What deserves an analysis?

[Banedon]

I think this needs to be discussed, because we've had QC members, contributors and moderators post on both sides of the issue.

Examples of the times when a set needs only to be viable to get an analysis:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3454772&page=2
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3861736&postcount=4
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3454564

Examples of the times when a set not only needs to be viable, it needs to be not outclassed:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3452856
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3454490
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3452934

I think this needs to be clarified one way or the other. One way or the other, but not half-and-half.

 

[Demoness]

The whole thing is that the first two examples actually have a niche that is good enough to allow them to function viabily. the other 3 have either no real niche that they can do, or are just plain outclassed via typing, stats, and movepool. This really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and not as a general rule.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Its more of the idea that something that has a tiny niche, even its is not that great, that gets an analysis because its can be used.

While something that is not necessarily outclassed, either has no niche, or one of little to no importance in the metagame.

For example, the Raichu set can be used in the UU metagame to deal with Chansey if you really need it. While Musharna, can be a great calm mind sweeper on its own, does little to nothing to deal with threats or help team members in any way that makes it better then other calm mind pokemon, so overall the slight advantages it might have over other calm minder pokemon is almost nothing.

Sorry if this might be a bit off, I don’t play UU I just skimmed the threads.

 

[breh]

I was under the impression that these pokemon were allowed to have analyses as a result of the lack of last gen NU analyses. Espeon is the only one I can remember, but if you look at its analysis, it's clear that there's a number of non-BP sets (or sets where bp is a last option), AKA sets that are 100% outclassed by alakazam in 4th gen.

I really don't feel that things should get analyses if they're outclassed or not as good. Yeah, they may be usable, but unless they have some sort of amazing niche, they shouldn't be used.

 

[Banedon]

The whole thing is that the first two examples actually have a niche that is good enough to allow them to function viabily. the other 3 have either no real niche that they can do, or are just plain outclassed via typing, stats, and movepool. This really needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and not as a general rule.

Added a third set that is totally outclassed and still getting an analysis (Slowking).

Otherwise the so-called "real niche" and "just plain outclassed" debate we've had so far is just very ambiguous. Even the QC members who rejected Musharna agree that it has a small niche. But they rejected it anyway. If we say "and on top of that, there are Pokemon like Mew and Sigilyph who come very close to completely outclassing [Musharna]" then we can also say "and on top of that, there are Pokemon like Raikou and Zapdos who come very close to completely outclassing [Raichu]" and reject Raichu, except of course Raichu wasn't rejected.

Either a set needs to be viable and not ouclassed, or it needs to be viable only. One way or the other, but not both.

@ScarfWyanaut - as discussed in the Raichu analysis thread, there are way better Pokemon to use to beat Chansey than Raichu.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

The rule is "What QC thinks." Everything is subjective, that's why QC exists in the first place. They exist because the rules are fuzzy, and they know best.

As for "viable vs outclassed" it comes down to this.

Outclassed sets are ONLY listed if they are the only set a Pokemon is capable of viably running in its lowest usable competitive tier.

If a Pokemon only has one viable set in its lowest tier, it doesn't matter if it's outclassed because that's the "best it can do where it's usable" and the set will be listed. However, for Pokemon that have more than one set, we don't list outclassed sets. We also don't list outclassed Pokemon in a tier higher than their lowest usable one.

There will be no further discussion on this.