At what point could the OU Metagame said to have failed?

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Here is an interesting theoretical topic. Now, as we all know, the OU Metagame is basically an attempt at creating a standard level of play that isn't centralized around a handful of Pokemon.

Wrong. Fighting centralization is not a sole purpose for tier design. In fact, research results show that centralization cannot be shown as a statistically relevant concern.

To achieve this goal, Pokemon are often banned to Ubers. The Uber tier is not regulated, and is often called a simple banlist.

Pokemon are banned to Ubers to achieve competitiveness (balance), not decentralization.

However... to see if the OU Metagame was actually significantly less centralized than the Uber tier, I took a look at the usage stats from both tiers to see what they were like. Yep, it appears that OU for now is less centralized -- there are no Pokemon in 30-40% usage range, and not many that are 20%, unlike in Ubers.

What's the point in the above exercise? It has no relevance to the quality of either tier competitively.

But what would happen if we reached a point where the usage stats did become very similar to Ubers? Could we consider the OU Metagame to have failed, and we move to the Uber tier to be the new standard, or would we simply just try to ban more and more things until we reach a smaller concentration of usage percentages?

The concept of "failing" applies to OU how? Also you're just making up shit now. We would not just ban stuff because Pokemon had high usage-- see Scizor. Bans only happen for competitive reasons.

If the answer is the latter, at what point do we consider an acceptable cut-off for adequate decentralization? If the top 10 Pokemon in OU all had 20% usage rates, would this be considered acceptable, for instance? What about 50%?

There is none.
This thread is terrible.
 
I still don't like the idea of "over centralizing" and I'm pretty finicky about banning in general. I'm one of the few who think Exca shouldn't have been banned even though "there was the excadrill metagame". Unlike most, and I respect their view points and opinions too, I happen to think just because something is "so good", that nothing will ever be "too good". In my eyes, that's kind of impossible. There was "excadrill metagame" and "torn-t" metagame but what if both were in the meta at the same time? Then we nearly banned Keldeo, and Genesect was also banned. What if they were all in the same metagame? Wouldn't it be a more varied metagame at that point with all of those strong playstyles in the same arena? Unfortunately Exca never had that sort of competition, but to that, I'd say that although Exca was declared a "quick and easy way to win"[I also wuold contend there are no easy ways to win. All victories are earned no matter what the strategy], using Exca wasn't the only way to win just like using Chomp wasn't the only way to win back in Gen 4. I think the Salamence ban and Garchomp bans, for a period of time, actually made Smogon look pretty bad.

So what that's saying is basically I don't really believe in "over-centralizing", because there are too many ways to win to think something is 'too good', etc. There are just too many ways to win. I know I'm going to be quoted, counter argued, etc and that's fine. Those are just some of my views.

So then what are some other ways "the OU metagame could become a failure"? Has it "failed' before? I'm really not sure. It's probably going to sound irrational to the same people who don't believe in my previous thoughts, but in my eyes, the game of poke'mon would just evolve and take off in a different direction. "Broken" 'mons and strategies would compete against one another instead of having one dominant "broken" mon or strategy. I think the early days of BW1 was a pretty good example of that and I actually liked that metagame. I knnow I'm in the minority when I say these things, but maybe the kind of balance we strive for is kind of artifical, and that instead of eliminating strategies and mons they should just compete against one another.

So my answer: I've always had my bias against banning and have more or less found it unnecessary instead of Genesect -- and also i'm not sure Competitive Poke'mon could actually become a failure as long as it's tiered and organized how it is since it'd likely just change and evolve.
I think you would enjoy Ubers. Like Me!
 
What's ironic about that statement is that BW OU had more variety in it than the OU metagames of all previous generations. RBY OU had 16 OU Pokemon, GSC had 24, RSE had 27, DPP had 48, and BW had 50.
It seems mathematically dishonest to call B/W the most varied metagame based purely on the amount; it should be done based on the proportional number, imo.

Gen 1- 10.5%
Gen 2- 9%
Gen 3- 6.99%
Gen 4- 9.7%
Gen 5- 7.7%

So proportional to the amount of Pokemon in the game itself, gen 5 was actually the least varied generation next to gen 3.

If I don't include the ubers of any given gen (counted Arceus as 1 Pokemon:)

Gen 1- 10.7%
Gen 2- 9.7%
Gen 3- 6%
Gen 4- 10.2%
Gen 5- 8%

...so, yeah.

I think variation is a terrible indicator of the overall quality of a metagame, mind, but the people who disagree should by all means consider B/W one of the worst generations from a competitive standpoint.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
It seems mathematically dishonest to call B/W the most varied metagame based purely on the amount; it should be done based on the proportional number, imo.
No it shouldn't. You're wrong. The number of Pokemon available has nothing to do with the degree of variety in the metagame.
Gen 1- 10.5%
Gen 2- 9%
Gen 3- 6.99%
Gen 4- 9.7%
Gen 5- 7.7%
These percents are completely irrelevant to the objective character/properties of the metagame. BW OU has the most OU Pokemon. It has the greatest number of viable lower tier threats who also play big roles in the metagame. It has the greatest diversity of strategies.

No matter how you split it, there is more diversity in the BW metagame-- it is the most diverse generation. Period-- end of story.

So proportional to the amount of Pokemon in the game itself, gen 5 was actually the least varied generation next to gen 3.
^Doesn't mean shit relevant to the statement made.

If I don't include the ubers of any given gen (counted Arceus as 1 Pokemon:)

I think variation is a terrible indicator of the overall quality of a metagame, mind, but the people who disagree should by all means consider B/W one of the worst generations from a competitive standpoint.
^This is true. But it's also important to remember that the mentality of 4th gen players was that metagames are ALL about diversity, and 4th gen is where our tiering culture/systems/philosophy was developed; it's unfortunate but our culture hasn't been able to shake the "more is better" mindset since then. It's a problem that people are slowly starting to address.

That said, I actually thought GF did a brilliant job with BW, and that it was one of the most unique and fascinating OU metagames ever-- GF certainly forced us all out of our comfort zones, to think outside the box and over a greater diversity of potential strategy and tactics. Say what you will, but the quality and skill of players has undoubtedly increased thanks to BW-- and players learned to build, play, counter, and imagine teams far beyond the "line up 6 Pokemon with type synergy and predict good" mentality of ADV and DPP.

Sure, BW was not a great metagame to "always make the better player win." But in terms of forcing greater developments in team building, creativity, and other tactics-- the level of these skills in our community has never been higher, and I do think BW did play a big role, and should have our thanks.
 
I was just talking pure numbers (which is also a dishonest measure, as you pointed out) especially considering that the number of OU pokemon relative to the total number seemed to almost be inversely proportional to the overall variety of the generation. The exception to this is gen 4 (and maybe 2,) as I wasn't around for it, and can't make an informed statement as to the variety of the generation (or lackthereof.)

I don't particularly like people arguing for variety, probably because I hang around the YGO community where begging for varied formats is pretty much the calling card of a mediocre player. I don't know how true that is here, though.
 
It seems mathematically dishonest to call B/W the most varied metagame based purely on the amount; it should be done based on the proportional number, imo.
No, it's not mathematically dishonest. Regardless of how many Pokemon existed in other tiers, BW did have the most Pokemon with enough usage to be considered "overused." If I remember correctly, the OU usage cutoff (3.41%) is the chance of seeing a Pokemon in one of every 20 battles. In RBY OU, there were only 16 Pokemon that you would statistically see at least once in every 20 battles. In BW OU, there were 50 Pokemon that would be seen at least once in every 20 battles. The number of total Pokemon in the game is completely irrelevant. It could be 50 out of 100 Pokemon, it could be 50 out of 1000, but it's still 50 common Pokemon vs 16 common ones.

I think variation is a terrible indicator of the overall quality of a metagame, mind, but the people who disagree should by all means consider B/W one of the worst generations from a competitive standpoint.
Yeah, while a certain amount of variation is important, variety is definitely overrated as a quality of a good metagame. However, the original comment was that you only see a small handful of Pokemon, and the point still stands that such a remark simply isn't true.
 
The entire metagame failed when it became obvious everyone ran the same 15-20 pokemon in all the tiers completely ignoring the rest as well as having a single move basically force you to use both it and the counter to it as well as hurting the use of basically an entire 1-2 types and then not doing anything about it. When you see at least 2 of scizor, T-tar, lucario, etc every 2-3 battles then the metagame failed.
so it already failed?
 
No, it's not mathematically dishonest. Regardless of how many Pokemon existed in other tiers, BW did have the most Pokemon with enough usage to be considered "overused." If I remember correctly, the OU usage cutoff (3.41%) is the chance of seeing a Pokemon in one of every 20 battles. In RBY OU, there were only 16 Pokemon that you would statistically see at least once in every 20 battles. In BW OU, there were 50 Pokemon that would be seen at least once in every 20 battles. The number of total Pokemon in the game is completely irrelevant. It could be 50 out of 100 Pokemon, it could be 50 out of 1000, but it's still 50 common Pokemon vs 16 common ones.
I think when most people say that they mean relative to the total amount of Pokemon. While it's true, it's not a measure of variation whatsoever- if only 15 Pokemon were used, but they each had 10 different viable, good movesets, it'd probably be more varied than 50 Pokemon with only 2 movesets.

Of course that's one hell of an exaggeration, and there are -a lot- more factors than just movesets and variety of Pokemon, but I think I've gotten my point across.

I'm not saying I disagree with you- I actually agree. I just don't want people saying "you know what I meant" or some variation thereof in response to someone pointing out that BW had the most OU Pokemon out of all.

Yeah, while a certain amount of variation is important, variety is definitely overrated as a quality of a good metagame. However, the original comment was that you only see a small handful of Pokemon, and the point still stands that such a remark simply isn't true.
I only think varation is important to the minimum extent of allowing a decent measure of unpredictability. Even if someone absolutely masters using and combating a certain playstyle, if it's only a single playstyle, -they are not a good player.- This applies to any game.

This may or may not be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think winning is the most important thing. I think ensuring future victories is the most important thing, and unless the playing field is static (i.e. Chess,) fighting the same things over and over does not ensure future victories.

From what I've seen, a lot of the time, asking for variation just amounts to "I can't win with shitty tactic x, therefore it is the fault of the game, not myself."

But on the flip side, a good amount people who don't like variation amount to "I keep winning with x tactic, and I don't want it to go so I can keep winning."

...but I'm just yammering on now.

I don't think the metagame ever failed, and completely agree with the point that B/W made people leave their comfort zones. I think that was a good thing.
 
I was playing an RBY game the other day on our esteemed simulator, when I ran across a guy with the exact same team as me.

Number of fucks given: 0.
 
Here's my opinion on the whole "percentage vs. absolute" debate.

Smogon doesn't care about what portion of the Pokemon are viable. If they introduced 5000 Pokemon with Sunkern's stats and Truant, that would not make Slaking any more OU viable. It doesn't matter how many new Pokemon are introduced if they aren't good. Having 50 viable OU Pokemon is better than having 15, unless these 50 have so few sets relative to the 15 that the number of sets you have to counter goes down. Having to counter "10% of all Pokemon" doesn't tell you anything about how many different things are viable, just that Game Freak is producing mostly duds or NFEs. It doesn't tell you anything about how good the metagame is; it just gives you the logical fact that Game Freak has made mostly unviable Pokemon.
 
Centralization is when you have to consider a single pokemon very heavily on every team you build, so much so you have to carry 3~4 counters just to take it down. This was the case with Garchomp, and also Blaziken and Exadrill, and most swift swim pokemon at later times.

The thing is, the OU metagame is not fixed, so saying it has "failed" at any time, is a misnomer. If it does fail for any reason, we as a community change it. And although we may disagree on various points, in the end what comes out is for the better. As long as I've been here, the voting process has continued to get better and better, as well as a thorough approach to testing problems. If something is a huge problem, we've stepped in to remove it either through banning individual pokemon, or abilities.
 
I still don't like the idea of "over centralizing" and I'm pretty finicky about banning in general. I'm one of the few who think Exca shouldn't have been banned even though "there was the excadrill metagame". Unlike most, and I respect their view points and opinions too, I happen to think just because something is "so good", that nothing will ever be "too good". In my eyes, that's kind of impossible. There was "excadrill metagame" and "torn-t" metagame but what if both were in the meta at the same time? Then we nearly banned Keldeo, and Genesect was also banned. What if they were all in the same metagame? Wouldn't it be a more varied metagame at that point with all of those strong playstyles in the same arena? Unfortunately Exca never had that sort of competition, but to that, I'd say that although Exca was declared a "quick and easy way to win"[I also wuold contend there are no easy ways to win. All victories are earned no matter what the strategy], using Exca wasn't the only way to win just like using Chomp wasn't the only way to win back in Gen 4. I think the Salamence ban and Garchomp bans, for a period of time, actually made Smogon look pretty bad.

So what that's saying is basically I don't really believe in "over-centralizing", because there are too many ways to win to think something is 'too good', etc. There are just too many ways to win. I know I'm going to be quoted, counter argued, etc and that's fine. Those are just some of my views.

So then what are some other ways "the OU metagame could become a failure"? Has it "failed' before? I'm really not sure. It's probably going to sound irrational to the same people who don't believe in my previous thoughts, but in my eyes, the game of poke'mon would just evolve and take off in a different direction. "Broken" Can u pick me up before 5'mons and strategies would compete against one another instead of having one dominant "broken" mon or strategy. I think the early days of BW1 was a pretty good example of that and I actually liked that metagame. I knnow I'm in the minority when I say these things, but maybe the kind of balance we strive for is kind of artifical, and that instead of eliminating strategies and mons they should just compete against one another.

So my answer: I've always had my bias against banning and have more or less found it unnecessary instead of Genesect -- and also i'm not sure Competitive Poke'mon could actually become a failure as long as it's tiered and organized how it is since it'd likely just change and evolve.
I am quoting you but not because of why u said I would but because I respect the things you say I might not entirely agree with them but I respect that u came out and said what u wanted to and that nobody can change ur mind
 
I am quoting you but not because of why u said I would but because I respect the things you say I might not entirely agree with them but I respect that u came out and said what u wanted to and that nobody can change ur mind
Thanks =] I think it's important to have your convictions about things -- but of course also to listen to others and do independent research as a basis of believing in your ideas.

My bottom line was that our 'play pen metagames' all have their problems and the variety is in how you win not always in the pokemon in any given "excadrill metagame" or "torn-t metagame" or "garchomp metagame" or "keldeo metagame" or whatever.
 
A game is properly balanced if there's no sure way to win, maybe into the point the creator itself don't know how. Adding blaziken, excadrill and swift swimmers will (somehow) broke this, so its (possibly) okay to ban those. The OU metagame is not completely broken (nothing is perfect guys), if you wanted unrestricted choices, go play ubers.
For me, the tiering is good because you don't want to fight Arceus with raticates. Seriously, who likes unbalanced fight​

however, though, if there's just too many pokemon exist, there will be so much choice (and counters) that no matter which team you build, it doesn't really matter. Teambuilding might be the one failing. (If it comes to this, why not just choose 6 random pokemon, since the result will not so different like battle vactory)
 
A game is properly balanced if there's no sure way to win, maybe into the point the creator itself don't know how. Adding blaziken, excadrill and swift swimmers will (somehow) broke this, so its (possibly) okay to ban those. The OU metagame is not completely broken (nothing is perfect guys), if you wanted unrestricted choices, go play ubers.
For me, the tiering is good because you don't want to fight Arceus with raticates. Seriously, who likes unbalanced fight​

however, though, if there's just too many pokemon exist, there will be so much choice (and counters) that no matter which team you build, it doesn't really matter. Teambuilding might be the one failing. (If it comes to this, why not just choose 6 random pokemon, since the result will not so different like battle vactory)
This exactly. In addition to Pokemon I play Magic: The Gathering and Chess competitively and I have definitely found that Pokemon is the one where I feel like I am least able to win a significant amount of the time based solely on skill. I've been spending the last few months changing up my teams constantly to try to combat all of the threats in even just the pre-bank meta and I'm not sure it's possible, whenever I start winning with a team I always end up in a few battles with people who happen to run one of the pokemon I hadn't thought of and they end up crushing me with it, then when I go back to fill that hole I create other weaknesses.

Not to get off topic but in Magic there is a similar trend when deckbuilding but they provide the tools to build a deck that can actually have outs to the things that it is weak against through a sideboard and a larger pool to draw from (60 cards instead of 24 attacks).

I'm actually dreading when pokebank comes out because it will vastly lengthen the threat list we need to prepare for and make it even more likely that our carefully thought out teams will be picked apart by one of the many pokemon we were unable to properly build against. In my opinion OU, and maybe even all of competitive battling, is already broken for this reason. The only format I've found that mitigates this problem to an extent is Ubers because it has such a vastly smaller pool of viable pokemon and movesets.

I know this is probably different from how a lot of people feel but this is just my 2 cents.
 

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

Top