Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers - Page 3

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

  1. #31
    Very fruity and batty. Noivern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Don't look for it.
    Posts
    7,831
    Blog Entries
    195
    Follow Noivern On Twitter

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    UP. I always found that the Smogon tier list is rather unappealing, especially after the Salamence fiasco. I'm going with what evkl suggested... but with an addition: Wobby and co are banned.
    Hey, it's Noivern here. I like Noivern a lot. I like Katy Perry. I want a Hydreigon plushie. Also, I'm a total PC geek.
    Links

  2. #32
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    108

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Miar View Post
    My proposal is to base it on total base stats (use the wiki). If they're:
    -- Over 600 (Mewtwo, Dialga, Arceus, Ho-Oh, etc.) = banned in standard battles
    -- Exactly 600 (Dragonite, Metagross, Mew, Latios/as without Soul Dew) = one allowed per team
    (a Lati with Soul Dew would pass the 600-point marker and be banned)

    Also, I know how much of a pain in the tail Wobbuffet is. Ban Wobbuffet and put Wynaut with the 600-point group

    That's all the farther I've thought on this.
    If we're going to have a Bulbagarden system, it has to be based on observation and experimentation. We can't just slap down a regulation and have it at that, even one that's more deeply thought about than stats and abilities.

    But as for that, here's the system I would propose: (be prepared, this is going to be a long ride)

    The basic gist of the system is to rank Pokémon by usage, not just by battling ability - just like with technical analysis in a stock market, the two are usually correlated, but one is more readily measurable than the other, although admittedly less useful. However, this system does not aim to ban any Pokémon, per se - just to rank them into tiers. Then, each individual tournament can decide for themselves which Pokémon are allowed or not.

    Within a tier, each Pokémon has what is called a "relative representation", which is a measure of how dominant a Pokémon is within a tier, how how commonly it is used compared to other Pokémon. This ratio is equal to the proportion of that Pokémon, divided by the proportion of any other Pokémon.

    So, if, say, Garchomp accounts for 8.4% of all Tier 8 (OU1) Pokémon, its relative representation is calculated as 0.084 / 0.916 = about 0.0917, or 9.17%.

    Now, each Pokémon within a tier also has a measure of how dominant it should be within a tier - its "fair share". This is simply the actual relative representation when each Pokémon is represented equally. Let's say that there are 15 Pokémon in Tier 8 - then Garchomp's fair share of relative representation is (1/15)/(14/15) = 7.14%.

    Now, what I propose as the promotion/demotion system is quite simple. It is as thus:

    • If a Pokémon's actual relative representation exceeds double its fair share, then it should be promoted to the next higher tier.
    • If a Pokémon's actual relative representation falls short of one-half its fair share, then it should be demoted to a lower tier.

    It is still an empirical system, and does not require any banning for arbitrary periods of time.

    My proposed tier system again, for those of us who didn't catch it and are confused when I use terms like Tier 8 and OU1:

    Tier 9 - Ubers (Uber)
    Tier 8 - Overused Level 1 (OU1)
    Tier 7 - Overused Level 2 (OU2)
    Tier 6 - Overused Level 3 (OU3)
    Tier 5 - Borderline/Medium Usage (BL/MU)
    Tier 4 - Underused Level 3 (UU3)
    Tier 3 - Underused Level 2 (UU2)
    Tier 2 - Underused Level 1 (UU1)
    Tier 1 - Never Used (NU)

    I'm aiming to have the tiers (except for maybe Ubers) follow a nice bell-curve distribution, so the factor-of-2 thing may be adjusted accordingly.
    Last edited by Zekurom; 5th February 2011 at 11:51 PM.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  3. #33
    I Wobb You Sublime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post
    So, if, say, Garchomp accounts for 8.4% of all Tier 8 (OU1) Pokémon, its relative representation is calculated as 0.084 / 0.916 = about 0.0917, or 9.17%.
    The math confuses me. Where did the 0.0917 come from...?
    My proposed tier system again, for those of us who didn't catch it:
    Tier 9 - Ubers (Uber)
    Tier 8 - Overused Level 1 (OU1)
    Tier 7 - Overused Level 2 (OU2)
    Tier 6 - Overused Level 3 (OU3)
    Tier 5 - Borderline/Medium Usage (BL/MU)
    Tier 4 - Underused Level 3 (UU3)
    Tier 3 - Underused Level 2 (UU2)
    Tier 2 - Underused Level 1 (UU1)
    Tier 1 - Never Used (NU)

    I'm aiming to have the tiers (except for maybe Ubers) follow a nice bell-curve distribution, so the factor-of-2 thing may be adjusted accordingly.
    I still don't get having 3 of the same tier. When someone says I want a OU battle, does that mean OU1, OU2, or OU3, OR all of OU? If it's all of OU then why is it split into 3 different parts...? If not, then that means we're going to have quite a few Pokemon per tier....basically a crappy metagame.
    Former staff member - 2010
    Formerly known as - insomniac
    Competitive Player

  4. #34
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    108

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Sublimε View Post
    The math confuses me. Where did the 0.0917 come from...?
    If I need to use algebra, so be it.

    Let p be the proportion of one Pokémon in a tier (a real number from 0 to 1). Then the relative representation is:

    rr = p / (1-p)

    Basically, a measure of the dominance of one Pokémon. If this number is larger than 1, that means that Pokémon has a majority in terms of representation, which is very bad.

    I still don't get having 3 of the same tier. When someone says I want a OU battle, does that mean OU1, OU2, or OU3, OR all of OU? If it's all of OU then why is it split into 3 different parts...? If not, then that means we're going to have quite a few Pokemon per tier....basically a crappy metagame.
    They don't have to be called OU1, OU2, and OU3. They're just placeholder names. Officially, they'd be called Tier 7, Tier 8, etc.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  5. #35
    Banana eating Gengar GengarEatBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CN.M.V.A
    Posts
    1,749
    Blog Entries
    66

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    UP Although a good idea I have some questions. I understand what you mean by the first month or two would be hectic, but when Deoxys, Darkrai and the likes of which get (quickly) relegated to Uber, won't there be a bit of void, with new Pokemon moving up the tiers till the whole structure is a bit top-heavy. Many people like to play the UU and NU metagames and like the large range of diversity.

    This begs me to ask, how many Pokemon would there be in each tier?

    ------------------------


    I have officially claimed Wailord
    Check out my Reviews on the Bug Type, just go to my blog here

  6. #36
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    108

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by GengarEatBanana View Post
    This begs me to ask, how many Pokemon would there be in each tier?
    I don't know about evkl, but I'm aiming for either a uniform or a normal distribution.

    That means for 5 tiers, there should be about 35% to 40% in Medium Usage.
    For 9 tiers, it's about 25% to 30% in Medium Usage.
    Last edited by Zekurom; 6th February 2011 at 09:41 AM.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  7. #37
    Can I get an encore? evkl's Avatar Vice-Webmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,631
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    The point of this is to basically spend some time rehashing what's used and what isn't; Smogon just has a banlist of ubers. Who knows if something on that list would get used too often? Nobody, because they're basically banned from the outset. Which is why I'm saying we start fresh. Ban the ridiculously overpowered stuff and then just let everything play out until it settles into a metagame.

    It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, as some have argued, because there hits a point where it'll "spread out" nicely in terms of stat distribution, typing, etc. At the top, there's not a lot of room for diversity.
    "And we're not gods, we're just hacks."

    blog | twitter | Bulbagraphic

  8. #38
    I Wobb You Sublime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Also how are you going to look at certain items, moves, and abilities(Dream World for example)? Are you going to ban what is deemed "overpowered" or go with the flow and see what happens?
    Former staff member - 2010
    Formerly known as - insomniac
    Competitive Player

  9. #39
    Magical Girl Shiny Celebi's Avatar Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Genderless
    Posts
    22,025
    Blog Entries
    199
    Follow Shiny Celebi On Twitter
    Follow Shiny Celebi on Tumblr

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Smogon's system is already too complicated for me to understand and i really want to learn about competitive battling so i dont know how to feel about this. I vote UP as long as it will be made simple for people new to the Battling stuff to understand

  10. #40
    Can I get an encore? evkl's Avatar Vice-Webmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,631
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    My goal is to ban what's overused, not overpowered per se. I assume anything overpowered will be overused, but that might not be the case for some reason. Let's say Garchomp gets super-popular but a bunch of people just start throwing Ice Beam on literally everything and Garchomp ends up as a kind of oddly discouraged strategy because it has counters everywhere.

    I don't think there's any good way to determine what's overpowered. I want to open up a metagame that has lots of diverse strategy options and various Pokemon to achieve those ends, not the "top ten are everywhere" thing that's gone on basically since Generation 2.
    "And we're not gods, we're just hacks."

    blog | twitter | Bulbagraphic

  11. #41
    Now with more cowbell. Axle Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Maryland (GMT-5)
    Posts
    1,683
    Follow Axle Helios On Twitter
    Follow Axle Helios on Tumblr Visit Axle Helios's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post
    If we're going to have a Bulbagarden system, it has to be based on observation and experimentation. We can't just slap down a regulation and have it at that, even one that's more deeply thought about than stats and abilities.

    But as for that, here's the system I would propose: (be prepared, this is going to be a long ride)

    The basic gist of the system is to rank Pokémon by usage, not just by battling ability - just like with technical analysis in a stock market, the two are usually correlated, but one is more readily measurable than the other, although admittedly less useful. However, this system does not aim to ban any Pokémon, per se - just to rank them into tiers. Then, each individual tournament can decide for themselves which Pokémon are allowed or not.

    Within a tier, each Pokémon has what is called a "relative representation", which is a measure of how dominant a Pokémon is within a tier, how how commonly it is used compared to other Pokémon. This ratio is equal to the proportion of that Pokémon, divided by the proportion of any other Pokémon.

    So, if, say, Garchomp accounts for 8.4% of all Tier 8 (OU1) Pokémon, its relative representation is calculated as 0.084 / 0.916 = about 0.0917, or 9.17%.

    Now, each Pokémon within a tier also has a measure of how dominant it should be within a tier - its "fair share". This is simply the actual relative representation when each Pokémon is represented equally. Let's say that there are 15 Pokémon in Tier 8 - then Garchomp's fair share of relative representation is (1/15)/(14/15) = 7.14%.

    Now, what I propose as the promotion/demotion system is quite simple. It is as thus:

    • If a Pokémon's actual relative representation exceeds double its fair share, then it should be promoted to the next higher tier.
    • If a Pokémon's actual relative representation falls short of one-half its fair share, then it should be demoted to a lower tier.

    It is still an empirical system, and does not require any banning for arbitrary periods of time.

    My proposed tier system again, for those of us who didn't catch it and are confused when I use terms like Tier 8 and OU1:

    Tier 9 - Ubers (Uber)
    Tier 8 - Overused Level 1 (OU1)
    Tier 7 - Overused Level 2 (OU2)
    Tier 6 - Overused Level 3 (OU3)
    Tier 5 - Borderline/Medium Usage (BL/MU)
    Tier 4 - Underused Level 3 (UU3)
    Tier 3 - Underused Level 2 (UU2)
    Tier 2 - Underused Level 1 (UU1)
    Tier 1 - Never Used (NU)

    I'm aiming to have the tiers (except for maybe Ubers) follow a nice bell-curve distribution, so the factor-of-2 thing may be adjusted accordingly.
    I UP this suggestion. I up it a ridiculous amount. It may seem complicated, but it seems that once it's run for a while, it'll work out great. And the fact that Pokémon can move down as soon as they aren't commonly used means that the race to the bottom problem won't happen. I'd most definitely use this over Smogon's, and unlike others, I feel that havin' quite a few tiers is a good thing. Means more strategies can pop up, for example being able to have a Sandstorm team, but only being able to use Hippowdon and not Tyranitar.
    I got my claims down on Quagsire, Miror B, Roar and Sand Stream.
    Winner of Burned Planet Mafia and Plants vs Zombies Mafia.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •