Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers - Page 2
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 204

Thread: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

  1. #16
    Ur 2 Slow!! Sanic Hegehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    Gran heel zun
    Posts
    1,516

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post
    Excuse my ignorance, but what are UT and LC?
    UT is UU, but I'm not sure what it means.

    LC, however, refers to the Little Cup tier.

  2. #17
    Based Mod Dan's Avatar Social Media EditorModerator
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Bangor? I hardly know her!
    Posts
    6,318
    Blog Entries
    893

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Let's not use Greek.

  3. #18
    In glorious technicolor The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,884
    Blog Entries
    1017

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post
    By usage. There's no objective way to determine power, except by perhaps base stats, and that's very non-strategic.
    Smogon's is by usage too so I don't really see the difference, unless the Bulbagarden's PO server can also take statistics on what's used and what's not and we're tailoring our tier system based on that.

    And since it is usage, just go with the usage terms since its most intuitive, but if using it outside of Bulbagarden, just specify its the Bulbagarden Tier.

    Or just go with a variation what I suggested:

    High Usage
    Medium Usage
    Low Usage

    And then create a ban tier for each one based on whether its broken in that usage tier rather than bumping it up a tier since that's pretty misleading.

    HU Ban
    High Usage
    MU Ban
    Medium Usage
    LU Ban
    Low Usage

    And basically, anything in a higher usage tier is intuitively banned from lower usage tiers.

    Wondering if we could do tiers for other battle styles though, like Miracle Shooter and Double and Triple battle, and also how we could keep track of usage there (I guess people who battle could always report on the Pokemon they see)

    EDIT: And based on statistics, probably the top 30% on the high usage, 31%-69% medium and the bottom 30% low. Things that are obviously overpowered (like the 680 legendaries) would be in the highest ban tier thus allowing every Pokemon to compete there.
    Last edited by The Outrage; 6th February 2011 at 09:16 PM.

  4. #19
    Ur 2 Slow!! Sanic Hegehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    Gran heel zun
    Posts
    1,516

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    I think Doubles, Triples, Rotational, and Miracle shooter should have sub-tiers sort of like Little Cup.

  5. #20
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    107

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Alpha View Post
    I think Doubles, Triples, Rotational, and Miracle shooter should have sub-tiers sort of like Little Cup.
    Or we have separate tiers for double, triple, and rotational battles, but that has the potential to get really complicated.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  6. #21
    In glorious technicolor The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,884
    Blog Entries
    1017

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Alpha View Post
    I think Doubles, Triples, Rotational, and Miracle shooter should have sub-tiers sort of like Little Cup.
    I don't see why it should be sub-tiers when the battle style is completely different. They should have their own separate tier system, and that's something Bulbagarden could do that as far as I know of, Smogon isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post
    Or we have separate tiers for double, triple, and rotational battles, but that has the potential to get really complicated.
    I don't really see how its any more complicated if we're basing this off on usage. Yeah, some Pokémon may inherently become overused due to being in combination with another, but I don't see how that's different than in Gen III where Magneton's usage was brought up only because of Skarmory. The only thing that could be complicated is deciding what's broken.

  7. #22
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    107

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Outrage View Post
    Smogon's is by usage too so I don't really see the difference, unless the Bulbagarden's PO server can also take statistics on what's used and what's not and we're tailoring our tier system based on that.
    That was the idea I was aiming for, and I think what evkl wanted too. As far as I know, Smogon bases theirs off their analysis of a Pokémon's battling ability.

    EDIT: And based on statistics, probably the top 30% on the high usage, 31%-69% medium and the bottom 30% low. Things that are obviously overpowered (like the 680 legendaries) would be in the highest ban tier thus allowing every Pokemon to compete there.
    Here are the percentages I'm trying to aim for with my 9-tier system:

    Tier 9 - 3%
    Tier 8 - 6%
    Tier 7 - 12%
    Tier 6 - 18%
    Tier 5 - 22%
    Tier 4 - 18%
    Tier 3 - 12%
    Tier 2 - 6%
    Tier 1 - 3%

    Or something to that effect.

    Also, how do you determine when something is "obviously broken"? Let's let usage determine that, instead of passing any sort of preliminary judgment. Remember, we want this to have as little bias as possible.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  8. #23
    (✿◔ ◡ ◔) Tolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,356
    Blog Entries
    7
    Follow Tolan On Twitter
    Follow Tolan on Tumblr

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    I still don't get why wee need 9 tiers.

  9. #24
    Lighting Things on Fire Sarcastically Insane's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    EST time zone
    Posts
    1,728
    Blog Entries
    268

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    I think 7 tiers would be plenty, really.
    Currently writing Hoenn Wars, a Travelsverse fic that needs no prior Travelsverse knowledge to understand. Chapter Seven, Sacrifice, is up.



    That's interesting; I might have a look when I have the time. Thanks!

    EDIT: Oh my god, these are too many links! Very specific...
    ^Someone's first impression of TVTropes.

  10. #25
    In glorious technicolor The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,884
    Blog Entries
    1017

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post

    Also, how do you determine when something is "obviously broken"? Let's let usage determine that, instead of passing any sort of preliminary judgment. Remember, we want this to have as little bias as possible.
    Well that was based on things that were obviously broken in the past. Obviously now its not that clear.

    Usage itself shouldn't determine whether its broken. The definition of "Broken" should be if a Pokémon has next-to-no counters in their respective usage tier.

    The usage tiers would develop over the first few weeks or so (and obviously isn't a static thing, but an actual list should appear after that time). The the ban tiers would split them up some more.

    I mean, just because no one uses Palkia, doesn't mean it fits on the lowest usage tier where things like Pachirisu would go. So then under my tier system, it would go on the LU Ban, but then that would allow it to be used in higher tiers anyway. So let's say it isn't broken in high usage, but is broken in medium usage, then it rests at MU ban even if it isn't used.

    It goes with the idea that usage will dictate which Pokemon are most powerful, as people will intuitively use the most powerful Pokémon to win, but just because some people subscribe to an unwritten rule that Legendaries are cheap and affects its usage, we shouldn't overlook the fact that a Palkia in the lowest tier would still be broken.

    Maybe Palkia's not a good example, but let's say Dragonite since there are many other Dragons that it would compete with and certainly not get a lot of usage. Under what I proposed, let's pretend Dragonite is at the bottom 30% of use, along with Pachirisu and the likes. I guess we could test to see if any of those Pokémon can counter it without centralizing the game, if not, then it gets bumped up to the LU ban. Dragonite is still usable in the Medium Usage tier, so you test it there as well. Find that its broken, bump up to MU ban. Dragonite gets tested for High Usage, finds that it does well, but statistics say that people don't use it anyway, MU ban tier is where it stays. The HU ban is basically where Pokémon that are too broken for everything else goes.

    That was the idea I was aiming for, and I think what evkl wanted too. As far as I know, Smogon bases theirs off their analysis of a Pokémon's battling ability.
    Traditionally it was usage under the premise that things that are most powerful will get used.

    And every new set of games that add something significant in terms of movepool and abilities would get rid of the ban tiers only to be tested again.
    Last edited by The Outrage; 6th February 2011 at 09:50 PM.

  11. #26
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    107

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Outrage View Post
    Well that was based on things that were obviously broken in the past. Obviously now its not that clear.

    Usage itself shouldn't determine whether its broken. The definition of "Broken" should be if a Pokémon has next-to-no counters in their respective usage tier.
    If they have next-to-no counters, I'm pretty sure they'd get bumped up pretty quickly as people started using them.

    I mean, just because no one uses Palkia, doesn't mean it fits on the lowest usage tier where things like Pachirisu would go. So then under my tier system, it would go on the LU Ban, but then that would allow it to be used in higher tiers anyway. So let's say it isn't broken in high usage, but is broken in medium usage, then it rests at MU ban even if it isn't used.
    You're misunderstanding the system. Because nobody uses Palkia, it would go into the bottom tier, but then people would start using it, pushing it back up again.

    It goes with the idea that usage will dictate which Pokemon are most powerful, as people will intuitively use the most powerful Pokémon to win, but just because some people subscribe to an unwritten rule that Legendaries are cheap and affects its usage, we shouldn't overlook the fact that a Palkia in the lowest tier would still be broken.
    If it's broken but nobody's using it, there's no point in moving it either up or down, as this implies that people don't realize it's broken. We're depending on an efficient market here, which means that Pokémon in the wrong place will get adjusted relatively quickly to where they should be.

    Traditionally it was usage under the premise that things that are most powerful will get used.
    Right.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  12. #27
    In glorious technicolor The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,884
    Blog Entries
    1017

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    You're misunderstanding the system. Because nobody uses Palkia, it would go into the bottom tier, but then people would start using it, pushing it back up again.

    If it's broken but nobody's using it, there's no point in moving it either up or down, as this implies that people don't realize it's broken. We're depending on an efficient market here, which means that Pokémon in the wrong place will get adjusted relatively quickly to where they should be.
    Fair point.

    The problem I see with my tier system is that the strong get coupled with the weak, so perhaps restricting the higher tiers to lower percentage windows would in effect, be better.

    Perhaps not a nine, but a seven tier.

  13. #28
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    107

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Outrage View Post
    Fair point.

    The problem I see with my tier system is that the strong get coupled with the weak, so perhaps restricting the higher tiers to lower percentage windows would in effect, be better.

    Perhaps not a nine, but a seven tier.
    7 tiers might work too. Technically, my proposal would work with any number of tiers, but I chose 9 because I thought it was a cool number.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  14. #29
    In glorious technicolor The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,884
    Blog Entries
    1017

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    So how do you propose it gets made and maintained? A free-for-all early Gen V? The only problem I can see with maintenance, is, let's say people prefer playing battles in Tier 7, does that mean that those Pokemon get bumped up because they get used a lot?

    Or do we maintain a free-for-all room where we can maintain what Pokémon are most used to keep the tier system up properly for people that prefer playing in different tiers?

  15. #30
    is obsessed with Noivern! Zekurom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,658
    Blog Entries
    107

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by Outrage View Post
    So how do you propose it gets made and maintained? A free-for-all early Gen V? The only problem I can see with maintenance, is, let's say people prefer playing battles in Tier 7, does that mean that those Pokemon get bumped up because they get used a lot?
    I think this is another misunderstanding. The relative proportion of usage I was talking about is within a tier.

    So if people like playing in Tier 7, but they use the Pokémon within that tier fairly equally compared to each other, none of them will get bumped up or down. Where as if some Pokémon (hypothetically) in Tier 2, say, Bibarel, was only used 0.05% of the time in all battles but was used way too much to be within its current tier, it would still get bumped up.
    Last edited by Zekurom; 6th February 2011 at 10:31 PM.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

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
  •