Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers - Page 3

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 204
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

  1. #31
    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 forsee a problem, or at least I think I do.

    Say Pokemon X (let's say Shedinja, because this holds true for it) is almost completely unusable. Tier 1, 2, 3... it can barely hold its own in any of those. But it's used a bunch in tier 8 or 9, because there are so few counters for it there, and it has a small chance to shine- what happens then? Is it promoted to tier 9?

    And also, on the whole 'fair share'- I'm wondering how that will be affected by the fact that, say in tier 7, there's a Pokemon that is usuable, but it's in tier 6. It isn't overwhelming in either tier (why it's in 6), but it's there. How would this (or, realistically, many pokemon like this) affect the tiers?

    Just wondering.
    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.

  2. #32
    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

    Seriously: let's not worry about the naming of the tiers for now. That's not really all that important.

    What I am concerned with, though, is the relative weighting and the number of specific brackets we have available. 7 seems like a better number than 9, but I think while we're beta-testing it we should be pretty open to still shifting that around.

    For those that say Smogon's tiers are based on usage, well, I think that's pretty specious. They just clear out the top stuff into UU; other than that, you can easily hit 25%+ representation with no ramifications.
    "And we're not gods, we're just hacks."

    blog | twitter | Bulbagraphic

  3. #33
    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 Sarcastically Insane View Post
    Say Pokemon X (let's say Shedinja, because this holds true for it) is almost completely unusable. Tier 1, 2, 3... it can barely hold its own in any of those. But it's used a bunch in tier 8 or 9, because there are so few counters for it there, and it has a small chance to shine- what happens then? Is it promoted to tier 9?
    Nope. I think I explained "usage within a tier" the wrong way - I meant usage compared to other Pokémon in that tier.

    So let's say that Shedinja is in Tier 2. It wouldn't matter that it's being used in Tier 8 battles - if it's being used less than or the same amount as most of the Pokémon in Tier 2, then it still won't be bumped up.

    And also, on the whole 'fair share'- I'm wondering how that will be affected by the fact that, say in tier 7, there's a Pokemon that is usable, but it's in tier 6. It isn't overwhelming in either tier (why it's in 6), but it's there. How would this (or, realistically, many pokemon like this) affect the tiers?
    It would probably stay in Tier 6 until something happened to push it up to Tier 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by evkl View Post
    Seriously: let's not worry about the naming of the tiers for now. That's not really all that important.

    What I am concerned with, though, is the relative weighting and the number of specific brackets we have available. 7 seems like a better number than 9, but I think while we're beta-testing it we should be pretty open to still shifting that around.
    Of course. A lot of stuff will be shifted around, but I hope the basic mechanic is understandable.

    For those that say Smogon's tiers are based on usage, well, I think that's pretty specious. They just clear out the top stuff into UU; other than that, you can easily hit 25%+ representation with no ramifications.
    What do you mean by "25% representation"?
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  4. #34
    Registered User The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,178
    Blog Entries
    953

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Quote Originally Posted by evkl View Post
    Seriously: let's not worry about the naming of the tiers for now. That's not really all that important.

    What I am concerned with, though, is the relative weighting and the number of specific brackets we have available. 7 seems like a better number than 9, but I think while we're beta-testing it we should be pretty open to still shifting that around.
    Well, you could start testing with like 5 brackets or something, and if one tier seems to be heavy on Pokémon, just split off another one.


    For those that say Smogon's tiers are based on usage, well, I think that's pretty specious. They just clear out the top stuff into UU; other than that, you can easily hit 25%+ representation with no ramifications.
    Well, I did find a thread by their admins that said it was by usage, but this was during the beginning of Gen IV. Things have changed since then, so I went by what they originally claimed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gi-gi-gi-giaru! View Post


    It would probably stay in Tier 6 until something happened to push it up to Tier 7.
    I'm assuming your proposed tier system allows lower tier Pokemon to be used in higher tiers regardless?

  5. #35
    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 Outrage View Post
    I'm assuming your proposed tier system allows lower tier Pokemon to be used in higher tiers regardless?
    Of course. Otherwise, the whole system falls flat on its face.

    Doesn't Smogon do that?
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  6. #36
    Registered User The Outrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,178
    Blog Entries
    953

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    I was asking because of what Sarcastically Insane asked, I assumed that quite a few Pokémon might be usable in higher tiers while not being "broken" in lower tiers.

    As for initial testing, I think the number of tiers is arbitrary and one could add more or take some away if it seems like they are needed (or not) for balance. Who knows, a nine-tier system may actually wind up the final product.

  7. #37
    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 Outrage View Post
    I was asking because of what Sarcastically Insane asked, I assumed that quite a few Pokémon might be usable in higher tiers while not being "broken" in lower tiers.
    Yep. The system takes that into account. (I hope >_>)

    As for initial testing, I think the number of tiers is arbitrary and one could add more or take some away if it seems like they are needed (or not) for balance. Who knows, a nine-tier system may actually wind up the final product.
    The number of tiers is always arbitrary in terms of the core mechanic of promotion/demotion. It's the circumstance of the game that decides how many actual tiers we will have.

    I propose having all the Pokémon start in the middle tier, and spread out from there.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  8. #38
    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

    What I mean by 25% was in a given tier--especially OU. A bunch of stuff hovered well over 20% (being on one in every 5 teams) in OU play for a long time. I think something showing up on 1 in every 5 teams is about the maximum we want for a fun, spread-out metagame.
    "And we're not gods, we're just hacks."

    blog | twitter | Bulbagraphic

  9. #39
    Rocking the Lucario Thundagere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,729
    Blog Entries
    17

    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?
    LC is Little Cup....UT, I have no idea.

    Made by Blue Dragon!

  10. #40
    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 evkl View Post
    What I mean by 25% was in a given tier--especially OU. A bunch of stuff hovered well over 20% (being on one in every 5 teams) in OU play for a long time. I think something showing up on 1 in every 5 teams is about the maximum we want for a fun, spread-out metagame.
    Well, given my system, if there are, say, 21 Pokémon in Tier 8, its fair share of relative representation is 5.00%.

    If one Pokémon (say, Salamence) is being used in 25% of teams that have Tier 8 Pokémon in them, that translates to about 5% actual representation (assuming an average of 5 Pokémon in the same tier per team), which is about 5.26% proportional representation. Not too bad, really.

    Now, if there are 50 Pokémon in Tier 8 (as there are in the current smogon!OU tier) and it's still appearing in 25% of teams, then you have a problem, and it's time to bump this Pokémon up to the next tier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundagere View Post
    LC is Little Cup....UT, I have no idea.
    UT is actually UU. A typo is what it is.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

  11. #41
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastically Insane View Post
    I forsee a problem, or at least I think I do.

    Say Pokemon X (let's say Shedinja, because this holds true for it) is almost completely unusable. Tier 1, 2, 3... it can barely hold its own in any of those. But it's used a bunch in tier 8 or 9, because there are so few counters for it there, and it has a small chance to shine- what happens then? Is it promoted to tier 9?
    I know this was posted beforehand and has probably recieved an answer but couldn't a commitee decide whether the Pokemon moved up or not, testing its abilities in the higher tiers. Like the less viable Pokemon have a limit to the tiers they can be used in. Example:

    Macargo is not a very good Pokemon, with a x4 weakness to Ground and Water and not the best stats; thus he is in Tier 7 (or 1 depending on which way it goes up, still in this representation Tier 7 is the lowest one with the worst Pokemon).
    But all of a sudden Macargo gets Solid Rock as a new ability and usage soars in the lower tiers. However, after commitee members test out Macargo, they realise that he still isn't good enough for Tier 4 and instead put him up to Tier 6 and put a cap on Tier 4.
    This would let him play well in the lower Tiers, and would be an appropriate place for him to be until a change occured that let him move up into the higher tiers.

    I hope this is a good suggestion.

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


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

  12. #42
    now's the time to shine coolking503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    India
    Posts
    1,124
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    At the OP's tiering selection:
    NONONONONONONONO!
    I object completely.

    First off, if we want to get anyone to play in our system, we need to be different. As of now, Smogon and PO are almost the same. Smogon is different because of the Drizzle + swift swim ban, and deoxys-s ban, but other wise they are identical iirc. Why would anyone come to our server if it is also very similar? Its pointless, we have to be different to them. I see two ways to do this. One is the 7 tier system, which works. I'd say stick with 7 tiers but don't judge immediately.

    Now, the reason I dont like the OP:
    Gen I: Mewtwo
    Gen II: Mewtwo, Ho-oh, Lugia
    Gen III: Mewtwo, Ho-oh, Lugia, Rayquaza, Groudon, Kyogre (awkwardly, in Gen III the 2% rule spills a bit out into the 600-level Pokes, and we don't want a blanket ban of them.)
    Gen IV: Mewtwo, Ho-oh, Lugia, Rayquaza, Groudon, Kyogre, Arceus, Giratina, Palkia, Dialga.
    Gen V: Mewtwo, Ho-oh, Lugia, Rayquaza, Groudon, Kyogre, Arceus, Giratina, Palkia, Dialga, Reshiram, Zekrom.
    This is our starting ban list. Now for generation 3, I honestly doubt we will get enough activity to ban anything. As such I would stick to smogon's tiers. Same with gens 1/2.

    Gen 4 and 5 will probably have enough activity to get us a solid ban list. As such, what I would suggest is have NO bans to start out. Let everything be OU. In gen 5's example, we would allow everything, including Arceus. Now, what if we find Arceus overpowers the OU metagame with all the rest of the so called Ubers. Then we have a rating req and anyone who gets high enough can vote. Yes, this is the Smogon system. Yes, i think it is justified. If you can't get to a certain rating, you may not be experienced enough or good enough to vote. there may be some exceptions, but this makes sure no random person can go and vote regigigas Uber. Why not the usage system Evkl has? Because something like this scenario could happen (gen 4 example):

    Scizor is good, it has 30% usage along with Latios, All deo forms, Shaymin-s, and Latias in OU, consistently. All three are banned for 6 months. But Wait! with Scizor banned, Mence and ttar run around everywhere, causing them to banned on the spot. But with these two offensive beats gone, Stall becomes amazing and skarmory and blissey both have over 25% usage in 2 consecutive months, causing them to be banned. With stall dead, Heatran and suicune both gain usage due to no real counter but each other, and get the 6 month ban in two months. All of a sudden, scizor, shaymin, etc come back into an extremely weak metagame and get banned again, and the cycle repeats.

    All right, so there is a loop hole in the plan. Why not just institute an auto ban after some time? well, OK, why not? That isnt what I was trying to get at. What I was trying to say was there is too much numbers and not enough people elements. People are the ones playing this metagame, and they should have a say. Look at Latias' last stat count before it got banned. In this system, it wouldn't get banned ever (it probably would but thats because you are removing the counter to it in scizor after 2 months). it did get banned, however, for being too good. Ok so it wasn't used as much as you might think, but it still was banned and most of the people here would agree to that being justified.

    Lastly, and rather minorly, chances are we wont have a large player base. That means if i want to I could log onto two accounts and keep laddering against myself, getting magikarp used in >40% of the battles in under 2 hours. Ha Ha Ha, right? but we still need a defense system in this.

    Lastly, and most importantly, the point of a competitive tier list is to have a ban list. the ban list of OU is Ubers. Pokemon get banned for being overpowered, not overused.

    If we want to create a balanced metagame, we cannot create it based on Usage. It must be created via people.

    Now, to my proposal. I would say let all the pokemon start out in OU. After we collect two months of usage stats, pokemon with under 5% usage are put into UU or whatever we call it. After another two months of collected stats we get rid of the least 5% used in UU and move them to NU. We also provide an initial banlist for UU so anything that is overpowered for that is bumped into that tier. Lastly, after that two month period (it can be one month of you guys want it), we let everyone with an alt above a certain amount to Propose pokemon, and slightly higher, vote, and whatever people deem Uber with a super-majority is automatically banned. If the amount of people voting for banned is between 51-66%, we create a suspect ladder, which causes the pokemon to be banned in that ladder. We test the metagame in both and see which is preferred, and people with an alt which is in the top certain amount in BOTH ladders, can vote. This rating limit is lower due to fewer people being able to get a high rating on 2 ladders, but isnt limited to one because clearly if you ladder more on the suspect ladder, you would prefer them banned, and vis-versa (IMO this was Smogon's biggest folly). This same process goes on for the lower tiers. There should be a ban list for NU, UU, and OU.

    thoughts?
    Lord Clowncrete likes this.
    If we are having a battle and I disconnect, it is 100% unintentional; my power goes off often and each time my modem resets.

    Gone until Aug, 10 or something for a trip w/out net access. C u after that. If I suddenly dissapear after that you can bet I got bad grades on my IGCSE's, since results are coming out the week afterwards.

  13. #43
    Just so Victoria, just so Mijzelffan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    17,302
    Blog Entries
    315
    Follow Mijzelffan On Twitter
    Follow Mijzelffan on Tumblr

    Default Re: Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

    Ok, I'm confused. How will these tiers work? Because look, Smogon's work like this:

    Uber = OU banlist
    OU = top percentage of pokémon used in standard (OU)
    BL = UU banlist
    (UU+NU = everything that's not top percentage in standard (OU), and not BL or Uber.)
    UU = top percentage of pokémon used in UU
    NU = the rest

    So will this one just add another banlist to NU or something? Because I keep hearing people about having 7 to 9 tiers, but what exactly would be the meaning/the point of those tiers?


  14. #44
    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

    Coolking, how do people create a better, more balanced metagame than raw usage statistics? As I said in my initial post, my goal is to have no Poke represented on more than 20% of teams. But at the same time just drawing lines in the sand with "smart people" choosing what stays and what goes is basically what Smogon has done for, oh forever. I don't, frankly, trust the people to get it right. The game is complex and there are lots of people who do weird things and there are even more unintended consequences.

    As for your nightmare scenario, I don't see a problem with a metagame without Scizor or something. If Stall gets super popular, there are going to be a handful of Pokemon that stall super-well. They'll get banned, and then Pokemon that can power through the remaining, not-so-good stall teams will be utilized. And we will restore balance to the Force.

    Mijzel, more or less, yes, with Little Cup added at the bottom.
    "And we're not gods, we're just hacks."

    blog | twitter | Bulbagraphic

  15. #45
    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
    Magcargo is not a very good Pokemon, with a x4 weakness to Ground and Water and not the best stats; thus he is in Tier 7 (or 1 depending on which way it goes up, still in this representation Tier 7 is the lowest one with the worst Pokemon).
    But all of a sudden Magcargo gets Solid Rock as a new ability and usage soars in the lower tiers. However, after committee members test out Magcargo, they realise that he still isn't good enough for Tier 4 and instead put him up to Tier 6 and put a cap on Tier 4.
    This would let him play well in the lower Tiers, and would be an appropriate place for him to be until a change occurred that let him move up into the higher tiers.
    The system relies on the assumption that the fact a Pokémon is in Tier 4 means that it's good enough for Tier 4.

    Especially if it has to move through three tier promotions first.
    The word "quadragonal" is the only word with "dragon" in it where "dragon" is not a root word. That makes it awesome.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •