All Gens Vote on Tiering Guidelines #1

[Disaster Area]

In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

To be clear, these will only serve as guidelines. They are to be used as a reference point to determine whether or not something should be suspected and whether or not something should be banned, but there is explicitly plenty of room for interpretation in both of those situations.

Option A

My approach provides guidelines for 2 different scenarios.
- My guidelines will give guidance on when and how to deal with "cheesy" strategies, such as Baton Pass abuse, SleepTrap, and Shadow Tag.
- My guidelines will give guidance on when and how to ban Pokemon, by listing a number of conditions. A Pokemon that is considered banworthy may satisfy a few of these conditions to an extreme degree, or it may satisfy many of them. Whilst this will apply to all generations, clearly earlier generations will have a higher bar to clear in general for a Pokemon to be perceived to satisfy a condition.

Option B

My approach determines whether or not a ban should be implemented based on whether a pokemon (or other element) significantly undermines the game's competitive depth, to the point where it falls below a standard the community considers acceptable. This entails describing what level of competitive depth is acceptable for a given tier and identifying when a pokemon creates a sub-optimal environment relative to this threshold. Also note that undermining competitive play can be considered problematic, even if the impact on depth is unclear, which can occur in the case of some cheese strategies

Option C

We should ban Pokemon when they are too powerful.

We should ban or restrict other things in order to mitigate cheesy strategies (ones that are highly reliant on luck or matchup to beat).

The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.

 

[Disaster Area]

I prefer my approach because I think it provides clear and easy to understand guidelines for guaging when something is problematic, and I think it doesn't leave so much to interpretation that people can't easily make the argument to keep obviously broken Pokemon around. I worry about if we use Ortheore's approach, how easy it would be under his approach to make the case that, for example RBY Mewtwo is broken. It clearly is a broken Pokemon, but RBY Ubers is a metagame with a lot of depth, and I think it's much easier to make the case under his guidelines that it shouldn't be banned than it would be under my guidelines.

 

[Chrysalis]

I'm actually against your approach for the very same reason. I fear that if we set clear guidelines spanning across generations that state exactly whether a mon is broken or not, we might in the end fall victim to our own policies, possibly going as far as having to ban the Big Four. Something that is as meta-defining as Tauros in Gen 1 would be instabanned in newer generations. The strength of individual mons and strategies always needs to be looked at in the context of the metagame, and for that, strict and inflexible guidelines would hurt our tiering process.

Exhibit A: Smogon Gen 7 OU quickbanned most likely way more than necessary to create a stable and diverse metagame, solely due to precedents set in Gen 3-5.
Exhibit B: Smogon OMs. Just look at Shared Power - an extremely centralized metagame where broken quite literally checks broken by design. The concept would never allow the meta to be anywhere close to standard play in terms of diversity, yet people are complaining about that and now the top threats are being banned. Once the first wave of bans on somewhat manageable stuff has gone through, Smogon will end up with a complete train wreck of a tier where a lot of stuff is banned just for being good, yet the level of imbalance will still be the same. This happens when you apply policies from one metagame to another that is entirely different. Gen 6 STABmons went through a similar ordeal.

 

[Golden Gyarados]

They're guidelines, not policy. Is there a reason both can't be stated?

I think the most important thing is defining guidelines first and foremost. Remember, the vote that prompted this discussion had most people saying they wanted "guidelines" in direct contrast to the other option, which was "clear policy." So starting upfront by saying,

"Guidelines are used as helpful reference when discussing whether an element is banworthy, with the ultimate decision coming down to [a council? a vote? something else?]. As these are merely guidelines, note that an element may meet all criteria defined herein yet remain unbanned. Conversely, an element may be banned that does not meet all or even most of the criteria defined herein."

Once you define the guidelines thusly, the guidelines can include both the approaches listed here.

 

[Disaster Area]

I'm actually against your approach for the very same reason. I fear that if we set clear guidelines spanning across generations that state exactly whether a mon is broken or not, we might in the end fall victim to our own policies, possibly going as far as having to ban the Big Four. Something that is as meta-defining as Tauros in Gen 1 would be instabanned in newer generations. The strength of individual mons and strategies always needs to be looked at in the context of the metagame, and for that, strict and inflexible guidelines would hurt our tiering process.

They don't state exactly when a Pokemon is broken or not but satisfaction of more of the conditions more strongly is a clearer indication that a Pokemon is banworthy.

I guess I need to edit my description to make it clear that it is still only a guideline on what's banworthy rather than a clear determination. Will do that in a few minutes. Furthermore, clearly the strength to which a Pokemon needs to satisfy a criteria depends on the generation.

They're guidelines, not policy. Is there a reason both can't be stated?

I think the most important thing is defining guidelines first and foremost. Remember, the vote that prompted this discussion had most people saying they wanted "guidelines" in direct contrast to the other option, which was "clear policy." So starting upfront by saying,

"Guidelines are used as helpful reference when discussing whether an element is banworthy, with the ultimate decision coming down to [a council? a vote? something else?]. As these are merely guidelines, note that an element may meet all criteria defined herein yet remain unbanned. Conversely, an element may be banned that does not meet all or even most of the criteria defined herein."

Once you define the guidelines thusly, the guidelines can include both the approaches listed here.

I can add an option for "both" in the poll, give me a second. I like what you wrote there though so I'll be making an edit to the post correspondingly.

 

[Disaster Area]

I am editing my description of my option and adding a comment about the nature of this policy being merely a guideline.

Here is the original post:

Spoiler

In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

Option A

My approach provides guidelines for 2 different scenarios
- Determining when and how to deal with "cheesy" strategies, such as Baton Pass abuse, SleepTrap, and Shadow Tag.
- Deteremining when and how to ban Pokemon, by listing a number of conditionss. A Pokemon that is considered banworthy may satisfy a few of these conditions to an extreme degree, or it may satisfy many of them.

Option B

My approach determines whether or not a ban should be implemented based on whether a pokemon (or other element) significantly undermines the game's competitive depth, to the point where it falls below a standard the community considers acceptable. This entails describing what level of competitive depth is acceptable for a given tier and identifying when a pokemon creates a sub-optimal environment relative to this threshold. Also note that undermining competitive play can be considered problematic, even if the impact on depth is unclear, which can occur in the case of some cheese strategies

The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.

Here is the updated post, with changes bolded:

Spoiler

In determining our tiering guidelines, we are putting as much up to a vote as possible. Ortheore and I have different points of view on what the overall approach towards our tiering guidelines should be. My preferred approach is listed as Option A, and his preferred approach is listed as Option B. You can find some relevant discussion in this thread.

To be clear, these will only serve as guidelines. They are to be used as a reference point to determine whether or not something should be suspected and whether or not something should be banned, but there is explicitly plenty of room for interpretation in both of those situations.

Option A

My approach provides guidelines for 2 different scenarios.
- My guidelines will give guidance on when and how to deal with "cheesy" strategies, such as Baton Pass abuse, SleepTrap, and Shadow Tag.
- My guidelines will give guidance on when and how to ban Pokemon, by listing a number of conditions. A Pokemon that is considered banworthy may satisfy a few of these conditions to an extreme degree, or it may satisfy many of them. Whilst this will apply to all generations, clearly earlier generations will have a higher bar to clear in general for a Pokemon to be perceived to satisfy a condition.

Option B

My approach determines whether or not a ban should be implemented based on whether a pokemon (or other element) significantly undermines the game's competitive depth, to the point where it falls below a standard the community considers acceptable. This entails describing what level of competitive depth is acceptable for a given tier and identifying when a pokemon creates a sub-optimal environment relative to this threshold. Also note that undermining competitive play can be considered problematic, even if the impact on depth is unclear, which can occur in the case of some cheese strategies

The poll will be open for 1 week. Feel free to discuss the merits of each option in this thread.

Ortheore I haven't & won't touch your option's description. If you want to do any changes to it, since you have moderator powers, you can edit the opening post and make a post like this highlighting the before & after.

Golden Gyarados and Linkin Karp I hope this provides clarification.

 

[Disaster Area]

Can someone explain to me how you would make an argument that Mewtwo in RBY would be broken under Ortheore's proposal? I can't. RBY Ubers is a really deep metagame.

 

[CrapAtRBY]

Can someone explain to me how you would make an argument that Mewtwo in RBY would be broken under Ortheore's proposal? I can't. RBY Ubers is a really deep metagame.

My approach determines whether or not a ban should be implemented based on whether a pokemon (or other element) significantly undermines the game's competitive depth, to the point where it falls below a standard the community considers acceptable. This entails describing what level of competitive depth is acceptable for a given tier and identifying when a pokemon creates a sub-optimal environment relative to this threshold. Also note that undermining competitive play can be considered problematic, even if the impact on depth is unclear, which can occur in the case of some cheese strategies

I think Mewtwo lowers competitive depth below an acceptable point because it is so powerful, offensively and defensively, that it a) you must put a stop to it almost immediately lest it sweep your team, b) counterplay to it is severely limited.

Although it can't cover every common solution to it in 4 moves, it still has ways to address it's 'weaknesses' in a reliable or at least sufficient way. Thunderbolt outpaces Slowbro's Surf and kills Slowbro on a Crit, Psychic will wear down Light Screen Chansey, Barrier wins PP wars and makes physical offense dependent on crits and it can suffer two spec drops at +6 and still be at 999 special, lowering the number of exploitable turns opened up by trying to lower it's special and forcing it to boost again. Even Mons like Mew and Amnesialax that can boost on something it can force out, paralyse Mewtwo and hope to overwhelm it, still have a good chance to lose that match-up and then present a significant opportunity-cost having paralysed Mewtwo and shut down any freezes.

The only 100% reliable way to beat Mewtwo is to freeze it, you must have a way to freeze Mewtwo in case all else fails, many Ubers matches devolve into both players spamming Ice Beam at each other hoping for that 10% chance to go their way.

 

[Disaster Area]

I think Mewtwo lowers competitive depth below an acceptable point because it is so powerful, offensively and defensively, that it a) you must put a stop to it almost immediately lest it sweep your team, b) counterplay to it is severely limited.

Why do these lower competitive depth? Yes, you have to play around it aggressively, and you have a limited amount of ways of dealing with it. Why do those lower competitive depth?

Although it can't cover every common solution to it in 4 moves, it still has ways to address it's 'weaknesses' in a reliable or at least sufficient way. Thunderbolt outpaces Slowbro's Surf and kills Slowbro on a Crit, Psychic will wear down Light Screen Chansey, Barrier wins PP wars and makes physical offense dependent on crits and it can suffer two spec drops at +6 and still be at 999 special, lowering the number of exploitable turns opened up by trying to lower it's special and forcing it to boost again. Even Mons like Mew and Amnesialax that can boost on something it can force out, paralyse Mewtwo and hope to overwhelm it, still have a good chance to lose that match-up and then present a significant opportunity-cost having paralysed Mewtwo and shut down any freezes.

The only 100% reliable way to beat Mewtwo is to freeze it, you must have a way to freeze Mewtwo in case all else fails, many Ubers matches devolve into both players spamming Ice Beam at each other hoping for that 10% chance to go their way.

You can also use Flash Mewtwo which forces out or beats all other variants of Mewtwo 1v1, there's also the asd assassin (self-destruct + twave) which can effectively trade Mewtwos, Barrier is basically not used lol. You can reliably beat Mewtwo to some extent, but it depends on the team you bring and the Mewtwo variant your opponent brings, and your approach to the game.

It's worth noting that there I think there's a clear dichotomy in strategies in ubers, I prefer to focus on winning the M2 stall-war, someone like Marco uses Explosion aggressively, it's basically defense vs offense

Basically, there are multiple approaches to the Ubers metagame, with a variety of viable sets / Pokemon. Although within the game your options are often fairly limited, there is plenty of depth from the teambuilding perspective and the strategy determined pre-game in the builder.

I think Mewtwo is clearly broken. I also think RBY Ubers is clearly a metagame with a lot of competitive depth. But honestly I'm finding it really hard to argue in terms of "competitive depth"... what does it even mean exactly?

 

[Disaster Area]

Also, when a game isn't terribly deep, but no particular Pokemon seems to be the culprit, what do?

The example I'm thinking of here is RBY 6U. It's balanced in my opinion, also very boring (some people enjoy it though) and not very deep (which I think is less debatable, but idk, I really don't get wth competitive depth really means honestly). Do we ban Kabutops or Machamp or something then?

 

[Ortheore]

Reason why my proposal should be accepted

• It more directly addresses why we implement bans in the first place, helping to ensure that bans are made for the right reasons
• It entails evaluating whether a metagame is healthy or not before we consider implementing any bans, so we're not trying to fix stuff that isn't broken.
• By defining banworthiness in terms of a minimum standard for a given tier, we're better able to justify having different standards for different generations. By contrast, relying solely on criteria such as DA's leads to scenarios where we have stuff that's broken by those criteria, but we ignore it because "it's an old gen" or for some other reason, which means we've created guidelines that just aren't very effective
  
• It does not exclude traditional definitions of banworthiness.
• It covers all possible dynamics that might be created by a problematic element, even ones that we've not thought of yet

I will admit there will be some challenges in adapting discussions to address the issue, as it's quite different to what we're used to, and it can be fairly abstract

Can someone explain to me how you would make an argument that Mewtwo in RBY would be broken under Ortheore's proposal? I can't. RBY Ubers is a really deep metagame.

I really don't see how RBY Ubers is remotely deep. RBY Mewtwo literally forces teams to spam explosion or PP stall, those are pretty much your only options for handling it (freeze is a thing, but it never happens in practice). Those are really your only overarching strategic options and when you get into details, the tier is so massively warped around dealing with M2 that only a handful of pokemon are truly viable (Mew because Mew, Gar/Jynx/Egg for sleep, then Chansey, Lax and Bro and pretty much anything beyond those becomes fairly niche). With limited options when teambuilding and battles revolving around either pp stall or whether you can land explosion or not, I think it's fair to say that the game has very little depth

Also you list Selfdestruct M2 but dismiss Barrier? Barrier's legitimately one of M2's best sets, while blowing up your M2 is unfathomably foolish because M2 is just so valuable.

Actually this has been a really valuable mini-discussion, since I have to admit it's such an abstract topic it can be hard to talk about it, so I think it's good to try talking about it.

Also, when a game isn't terribly deep, but no particular Pokemon seems to be the culprit, what do?

The example I'm thinking of here is RBY 6U. It's balanced in my opinion, also very boring (some people enjoy it though) and not very deep (which I think is less debatable, but idk, I really don't get wth competitive depth really means honestly). Do we ban Kabutops or Machamp or something then?

The key thing here is there's no obvious causal relationship. I think that's just all that the tier has to offer, as we've progressed to the point where there's just not a lot of options. Maybe I need to revisit my proposal and alter the language somewhat so that causality is an explicit requirement (I thought it was, but if this question is being asked maybe I didn't make it clear)

 

[Disaster Area]

Reason why my proposal should be accepted

• It more directly addresses why we implement bans in the first place, helping to ensure that bans are made for the right reasons

I think this is a noble goal and if it did that better I think I would be more supportive of it. But I don't fundamentally feel like it actually addresses why we implement bans in the first place.

• It entails evaluating whether a metagame is healthy or not before we consider implementing any bans, so we're not trying to fix stuff that isn't broken.

That's a legitimately interesting point. But does a game's level of competitive depth (whatever that means?) accurately measure whether or not a metagame is healthy? It feels like to me you've replaced one vague thing (is the metagame healthy?) with another vague thing (does the metagame have adequate competitive depth?)

• By defining banworthiness in terms of a minimum standard for a given tier, we're better able to justify having different standards for different generations. By contrast, relying solely on criteria such as DA's leads to scenarios where we have stuff that's broken by those criteria, but we ignore it because "it's an old gen" or for some other reason, which means we've created guidelines that just aren't very effective

My standards don't mean we ignore things because "it's an old gen". The thing is you need to view the conditions in a way that isn't binary, because they're not binary. Think of it like
- the fewer checks and counters a pokemon has, the more likely they are to be banworthy
- the more punishing it is to make a mistake against a Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more sets that have different checks and counters, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more & better Pokemon it offensively invalidates or limits, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more effective it is as a supportive Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
etc.

and then apply human judgment to it. Obviously the generation provides a context for these things.

• It does not exclude traditional definitions of banworthiness.

Wdym by traditional definitions of banworthiness?

• It covers all possible dynamics that might be created by a problematic element, even ones that we've not thought of yet

Does it? Again, noble goal, and again, not sure it actually achieves that goal.

I really don't see how RBY Ubers is remotely deep. RBY Mewtwo literally forces teams to spam explosion or PP stall, those are pretty much your only options for handling it (freeze is a thing, but it never happens in practice). Those are really your only overarching strategic options and when you get into details, the tier is so massively warped around dealing with M2 that only a handful of pokemon are truly viable (Mew because Mew, Gar/Jynx/Egg for sleep, then Chansey, Lax and Bro and pretty much anything beyond those becomes fairly niche). With limited options when teambuilding and battles revolving around either pp stall or whether you can land explosion or not, I think it's fair to say that the game has very little depth

Right or wrong on the details of that (you play that meta more so you know more than me) I'm not sure that really qualifies it as having very little depth. What is depth anyway?

Also you list Selfdestruct M2 but dismiss Barrier? Barrier's legitimately one of M2's best sets, while blowing up your M2 is unfathomably foolish because M2 is just so valuable.

Idk, sunny, marco, etc. abused it a lot.

Actually this has been a really valuable mini-discussion, since I have to admit it's such an abstract topic it can be hard to talk about it, so I think it's good to try talking about it.

I guess this is just one of the differences really between our two proposals:
- your proposal is more abstract that mine is. I wanted something practical that's useful to measure up against when making an argument, rather than something where people get lost in abstractions.

I do think your philosophical approach is wise in some ways: trying to understand what fundamentally makes something banworthy in terms of how it affects the game. I just don't personally feel like it achieves that. Evidently enough other people seem to think differently though.

The key thing here is there's no obvious causal relationship. I think that's just all that the tier has to offer, as we've progressed to the point where there's just not a lot of options. Maybe I need to revisit my proposal and alter the language somewhat so that causality is an explicit requirement (I thought it was, but if this question is being asked maybe I didn't make it clear)

Yeah, I think that's sensible. Maybe I was being too literal in asking that question, but there is never any harm in making something implicit explicit.

---

tl;dr:

Ortheore's approach is has a more philosophical bent to it, trying to understand precisely why we want to ban things in the first place.

My approach has a more practical bent to it, trying to provide fairly measurable tools to help decide when something is banworthy.

 

[CrapAtRBY]

Why do these lower competitive depth? Yes, you have to play around it aggressively, and you have a limited amount of ways of dealing with it. Why do those lower competitive depth?


You can also use Flash Mewtwo which forces out or beats all other variants of Mewtwo 1v1, there's also the asd assassin (self-destruct + twave) which can effectively trade Mewtwos, Barrier is basically not used lol. You can reliably beat Mewtwo to some extent, but it depends on the team you bring and the Mewtwo variant your opponent brings, and your approach to the game.





Basically, there are multiple approaches to the Ubers metagame, with a variety of viable sets / Pokemon. Although within the game your options are often fairly limited, there is plenty of depth from the teambuilding perspective and the strategy determined pre-game in the builder.

I think Mewtwo is clearly broken. I also think RBY Ubers is clearly a metagame with a lot of competitive depth. But honestly I'm finding it really hard to argue in terms of "competitive depth"... what does it even mean exactly?

Competitive Depth as I see it is a metagame that reaches a reasonable amount of diversity of viable playstyles and mons within the constraints of the metagames/tiers possible within the generation. As we gain more mons, mechanics and moves in each generation this is a threshold that should be steadily increasing (or at least staying within an acceptable range once we reach a plateau, I know next to nothing about newer gens).

So if we look at RBY 1U, the mechanics of the gen already limit us in playstyles, wholescale stall is simply not viable for a variety of reason, so we have a standard team and the variations thereof and Full Wrap, if we look at how many mons are viable, yes we have the big four, but there are 22 mons in A-D in the Viability Rankings, of 70 fully evolved Pokemon (if I've counted correctly) in the tier, that's about 30%, plus other mons that other players will adovcate for, which imo is a decent number.

In Ubers however we have 8-12 really viable mons depending on who you ask, that's about 10-15%, there's a handful of strategies all dedicated to taking down just one Pokemon, even the alternatives you listed were all dedicated to trading Mewtwos.

Though 1U has it's centralising forces and has nowhere near the variety of today's gens, it's significantly more varied than Ubers and in the context of what's available and possible in Gen 1 I think it's good, competitive meta.

I don't think we need more rigid guidelines, just a more general philosophy of what we want out of our standard tiers, I think as a community we have the sense to apply that philosophy well.

I don't know how well what I'm saying will get through in text but hopefully, my point comes across

 

[Disaster Area]

So am I right in thinking then that competitive depth is a proxy for other things like diversity of viable Pokemon & sets, centralisation, and so on?

 

[Ortheore]

I think this is a noble goal and if it did that better I think I would be more supportive of it. But I don't fundamentally feel like it actually addresses why we implement bans in the first place.

Why do you not think that? Why do you think we implement bans?

That's a legitimately interesting point. But does a game's level of competitive depth (whatever that means?) accurately measure whether or not a metagame is healthy? It feels like to me you've replaced one vague thing (is the metagame healthy?) with another vague thing (does the metagame have adequate competitive depth?)
My standards don't mean we ignore things because "it's an old gen". The thing is you need to view the conditions in a way that isn't binary, because they're not binary. Think of it like
- the fewer checks and counters a pokemon has, the more likely they are to be banworthy
- the more punishing it is to make a mistake against a Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more sets that have different checks and counters, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more & better Pokemon it offensively invalidates or limits, the more likely it is to be banworthy
- the more effective it is as a supportive Pokemon, the more likely it is to be banworthy
etc.

and then apply human judgment to it. Obviously the generation provides a context for these things.

I never said these conditions were binary? Just that your guidelines implement conditions that in no way communicate that the standard for what should be banworthy will vary across generations. Furthermore, I think just saying "oh, we'll have different standards for different gens" really strikes me as an arbitrary decision that could potentially be used in a way that tries to artificially define what is acceptable. Even then, because you're looking at specific dynamics that characterise brokenness, rather than a pokemon's overall impact, it's possible to get caught out by your own definitions since you would have to define a standard for each of those criteria, otherwise you're relying on players evaluating how that pokemon impacts the metagame, rather than whether it matches those criteria. This is fine, but you'd think we'd address that in our guidelines.

Basically, your guidelines would need to explain why stuff like 5U Dragonair isn't broken, despite Dair thoroughly meeting pretty much every criterion

Also saying "meta is healthy" is equivalent to "I like playing this tier", which for a player can mean anything. Competitive depth actually does mean something, as I stated in the other thread (if you're looking for sources discussing it, maybe simply looking up depth in the context of game design, rather than specifically in a competitive context would be effective, since it's the same concept, just not necessrily specific to PvP)

Wdym by traditional definitions of banworthiness?

Pretty much your criteria, given that it basically follows pretty much every similar list of guidelines I've seen from other communities

Does it? Again, noble goal, and again, not sure it actually achieves that goal.

Yes it does. My approach asks the question "does this pokemon negatively affect the meta?" which can be answered regardless of whether or not we've encountered that specific dynamic before. By contrast, if your guidelines contained some oversight, where a pokemon's c&cs were insufficient to prevent it from dominating the meta, a person relying on your guidelines could tick off "yes, they've got an adequate number of checks, yes they've got a hard counter..." and so on, and if your guidelines don't cover that criteria, it technically passes despite being toxic. Admittedly, I don't know what isn't covered, but that's the point, if it were something we were likely to think of we'd just include it rather than potentially encountering it and only then finding out our guidelines are insufficient

As for the other stuff, there's no denying that my approach is more abstract. But fwiw I think the approaches can coexist, but only in the scenario where my approach is accepted and your guidelines provide clarity. I'm aware that assumes my approach is favoured, which is maybe a bit rude, but I still felt it was worth pointing out

 

[Disaster Area]

Why do you not think that?

Because I think we ban Pokemon in metagames that in my opinion are very deep.

If we used your standard, here is the list of Pokemon I would ban in each generation:
RBY - None
GSC - I don't know, probably none
ADV - None
HGSS - I don't know
BW - None
ORAS - Possibly Mega Rayquaza, but I'm not sure.
SM - Same as in ORAS, but maybe some other stuff might be more powerful like Geomancy given the introduction of Z-moves and so on, so possibly more than just Mega Rayquaza is on the table.

Why do you think we implement bans?

I don't know, exactly. If I had a good answer I would propose it. I have a gut feeling that something introduces game dynamics I don't like. I haven't worked out the rules roughly underlying why.

I've made a lot of threads trying to understand other people's perspectives and develop my own ideas because I'm not really sure why I think something that is broken is actually broken, e.g.

All Gens - What Makes Something Broken (To You)? | Pokémon Perfect
All Gens - Do You Think The Ubers Tier Is Broken In Most Generations? | Pokémon Perfect

So on a subconscious level (or something) I get why we implement bans. But I can't articulate why we implement bans.

Furthermore, I think just saying "oh, we'll have different standards for different gens" really strikes me as an arbitrary decision that could potentially be used in a way that tries to artificially define what is acceptable.

The thing is though, different stuff is acceptable in different generations because
- you have a wider pool of available Pokemon at various power levels
- you have moves, items, and mechanics that make the overall pace of metagames in a given generation different to some degree to those previous

you're looking at specific dynamics that characterise brokenness, rather than a pokemon's overall impact

That is true. I do that because I think it's easier to make sense of things in that way. We can sort of quantify how few responses a Pokemon has or how dangerous it is to make a misplay. It's far harder to quantify a Pokemon's overall impact.

it's possible to get caught out by your own definitions since you would have to define a standard for each of those criteria, otherwise you're relying on players evaluating how that pokemon impacts the metagame, rather than whether it matches those criteria. This is fine, but you'd think we'd address that in our guidelines.

Basically, your guidelines would need to explain why stuff like 5U Dragonair isn't broken, despite Dair thoroughly meeting pretty much every criterion

I think that we wouldn't need to be too specific actually in the guidelines on where exactly to draw the line. Instead, cases of stuff being or not being banned (e.g. in RBY, Mewtwo, Mew being banned, various stuff in 2U, 4U, 5U, and 6U not being banned) provides precedent within a generation about how thoroughly criteria would need to be met for a ban.

Also saying "meta is healthy" is equivalent to "I like playing this tier", which for a player can mean anything. Competitive depth actually does mean something, as I stated in the other thread (if you're looking for sources discussing it, maybe simply looking up depth in the context of game design, rather than specifically in a competitive context would be effective, since it's the same concept, just not necessrily specific to PvP)
Pretty much your criteria, given that it basically follows pretty much every similar list of guidelines I've seen from other communitiesYes it does. My approach asks the question "does this pokemon negatively affect the meta?" which can be answered regardless of whether or not we've encountered that specific dynamic before. By contrast, if your guidelines contained some oversight, where a pokemon's c&cs were insufficient to prevent it from dominating the meta, a person relying on your guidelines could tick off "yes, they've got an adequate number of checks, yes they've got a hard counter..." and so on, and if your guidelines don't cover that criteria, it technically passes despite being toxic. Admittedly, I don't know what isn't covered, but that's the point, if it were something we were likely to think of we'd just include it rather than potentially encountering it and only then finding out our guidelines are insufficient

As for the other stuff, there's no denying that my approach is more abstract. But fwiw I think the approaches can coexist, but only in the scenario where my approach is accepted and your guidelines provide clarity. I'm aware that assumes my approach is favoured, which is maybe a bit rude, but I still felt it was worth pointing out

If we're going for pure abstraction in the guideline, why not just have as our guideline:
"we ban Pokemon when they are too powerful for the metagame"
outside of cheese strategies (which I think we agree upon how to deal with anyway) I think that covers it...

if we want something more measurable / less useless, well... that was what I was trying to go for.

 

[Disaster Area]

Proposing this guideline:

Option C

We should ban Pokemon when they are too powerful.

We should ban or restrict other things in order to mitigate cheesy strategies (ones that are highly reliant on luck or matchup to beat).

---


Adding it to the OP & Poll

 

[Ortheore]

Because I think we ban Pokemon in metagames that in my opinion are very deep.

If we used your standard, here is the list of Pokemon I would ban in each generation:
RBY - None
GSC - I don't know, probably none
ADV - None
HGSS - I don't know
BW - None
ORAS - Possibly Mega Rayquaza, but I'm not sure.
SM - Same as in ORAS, but maybe some other stuff might be more powerful like Geomancy given the introduction of Z-moves and so on, so possibly more than just Mega Rayquaza is on the table.

I mean I guess this is one of those things where you're entitled to your opinion, but I cannot stress enough how heavily I disagree with the notion that RBY Ubers is very deep, and also the idea that a MRay meta is even open for debate when it literally devolves into who can murder the other player with it first.

Otherwise, I would say that just because we follow a certain pattern of banning things, that does not mean that that pattern is the appropriate way to do it. If we're banning things in metas that are already very deep, maybe we should be evaluating those bans, rather than using them as a potentially flawed precedent

The thing is though, different stuff is acceptable in different generations because
- you have a wider pool of available Pokemon at various power levels
- you have moves, items, and mechanics that make the overall pace of metagames in a given generation different to some degree to those previous

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that different generations will have different standards, just I feel like having different standards based on those criteria is somewhat contrived and I suspect they could be twisted in a way that could potentially misrepresent a situation. By contrast I think a wholistic state-of-the-meta approach enables people to come to their own opinion on what's acceptable, which then contributes to a community consensus. Maybe? I feel like my reasoning is weaker here, like I'm not articulating correctly. It's actually inspired by comments you made on PDon (iirc), where you said that in g6/7 no pokemon should have 90% usage or w/e, and I just found that specific reasoning really contrived.

I think that we wouldn't need to be too specific actually in the guidelines on where exactly to draw the line. Instead, cases of stuff being or not being banned (e.g. in RBY, Mewtwo, Mew being banned, various stuff in 2U, 4U, 5U, and 6U not being banned) provides precedent within a generation about how thoroughly criteria would need to be met for a ban.

This is fair enough for generations where have a precedent, but that's pretty much only rby atm. What about all of the other generations?

If we're going for pure abstraction in the guideline, why not just have as our guideline:
"we ban Pokemon when they are too powerful for the metagame"
outside of cheese strategies (which I think we agree upon how to deal with anyway) I think that covers it...

if we want something more measurable / less useless, well... that was what I was trying to go for.

Pure abstraction is a pretty blatant strawman and equating my position with a one line guideline is a crass oversimplification. I've already outlined a definition for competitive depth and there is plenty of room for further clarification and translation of that relatively abstract concept into more specific details that are easily identifiable

 

[Disaster Area]

Otherwise, I would say that just because we follow a certain pattern of banning things, that does not mean that that pattern is the appropriate way to do it. If we're banning things in metas that are already very deep, maybe we should be evaluating those bans, rather than using them as a potentially flawed precedent

Fair point. But I do think it is important to have some precedents when deciding whether or not something ought to be banned. It provides a spectrum of what's reasonable, though those precedents and boundaries can of course be challenged.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that different generations will have different standards, just I feel like having different standards based on those criteria is somewhat contrived and I suspect they could be twisted in a way that could potentially misrepresent a situation. By contrast I think a wholistic state-of-the-meta approach enables people to come to their own opinion on what's acceptable, which then contributes to a community consensus. Maybe? I feel like my reasoning is weaker here, like I'm not articulating correctly. It's actually inspired by comments you made on PDon (iirc), where you said that in g6/7 no pokemon should have 90% usage or w/e, and I just found that specific reasoning really contrived.

I guess you're sort of trying to say that measurable standards are flawed to some extent because the standard depends upon the generation, whereas what you're trying to define is the guiding principle from which those measurements at least ought to have if not did come from.

Pure abstraction is a pretty blatant strawman and equating my position with a one line guideline is a crass oversimplification. I've already outlined a definition for competitive depth and there is plenty of room for further clarification and translation of that relatively abstract concept into more specific details that are easily identifiable

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't really understand or agree with what your guiding principle for this is, but I'm also struggling to come up with a better alternative myself, and that's why I end up saying stuff that doesn't really come out right.

I want something that is either a principle that is simple to understand and agreeable, or a handful of somewhat measurable criteria that are simple to understand and agreeable even if it's not clear exactly where it came from.

 

[Disaster Area]

Ortheore do you think Primal Groudon would be banned in ORAS under your guidelines?