Tiers based on Preformance?

[Qijun]

So me and my friend had a debate about the age long subject of whether pokemon tiers should be based on preformance, or usage. My friend, being a pbr player, and I being a wi-fi and simulator player had obviously different opinions.

Hide

G‡De¤n says:
A proper tier system, should be based on perfomance
not usage
This is why smogon can be very misguiding

q says:
uhhh
no
they delibratel used "used" so that uu things wont look underpowered

G‡De¤n says:
I'm relating this to the tournament scene
not wifi battles
i know why each tier is called as it is
it doesn't take
half a brain
to realize
"Under used" is well under used

q says:
and lol, preformance, do you know how long that would take?
But yeah, bl and ubers exist for a reason.
for things that are too powerful, but not used

G‡De¤n says:
Performance wouldn't be that hard

q says:
test pokemanz one by one?

G‡De¤n says:
and no I'm not saying
the whole

q says:
as soon as a new set is discovered, retest?

G‡De¤n says:
counterpick
baton
etc
etc
no

q says:
then, how would we know its preformance?

G‡De¤n says:
general performance for the pokemon in battles under certain criteria
so obviously it wouldn't be as
whats the word to use
Not "depth" but rather

q says:
oic

G‡De¤n says:
complex? as a smashbros tier list
But simple enough for a person to go
"Oh hey, this pokemon is a great baton receiver if this this and this happen."
"But this pokemon can sweep with only 1 buff"
"This pokemon can do more dmg off a baton because of this this and this"
"this pokemon can wall and dish out damage for a b c reason"
this is just a gist

q says:
yeah, but all that would still need testing
you cant just write shit on paper
and hope it'll work
D:
so we're gonna test all some 400 pokemanz?

G‡De¤n says:
its not hard
do you think
A game like smashbros
or tekken

q says:
and still outclassing would be a problem.

G‡De¤n says:
or street fighter
is easy to come up with a tier list for?

q says:
I mean, WHY use blaziken when infernape outclasses it?
yes it is, ALOT less characters

G‡De¤n says:
obviously different reasons would a effect the match
No
but more moves
match ups
counter picks
stages
Set ups
its way more complex
you'd be crazy to say competitive play in games like those are simplier than pokemon
Anyway
What they do for the tiers
is that they look at gameplay videos of various, playing styles and techniques

q says:
and how would a tier based on power benefit us, exactly?

G‡De¤n says:
I'm not saying powerr
I'm saying perfomance

q says:
preformance
what ever

G‡De¤n says:
you're just cutting in on my sentences as i type

q says:
how would that benefit us?

G‡De¤n says:
them
so how the hell would you even know

q says:
q says:
how would that benefit us?

G‡De¤n says:
nvm
I give up.

q says:
no.

G‡De¤n says:
save this for someone else
No.
too late
CBF to keep erasing everything i type

q says:
How does preformance benefit anyone?

G‡De¤n says:
I was getting to that
but too bad.

q says:
Casn you just say?
Pleaaaseee

G‡De¤n says:
How can you say it
if you didn't even hear what criteria

q says:
tell me how it benefits us

G‡De¤n says:
the preformance is based on
Obviously its not

q says:
I don't need criteria, I see your point.

G‡De¤n says:
"LOL INFERNAPE CAN KILL VENASAUR SO ITS TOP TIER"
no
its not like that

q says:
yes, I agree.

G‡De¤n says:
Its more of a this or that concept

q says:
Now how does this benefit us?

G‡De¤n says:
iunno how does smogon benefit us?
you can up with movesets fine without it
plenty of skilled players that don't use smogon for reference
plenty of skilled players who don't use shroyuken for reference
plenty of smash players who don't use smashboards for reference
that question isn't meanigful at all
plenty of dbz players who don't use dragonball world for reference either

q says:
Smogon benefits us, because it uses sets that are easy to use for beginners, and are effective. And it benefits us by giving us a universal standard. THe thing is, if we didn't have smogon, we would have 9000 sets of rules, and no standard game which a metagame needs.
and that is irrelevant to how a tier based on power benefits uh.
us*

G‡De¤n says:
Its not based
on power
for the last time

q says:
preformance

G‡De¤n says:
Power is different from preformance

q says:
When I say power, I mean preformance.

q said (9:21 a.m.):
...

q says:
<.<

G‡De¤n says:
disconnect

q says:
ic

G‡De¤n says:
I was about to say
Preformance is how you base something outclassing another
by using a criteria

q says:
I meant power in the same sense, but yeah, how does a tier system based on preformance benefit us?
can you just answer the question

G‡De¤n says:
no

q says:
why not?

G‡De¤n says:
i tried to
the first 3 times
then you bring up

q says:
can you do it directly.

G‡De¤n says:
several other questions
I was building to my point

q says:
k

G‡De¤n says:
thats how a debate works

q says:
by listing a bunch of examples?
oic
just go
I give you as long as you want

G‡De¤n says:
nah
why don't you ask me later

q says:
build to your point
Type all you want
tell me when you're finished.

G‡De¤n says:
don't fell like it.
feel*

q says:

<.>

After thinking about our debate, which my friend has refused to finish, I though about our current tiers. Does a tier based in usage benefit us more than that of one based on preformance? And vice versa, WOULD a tier based on preformance be better than one based on usage?

 

[Chomper The Sharptooth]

A tier based on performance is nigh unattainable. With the belief that truly competitive players would use only the best options they have a available then usage tiers will roughly define their level of performance. BL and Uber only exist as banlists, because they are too powerful for the tier they're in but outclassed in the tier above it (In BL's case).

Performance based tiers are arbitrary, not going to happen.

 

[Athenodoros]

You also need to remember that new sets for each pokemon and new styles of play are thought up reasonably often, so performance based tiers would be impossible because the performance changes. Usage seres just as a measure of how things are performing at a given time, which is why we use them. And this isn't even to look at the colossal task of looking at every pokemon individually to decide "potential".

 

[manav95]

Usage is basically the performance. Take for example Heatran. Heatran is the top most used Pokemon in OU. Why? Because it performs good. Its STAB is necessary because of the many steels like Scizor in OU. It checks many top threats as well. So you can say that Heatran performs absolutely fantastic in OU despite being destroyed by the game's best physical move.That is why you switch out anyway. Usage is better and is the only accurate quantification of performance.

 

[DropTheNuke]

Performance is subjective. Usage is objective. Different people may have differing opinions on a Pokemon's performance, but nobody can refute raw data. That's why the tiering for OU is so easy to accomplish, but when a pokemon gets moved up to Uber or BL, the community argues.

If you have a clean method for deciding the performance of a Pokemon, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Delta 2777]

Performance is subjective. Usage is objective. Different people may have differing opinions on a Pokemon's performance, but nobody can refute raw data. That's why the tiering for OU is so easy to accomplish, but when a pokemon gets moved up to Uber or BL, the community argues.

Well as you said, we ban Pokemon to Ubers based on said subjective performance, so why can't we perform similar tests for OU Pokemon that may be a good addition to UU? If the community agrees, it is done - nothing overly complicated.

I think that this would be good for a few reasons, namely allowing UU to have more variety, as I'm sure Smeargle, Roserade, and probably several others would be good candidates, however they are simply used too much.

Such a process would only apply for determining the difference between OU and UU; we could have a system primarily based on usage, and then have a nomination thread for OU Pokemon that may be a good addition to the UU metagame, and then test them.

 

[Veedrock]

so why can't we perform similar tests for OU Pokemon that may be a good addition to UU?

We shouldn't base higher (and more standard) tiers based on lower, less prominent metagames. It's kind of backwards to do so; if the most used and most useful pokemon in OU happens to be balanced for UU, why should it get bumped down a notch? Especially considering this debate is about viability in OU, and if it performs well there it should stay there..

Hypothetically speaking, if we determine everything but the top 10 OU pokemon are fine in UU and don't break it, you really propose that OU should consist of 10 pokemon? Frankly I'd rather ban those 10 OU to Ubers, and allow that balanced UU game to become the new OU. The whole process you're describing puts UU in higher regards than standard OU, and at that point we may as well make it the new OU, with BL being Ubers. The difference is that and what we have now is that we're more ban happy regarding that metagame (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just the truth), and results in a more balanced metagame. But that's another discussion entirely.

I'm just replying to the specified quote, not disagreeing with anything else presented in this topic (usage based tiers frankly are the best way to handle them).

EDIT @ Below: Obviously we can allow them in UU without hurting their OU performance. But again, that does prioritize UU and removes any credibility that OU has. Looking at my hypothetical situation above, OU will likely get reduced to nothing since there's no reason to limit renewed UU testing to a few select few OUs (there's no reason not to drop everything without an arbitrary difference between the two tiers), and at that point we're just creating what OU would look like if we were more inclined to ban things. OU shrinks to whatever we deam BL, and it becomes worthless.

 

[Athenodoros]

It's not so much making UU a priority, but more to do with keeping OU like it is, and acknowledging that some pokemon, like Smeargle, has such a specific niche that it is used in OU but would not break UU. This would allow for the expansion of the UU metagame to a more diverse ones, because new pokemon such as Smeargle could be used. I think testing some of these would actually be a good idea, because it would allow for just that bit more diversity in UU.

 

[Mastadi]

The thing is, usage is a measure of pokemon's performance, and it's about as accurate as we can get. Assuming a perfectly competitive environment, every player is using what they believe to be the best pokemon, therefore meaning that those pokemon are, in the opinion of the masses, the ones that perform the best. Of course, such an environment doesn't exist, so we get a bit of bias based on the fact that some people might be unwilling to use the most overused pokemon, prefer to play with their favourites or are simply trolling, but it still is the most accurate measure of performance we have.

And about that fighting games example, what your friend has forgot to take into consideration is the fact that pokemon aren't just stand alone characters - what you'd need to measure is how each pokemon performs in a particular team, and against particular opponents, with different movesets, which would turn the process of rating 493 pokemon in terms of performance - which already would be tedious and impractical - into several million if not billion possible combinations to rate through analysing. Not to mention, the constantly shifting metagame means that each pokemon would need to be rated every few months or in cases of more rapid shifts, weeks, which would make it very impractical, in addition to being almost impossible to do objectively without any sort of bias or miscalculations in terms of it's performance...

 

[AntiMetaGame]

Are you comparing this to SSBM? It would be nice to have tiers that reflected off performance, but the thing is, some Pokes easily outclass others. I'd see many low tier Pokes that wouldn't be able to make it because their job is done better by someone else. Its kind of like seeing many match-ups with Falco and Marth, you get tired of it, but its unavoidable. Also, if we were to move Pokes by performance, the range would be too broad. Performance in what? Sweeping, scouting, leading, etc? Its really board and something like this is hard to determine.

 

[Delta 2777]

We shouldn't base higher (and more standard) tiers based on lower, less prominent metagames. It's kind of backwards to do so; if the most used and most useful pokemon in OU happens to be balanced for UU, why should it get bumped down a notch? Especially considering this debate is about viability in OU, and if it performs well there it should stay there..

Hypothetically speaking, if we determine everything but the top 10 OU pokemon are fine in UU and don't break it, you really propose that OU should consist of 10 pokemon? Frankly I'd rather ban those 10 OU to Ubers, and allow that balanced UU game to become the new OU. The whole process you're describing puts UU in higher regards than standard OU, and at that point we may as well make it the new OU, with BL being Ubers. The difference is that and what we have now is that we're more ban happy regarding that metagame (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just the truth), and results in a more balanced metagame. But that's another discussion entirely.

I'm just replying to the specified quote, not disagreeing with anything else presented in this topic (usage based tiers frankly are the best way to handle them).

You're taking my quote and making it into a very extreme extent - in no way would this make UU the "primary" or "dominant" metagame. Remember that any Pokemon in UU (or whatever it would be called should it be based by power) is completely legal in OU, meaning if we were to make several weaker OU Pokemon legal in the UU tier, it would not affect the OU tier in any way whatsoever.

What you said about the top 10 OU Pokemon not breaking UU... This would not happen. I'm talking only Pokemon that would not break UU at all, namely (and take all of these with a grain of salt) Roserade, Smeargle, Electivire, and maybe Weavile. I don't propose making a new power threshold in UU by bringing down extremely Powerful Pokemon such as Heatran, Celebi, or even something like Vaporeon, only Pokemon that would suite the current UU metagame well. And remember, doing so does not impact the OU metagame in any way at all. OU would still remain the standard form of play, UU wouldn't turn into the new OU, OU won't turn into the new Ubers, and UU would - if everything were to go according to plan - be more balanced. And finaly, if somehow through the powers that be something like what you proposed were to happen, we could always scrap the idea and go back to how things used to be (or are).

 

[Veedrock]

It's not taking your suggestion to an extreme extent; I'm taking it to the extent it would have to be taken. This quote in particular is why:

I'm talking only Pokemon that would not break UU at all

I'm not sure if you know about the old BL list but it was massive and many of those pokemon are now NU. That list was largely based on theorymon. There is no way to theorize how a pokemon will impact UU, many attempts to do so have had seemingly powerful pokemon fall ridiculously short of expectations. This happened both with the old BL list and several UU pokemon that dropped from OU usage after New UU began. By immediately dismissing other OU pokemon because they might break UU is simply creating the same kind of BL list from the past. It simply does not work the way you're proposing because theorymon has proven time and time again to be a poor indicator of a pokemon's potential.

I know it does not impact OU as a metagame, but it does affect the integrity of the tier and what it represents. This is a pretty big deal considering it's the Standard for all other tiers.

 

[petrie911]

This is silly. UU, both in name and in definition, is the tier for Pokemon who are not commonly used, ie, OU. Allowing an OU into UU is an inherent contradiction.

Secondly, usage = performance. Commonly used Pokemon are used because they are good, and good Pokemon will be used commonly.

 

[SlottedPig]

What you said about the top 10 OU Pokemon not breaking UU... This would not happen. I'm talking only Pokemon that would not break UU at all, namely (and take all of these with a grain of salt) Roserade, ...

I'm just posting to say that Roserade not breaking UU at all is completely incorrect. Even in a metagame where Yanmega was prevalent to check it, Roserade was broken. When Venusaur, who for the most part is inferior to Roserade, is seriously considered Suspect with the nominated set being one identical to Roserade's, Roserade not breaking UU is ludicrous. Not to mention Roserade has about as much versatility as Venusaur as well (a lot) with the ability to spam entry hazards. Oh yeah, and did I mention the +30 base special attack?

 

[Athenodoros]

This is silly. UU, both in name and in definition, is the tier for Pokemon who are not commonly used, ie, OU. Allowing an OU into UU is an inherent contradiction.

We know that, but if we take it past the names of the tiers, we could just say that there is another tier, called Elephant (fo example), below OU, which would take out the most used Pokemon, to create an environment where others can be used well. Now, if we want to create a better Elephant environment, surely it makes sense not to blanket ban all those above a certain usage, but rather to consider them individually.

Secondly, usage = performance. Commonly used Pokemon are used because they are good, and good Pokemon will be used commonly.

Because they are different metagames, a pokemon might perform differently in Elephant to OU, and so not be used as much, or as well. Consider Shedinja and the OU and Uber tiers. Different metagames allow for a common Uber pokemon not to be viable in OU. It could be the same. Alternatively it could be that they are such a niche pokemon that they are only used because only they can be, rather than because they themselves are actually better than anything in lower tiers. I just read a warstory of someone using Parasect in Ubers, because the different metagame allows it. Another example is something like Smeargle, which would do just what it does in OU in Elephant, and would still be just as good relative to any metagame it was in. All of these show that Pokemon viable in OU need not necessarily be overpowered in Elephant.

 

[Pallas Athena]

How do you judge performance? By stats? If so, why wasn't Kingdra as popular as it is now in third generation? Ability? Think Shedninja. Movepool? Togekiss doesen't dominate OU. Movesets? New sets constantly emerge crippling some pokemon, and helping some. The truth is, there is no good way to define performance. The metagame is constantly evolving, so a pokemons power can not be truly evaluated, as a poke who gets too good will begin to cause an increase in counters. Therefore, a poke can not truly be broken, unless all of it's counters are banned. Because of this, the only good way to make tiers are raw, unbiased numbers, and evaluations based on the prescence of counters.

 

[Great Sage]

It is not possible to objectively judge performance; usage is the closest thing. Many would argue for weighted usage stats, but that's an argument for another day.