Development of a PP Tier

**Shogun** · Jun 16th, 2009

I feel that because Project Pokemon is it's own community, we should have our own tier list for Pokemon.

However, we need peoples help, by gathering your opinions.

Testing will be active on Shoddy Battle on the Project Pokemon server.

This is the current list I have generated:

Spoiler

**Illithian** · Jun 16th, 2009

While that tier list is impressive and comprehensive, we have had this discussion before.

In my opinion, theres no point creating our own tier list if the Smogon one works. If someone disagrees about a pokemon, they could bring it up separately, people could test it over our Shoddy server (or others by all means) or Wifi and post their results here. If a decent pokemon is found to be in the wrong position (nothing useless like NU -> UU or UU -> NU), then they can be changed and posted on our own tier listing with specific changes listed from the Smogon standard.

IMO, suspecting every pokemon is far too large a job for us.

**randomspot555** · Jun 16th, 2009

Before we consider doing any testing, be it modifying or whatever, a system needs to be set in place.

We should use this thread to talk about a testing system rather than anything else.

And if it's productive...we'll keep it open.

And if it isn't, we'll close it and try again another day.

**wraith89** · Jun 16th, 2009

You're a Shoddy admin? o_O (stares at badge)
Let's try to organize this Ryu... like list those Pokes that need testing and such. So far, for the most part, we are in agreement with Smogon's Uber and OU list.

**GGfan** · Jun 16th, 2009

I think wraith is right. From what I have seen most people agree with the current tiers,
though we might consider to change the definition of a tier, which is in process anyway (vide limbo on smogon). The use of a pokemon should not be the only factor, if everyone decided to use Evoli according to a tiers definition Evoli would be OU, overused. Renaming OU and UU could be a first step in the direction of a new definition of tiers.

**randomspot555** · Jun 16th, 2009

That's the point of the ban tiers. If a Pokemon were to ever fall in usage, it should have a quick test to insure it doesn't break the UU tier in half. And then if it does, it's moved to BL so it won't just fluctuate between them.

But also remember that this isn't likely to happen to the most used like Heatran and Scizor. It's more likely to happen to those just hanging on to OU like Empoleon, Flygon, and Heracross.

I don't know if there's a lot of point in re-naming the tiers. That's pretty much an asthetic change. Though if anyone has some great sounding names, no reason to at least consider it.

I'm more interested in what the Shoddy players around here will decide on as a test system. Are you guys keeping track of usage stats and all that stuff? Or does Dougjustdoug over at Smogon have to dig those stats up manually?

And even though Wi-Fi players obviously can't track usage, I think we can still be an asset in testing. I know I'd be more than willing to do the battle recorder video thing and manually keep track of usage in my battles. Do you think that type of system is possible to do, so that us who use carts can have a voice also?

***SCV*** · Jun 16th, 2009

Yes a system where people with carts use battle recorder for us to keep track of battles would be great. But should that be set up as a separate system?

The two systems are vastly different. Also a wi-fi tier would be for legit pokemon and the battle recorder can help with the hack checking.

Also as for stats, there are two ways to do it (that I see). Modify the source of the server to write to a mysql db with certain data at the start of the battle and more data at the end of the battle. Also one can parse all the files that are stored in the logs folder in the server. Not sure which dougjustdoug uses (if any).

**randomspot555** · Jun 16th, 2009

Originally Posted by SCV

Yes a system where people with carts use battle recorder for us to keep track of battles would be great. But should that be set up as a separate system?

The two systems are vastly different. Also a wi-fi tier would be for legit pokemon and the battle recorder can help with the hack checking.

They're different. But I overall don't think too much would be different.

But that's a separate issue.

My idea for Wi-Fi testers would be that once we determine a method of testing and then what needs to be tested, anyone who can Battle Record can participate in the test.

Obviously, they can't participate in something as far as strict usage since we have no reliable way of tracking everyone who Wi-Fi battles. But once we determine what needs to be tested and the method, then Wi-Fi battlers can participate in the test ladder just like everyone else. The only requirements is they need to submit their teams (sets, evs , etc...) and make sure their videos are viewable.

And once we determine a method of who gets to vote after a test is completed, those same requirements apply to Wi-Fi testers as well.

It might also help for any Wi-Fi testers to only battle within the community. That way we have at least some control and so other random people from other communities aren't inconvienced because I'm taking forever to write down notes.

I think it'll also be interesting that, at least within the community, we can see how usage of one-off/event only Pokemon are here compared to usage on Shoddy.

**Varna** · Jun 17th, 2009

Originally Posted by randomspot555

And once we determine a method of who gets to vote after a test is completed, those same requirements apply to Wi-Fi testers as well.

I don't think we should restrict who can vote. Simply because a person didn't meet some quota of battles doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, and vice versa. Instead, we could utilize something along the lines of a weighted vote system where those who have participated more will have a larger vote, but those who haven't or couldn't participate as much will still have a say. Of course, I don't really think a vote is an effective way to decide something like this to begin with, so it should be accompanied by some sort of debate as well, whence someone could compile all the major points from each side to help figure things out.

As far as where to begin, I'd just like to say now that I'm not a fan of starting out assuming that another site's work is acceptable. It would be a much better idea to start from scratch, or place restrictions based on game data only, such as base stats or movepools. The testing will take longer, but it will be more fruitful. Whether or not we end up with something similar to anyone else's is irrelevant; the entire purpose of it all is to do our own testing.

A key point to consider is the clauses. Almost every single one changes the game immensely, and they can't be taken lightly if serious tests are going to be run. In my personal opinion, species clause is quite possibly the only one that should be considered for use without testing to begin with.

Any way you slice it, there is a lot of work ahead.

**GGfan** · Jun 17th, 2009

Originally Posted by randomspot555

That's the point of the ban tiers. If a Pokemon were to ever fall in usage, it should have a quick test to insure it doesn't break the UU tier in half. And then if it does, it's moved to BL so it won't just fluctuate between them.

Actually BL was proven to be superflous, since pretending Bls to be OU is way easier than making own tiers for them. That is the reason why I suggested to rename OU and UU, since they do not represent Overused and Underused pokes anymore.
My suggestion is to name them upper-class and underclass, which is a quite representing name in the terms of inequality between pokes.

**wraith89** · Jun 17th, 2009

Originally Posted by GGfan

Actually BL was proven to be superflous, since pretending Bls to be OU is way easier than making own tiers for them. That is the reason why I suggested to rename OU and UU, since they do not represent Overused and Underused pokes anymore.
My suggestion is to name them upper-class and underclass, which is a quite representing name in the terms of inequality between pokes.

Although I do agree with you to some extent, there is a correlation between usage and the quality of a Pokemon. Did Smogon base their tiers solely based on usage? Or were there other factors involved?

**randomspot555** · Jun 17th, 2009

Originally Posted by Varna

I don't think we should restrict who can vote. Simply because a person didn't meet some quota of battles doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, and vice versa. Instead, we could utilize something along the lines of a weighted vote system where those who have participated more will have a larger vote, but those who haven't or couldn't participate as much will still have a say. Of course, I don't really think a vote is an effective way to decide something like this to begin with, so it should be accompanied by some sort of debate as well, whence someone could compile all the major points from each side to help figure things out.

I'd be open to the idea of a weighted voting system. But I don't want the board/forum/Shoddy server to be hit by some people from another forum who love/hate whatever clause or Pokemon we're testing at the time just so they can influence the voting.

I also have doubts about any voting system at all. My ideal system would be a hand picked group involving members who've demonstrated knowledge of competitive battling and...helpfullness, for lack of a better word. For example, I think the good posters in RMT (those with that badge) should be offered a spot. Some staff, since they're running the site (moreso to keep the discussion going smoothly and all rather than influence the discussion itself), and people who've otherwise demonstrated competent knowledge at battling, either by posting or by actual battles.

But in either way, voting with a written post(s) backing up your vote, or discussion among a select group, it should happen in a publicly viewable thread.

As far as where to begin, I'd just like to say now that I'm not a fan of starting out assuming that another site's work is acceptable. It would be a much better idea to start from scratch, or place restrictions based on game data only, such as base stats or movepools. The testing will take longer, but it will be more fruitful. Whether or not we end up with something similar to anyone else's is irrelevant; the entire purpose of it all is to do our own testing.

We can't really do a proper test unless an environment is already established. I think it'd be a huge waste of time to throw it all out there. If we start off with an established tier and clauses, we can immedietly begin testing. I mean, looking at the handful of other English-website tier lists, there's few differences. The tier lists in foreign metagames are more noticeable, but that's more because they just play the game differently than North Americans do.

Originally Posted by GGfan

Actually BL was proven to be superflous, since pretending Bls to be OU is way easier than making own tiers for them. That is the reason why I suggested to rename OU and UU, since they do not represent Overused and Underused pokes anymore.
My suggestion is to name them upper-class and underclass, which is a quite representing name in the terms of inequality between pokes.

I actually think that is a good idea.

Originally Posted by wraith89

Although I do agree with you to some extent, there is a correlation between usage and the quality of a Pokemon. Did Smogon base their tiers solely based on usage? Or were there other factors involved?

They aren't strictly usage base, though mostly. There's a handful of Pokes that barely cling on to OU status every few months. And if they ever moved to UU, they should be tested to make sure they function in that environment. Milotic, for example, does. Staraptor does not.

**Syberia** · Jun 23rd, 2009

Originally Posted by Varna

Of course, I don't really think a vote is an effective way to decide something like this to begin with, so it should be accompanied by some sort of debate as well, whence someone could compile all the major points from each side to help figure things out.

A vote is the only reliable and unbiased way of doing things. Sure there's going to be debate and discussion, but if you start following Smogon's lead of restricting voters based on their ability to make a "well-reasoned argument," you run into the problem of you simply cannot judge what is a "well-reasoned argument" without injecting personal bias into the process on the part of the judge. What one person thinks is a good argument, another might reject for whatever reason. Of course, you could follow the Smogon method of pretending the judge is infallible and infracting anyone who attempts to insinuate otherwise, but I hope we're above that type of elitism here, and realize that everyone has their own personal biases, no matter how "fair" they may claim to be, and whether they even realize they have them or not. Using certain set "criteria of being uber" also introduces a ridiculous amount of bias into the system from the beginning, as by requiring people to adhere to them when making their arguments already restricts their thinking to within predetermined limits, and if you think something should be uber for a different reason, you're forced to try and make it "fit" into one of the existing criteria, and more than likely will not get their vote counted.

Now, of course, I'm not saying that we should not debate and discuss the issue of pokemon tiering. Of course we should, and I'd encourage potential voters to look over the arguments, I'm sure in some cases they might even change their minds. A requirement of a certain rating, or at the very least, a certain deviation/games played is a nice way to ensure the voters have the necessary experience, without injecting bias and subjectivity into the process.

Originally Posted by Varna

A key point to consider is the clauses. Almost every single one changes the game immensely, and they can't be taken lightly if serious tests are going to be run. In my personal opinion, species clause is quite possibly the only one that should be considered for use without testing to begin with.

Unless you want Breloom ripping through teams unchecked (and Darkrai doing the same thing in Ubers), I strongly urge you to consider Sleep Clause to be a standard rule as well. The others like OHKO clause and evasion clause are at least debatable, although I'd be in favor of implementing both of them.

Species Clause, I agree with you. If you start allowing people to carry more than one of a pokemon, the game utterly stops being competitive, with matches being decided almost entirely on what pokemon the players brought to the table, before any fighting actually begins.

Originally Posted by randomspot555

I'd be open to the idea of a weighted voting system. But I don't want the board/forum/Shoddy server to be hit by some people from another forum who love/hate whatever clause or Pokemon we're testing at the time just so they can influence the voting.

"You have to have registered before xxx date in order to vote." Stops people from signing up accounts just to make their voice heard. If you're not a part of the community, you don't get to make decisions for the community.

Originally Posted by randomspot555

I also have doubts about any voting system at all. My ideal system would be a hand picked group involving members who've demonstrated knowledge of competitive battling and...helpfullness, for lack of a better word. For example, I think the good posters in RMT (those with that badge) should be offered a spot. Some staff, since they're running the site (moreso to keep the discussion going smoothly and all rather than influence the discussion itself), and people who've otherwise demonstrated competent knowledge at battling, either by posting or by actual battles.

I have to disagree with your proposed method for the reasons I've hopefully made clear above. "Knowledge of competitive battling" and "...helpfulness" are very vague terms, and in a sense still put the decision in the hands of those who are "in charge" of the forum, just one step removed since they're now determining who gets to vote, as opposed to simply voting amongst themselves. If the game is going to be played and enjoyed by all, decisions about how it is going to be played should be made by the players themselves.

Originally Posted by randomspot555

They aren't strictly usage base, though mostly. There's a handful of Pokes that barely cling on to OU status every few months. And if they ever moved to UU, they should be tested to make sure they function in that environment. Milotic, for example, does. Staraptor does not.

I don't see any reason at all why a pokemon can't exist "in two tiers." For example, if Roserade began in UU, and through testing proved itself to not be broken in that tier, but suddenly a rash of people began using Roserade in OU, there is no need to immediately kick it out of the lower tier because of something as arbitrary as people used it more. Nothing about Roserade itself has actually changed to make it better or worse, in actuality it's probably the OU tier, or simply the style of battling or teams used by the majority of players, that changed.

By testing each pokemon in UU as it's moved down, and then allowing them to stay if they've proven themselves to not break the metagame, regardless of arbitrary fluctuations in usage, we can actually create a larger, more stable and balanced tier, instead of the state of constant flux that Smogon seems content to maintain. By using this method, we'd take usage as a starting point, but in the end, through testing, we'd establish tiering by a pokemon's actual power and performance, rather than simply using usage as a proxy for such.

**randomspot555** · Jun 23rd, 2009

Originally Posted by Syberia

A vote is the only reliable and unbiased way of doing things. Sure there's going to be debate and discussion, but if you start following Smogon's lead of restricting voters based on their ability to make a "well-reasoned argument," you run into the problem of you simply cannot judge what is a "well-reasoned argument" without injecting personal bias into the process on the part of the judge. What one person thinks is a good argument, another might reject for whatever reason.

See, I don't know where this notion that opinions are these completely infallible thoughts that can't be criticized objectively. One can differentiate between someone in a (in this case, forum) discussion who is just doing what is essentially a +1 postcount post, and one who is offering an opinion and backing it up with reasonable arguments along with facts, statistics, experiences, etc...

Where it differentiates is if an individual agrees or not with the argument someone makes. But I can objectively identify that a person makes a well reasoned argument regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

I have to disagree with your proposed method for the reasons I've hopefully made clear above. "Knowledge of competitive battling" and "...helpfulness" are very vague terms, and in a sense still put the decision in the hands of those who are "in charge" of the forum, just one step removed since they're now determining who gets to vote, as opposed to simply voting amongst themselves. If the game is going to be played and enjoyed by all, decisions about how it is going to be played should be made by the players themselves.

And in my proposed method, which I admit I thought about for only 5 minutes or so, it would still rest in the players themselves to make the decisions. It just prevents any random idiot from influencing the vote. Again, one should be able to objectively measure if an individual has sufficient knowledge of competitive battling regardless of if you agree with their posts, style of battling, etc...

I don't see any reason at all why a pokemon can't exist "in two tiers." For example, if Roserade began in UU, and through testing proved itself to not be broken in that tier, but suddenly a rash of people began using Roserade in OU, there is no need to immediately kick it out of the lower tier because of something as arbitrary as people used it more. Nothing about Roserade itself has actually changed to make it better or worse, in actuality it's probably the OU tier, or simply the style of battling or teams used by the majority of players, that changed.

By testing each pokemon in UU as it's moved down, and then allowing them to stay if they've proven themselves to not break the metagame, regardless of arbitrary fluctuations in usage, we can actually create a larger, more stable and balanced tier, instead of the state of constant flux that Smogon seems content to maintain. By using this method, we'd take usage as a starting point, but in the end, through testing, we'd establish tiering by a pokemon's actual power and performance, rather than simply using usage as a proxy for such.

This is an interesting thought and unfortunately I don't think I have the time to respond to it ATM.

**Illithian** · Jun 24th, 2009

I personally think that if we decide to run a suspect line (of which we should probably start a new sub-forum thats quite a bit more organized then this thread), we should have something similar to smogon in that they restrict the voters. But not for the same reasons. The restrictions should not be based on how well you can place an argument, but more for your skill and understanding of the competitive metagame, which should be "judged" by several active players on our Shoddy whom have witnessed several battles in which the potential battle has participated (and not necessarily won, but played well).

In that, I suppose were becoming elitist as well, but our smaller forum has a better chance of including a far greater percentage of our population within suspect votes.

Thread: Development of a PP Tier

Thread Tools

Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Re: Development of a PP Tier

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions