So far in this thread there is a lot of individual expression but not much discussion. This isn’t a bad thing as your input helps us to isolate key points to focus on throughout the policy revamp. Immediately, the goal of this thread is to have a new overview since there are clearly flaws that need to be addressed with the current one. To reach that goal I’m going respond to each of you (briefly for now, sorry) since it is important to us that community participation is reflected in the new policy.
luniitic: This is difficult to respond to because I feel your description of ubers (or really any pokemon metagame) is more fantastical than realistic. It may just be a miscommunication surrounding the use of terms like viability and metagame but your meganium example leads me to assume that isn’t the case. Anyways, I feel that the application of standard clauses throughout most of Ubers history suggests the idea that Ubers actually is meant to be taken seriously and stand on the same competitive ground as other prominent metagames. (keep in mind there’s only really much documentation starting in dpp and my personal experience only dates to bw) You also bring up diversity which is in itself an interesting topic. If we look to Ubers past, we can find metagames that have a lot of diversity (bw2) as well as metagames with very little diversity (oras). In each case, tiering has not played an active role to push a metagame towards one end or another. Therefore, I feel it’s safe to conclude that Ubers policy shouldn’t prioritize diversity or the lack of.
All that said, I’m speaking purely from a policy standpoint. You are free to enjoy Ubers in whatever way you’d like.
Lotus: « For me Ubers's real identity comes from it allowing players to experience the highest and the most inclusive tier that filters out uncompetitive aspects of competitive Pokemon and troubleshoots the potential unhealthiness of the metagame time to time in order to remove problematic components. »
I actually really like this sentence a lot because I think it’s a fair summary of Ubers. I think there’s a common ideal that Ubers is as minimalist as possible without being a gimmick or a metagame that fails to test the commonly accepted skills of Pokemon.
wrath of alakazam: The points you bring up makes me really want to share this thread.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/arceus-the-uber-metagame.84175/
It’s interesting because there’s discussion revolving around a lot of the common questions and talking points concerning us now. Ubers in relation to OU, Ubers as a banlist vs Ubers as a metagame/
tier, can we ban pokemon from ubers, balance, competitiveness, playability, etc. It’s all there and even better it all dates from long before Mega Rayquaza was even a thing to consider banning. (there are some almost prophetic posts from bojangles in that thread on the subject) There’s one post from the thread that I think is especially worth reading that I will quote directly below.
Um.........why are people even attempting to say that ubers (IN PRACTICE) is "just a ban list."
We seriously need to get over this. Ubers is not a banlist; it is a metagame that has a significant enough following to worthy of expansive analysis and written work.
Ubers may have started off as a ban list, but it evolved into a metagame.
Let's also not forget that WE BAN THINGS IN UBERS ALREADY...NOTE CLAUSES.
Don't cry to some (irrelevant now) reference about "ban list" when we ban things in an effort to make it playable as it is.
This argument shouldn't even be about whether not we should ban something, because we already do and have for 7+ years now.
It's about whether or not Arceus makes ubers unplayable, so let's keep solely at that.
cam: One thing in your post I want to talk quickly about is: « From my point of view if nothing were to happen then the metagame would stay very similar for too long and feel stale which would drive me away from playing the tier as much, if at all. »
Firstly, it’s absolutely okay that you feel this way and I have no intention of changing your mind. Secondly, from a policy standpoint I think each Ubers metagame is going to stay similar for the majority of its active tiering lifetime. This has just historically been the case and, although evolution is possible and what we are currently bringing under scrutiny, I doubt the future will be different. Actively tiering to avoid a stale metagame runs contrary to the commonly expressed desire for minimalism.
scuba diver: Right now we are focusing on rewriting the tiering policy before we tackle any more questions surrounding potential suspect tests.
TheSunIsADedlyLazr: You bring up your points regarding Ubers as divorced from OU and I can’t help but think about how PO, which had(has?) a very different OU, had(has?) the exact same Ubers. I feel like the seperation between Ubers and OU is so distant now (and perhaps has been for a long time) that Ubers is Ubers even if there isn’t an or the OU around for Ubers to serve as a banlist for. I realize this isn’t quite what you were talking about but I feel distance between Ubers and OU in terms of pokemon viability brings up the distance and lack of interaction between the two metagames themselves. (as opposed to something like OU and UU where the usage in one directly impacts the pool of Pokemon for the other) I also agree that Ubers policy is probably best served as being made independent from OU as well.
dream:
1) I know we chatted a bit on discord about where to draw the line between what’s acceptable and isn’t for (potentially) uncompetitive elements but I’ve forgot some of those details. At the risk of repeating the exact discussion, I feel that following other singles metagames as a baseline is good. My reasoning is that uncompetitive elements are mostly related to the mechanics of that generation and the element itself as opposed to interactions within a given metagame. Therefore I feel whats true for OU, UU, etc should be mostly true for Ubers as well. However, I do understand that metagame contect can matter which is why I suggest that what other singles metas do should serve as a baseline as opposed to a hard rule. I just think it’s impossible to predict future metagames so we are forced to adopt a consistent baseline and then work from there on a case by case basis.
2) I obviously agree but as Nayrz mentioned there is a need for hard lines so that our policy can serve as a foundation for furture tiering as opposed to a carte blanche for us to do whatever it is « we » like. As you mentioned, determining what we won’t ban for is certainly easier than what would be bannable. Reasons like overcentralization or to promote diversity are some pretty obvious reasons that we won’t consider for bans, assuming we stick to tradition. I think, though, that only looking through this lens will still leave us with a lack of concrete guidelines for tiering.
Blim:
I think that Ubers, for now at least, should adopt some sort of “extremely conservative competitive playability” philosophy, meaning that no pokemon is banned unless is breaks the competitiveness of the itself, with something like Mega-Rayquaza being the baseline. And even then, you should attempt to maintain the tier’s identity / purpose as being a tier where players can play with the “least amount of restrictions”, and that’s where complex bans would have to come into play.
This is very close to my personal feelings regarding what Ubers should adopt as its overall identity / tiering guideline. There are a few things I’d like to nitpick, though. I don’t think Mega Rayquaza should serve as a baseline because I don’t think we can say with certainty that MRay will always be problem. Even if it is, I think a single example is insufficient to accurately measure future problems. A Pokemon may not need to be as ridiculous as MRay to break Ubers. However, I think looking at precedents set by prior Ubers metagames can help us make judgments regarding future ones. Incidentally, Mega Rayquaza in ORAS Ubers is a good example. Another nitpick is that I don’t think this conservatism should apply only to Pokemon bans. I think any ban beyond the standard clauses should be avoided as an ideal.
Which brings me to your second proposition, strictly adhering to the ideal of no Pokemon bans. While doing this would offer us the comfort of clear, concrete rules to respect when tiering, I think it also runs contrary to the other ideal that with competitive merit. I’m using competitive merit here to avoid the smogon defined term (un)competitive. It’s difficult to define what I mean while still reflecting what everybody else means. However, here I’m using the term to describe a metagame that isn’t gimmicky, broken, or a crapshoot. More concretely, a metagame that tests and rewards what is considered the fundamental skills of Pokemon to a degree comparable to most other accepted metagames designed to measure these skills. Strictly forbidding Pokemon bans will inevitably lead to a scenario like Mega Rayquaza in ORAS where we simply can’t fulfill both ideals. To me, the ideal of a skill-based metagame should take precedence over the ideal of no bans beyond the standard clauses. The former we should strictly respect all while trying to stat as close as we can to the later.
SparksBlade: I feel like I’ve already talked about what you bring up in your first paragraph so I don’t have much more to say about it here other than, personally, I agree with what you are saying and I think that it echoes what many others have expressed. This should be reflected in the new overview, I believe.
As for your second paragraph, right now the priority is to finish revamping our policy before moving onto to suspects. Having a strong, clear, community approved policy
now is neccessary for any future suspects to take place in a focused manner that will set proper precedents for gen 8.
tcr: These are obviously interesting ideas but as Nayrz mentioned we need to have our policy straight before, not after any future suspects for USM. Your suggestions will definitely will be brought up once we reach the suspect stuff stage.
As for your remarks regarding the policy itself. There’s a lot here so I’m not sure if I’ll do it all justice within this post. I agree that a dynamic tiering policy can present problems as mentioned above but I think it’s simply necessary, to a degree, for the reasons mentioned above. Lots of balancing to do. I don’t think, though, that we should structure our policy with the goal of changing public opinion. Obviously, I don’t mean we should ignore public opinion but there are a lot of factors at play behind public opinion and I think it would be misleading as an absolute goal. Also, I don’t think Ubers really is played for fun rather than competitive value. Obviously, reasons for playing Ubers are subjective and I’m going to be biased towards my own reasons. That said, I think the importance of competitive value is reinforced not only by those who posted above you, but also Ubers history with tournaments, analyses, and articles, inclusion of clauses, and desire for active tiering. (read all the bans of proposals of bans for elements that undermine Ubers competitive value) Also fun is subjective. (sparksblade equates it with competitive value in the post just above yours, and he’s obviously not the only person who feels this way) Again, I’m probably going to fail to do your post justice in this one.
Orch: I’m sorry but I have to ignore this post. I don’t even disagree with it, « balance » is just too much of a trigger word for me that I’m going to stray way too far off-topic talking about it. Also, the purpose of banning is too open-ended for me to respond to. Fortunately, this policy revamp is going to answer that question. (for ubers at least)
As for your second post, the goal of suspect testing is to ask if the proposed ban / unban is in-line with current tiering policy. If you feel that our current policy is fine as it is then that’s fair but otherwise it’s prefered for us to settle our policy first as opposed to making it up as we go.
momtaz: We are currently reviewing policy before considering suspect tests. (we aren’t ignoring your request, though, we just aren’t there yet.)
boo836: Overcentralization has been a trademark of Ubers since forever. For this reason, I think it’s safe to say that the revamped policy won’t allow for bans based on that reason.
Dreadfury: Right now the focus is on rewriting policy as opposed to suspect tests. That said, if we do decide to retest MRay, it will be more for thorough application of our policy than for any other reason. There’s something to be said about not even testing a Pokemon that was banned a generation ago.
Nayrz: I agree with basically everything in your two posts.
To me, the identity of Ubers remains as the tier with the least amount of bans to be competitively enjoyed.
This statement has been echo’d a lot with slightly different wording but I believe the same meaning. In one way or another, this should definitely appear in the new overview, imo.
On complex bans, I feel they should be considered when applying a simple ban to the problem would introduce unrelated collateral. Complex bans still have inherent problems, as you highlighted in your second post, that we need to be conscious of.
As for the conflict between the desire for hard lines and the need for flexibility to address potential future problems, I think focusing on the state of the metagame can help with this. What I mean is structuring our policy to describe what an Ubers metagame should be like rather than what a ban should be justified by. Doing so this way allows us to set hard lines (ubers must be competitive, ubers may be overcentralized, etc.) about the metagame that we check if future elements compromise while still giving us the flexibility to ban problems regardless of how they disrupt the metagame.
With that said, here’s where I think we are at so far:
- Ubers must be competitive. Standard singles clauses should apply.
- Ubers must be competively enjoyable/playable/skillful/???. There should be metagame depth and player interaction to the degree that the better players beat lesser players. (as much as you can hope to expect out of Pokemon at least. also if we keep the word playable we should define it differently than what hack provides, imo.)
- Ubers should ban nothing beyond what violates the aspects above. (or some other way to quantify as little as possible)
The following I believe to be reasonable lines but may disputable.
- Ubers does not care about overcentralization or diversity.
- Ubers may employ complex bans in order to remain as true to policy ideals as possible.
- Ubers shouldn’t « grandfather » bans from prior generations beyond the standard singles clauses.
There may be points that I’m forgetting right now, most of these were brought up in this thread or on discord. Also, I think defining lines for things like complex bans as well as defining terms (the competitively enjoyable one for example) should be addressed in later threads (ie later in policy since this is just the overview. I think even without establishing those things now, we all more or less understand eachother regarding them.