Announcement Ubers tiering: going forward

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't post much (read: at all), but I've been playing Ubers since gen 4, so I'm really looking forward to it becoming a more structured tier.

This all sounds great; suspect testing Species Clause has been mentioned several time, and I think we definitely should not do this - having to check multiple of one threat adds nothing to the meta, in my personal opinion. However, we should definitely consider treating alternate formes of the same species as sub-species, or something similar; id est, you can't stack your team full of Primal Groudon, but you can run Deoxys-A and Deoxys-S, and you can run Arceus-Dark and Arceus-Poison all on the same team. That's just my thoughts on it, I think this would remove a lot of the issues Ubers has without introducing any new issues, like 6 of one Pokemon forme on a team, or something stupid like that.

-----

Also, I have a small criticism which I don't know how to word nicely, so forgive my lack of tact, but Hack you should have gotten somebody to proofread this post, there are definitely some bits that need re-wording / clarifying:

Playability = reduction of convergence in teams to the point where player skill matters
I still don't know what you mean by this, [reduction in convergence of teams] makes enough sense, even if it is... questionably worded, but what do you mean by [to the point where player skill matters]? Shouldn't player skill matter? Do you mean [to the point where player skill doesn't matter]? id est, everybody is required to play the same team and player skill has minimal play on the outcome of a match?
It seems to me that you should have written something like "Playability = how much teams can vary", as this would match what you go on to say about Playability being more important than Diversity; Ubers is playable if teams can vary, even if they don't vary specifically in which species are used, which is Diversity.

Also, a few other things which I think should be cleaned up, just to make the post more accessible for those who don't play Ubers already:

What point does this make in regards to tiering? Well, Ubers will base banning things for being “too powerful” but to drawing the line of what this suggests is hard to do. The following should provide as pointers.
'Drawing the line' is setting a condition or restraint, so you wouldn't 'draw the line' on what something suggests, something either suggests a thing or it doesn't. You might want to clean this up to be something like:

"What point does this make in regards to tiering? Well, Ubers will base banning things on them being “too powerful”, but [to draw / drawing] the line on what "too powerful" is is hard to do. The following should serve as guidelines."

If every team looks like a duck, feels like a duck, and acts like a duck, then every game is a fight between two identical ducks.
I have to fundamentally disagree; a person impersonating a duck should most definitely look, feel, and act like a duck, but they would most definitely not be a duck. I think you probably need to include taste, I think if a person tasted like a duck, then they really would be a duck. Unless ducks and people taste the same; I don't know if they do, I've never had duck before.

A: Each of the 6 Pokémon can only play a single role (using a single set if you will) attributing to making the style of the team overall indistinguishable from any other team in the metagame.
B: Each of the 6 Pokémon can play multiple roles, attributing to permutations that allows team styles to become varied, despite the lack of diversity of Pokémon considered viable.

Ubers should be totally fine with B but must look at banning the most broken components in the A-scenario in order to allow for enough permutations to make the metagame playable. Granted these two examples are highly idealized and extreme cases, but argumentations surrounding what is broken should generally stem from this line of thought. Does a Pokémon disallow permutations to the extent the metagame is closer to the B-scenario than we would like?
At the end here, you say "closer to the B-scenario than we would like?", I'm almost certain you mean A-scenario. We like the B-scenario... I think.

Unhealthy

As far as this type of ban goes, it isn’t exactly filled with any real examples. None, actually. It makes it very hard for Ubers to have a proper stance on this. Hence this section will review the four branches of this type of ban, as given in the OU tiering framework.

A.) These are elements that may not limit either team building or battling skill enough individually, but combine to cause an effect that is undesirable for the metagame.

Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is a vague criterion but it should apply to the Ubers tier as well.

B.) This can also be a state of the metagame. If the metagame has too much diversity wherein team building ability is greatly hampered and battling skill is drastically reduced, we may seek to reduce the number of good to great threats. This can also work in reverse; if the metagame is too centralized a particular set of Pokemon, none of which are broken on their own, we may seek to add Pokemon to increase diversity.

Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is something partly touched upon in Ubers definition of broken. Since Ubers has a thought out methodology on how to deal with centralization or rather, dominating strategies (see section: Broken) Ubers will not pursue bans of this type, period. Diversity is not the ultimate goal of Ubers, it is playability.

C.) This is the most controversial and subjective one, and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The OU Council will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.

Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is valid. The community should be in charge of their tier. It is controversial, but if there is a general consensus that the integrity is compromised due to one element, which is neither broken nor uncompetitive, it must still be possible to ban it. We play this game for fun, after all.
You've not actually copied the names of the 'branches' here, you've copied the comments from the source thread, so you're commenting on comments... it's very confusing. You should add the name of A, B, C, and D in bold after the letter, so we know what we're talking about.

Regarding suspecting testing methods

We believe that a public suspect testing method is the ideal way to go about our tiering decisions, just like any other Smogon tier. With a high ban % required in order to ban or unban something from Ubers, we hope that changes to the tier will only occur when the community overwhelmingly agrees with it, and this also helps to seperate us from OU.
I think you mean 'vote %', not 'ban %'; also, you should specify that the high % needs to be in favour, so something like

"With a high % approval required in order to pass a movement in Ubers..."

-----

P.S.: Hack , I see you're Swedish, and go by the name Hack... you don't happen to play Melee, do you? lol
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
I'm questioning this considering the fact that the ubers auth historically has used their influence to force bans against the community's will, but hopefully there won't be an issue as long as they keep their word:
Practically speaking, any suspect tests Ubers will hold will always be objective with a suspect ladder. There will never be any form of weighting or picking out votes based on subjective criterion. Those who qualify for voting will get to vote, simple as that.
This has been said already but a Primal Groudon ban is a realllly bad idea. I would argue that the main reason Primal Groudon is used so much (especially in this meta which is definitely geared more towards fat/bulky play) is not because of its offensive capabilities, but rather its ability to check huge threats like Xerneas and Pogre as well as a general sponge that you can throw in on any threat that your team doesn't have a specific answer for. Offensive Pdon is still a threat and is a great wincon on many teams but I don't think that's why it's used so much.

The main effect a Pdon ban would have would be the skyrocketing of Xerneas and Pogre usage. We all acknowledge this, but have we thought about what that meta would actually be like? If the two biggest threats in the tier are both special attackers, than the logical progression is--the blobs. Chansey and Blissey would be on practically every team. In order to counter that, everyone would start running Mgar and Goth, to counter those everyone would start running Ttar and A-Muk, you get the idea. I've said this before and I know it sounds dumb but enjoyability should be a huge factor in the banning process. I don't want to play a meta that completely revolves around walls and trapping, who does? Certainly those who have the patience or desire to win would love a meta where only the person willing to play 100+ turn matches wins, but most of us aren't like that. It's unrelated but I've always found that the more offensively geared a meta is (see ORAS vs SM) the more fun it is. Keeping Pdon unbanned prevents Ubers from becoming a stally mess of Blissey and Chansey.

I've only recently got into using and playing against S-tag so I'm not sure if it's more of a benefit to stall than it is to offense, but it's still not very pleasant to play against. PP stalling with Goth is a legitimate strategy now, something that should immedietely raise a red flag to anyone looking to have fun playing the tier. This is something I'd like to see suspected, as I'm interested in whether stall would become better or worse without it around.
 
I think that the way these suspects would go woulnd't be benficial for the Ubers tier. If, for example, Primal Groudon would be banned a domino effect of bans would start up. Primal-Kyogre and Xern would probably be banned next and then we have yveltal coming through left, right and center. I also think that removing a species clause or sleep clause would be unhealthy for the meta. We want a playable tier, not a diverse one! Changing up clauses goes against this statement in my eyes, because it would allow players to fill up different roles with multiple Arceus or smth else.

However, I do think it might be a good idea to look at certain mons in the tier (examples of those are Pheromosa, Blaziken, Landorus-I) and suspect them or create a version of Ubers UU for them. Not because I think they aren't used enough, but because I think that those are mons that aren't of any benefit to any team which is just sad for these Pokémon and the players.

Over all I must say that I think the ubers tier is absolutely fine as it is. It is a playable meta with, as in every tier, some mons better than others. But that is what makes a meta healthy right?
 
Last edited:
While we do encourage the enthusiasm and reading everyone's opinion's (which we do our best to consider going forward), the thread has seemingly derailed into discussion on what test - and even worse people have already started with the horrible slippery slope arguments and alternative solutions that will never happen (Ubers UU cmon dude).

We will keep this thread open for a while longer but remember this isn't exactly the place to discuss what to suspect or re-test - the thread exists for clarifying if there is support for actually committing to a new tiering policy which involves more active attempts to optimize through community involvement. If your post needlessly goes into detail about testing X, no harm done, but you will have better threads for debating these things. The most valuable posts are those explaining why/why not going forward with the new policy is a good idea.
 

hyw

Banned deucer.
In my opinion, ever since the release of AG, Ubers has never established a clear tiering policy at all. Therefore, Hack's original post of this thread clarifies, for the first time, a transition from an era of ambiguity to an era of transparency of the tiering process.

However, I do not believe that discussion of whether to go forward with the "new policy" is productive or fruitful. Since the "new policy" is effectively a multivariable philosophy comprised of numerous and distinct working parts, the topic is too nuanced to discuss matters successfully using the "new policy" as a foundation. The "new policy" is something so deep in its complexity that its full explanation warranted hide tags for its length. Put more simply, since different people agree with different parts of the "new policy," if person A and person B were to have a discussion about whether to move forward with the "new policy," the inevitable problem arises in that the exact definition of the "new policy" cannot be decided upon.

I say all of this under the assumption that everyone in the community is grateful that we are finally improving the sophistication of our tiering policy, both in its specificity and ethicality. To provide an analogy, the "new policy" could be a bill and its criteria (such as brokenness, competitiveness, and health) could be the various components of the bill. At least where I am from, political theory goes that in order to maximize the democracy of the process, the bill's components are to be discussed before submitting it to a legislative body for a vote on whether to enact it. Similarly, I think that while collectively agreeing that refinement of tiering policy is a much needed course of action, it makes more sense to discuss, for example, the prioritization of the elements that would best result in improvements in the health and competitiveness of Ubers as a tier, if examined.

Therein lies the motivation backing my initiation of the discussion proposing a suspect of Species Clause in Ubers. What's more, I would like to reiterate that there exists an explicit impetus for prioritization of elements to investigate, as well. This stems from seeing Ubers' rejection from SPL for now a second time within a short time span in a historical context. For example, I believe that it is important for the progression of metagame stability that a Species Clause suspect happens sooner rather than later; the earlier that we organize a suspect test for Species Clause, the greater time we have to experiment within such an environment. Consider the following hypothetical: the suspect test is decided to be conducted in a short time prior to the next SPL, a more volatile Species Clause-version of USM is turned down for SPL participation, and the Species Clause-less USM turns out to be much higher in quality. The risk of such scenarios should be of grave concern to the player-base, and I hope that, above all else, we are able to move forward in the most proactive manner as a community as possible.

On a side note, I think that the correct is approach to USM Ubers tiering is to apply AG's ruleset immediately. My proposition for a Species Clause suspect is a derivative of concessions from AG's ruleset application and a quick-unban of Species Clause. The reason I make these concessions is because I think that Species Clause is the most needed point of change between the AG ruleset and Ubers' current ruleset, as well as because the change should be much less radical, resulting in easier acceptance by more people. Furthermore, to add to potential nuances within the results of a Species Clause suspect, I believe that the nuanced unban of Species Clause where Pokémon of the same Pokédex number and of different forms should be an option. This way, various Arceus forms can be used without the possibility of running more than one Ekiller or Groundceus on the same team, leading to the possibility of combinations such as Grounceus + Fairyceus on the same team.
 
Last edited:
I think the new tiering policies is great way to move forward in Ubers. In regards to to setting the foundation, I think the best way would to start from AG (something a few people have stated). Before it has suspect tests and auto-bans of any possible stuff, maybe the tier can undergo a month of stabilizing with AG rules or what not, and see what's good, and then we find out what is cancerous or makes the tier unplayable or even unenjoyable. I'm wondering that since Ubers ladder is a bit different in regards to other tiers like OU, maybe the vote % of suspect testing can be lower or higher, depending on how many statistical factors are in play (games played, people participating, etc.) and that historical data can be used for other tests as well as a basis moving forward.

Its more of a "let's play, then we can talk" situation before clauses or bans can be determined to make Ubers meta good/enjoyable.
 

Aberforth

is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Ubers Leader
Why on earth would we 'quick' ban or unban anything? Hack says explicitly in the first post:

Practically speaking, any suspect tests Ubers will hold will always be objective with a suspect ladder. There will never be any form of weighting or picking out votes based on subjective criterion. Those who qualify for voting will get to vote, simple as that.
Or in other words, it wont ever be 'quick' bans or unbans, but the democratic will of the majority through an actual suspect test.
 
There seems to be two different school of thoughts here: minimal bans with current banlist versus truly minimal banlist. From what I've read, both tier leaders are in favor of minimal bans with current banlist, even though it doesn't adhere to Ubers tiering philosophy. Is the latter interpretation of minimal banlist possible with upper smogon politics or not?
 
Oho, so Kyogre gets to be the "king" of Ubers in RS/DP/BW/BW2 but the moment Papa Groudon begins laying down the law of the land he's potentially "overcentralizing"

I see how it is.

Edit: As a serious reply, I played Ubers all the time during BW/BW2 which was my favorite Ubers meta. Yveltal is pretty dope, but Xerneas just dumbs down the game and forces so much degeneracy on the tier. Primal Groudon/Primal Kyogre finally made the whole permanent weather thing much more interesting and it was nice to not be forced to run a defensive Groudon.
 

Lacus Clyne

Given-Taken
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past SCL Champion
Geomancy: Geomancy always has been a problem since it was introduced in XY but is it broken in USUM? Since XY we received many new checks but this didn't stop it from sweeping if you weaken your opponents Pokémon to a certain point. Banning it would be interesting because you can basically remove that "GeoXern" from your threatlist which also has a huge impact on your teambuilding because you can use that Pokémon, who is normally your GeoXern check, and change it to something different to make your teams more diverse. Well this applies to pretty much everything that is suspect worthy but I feel like Geomancy is the most broken one. The Pokémon itself is still fine and useful though. Even without Geomancy you can still use scarf, specs and other good sets. It also received Defog fwiw. In my opinion you guys should create another "No Geomancy" tour to see how the meta is without it while having all the new stuff. It should be quite interesting and definitely worth trying out.

Shadow Tag: Well this thread kinda came 4 months too late but anyways... I don't think Shadow Tag is a problem anymore at this point. We all know how broken Gothitelle was but that simply isn't the case anymore with Defog being given to more useful Pokémon and the metagame changing to a more offensive approach. Sure you can still use it to trap certain Pokémon but the chance of playing against HO or more like having a 5v6 MU is relatively higher at the moment. So I wouldn't really recommending using that Pokémon anyways unless you cteam. Gengar is becoming more useful now because of the addition of new psychic legends, but it isn't broken and also balances the meta a bit by being the perfect revenge killer for certain Pokémon who could run wild otherwise. Banning Shadow Tag isn't needed imo.

I know this isn't the right thread but Yveltal should be S rank. Just saying it in advance.
 

The Dovahneer

UPL Champion
Geomancy: Geomancy always has been a problem since it was introduced in XY but is it broken in USUM? Since XY we received many new checks but this didn't stop it from sweeping if you weaken your opponents Pokémon to a certain point. Banning it would be interesting because you can basically remove that "GeoXern" from your threatlist which also has a huge impact on your teambuilding because you can use that Pokémon, who is normally your GeoXern check, and change it to something different to make your teams more diverse. Well this applies to pretty much everything that is suspect worthy but I feel like Geomancy is the most broken one. The Pokémon itself is still fine and useful though. Even without Geomancy you can still use scarf, specs and other good sets. It also received Defog fwiw. In my opinion you guys should create another "No Geomancy" tour to see how the meta is without it while having all the new stuff. It should be quite interesting and definitely worth trying out.
You could probably make an argument for suspecting geo if this was still around xy where your hard checks were limited to shit like aegislash, poisonceus/fireceus and blobs but right now there are more geoxern checks than ever that function well enough in other roles for them not to be considered a liability outside of the geoxern matchup. Mag checks yveltal, dusk mane either functions as a powerful offensive threat or an amazing support mon, primal groudon speaks for itself, etc.. The list is only gonna go up as time goes on so I don't see the point in suspecting it under the current policy. On a side note though a geo-less meta sounds like a fun and interesting idea to play with and id support another nogeo tour.

For species clause, on opinion alone i'd vote no since it shakes up the foundations of the tier but I'd still advocate for running the test since there is no harm in seeing what could potentially be instead of denying it outright.


On another note what is this policy's stance on complex bans? Especially since some mons can be fixed by removing the broken aspects from an otherwise balanced mon(item locking mray, getting rid of stag for goth, etc.) and we're trying to ban the least amount of stuff as we can.
 
Last edited:
I've only read like 4 posts in this entire thread so if any of this has been said before I apologize.

First off, I would like to say that many ideas in this discussion are intriguing. However, by reading some posts from recent smogon joinees, looking at the poll on the Pokemon Showdown Ubers room and just reading discussions about some of the topics in this thread I came to the conclusion that the Ubers community is not ready for democracy and therefor suspect tests are a really bad idea. I know this is rather harsh from my part but I honestly think the playerbase has grown to such extent that most people don't recognize how certain Pokemon and mechanics have been incredibly toxic elements for the Ubers metagame ever since their release date. The thing is, I don't think its their fault. It's been 3 years since the release of ORAS and 4 years since the release of XY and obviously the playerbase has only increased since then, meaning that to a lot of players who have joined the community since then these toxic elements just appear as normal and just accepted them for what they were thinking little of it. What I'm getting at is that because people are so used to these elements and the fact that most of them haven't touched gens 4-5 they have little idea of what metagames without said elements would look like. This creates an extremely biased perspective that I will now examplify:

User Palkiapower24 started playing Ubers back in ORAS, he's used Primal Groudon on every team because it is a splashable mon that checks both Xerneas and Primal Kyogre, he's also used Mega Gengar and Gothitelle because he enjoys the idea of trapping Arceus formes and the like with very little effort, which helps him win games. In the face of Primal Groudon and Shadow Tag suspect tests Palkiapower24 feels threatened because his 2 staple team elements are on the edge of not being usable anyore. So, he ladders his heart out and gets reqs in order to stop them from being banned. He writes a 5,000 word essay on how Primal Groudon stabilizes the meta and how the unpredictable Eruption OHKOing Arceus-Ground is not entirely bullshit. On the other hand, user Lord Dragonbreath has been playing Ubers since XY and has participated in several old gen tournaments, consistently playing ADV, DPP and BW2, his knowledge of such metagames is remarkable and he understands that if Primal Groudon and Shadow Tag are gone, pokemon such as Arceus-Grass and Mega Scizor, which check Kyogre and Xerneas respectively become viable, and thus making the tier feel less volatile and bland.

Now, I think most of us can agree that the amount of Palkiapower24s in the Ubers community is significantly higher than the amount of Lord Dragonbreaths. Meaning that the majority of the people voting perhaps just perceive these elements in question as a reality that if changed would only have a negative effect on their experience as players. And to be honest, I get that. It's easier to reject change than to adapt to it. It is a very human thing to do. This is precisely why I think most of the suspect tests will be biased as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-. I think the real world has taught us that a democracy where most of its individuals lack the necessary education can only go one way.

My post is not all crticque, I also came up with a proposal. How would people feel about an Ubers council? A handful of highly-educated individuals in current and past Ubers metagames who decide what is to be done based on reading the people's opinions. I think a fine way of preserving democracy in all this is by letting us vote for whom should be part of the council. I was thinking on maybe presenting 10 candidates with 5 of them + the 2 tier leaders becoming the senate council. I of course am not a mod or a tier leader but yeah, just an idea. This being said, the only thing that should be a suspect test if at all is AG ----> Ubers. People need to play it in order to know if they like it or not.

I'm gonna play the "it's my opinion" card now.

Bring it.
 

SparksBlade

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staffis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host
Community Leader
Edgar do you honestly believe there are a fuckton of players that just blindly stick to their pdon/goth teams without ever noticing they might be problematic to the tier AND will be able to just ladder to get the reqs?? "he ladders his heart out" idk if you just aren't aware, but most reqs now have a game limit on them so one can't just "ladder their heart out" to get them

making reqs harder to get keeps the decision open to public while weeding out inexperienced players to a good extent, so that takes care of your fears. i don't like the council system cos it brings stupid politics and popularity in the play and people already have reason to not trust the highest people in ubers

i also think it's foolish to base your post off the fact that the players who started out in ORAS just haven't played older gens at all, cos that's just plain incorrect and you're saying it for the sake of it without knowing the truth, playing your "veteran" card or w/e to back it up

sorry to mods if this post seems to be too rude, but i found the post really bad and couldn't hold back and that's my opinion
 
Edgar do you honestly believe there are a fuckton of players that just blindly stick to their pdon/goth teams without ever noticing they might be problematic to the tier AND will be able to just ladder to get the reqs?? "he ladders his heart out" idk if you just aren't aware, but most reqs now have a game limit on them so one can't just "ladder their heart out" to get them

making reqs harder to get keeps the decision open to public while weeding out inexperienced players to a good extent, so that takes care of your fears. i don't like the council system cos it brings stupid politics and popularity in the play and people already have reason to not trust the highest people in ubers

i also think it's foolish to base your post off the fact that the players who started out in ORAS just haven't played older gens at all, cos that's just plain incorrect and you're saying it for the sake of it without knowing the truth, playing your "veteran" card or w/e to back it up

sorry to mods if this post seems to be too rude, but i found the post really bad and couldn't hold back and that's my opinion
1. Yes I do.
2. Idk how strict these reqs are but let me ask this: If a good player starts getting haxed or w.e. and goes on tilt, putting a limit on how many games can be played just leaves someone more open to miss out because of luck.
3. Council: Be that as it may. Nevertheless, suspect tests have also proven to be disfunctional in this community, you can always try a new approach. That's why it was a proposal, a simple idea.
4. I implied that ORAS players haven't touched old-gens? I see the angry reply but just as you don't see my evidence to back up my thought, I don't see yours when you are telling me the opposite.

Also no, I'm not playing my "veteran" card. I don't even think most people nowadays know who I am to begin with. Get your angry head out of your ass before you take things out of context.
 

hyw

Banned deucer.
I've only read like 4 posts in this entire thread so if any of this has been said before I apologize.

First off, I would like to say that many ideas in this discussion are intriguing. However, by reading some posts from recent smogon joinees, looking at the poll on the Pokemon Showdown Ubers room and just reading discussions about some of the topics in this thread I came to the conclusion that the Ubers community is not ready for democracy and therefor suspect tests are a really bad idea. I know this is rather harsh from my part but I honestly think the playerbase has grown to such extent that most people don't recognize how certain Pokemon and mechanics have been incredibly toxic elements for the Ubers metagame ever since their release date. The thing is, I don't think its their fault. It's been 3 years since the release of ORAS and 4 years since the release of XY and obviously the playerbase has only increased since then, meaning that to a lot of players who have joined the community since then these toxic elements just appear as normal and just accepted them for what they were thinking little of it. What I'm getting at is that because people are so used to these elements and the fact that most of them haven't touched gens 4-5 they have little idea of what metagames without said elements would look like. This creates an extremely biased perspective that I will now examplify:

User Palkiapower24 started playing Ubers back in ORAS, he's used Primal Groudon on every team because it is a splashable mon that checks both Xerneas and Primal Kyogre, he's also used Mega Gengar and Gothitelle because he enjoys the idea of trapping Arceus formes and the like with very little effort, which helps him win games. In the face of Primal Groudon and Shadow Tag suspect tests Palkiapower24 feels threatened because his 2 staple team elements are on the edge of not being usable anyore. So, he ladders his heart out and gets reqs in order to stop them from being banned. He writes a 5,000 word essay on how Primal Groudon stabilizes the meta and how the unpredictable Eruption OHKOing Arceus-Ground is not entirely bullshit. On the other hand, user Lord Dragonbreath has been playing Ubers since XY and has participated in several old gen tournaments, consistently playing ADV, DPP and BW2, his knowledge of such metagames is remarkable and he understands that if Primal Groudon and Shadow Tag are gone, pokemon such as Arceus-Grass and Mega Scizor, which check Kyogre and Xerneas respectively become viable, and thus making the tier feel less volatile and bland.

Now, I think most of us can agree that the amount of Palkiapower24s in the Ubers community is significantly higher than the amount of Lord Dragonbreaths. Meaning that the majority of the people voting perhaps just perceive these elements in question as a reality that if changed would only have a negative effect on their experience as players. And to be honest, I get that. It's easier to reject change than to adapt to it. It is a very human thing to do. This is precisely why I think most of the suspect tests will be biased as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-. I think the real world has taught us that a democracy where most of its individuals lack the necessary education can only go one way.

My post is not all crticque, I also came up with a proposal. How would people feel about an Ubers council? A handful of highly-educated individuals in current and past Ubers metagames who decide what is to be done based on reading the people's opinions. I think a fine way of preserving democracy in all this is by letting us vote for whom should be part of the council. I was thinking on maybe presenting 10 candidates with 5 of them + the 2 tier leaders becoming the senate council. I of course am not a mod or a tier leader but yeah, just an idea. This being said, the only thing that should be a suspect test if at all is AG ----> Ubers. People need to play it in order to know if they like it or not.

I'm gonna play the "it's my opinion" card now.

Bring it.
Hey Edgar,

You are indeed a veteran and I have a lot of respect for you, but this is all too confusing.

What is the point of choosing not to embrace democracy? What is the point of taking decision-making power from everyone in the community and handing it to a small group of people? If we go down this path, yes, the tier will progress towards a product that fits the ideals of what the "educated" (whatever that means) prefer, but we would run the risk of ending up with something that the community does not agree with. Wouldn't that defeat the very purpose of playing this game? To have fun together?

What's more, I think that it is unfair to assume that one's opinion is inherently superior to another's. I don't think that there's an objectively right or wrong answer to how Ubers should be tiered; if anything, the right answer is the result of the community's vote, upon transparent and thoughtful discussion. For example, I believe that Primal Groudon and Shadow Tag are elements that enhance the health of the metagame. Naturally, I believe that those who disagree are wrong; however, that does not mean I value the opinions of those who disagree with me any less than I value mine. And I hope that those on the other side of the aisle treat my viewpoints with the same basis of respect. I guess that it's human nature to be inclined to give one's opinion more weight despite the opinions concerning matters of subjectivity, but I think that this is nothing more than a cognitive bias we should try our best not to let erode the fabric of our democracy.

I say all of this under the assumption that we are exclusively considering the opinions of those who have achieved a certain rank. I think that erecting a suspect ladder is the best method for weeding out uninformed persons from polluting substantive discussion, and I wholly agree with you there. Therefore, I think that the overarching discussion should turn more towards how high we should set the standard for ladder rankings, rather than by what means we can concede compromises to our democratic foundations.

On a side note, I think that we should set them pretty fucking high, so I guess we share some common ground. :) In short, I hate to see individuals irrelevant and unqualified to affect tiering policies contaminate the process as much as you do, but I think that your approach is wrong; we should examine the suspect ladder ranking standards rather than examining how to bottleneck the community's suffrage.
 
Last edited:
Rather than a council maybe we could do something to the effect of what OU did with Dugtrio (I think retrospectively for ORAS, but don't quote me). They objectively took something like the top 30 ORAS players in the last couple of years by tournament ranking and got them to vote. Perhaps reqs could be involved as well and these players who may be unmotivated to ladder qualify automatically? As hyw has said, I think democratically electing a council is far too subjective and popularity dependent.
 

SparksBlade

is a Tournament Directoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staffis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host
Community Leader
1. Yes I do.
2. Idk how strict these reqs are but let me ask this: If a good player starts getting haxed or w.e. and goes on tilt, putting a limit on how many games can be played just leaves someone more open to miss out because of luck.
3. Council: Be that as it may. Nevertheless, suspect tests have also proven to be disfunctional in this community, you can always try a new approach. That's why it was a proposal, a simple idea.
4. I implied that ORAS players haven't touched old-gens? I see the angry reply but just as you don't see my evidence to back up my thought, I don't see yours when you are telling me the opposite.

Also no, I'm not playing my "veteran" card. I don't even think most people nowadays know who I am to begin with. Get your angry head out of your ass before you take things out of context.
It's very unlikely for a good player to get haxed so many times that he just can't get reqs in the given time frame at all. Hack has also acknowledged that having longer suspect periods is a good idea, and that gives the unlucky-good player many opportunities to get his reqs.

I'm not sure which suspect test you are referring to, but last two suspects(MGar and Stag) don't seem to align with your point: one resulted in an outcome that the higher ups didn't like, so it led to another suspect which is infamous for bias from the higher ups while the outcome was the same.

It simply requires you to actually look into the community to see that many players are comfortable with older gens as well - our old-gen tours in subforums consistently get decent number of signups, and as I said, classic turned out to be sufficiently popular. And that's after much of the older-crop of players retired near the turn of ORAS, so I don't see where you're coming from when you say newer players haven't tried old gens enough. Sure, they haven't played BW Ubers as much as you have, but that doesn't mean they haven't felt the meta.

And that's not to say your entire argument is flimsy cos mechanic changes and new move tutors have already made such a large difference - I can remember how BW Ubers was "so much better" without a PDon or GeoXern, but that doesn't make any difference cos I'm also looking at a meta with permanent weather, no fairies, no Xerneas Yveltal, no Defog, Steel resists Ghosts, no Megas, weaker Knock Off and so much more that makes it different. And that's just from ORAS. Now Dark Void is nerfed, there are Z-Moves, more things have defog, there's Zygarde and Necrozma and so much more. Just knowing how older gens were makes no impact on how the current one is.

I'm not angry, I didn't resort to directly insulting you when replying to your points, and you're literally belittling newer players saying they don't know what's actually good just cos they started later so that sets up the context very well.

Already agree with hyw that suspect reqs should be pretty high, not sure what on byron's idea atm. I was also thinking that we first have the suspect ladder up for about a week before players can start getting reqs so nobody gets them on day 1 and comes without actually having looked at what the meta becomes, but so far haven't found a way to actually do it without having to reset the ladder after 1 week(doesn't sound good).
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The "old gen" and "veteran" experience is actually a bias in its own way. Edgar you note that the new player who is used to P Don and S-tag might feel threatened with having to adapt to a new metagame which may or may not be true, but on the other hand, couldn't they come around and make the same argument that "hey, this metagame is totally fine, why are you so nostalgic about what used to be a good metagame?" You can't really say that the newer player has an inferior opinion because they haven't played old metagames because it's what they know about the current metagame that matters. Why should we impose XY's or BW2's standards to USUM?

As for high level council players and having a council, we have tried that system before, to mixed results (you may as well put TL-only decisions in this category since it's basically just a smaller council). The only problem with this approach is the fact that it generally boils down to decisions made behind closed doors without community consultation. We have seen before that "high-level" player opinions can often misalign with community expectations. The S-tag suspect was a perfect example of this. A bunch of high level players who all wanted to push for banning an element most of the community thought was fine and ridiculed players who thought otherwise - ended up with a huge shitstorm. Suspect tests are messy and littered with bad players and stupid opinions, don't get me wrong, but I'd much rather a system like this which is transparent and has full community input (which of course needs to be properly moderated) rather than one decided by a handful of potentially very biased "faceless men".
 

mags

Banned deucer.
Edgar You don't need oldgen experience to know how the new gens function. Sure it gives you different perspectives on what the tier once was but that hardly matters. I'm goomg to suck my bestfriends cock right now. The Trap God started in oras and he knows the oras/sumo tier a lot better than many people including vets. I just used him as an example cuz most people know him but thats the case with many people. This is all about opinions anyways like if we wanted to do a council it's gonna be biased whether it's 10 smart players or 10 dumb players. Sure there is a high chance that the council will make the correct decisions but the correct decisions are still biased. Another note is you say suspects didn't work in the past etc and you can play that card but it backfires on your argument. The suspect was god awful because the tierleader made it awful not the community. The community actually got cucced by ppl deleting posts making it biased towards the select few players that just hated stag and If we did a council they can do that same thing except they would get away with it easily. At least if we do suspects we get to see the WHOLE communities perspectives and it's a lot healthier that way than selecting a few people to do all the work. Not only does it give a chance for people to be apart of the community rather than be controlled by a group of popular players but we would get to do suspect ladders and actually SEE what the tier would be like if we banned something which is the whole point.

Newer players are actually probably better since they are fresh they have no biased views.. they just see the tier as it is. Yea people might have that mindset with teambuilding that they need a pdon etc but don't be naive to assume that they NEED pdon or whatever in ubers to be successful. After the suspect whether they go in wanting pdon to stay or not they will get to play the tier without a pdon and get their own opinion on the tier without pdon and if they think it's healthier without it they would vote ban whether it was their fav mon or not MOST of the time. We shouldn't just try to get newer gens to be as close to bw as possible or whatever gen you found most attracting we should make the tier as healthy as possible with least amount of bans.
 
I guess my post came out wrong. I didn't mean to imply that one's opinion should be over other's because they have played old gens, which is what people are getting from it. What I am trying to say here is that the community isn't ready for this task because time and time again, they have showed their prowess when it comes to discussions about subjects such as this one. It happened in the MGar + Shadow Tag suspect back in XY, it happened in my thread about Primal Groudon back in ORAS, it happened in the HypnoGar discussion last year and it's happening and will continue to happen here. My fear of a suspect test is tied directly to the reasoning behind one's vote. If you think Shadow Tag is a healthy element then be my guest, I won't say anything even if I think otherwise. But if you stop being objective and still get to vote, then that's when I have a problem with it. A vote, regardless of the nature it is based upon can decide whether something will or won't be done. Now, I wish we could rely on a filter to avoid this but we had one last suspect test and we all know how that turned out. therefor, as a member of the Ubers community I'm left in a very awakward position. I believe one's reasoning behind a vote isn't parallel to skill, I can get reqs and vote but use platitudes and very biased remarks to get what I want, yet my vote has to be taken into account because I got reqs. And, if there is a filter of any nature, who is to say the reasoning behind my vote isn't fair? "Who are you to tell me that I am not allowed to think this way?" I mean, are you saying I'm not allowed to feel this way after having whitnessed the behavior of this community when it came to important decisions? I may have taken the wrong approach but I stand by the fact that the Ubers peoples aren't capable of stating what they want in a more objectively inclined way. That's mainly why I'm opposed to tests and why I think a council wouldn't be the worst idea. If you think otherwise then that's fine. I apologize if I insulted someone's intelligence, I was trying to make a point but I recognize it wasn't the best way to do it. I am not speaking as a veteran, I am merely speaking as someone who has wanted an opportunity like this for years and now that it's here wants it to be done in the best way possible.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The thing is though, as much as anyone wants to be as "objective" as possible, every vote by their nature is subjective. Whatever anyone votes for is always influenced by their experiences, whether it's a new player just starting in USUM or an old player with a broad spectrum of metagame knowledge and experience. In the end, everyone is biased in their opinion, as much as they want to be objective. This is why a full community suspect test actually works better than a council. Outside of a platform where everyone can express their opinion (even uninformed), it also dilutes bias. While on the council, you have people who want to think as holistically as possible, you'd still end up with 10 people (or however many you want to make a council) with their own biases. On the other hand, when you have a full community, you'd have probably >100 people voting. Bias is diluted by sample size - this is known from statistics. You can even work out mathematically how big a sample size needs to be to keep bias insignificant. We do this in clinical trials all the time. I get high level players with a wealth of experience tend to think more holistically about the state of the metagame, but you can't pretend that they are any more objective than your average joe because a choice by definition is subjective.
 

Nixon73

Scuttlebug Jamboree
I guess my post came out wrong. I didn't mean to imply that one's opinion should be over other's because they have played old gens, which is what people are getting from it. What I am trying to say here is that the community isn't ready for this task because time and time again, they have showed their prowess when it comes to discussions about subjects such as this one. It happened in the MGar + Shadow Tag suspect back in XY, it happened in my thread about Primal Groudon back in ORAS, it happened in the HypnoGar discussion last year and it's happening and will continue to happen here. My fear of a suspect test is tied directly to the reasoning behind one's vote. If you think Shadow Tag is a healthy element then be my guest, I won't say anything even if I think otherwise. But if you stop being objective and still get to vote, then that's when I have a problem with it. A vote, regardless of the nature it is based upon can decide whether something will or won't be done. Now, I wish we could rely on a filter to avoid this but we had one last suspect test and we all know how that turned out. therefor, as a member of the Ubers community I'm left in a very awakward position. I believe one's reasoning behind a vote isn't parallel to skill, I can get reqs and vote but use platitudes and very biased remarks to get what I want, yet my vote has to be taken into account because I got reqs. And, if there is a filter of any nature, who is to say the reasoning behind my vote isn't fair? "Who are you to tell me that I am not allowed to think this way?" I mean, are you saying I'm not allowed to feel this way after having whitnessed the behavior of this community when it came to important decisions? I may have taken the wrong approach but I stand by the fact that the Ubers peoples aren't capable of stating what they want in a more objectively inclined way. That's mainly why I'm opposed to tests and why I think a council wouldn't be the worst idea. If you think otherwise then that's fine. I apologize if I insulted someone's intelligence, I was trying to make a point but I recognize it wasn't the best way to do it. I am not speaking as a veteran, I am merely speaking as someone who has wanted an opportunity like this for years and now that it's here wants it to be done in the best way possible.
I think part of the reason why you're seeing a backlash is because you phrased your original post around specific game elements that you didn't like. You come off as sounding like you want a specific meta (basically getting XY back through banning all the important new stuff) and basing your suggestions off of that.

I think this ties to a broader point that we should all try to keep in mind in this discussion: We should definitely NOT decide the rules of the Ubers tier based off of specific things we want to see banned or not banned. There is a certain shortsightedness that can seem tempting when thinking about these changes (i.e. "Yay, a chance to finally get rid of STag, let's give more power to the current council!" "I've always wanted a more AG-like meta, so let's give more power to the players!").
The problem with this kind of thinking is in part that it doesn't work: new stuff is always going to come out, and your opinions are not reliably going to be reflected in the system you favor.
More importantly, it creates a huge resentment in whatever side loses when they feel like the rules of the tier were messed up just so that the changes to the meta that they didn't want would happen. This is the most fundamental problem with the STag suspects: not the fact that people were losing a meta element they liked, but the general feeling that the entire tier was having rules changed so a group could get what they want.

What I'm trying to say is, let's try to think of the new tiering system in terms of setting up something that can deal with generic issues in the fairest and best way possible. The more we think about it as a tool to force specific meta changes we personally want, the more controversial the results will be, and the worse off the tier will be in the long-run.
 
The thing is though, as much as anyone wants to be as "objective" as possible, every vote by their nature is subjective. Whatever anyone votes for is always influenced by their experiences, whether it's a new player just starting in USUM or an old player with a broad spectrum of metagame knowledge and experience. In the end, everyone is biased in their opinion, as much as they want to be objective.
I am very aware of that (should have mentioned it in my post but oh well), nevertheless, sure you can say knowing what >100 people want is better than doing what 10 peoople want but, if out of those 100 people 70 of them haven't gathered as much experience as the other 30 then the quality of the voters, whether they vote aye or nay is way more questionable than 10/10 people with experience voting (quality over quantity is better in my opinion). And, I see your point about sometimes the community won't get what it wants, that's why I suggested that the community chooses the council. If the community chose its representatives I'm sure the backlash would be much lower than what you're making it sound like.

I think part of the reason why you're seeing a backlash is because you phrased your original post around specific game elements that you didn't like. You come off as sounding like you want a specific meta (basically getting XY back through banning all the important new stuff) and basing your suggestions off of that.

I think this ties to a broader point that we should all try to keep in mind in this discussion: We should definitely NOT decide the rules of the Ubers tier based off of specific things we want to see banned or not banned. There is a certain shortsightedness that can seem tempting when thinking about these changes (i.e. "Yay, a chance to finally get rid of STag, let's give more power to the current council!" "I've always wanted a more AG-like meta, so let's give more power to the players!").
The problem with this kind of thinking is in part that it doesn't work: new stuff is always going to come out, and your opinions are not reliably going to be reflected in the system you favor.
More importantly, it creates a huge resentment in whatever side loses when they feel like the rules of the tier were messed up just so that the changes to the meta that they didn't want would happen. This is the most fundamental problem with the STag suspects: not the fact that people were losing a meta element they liked, but the general feeling that the entire tier was having rules changed so a group could get what they want.

What I'm trying to say is, let's try to think of the new tiering system in terms of setting up something that can deal with generic issues in the fairest and best way possible. The more we think about it as a tool to force specific meta changes we personally want, the more controversial the results will be, and the worse off the tier will be in the long-run.
No, I don't think that's it. I used those examples because I think they are the most superficial and easy to understand, not because I want that to happen necessarily, in fact, I am leaning towards not banning Shadow Tag if it ever comes to it as of now (but that's besides the point). And yes sure, stuff is always gonna come out and the system can always be modified or adapted to the situation, who's to say a council isn't the better option now but suspects won't be the better one in the future once Ubers players get used to idea that a ban could actually happen? And of course, whether is a suspect test or a council the losing party will always be at least a bit resentful whether they admit it or not, nobody likes losing. I think that applies in almost every background.
 
To me Primal Groudon is the Landorus T of this tier. Very splashable and can really run anything it wants. Special, physical, rock polish sweeper, tanky stealth rock, mixed, ect.

I do not believe it's broken to the point of anything goes just because it's so good. In OU terms: "just because it's good, and has a really high usage, doesn't mean it's broken"

Understandably at this point people hate seeing p-don every uber battle but to me it doesn't scream unhealthy for the meta. (Now if we could have a viable water type with cloud nine that would be great. Or run surf Rayquaza -shrug-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top