TAY
You and I Know
It isn't important to continuously strive for a metagame which the best players most excel (or enjoy most) because there is almost no practical difference between a metagame developed through a continuous testing process and one developed through a time-limited testing process (i.e. one which will definitely end after a period of time, like Cathy's). Put in fourth gen terms, Earthworm and Gouki and Husk would kick most players asses whether we had banned Garchomp and Salamence or not. Why bother trying to improve the metagame for good players if they can already win consistently (and as I argued earlier, the UU process only does improve the metagame for the best players)?And can you please elaborate on why it's not important to create the most "competitive" (as you defined it) metagame that we can? You kind of just said it isn't important.
Pokemon is a game of managing probabilities. The best players are those that are best at managing the probabilities of their options, and banning pokemon does not change this at all. A better ban list does not significantly reduce the luck element of the game, it only plays to our intuitive desire for diversity. Note that I am assuming that a continuous testing process would produce a "better" ban list, which is definitely not necessarily the case!Because any slight advantage that one player has over another, without factoring in skill, makes the "best players" have less of a chance of winning if they don't use said Pokemon. Additionally, if they are forced and you're ok with that, then this creates a metagame that no "good" player enjoys.
Also, plenty of good players participated in VGC, which basically requires that you use Kyogre, Groudon, Dialga, Palkia, or Mewtwo. It was still highly competitive and drew in a lot of talent. I think a lot of us enjoyed it?
I made a mistake in even saying this because the context of my paragraph made it seem like I thought this was a problem. Almost no one votes to ban or not ban a pokemon based on our definitions of uber...they vote based on their gut instinct. Just the fact that players are required to nominate based on Smogon's criteria doesn't mean that they are making their decisions based on those criteria! (And let's be honest, it is pretty easy to fabricate a justification for nomination under one of those criteria). Since players are voting based on gut feeling anyway, why bother requiring conformation to our definitions. The nominations paragraphs were nothing more than an inconvenience.And on what grounds are you saying that the UU test encourages people to ban Pokemon they merely find annoying?
Also...
This is obviously a huge problem! The testing process should not encourage players to ban or not ban anything. What's worse is that the discouragement from banning comes only from inconveniencing players through lengthy ban nominations, while for some reason requiring literally zero explanation for "no suspects".You are encouraged not to ban anything, actually.
And you seem to have the idea in your mind that I am suggesting that we ban nothing. I am mainly opposed to the UU process because it literally never ends and does not produce a much better game than a limited-time process. The limited-time process could produce more bans, who knows!
Of course it is subjective. The UU testing process is also not only "ridiculously" subjective, but entirely subjective, since it bans based on how players feel rather than based on data. However, even though it is subjective, it is easily and quickly measurable (see Cathy's process). This is extremely important, as it is a quality that the UU process lacks.Not only is this ridiculously subjective, but it's also always assuming that you're only producing marginally better results, which is legitimately impossible to know at this point.
Although it is impossible to know for sure, but considering how small of a difference there was in "the good players winning" between every single iteration of gen IV OU, I would say that it is a safe bet that there will be little difference in gen V. Once again, EW and Gouki and Husk will probably be kicking ass no matter how long we spend on our ban list.
Additionally, if it is "impossible to know" whether the UU process will produce far better or marginally better or even worse results than a time-limited process, why on earth would we jump right into the more complex and time consuming process? Wouldn't it make more sense to start with a time-limited process so that, in case things go awry, we are not locked into a terrible process (and don't say we won't be locked into it, we were definitely locked into the gen IV OU and UU testing processes)?
You're making the very large assumption that the UU process produces the best results, while criticizing my suggestion because I assume that it will produce comparable results to the UU test. Apparently it is "literally impossible to know", so why go with the more complex option?
Settle for mediocrity? I am not suggesting we have no bans, just that we do not have a never-ending process. The problem with "doing something about" what you perceive to be a major problem is that it takes a huge amount of time and effort, and whether you see it or not it is a huge inconvenience to the player base. The majority of players do not want to jump through hoops to vote, they want to just play the game. The UU process forces the player base continually to either jump through those hoops or accept changes made by a third party (i.e. not nintendo) without their input.Why is it better to settle for mediocrity when this test takes something we do for the metagame anyway (analyze it) and just simply allows us to do something about it?
The UU testing process is very powerful as a continuous testing process. It has worked very well for DPP UU. I am not trying to insult its creators or those who maintain it. What I am trying to do is get the idea across that just about any continuous testing process is a very bad idea. It requires significant time and effort, and ultimately produces a comparable result to a time-limited process, while discouraging people from just doing their best to play (and win) the game.