pokemon's checks first and then its possible teammates. It introduces the Pokemon that beat the subject, then the teammates talked about ideally deal with Pokemon that check the subject.

 

[a blue banana]

I think a basic one sentence in overview is usually more than enough if written competently.

Click to collapse...

Why not just remove the overview section altogether at that point? The first point of the set analysis would already accomplish that, and veteran BSS writers have been doing this for their set analyses since SV with at most two sentences.
SV Wo-Chien

* With excellent bulk and a unique array of moves to support it, Wo-Chien stands out as a dangerous user of Leech Seed and a prime Pokemon to stall matches out with.

Click to collapse...

SV Terapagos, Double Dance

* With an incredible ability to resist any attack at full HP and the completely unresisted Tera Starstorm after Terastallization, Terapagos is one of the most terrifying bulky sweepers in the game!

Click to collapse...

Champions Archaludon, bulky entry hazard setter

* Archaludon is one of the best walls in the entire game thanks to its incredible bulk and Stamina. With access to Stealth Rock, phazing support, and Draco Meteor, Archaludon can efficiently wear down lineups that lack dedicated checks to it.

Click to collapse...

 

[Radio Free C-Side]

Why not just remove the overview section altogether at that point? The first point of the set analysis would already accomplish that, and veteran BSS writers have been doing this for their set analyses since SV with at most two sentences.
SV Wo-Chien

SV Terapagos, Double Dance

Champions Archaludon, bulky entry hazard setter

Click to collapse...

Yeah I'd be very happy with that, I'm all for cutting stuff to streamline it.