Past Generations C&C Discussion Thread

Plague von Karma

Banned deucer.
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before or if this isn't even the place to ask, but has Nintendo Cup stuff for Gens 1 and 2 ever been considered? It's the official format from 1997-2000 and is commonly played in some circles (especially in Japan through mediums such as Pokemon Battle Historia). I would be willing to help make analysis pages for the relevant threats in each format. I've actually been working on a Nintendo Cup 1999 Spreadsheet for my own personal research and could probably port a bunch of it into the Smogon format. Since VGC has been a thing on the Strategy Dex for a while, would it make sense?

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask or if this has been discussed before, just curious :psynervous:
 
Last edited:

obi

formerly david stone
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
https://www.smogon.com/bw/banlist/

This page is somewhat out of date compared to the more specific pages like https://www.smogon.com/dex/bw/formats/ou/. BW is the only generation that has this page, and its existence confused me and made me think that none of the other generations had this information in an accessible place on the site. I would suggest we delete that page entirely, and then update the text descriptions of "Tiers" because it has more information than just "Find out where your Pokémon are ranked!" (which was another thing that made it hard for me to find the rules).
 
https://www.smogon.com/bw/banlist/

This page is somewhat out of date compared to the more specific pages like https://www.smogon.com/dex/bw/formats/ou/. BW is the only generation that has this page, and its existence confused me and made me think that none of the other generations had this information in an accessible place on the site. I would suggest we delete that page entirely, and then update the text descriptions of "Tiers" because it has more information than just "Find out where your Pokémon are ranked!" (which was another thing that made it hard for me to find the rules).
Thanks, I removed the page and will raise the suggestion to change the Tiers page description with the rest of the C&C staff.
 
Hi I would like to propose changing the RBY skeleton, specifically the C&C section
Code:
Checks and Counters
===================

**Insert Threat Here**: Describe why the Pokemon is a threat.

**Insert Threat Here**: Describe why the Pokemon is a threat.
I think that this skeleton is trying to make a later gen teambuilding approach fit to gen 1, which I don't think really works. In RBY, a lot of the time you're not running dedicated checks and counters for certain threats, you just have a bunch of tools at your disposal that you use to play around said threat. It's often the case that none of these tools could realistically be called a check or counter, they just happen to work in that situation. I think that focusing on specific pokemon as checks and counters at the expense of a general approach to playing around a given threat, can lead to analyses that have a C&C section that seems barren, when realistically that pokemon is more than manageable. I would also include some general advice to playing around a given pokemon that isn't specifically listing C&Cs (the latter is definitely still important though)

For instance:
  • Reflect Chansey is usable as a solid check to Snorlax... despite the fact that Snorlax technically hard counters all variants of Chansey
  • Zapdos is a pokemon that theoretically is terrible at checking most things, because in theory it has a really rough time switching into things- you don't want it absorbing physical attacks, Water types have Blizzard, it doesn't really get many useful resistances and so on. Despite that, it's still a valuable and versatile defensive tool, because it's really good at out-damaging whatever it happens to be facing
  • I feel like if you're rattling off C&Cs, then the impact of Water types is overstated- they can seem like they're nigh on essential because it's easy to characterise them as checks to virtually every physical attacker, whereas most other pokemon tend to be things that can work, with the right set and the right situation, but are difficult to call proper checks
 

xJoelituh

Banned deucer.
Hi I would like to propose changing the RBY skeleton, specifically the C&C section
Code:
Checks and Counters
===================

**Insert Threat Here**: Describe why the Pokemon is a threat.

**Insert Threat Here**: Describe why the Pokemon is a threat.
I think that this skeleton is trying to make a later gen teambuilding approach fit to gen 1, which I don't think really works. In RBY, a lot of the time you're not running dedicated checks and counters for certain threats, you just have a bunch of tools at your disposal that you use to play around said threat. It's often the case that none of these tools could realistically be called a check or counter, they just happen to work in that situation. I think that focusing on specific pokemon as checks and counters at the expense of a general approach to playing around a given threat, can lead to analyses that have a C&C section that seems barren, when realistically that pokemon is more than manageable. I would also include some general advice to playing around a given pokemon that isn't specifically listing C&Cs (the latter is definitely still important though)

For instance:
  • Reflect Chansey is usable as a solid check to Snorlax... despite the fact that Snorlax technically hard counters all variants of Chansey
  • Zapdos is a pokemon that theoretically is terrible at checking most things, because in theory it has a really rough time switching into things- you don't want it absorbing physical attacks, Water types have Blizzard, it doesn't really get many useful resistances and so on. Despite that, it's still a valuable and versatile defensive tool, because it's really good at out-damaging whatever it happens to be facing
  • I feel like if you're rattling off C&Cs, then the impact of Water types is overstated- they can seem like they're nigh on essential because it's easy to characterise them as checks to virtually every physical attacker, whereas most other pokemon tend to be things that can work, with the right set and the right situation, but are difficult to call proper checks
That part of the skeleton is generic(it can be clarified if it really is such an issue) and when it says 'Pokemon' it can be anything that can check the Pokemon in question, it can be an offensive check, a defensive check, one that is supersituational, one that is set-dependant, status condition or a particular move wide-spreaded. If you would have checked the previous uploaded analysis, you would been able to see that we already do account for specifics or generalizations when appropiated.
We already removed 'Team Options' from the skeleton because in RBY, team options are 'weird' and we would pretty much repeat ourselves a lot between them. As much as I would want the analysis to go more in depth, the target audience for these are usually people who are mostly starting and want a general idea on how to check X Pokemon, the Checks & Counters are already listed from more relevant to less relevant/situational. Analyses should be formal and present objective information so we cannot say how they are going to play around a given Pokemon.
 
That part of the skeleton is generic(it can be clarified if it really is such an issue) and when it says 'Pokemon' it can be anything that can check the Pokemon in question, it can be an offensive check, a defensive check, one that is supersituational, one that is set-dependant, status condition or a particular move wide-spreaded. If you would have checked the previous uploaded analysis, you would been able to see that we already do account for specifics or generalizations when appropiated.
We already removed 'Team Options' from the skeleton because in RBY, team options are 'weird' and we would pretty much repeat ourselves a lot between them. As much as I would want the analysis to go more in depth, the target audience for these are usually people who are mostly starting and want a general idea on how to check X Pokemon, the Checks & Counters are already listed from more relevant to less relevant/situational. Analyses should be formal and present objective information so we cannot say how they are going to play around a given Pokemon.
Thank you for assuming that I don't bother to gain an understanding of anything I work on as that really clarifies our relationship, however I will refrain from reciprocating an equivalent level of disrespect.

From what you're saying, the format you expect from analyses is reasonably comprehensive, however this isn't reflected in the skeleton provided. The skeleton provides almost no details as to what's expected other than that each item should be a "threat", specifically a "pokemon". If you really mean for this to include highly situational checks, status effects or even specific moves, then the skeleton should reflect that. Furthermore, whether or not something is worth mentioning as a check is highly subjective, and it would definitely be helpful to clarify what standards are exactly expected. If you're satisfied with the works that have been produced by Lusch, Amaranth, et al. to this point that's all well and good, but if there's a discrepancy between the expected standards and what's being communicated, then that would be a problem for anyone else that sought to contribute.

I'm a little confused by your second paragraph. I'm unsure where team options plays into things at all, since I don't think it's worthwhile for RBY either and I certainly didn't mention it. That the C&C list proceeds in order from the strongest/most universal checks to the weaker, more situational ones is again not something I'm looking to dispute, while I do believe that a quick sentence outlining the general strategy for dealing with a threat (such as whether to prioritise status or damage) is something that would help newer players and I would argue is the most general possible idea for handling a given threat. Lastly, I don't see how outlining a general approach to dealing with a pokemon deviates from a formal, objective approach, and I'd be curious to see what you've got in mind in raising this point
 

Plague von Karma

Banned deucer.
I think what Ortheore is trying to say is that the current "Checks and Counters" section on the skeleton is misleading, and I'd say it's correct. It heavily implies that the check or counter is a "Pokemon", while analyses tend to feature much more than just that, as we've seen in the analyses posted by Joel. A better explanation on what a check or counter is (Perhaps a link to an FAQ? I think we have one somewhere...), as well as a more open-ended guideline on what to put in the section, would be more accurate to how analyses are actually written. I think improving the section would be helpful since RBY, in particular, does feature more "interplay" than counterplay.

I hope I got this right :psynervous:
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
I think you make a good point Ortheore ; on speaking with xJoelituh, I realize that there was a misunderstanding and I apologize for that. I agree that making an explicit expansion of the format will be helpful. In particular, it will help especially new timers who don't necessarily know whether the skeleton should be taken in word or in spirit. We will look into updating the skeleton.
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
Hello all (especially Ortheore and fellow writers / qc team members / gp members / moderators)

I don't see the need for this to be a closed discussion, so I am going to just put it out here; what do you think of this proposed modification to the skeleton?

Checks and Counters
===================

If it helps to organize seemingly disparate points below, describe briefly the general idea behind mitigation before moving on to the list.
Examples:
1. This Pokemon is very versatile and thus needs specific checks for each set.
2. This Pokemon's functions (such as laying hazards) need to be mitigated, not so much the Pokemon itself because it is passive.
3. This Pokemon hits everything common for a lot of damage, but is otherwise very frail, so mitigation the threat will generally involve smart pivoting, trapping and revenge killing.

**Insert mitigation measure here**: Describe the mitigation measure. See below for details.

**Insert mitigation measure here**: Describe the mitigation measure. See below for details.

Examples of mitigation measures:
Specific Pokemon: Tyranitar, Dugtrio
Specific Moves: Pursuit, Spikes, Toxic, Reflect
Battle Effects: Sand
Specific Abilities: Natural Cure
Categories of Pokemon: Bulky Water-types, Physically Offensive Pokemon, Setup Sweepers, Phazers, Trappers
Cores of Pokemon: Salamence + Metagross (this definition needs to be refined; many times cores cover different sets of the same Pokemon, in which case they would have been covered under individual Pokemon, but there are also reasons for cores to act sequentially)
Categories of Moves: Fire-type moves, Hazards, Status
Categories of Battle Effects: Indirect Damage (combination of sand/status/hazards).
Specific Strategies: Revenge killing (can also be category of Pokemon), PP stalling, Denying Setup Opportunities

Descriptions should convey the following
1. Which sets do this mitigation measure apply to?
2. How effective is this measure?
3. How common is this measure?

Edit: It probably won't end up being in this exact form because its not very readable right now, but i just wanted to get the idea out first.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think that's very thorough and should definitely do a good job explaining things. Now I think it's matter of determining how we can make it more concise.
  • Would it be worth separating the examples from the actual skeletons? That might make things more compact, and it's not as though everyone that uses the skeleton will need examples- so long as they're there for reference that might be sufficient
  • I would probably use the term counterplay over mitigation measure. The latter just sounds a little awkward and ambiguous to me, while counterplay to me is more meaningful while still being very broad in its scope
  • I feel like there should be a way to state that individual pokemon (or w/e) or categories thereof would both be acceptable inclusions in the list, without having to duplicate lines. One thing that springs to mind is "Pokemon (can be either a category or individual pokemon)" but I imagine there would be a better way to put it than that
  • I'm curious as to how often people would list an ability specifically as a form of counterplay- I think it's rare for an ability to have a huge number of users in a given format, but I could be wrong. I also think it could easily be framed as a category of pokemon.
  • Most of the examples listed for moves/effects I think make sense, but I can't help but be hesitant about hazards being a major example, unless I guess something is really SR-weak. I just remember reading lots of old analyses that were like "it's a good idea to support this threat with Stealth Rock", as though that's not something that's included on literally every competitive team in generations that have it and doesn't provide support to literally everything (note that it's been a loooooong time since I've looked at those sorts of analyses, so they've probably been updated). It's a slightly different scenario here, but it is something that sprang to mind
Let me know what you all think, and I can keep trying to come up with ideas
 

vapicuno

你的价值比自己想象中的所有还要低。我却早已解脱,享受幸福
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Past WCoP Champion
Moderator
Would it be worth separating the examples from the actual skeletons? That might make things more compact, and it's not as though everyone that uses the skeleton will need examples- so long as they're there for reference that might be sufficient
yeah i agree. also would be good to give some tips on the other sections of the analysis as well. any comments?
I would probably use the term counterplay over mitigation measure. The latter just sounds a little awkward and ambiguous to me, while counterplay to me is more meaningful while still being very broad in its scope
agree
I feel like there should be a way to state that individual pokemon (or w/e) or categories thereof would both be acceptable inclusions in the list, without having to duplicate lines. One thing that springs to mind is "Pokemon (can be either a category or individual pokemon)" but I imagine there would be a better way to put it than that
i don't understand this; care to elaborate?
I'm curious as to how often people would list an ability specifically as a form of counterplay- I think it's rare for an ability to have a huge number of users in a given format, but I could be wrong. I also think it could easily be framed as a category of pokemon.
natural cure users (starmie/celebi/blissey) are good pivots into toxic spamming pokemon in adv, but perhaps your point is more the last sentence of what you said?
Most of the examples listed for moves/effects I think make sense, but I can't help but be hesitant about hazards being a major example, unless I guess something is really SR-weak. I just remember reading lots of old analyses that were like "it's a good idea to support this threat with Stealth Rock", as though that's not something that's included on literally every competitive team in generations that have it and doesn't provide support to literally everything (note that it's been a loooooong time since I've looked at those sorts of analyses, so they've probably been updated). It's a slightly different scenario here, but it is something that sprang to mind
i don't know about gens other than adv, but two examples that come to mind in adv are suicune and snorlax, and many times the counterplay is to exploit indirect damage (sand, spikes) and just beat them down so they rest and never get a chance to set up. this point is salient in adv because non sand-immune pokemon cannot recover the spikes damage using leftovers, so spikes adversely affects these mons more than others. of course, it is this potent combination of indirect damage, not exclusively spikes, so arguably this doesn't apply too much in adv as well. i'd be curious to know if there are other gens where spikes is exclusively a solution to something.
 
yeah i agree. also would be good to give some tips on the other sections of the analysis as well. any comments?
Hmmm, well the intro already has a little piece clarifying how best to complete it, so that's covered. That only leaves set details (the subcategories of which vary between generations), and OO.

Regarding OO, how viable does an option have to be for it to come up in OO? Could it also be used to discourage people from using moves/sets that could be considered "noob-traps" or that are totally unviable but see a strange amount of usage anyway? The example I have in mind for this is Confuse Ray Gengar in RBY, which is both absolute garbage and bizarrely common on ladder below 1500 (ie. almost all of the ladder). Additionally, the OO mentions the options it contains as being not recommended due to being inconsistent or outclassed. I feel like that's not really an exhaustive list as to why something might be in OO which could theoretically throw someone off- I think it's analogous to my criticisms of the C&C section of the skeleton. Off the top of my head, opportunity cost is a big factor that I think is a little awkward to match to those terms, and if something is consistently mediocre, it may not fit either description as well. That said, I personally am not put off by it, but I think I have my own idea as to what belongs in OO, which may not align with the skeleton

I'll have to have a think about the set details section

i don't understand this; care to elaborate?
I was thinking that rather than having specific X as an option and then a category of X as a separate option, there should be a way to word it so that you can combine those points while still making it clear that you can talk about either something specific or a category

natural cure users (starmie/celebi/blissey) are good pivots into toxic spamming pokemon in adv, but perhaps your point is more the last sentence of what you said?
Yeah I guess so

i don't know about gens other than adv, but two examples that come to mind in adv are suicune and snorlax, and many times the counterplay is to exploit indirect damage (sand, spikes) and just beat them down so they rest and never get a chance to set up. this point is salient in adv because non sand-immune pokemon cannot recover the spikes damage using leftovers, so spikes adversely affects these mons more than others. of course, it is this potent combination of indirect damage, not exclusively spikes, so arguably this doesn't apply too much in adv as well. i'd be curious to know if there are other gens where spikes is exclusively a solution to something.
Hmm fair enough, though I would say that if it's a combination of things then maybe it would be more correct to say broadly "passive damage" or something
 
So I logged into Discord for the first time in like 2 weeks to see a PM saying that if I want to take my analysis and post it on RBY2K20, there would it be potential legal issues. Is this the case? Because if so, I'll go ahead and delete all of my analyses tbh
 

Plague von Karma

Banned deucer.
So I logged into Discord for the first time in like 2 weeks to see a PM saying that if I want to take my analysis and post it on RBY2K20, there would it be potential legal issues. Is this the case? Because if so, I'll go ahead and delete all of my analyses tbh
The issue is that when an analysis is quality checked, grammar checked and the like by someone, the analysis isn't your own work. Once edited, it's not just your work, it's now a collaborative work. Republishing the content on another site, as a result, isn't fair to other collaborators.

EDIT: To be clear, as in hindsight this is a pretty iffy statement: nobody is suing anyone over Pokemon analyses, but there is a policy in place that makes republishing analyses without other collaborator's say-so a very big no-no.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top