Colonel M
I COULD BE BORED!
"The Real Problem With Tiering"
I feel that this entire time I've been on the fence, and yet there is one thing that sticks out on "both sides of the argument". Neither side has a concrete way of looking at something that I feel is very important, in general, before we discuss anything that involves with tiering.
"What Do We, As Smogon University, Desire In A Metagame?"
When we look at this entire Generation 4 tiering process, and even the past generations themselves, the answer to the question is not very clear. DougJustDoug's Thread has a lot of guidelines that could be seen in a desireaable metagame. My thoughts? Well, it's not easy to really explain my thoughts since I am indifferent when it comes to competitive playing. What is given as a rule, I'll go by it so long as it isn't completely ridiculous (i.e. No Sleep Clause is ridiculous). Smogon's goal seems to be the verge of a "Competitive" metagame, which Doug defined as this:
So to summarize what I am getting at: I feel that, as a whole, we are going about the tiering process the wrong way. I feel that, in order to continue, we must first solidfy what we desire in a metagame in order to help determine "What is Uber and Why it is Uber" and if we should start with banlists or not.
I'm sorry if this post is horrible I'm not really good at making threads like these...
I feel that this entire time I've been on the fence, and yet there is one thing that sticks out on "both sides of the argument". Neither side has a concrete way of looking at something that I feel is very important, in general, before we discuss anything that involves with tiering.
"What Do We, As Smogon University, Desire In A Metagame?"
When we look at this entire Generation 4 tiering process, and even the past generations themselves, the answer to the question is not very clear. DougJustDoug's Thread has a lot of guidelines that could be seen in a desireaable metagame. My thoughts? Well, it's not easy to really explain my thoughts since I am indifferent when it comes to competitive playing. What is given as a rule, I'll go by it so long as it isn't completely ridiculous (i.e. No Sleep Clause is ridiculous). Smogon's goal seems to be the verge of a "Competitive" metagame, which Doug defined as this:
As a whole, Smogon has officially stood by the goal of Pokemon to be simple: "Playing To Win". Indeed, it is a good way to look at it, but it is also a vague way to look at it as well, in my opinion. Let me use "Variety" for an example. No matter how many, or few, Pokemon are allowed in a metagame, isn't the main goal of the game "to win"? Of course it is, as we are Competitive Pokemon site. We play competitive Pokemon for the aspect of winning in general. Of course, the desire to "win" is magnified by different focals, for example being the "fun" factor and "skill level". Yet, as noted, too much variety allows too much chaos in some ways. Think of too much variety allowing more along the lines of team building being the main reason to win, with obviously the skill behind the team to deploy the strategy. While this might be the desired answer to the metagame, to others it may not be. "Balance" offers too many different logical theories behind it, and I feel that it is the wrong way to look at a metagame regardless, since IMO balance is more subjective to the person looking at it than it is objective. "Skill" is obviously another important aspect to a metagame. The person wants to win, but many want to win with a challenge of being able to overpower your opponent without it being easy. In other words, you want to think about what your next move is, what the opponent's next move may be, etc.Explanation:
This characteristic may seem incredibly obvious, but it isn't if you consider how many aspects of other games are intended solely for enjoyment or entertainment. Nowhere is this more prevalent than ingame Pokemon, where the vast majority of the game is focused on exploration, adventure, collecting stuff, and general amusement.
The metagame should place little value on anything that is not inherently competitive, where players are directly or indirectly competing against other players with clearly defined results that determine winners. The metagame environment should reward winning, and encourage players to do anything possible within the rules in order to win. While some players may "play just for fun", or carry personal opinions about "winning the right way" -- these ideals should not be a focal point of the metagame. The metagame should attract players that find pure competition to be enjoyable in itself, and are most entertained when they win.
Issues and Concerns:
This makes the metagame "too serious" or "cutthroat"
"C'mon, this is Pokemon..."
Other Comments:
This characteristic is really the fundamental underlying difference between the Pokemon GAME and the Pokemon METAGAME. Essentially, we are stripping out all the non-competitive elements of ingame pokemon, and playing metagames with the remaining competitive elements. Anyone serious about arguing this characteristic should read "Playing to Win" by Sirlin (www.sirlin.net) to get an understanding of the general concept of "competition" in this context.
So to summarize what I am getting at: I feel that, as a whole, we are going about the tiering process the wrong way. I feel that, in order to continue, we must first solidfy what we desire in a metagame in order to help determine "What is Uber and Why it is Uber" and if we should start with banlists or not.
I'm sorry if this post is horrible I'm not really good at making threads like these...