I don't think Usage Tips should be touched. It barely makes sense to me to ever consider merging sections that talk about the moveset (the importable shown in the dex page) and the other section that is focused on how the Pokemon in question actually functions. To refer to the example that lyd used above, the Usage Tips above looks like an unorganized section and 'barely adds anything' because the writer was being repetitive about the information that was already mentioned in Moves and Set Details. What's the point of arguing that certain section of an analysis is flawed and should be removed / shortened when it is not that the section is objectively meaningless but when it faces another issue of certain writers actually failing to follow the guideline of "Describe how to use the Pokemon in question." and instead incorporates information that doesn't take too much effort to figure out? Cutting irrelevant information is something I agree on but I don't think the need to cut unnecessary points from a section directly translates to the need to make a significant change on a section that serves a unique purpose.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Changing the Current Analysis Format (Second Attempt)
- Thread starter Gary
- Start date
I mean at the same time, I think what is considered useless/hand holding information is subjective to some people, as you and I talked about earlier. I agree that cutting out Usage Tips entirely is not a good idea because there are many sets that benefit from an explanation, but there are definitely others that legit don't need any sort of explanation beyond maybe one sentence. I don't think it's really fair for you to judge the writer because well, they are just following what's currently considered protocol. Writers feel forced to list useless information to fill out these sections for some Pokemon. It's hard to really judge any writer at this point for shit like "Magnet Pull traps steels" when that's pretty much been the norm for analysis writing for the last few years.
This is just proving to me more and more that tiers should be allowed to have more flexibility with their analysis should they so choose to. Excluding/Including sections on a case by case basis seems like it would solve many of these issues without directly changing the format. Tiers like Monotype can flesh out their Usage Tips while tiers like OU can choose to omit or keep sections depending on the situation. I don't really think there's a master solution that would solve all these issues laid out in the thread for every tier/metagame, and I think trying to find this "master solution" is what has caused all past threads on this topic to fall flat.
This is just proving to me more and more that tiers should be allowed to have more flexibility with their analysis should they so choose to. Excluding/Including sections on a case by case basis seems like it would solve many of these issues without directly changing the format. Tiers like Monotype can flesh out their Usage Tips while tiers like OU can choose to omit or keep sections depending on the situation. I don't really think there's a master solution that would solve all these issues laid out in the thread for every tier/metagame, and I think trying to find this "master solution" is what has caused all past threads on this topic to fall flat.
Last edited:
But with a lot of Pokémon there are overlaps in that info; explaining how something is used is intrinsic to describing why the set has those moves. This is especially true for offensive Pokes where the usage typically boils down to “set up when it’s appropriate and then hit stuff with the your moves based on your opponent’s weaknesses.” It’s usually stated in the intro whether something is more of a breaker, revenge killer, bulky setup sweeper, etc. so if you understand those roles you don’t need it explained in each set how to use them in battle. At most you might need some additional explanation of EVs to confirm which things the set is specifically designed to KO or coverage options (eg if you have something else on your team to beat X, you can run move Y in the last slot instead to help check A, B and C.)
On the flip side, defensive Pokémon don’t usually need as much explanation of their moveset (recovery is to stay healthy, hazards are hazards, etc) but might need more depth in terms of what they can check. I still think you could combine the sections in that case since you shouldn’t need more than a sentence or two to explain the move choices for most defensive Pokes.
Where you start to run into issues are Pokes like the aforementioned Lando-T, who have a variety of both offensive and defensive sets and therefore might need more nuance that can’t be broadly covered in the intro to the analysis. That’s where I agree with Gary’s proposal that we should allow analyses to have different formats depending on the needs of the Poke in question.
Usage Tips in Doubles is crucially important for explaining positioning tactics that simply don't exist in singles tiers and I can't support any change to it. I don't think combining it with another section or, as lyd seems to be suggesting, gutting it almost entirely, is pragmatic or fair to analysis writers. I understand removing inherently obvious information like "252 Attack makes it as powerful as possible", but "Don't use your Z-Move if you may need it for another threat" and "Kyurem-B is naturally fairly bulky, but avoid switching it into powerful attacks especially when hazards are up" are potentially very valuable tips that beginning players might not know.
I understand Gary's suggestion that different formats would work better for different tiers, but I'm extremely hesitant to say that the formats as far as headers and meaning of those headers should be different. That, to me, makes it much more likely that a reader using analyses across different tiers ends up being more confused than when they started or unable to find the information they actually want to know.
I understand Gary's suggestion that different formats would work better for different tiers, but I'm extremely hesitant to say that the formats as far as headers and meaning of those headers should be different. That, to me, makes it much more likely that a reader using analyses across different tiers ends up being more confused than when they started or unable to find the information they actually want to know.
My question is still this: why are we trying to have a consistent format across all tiers/metas? If team options is irrelevant to monotype, why bother? If usage tips is super important to doubles, it should be kept. If both sections can be merged for ou, they should be merged.
Our analysis format should be consistent across a specific tier, but I don't think it needs to be across all tiers.
Our analysis format should be consistent across a specific tier, but I don't think it needs to be across all tiers.
And you have to keep in mind, i'm probably the primary reason why we are currently in the mindset for consistency (and partially rising_dusk). I made over 14,000 edits to the scms in the sole effort to bring consistency to our analyses and pushed the hardest for our grammar standards to be applied as strongly as possible to everything that goes on site. But this was from 2010-2014 when we primarily only had singles 6v6 analyses and about 3 or 4 tiers we were writing for.
We now have however many metas and the capability to cater specifically to a tier's needs to best get information across to our readers and audience. We should be taking advantage of that fact by developing analysis formats that best work for each tier and keep consistency within that tier, rather than trying to make doubles and monotype and lc all try to jam themselves into the misshapen holes we have for them which results in either missing information or too much useless information
We now have however many metas and the capability to cater specifically to a tier's needs to best get information across to our readers and audience. We should be taking advantage of that fact by developing analysis formats that best work for each tier and keep consistency within that tier, rather than trying to make doubles and monotype and lc all try to jam themselves into the misshapen holes we have for them which results in either missing information or too much useless information
Apologies in advance for the length; I ended up writing a lot more than I expected I would (probably in a more verbose manner than is required, and probably repeating things people have already said too).
=====================================
The analysis format and the GP process are, first and foremost, methods of implementing the Smogon style guide; the great thing about style guides is that they can ensure a publication is consistent within itself while still leaving enough room for different writers or sections to adopt any formats/heading combinations that ensure the information they are covering is presented in as good a form as possible, and that applies to everything from Encyclopedia Brittanica to contentless gossip magazines.
For example, when I open a video game magazine I don't see 50 pages of info that's all presented in exactly the same way, I see a number of sectioned off areas which all use the formats which are the most appropriate for their purpose while still adhering to the same spelling/grammar standards that the style guide provides; you have:
If I open Landorus-T's analysis, I see a six individual articles: OU, Uber, Doubles, Battle Spot Singles, VGC18 and Monotype—think of it like a Pegi guide to competitive Pokemon, except that it's about Landorus-T specifically rather than about competitive 'mons as a whole. Each of these articles serves a different purpose, and consequently their formats need to be adjusted according to said purpose. First and foremost the format should serve the playerbase of the tier it is written for, and if certain information is more relevant to one playerbase than it is to another then it should absolutely be given more emphasis in its respective tier's article, and if something is pointless/largely obsolete in another tier they should be allowed to merge it into another section to prevent sections with 0–2 sentences in them. For this reason, articles should be able to vary in format according to their respective needs.
But how about across Pokemon within the same tier? Or even across individual sets on a Pokemon? This is in theory a little more difficult to approach at first, because the amount of handholding someone will need when using something like Skarmory or Chansey, which basically boils down to "switch in on physical/special attackers and heal up regularly," is obviously a hell of a lot less than it is for frail wallbreakers like Mega Medicham/Tapu Lele/Zard Y or setup sweepers like Volcarona/DD Zard X/fast offensive DD Zygarde/whatever, which need info on the best ways of getting them onto the field, the best Pokemon to try and get them out against, what Pokemon need to be removed before it's safe to set up a sweep etc. and even little things like the optimal gender/shininess in the case of Pokemon like Greninja or Genesect that don't want to inadvertently reveal aspects of their sets prematurely. However, this conflict of necessity causes issues in that having multiple different formats on different Pokemon in a tier or, even worse, within a single article is messy and leads to a lot more work than necessary in the QC stage due to writers shuffling it around willy-nilly.
However, I think that this is an issue that can be solved easily by merging together "similar" sections within a tier's overall format and then having that overall format vary from tier to tier—for example:
With that said, I do still think think that there still need to be global elements that make analyses recognisable across format barriers; so overarching sections—Overview, Other Options and Checks and Counters—should be present on all analyses, even if they are filled with single sentences like "this Pokemon has no other viable options" whereas those under individual sets vary from tier to tier, with the primary idea being that anything which has a high chance of being 1–2 sentences long doesn't need to be its own section.
I feel that standard tiers likely won't need any variation in format. 6v6 singles with no restrictions on typing or anything similar feel like you're playing the same game even after taking into account differences in banlists. However, in the case of doubles and maybe even Battle Spot formats and monotype, it definitely makes more sense to merge sections differently or perhaps even omit individual sections if it's felt that they are too niche for the format in question (see: team options in Monotype, at least to a certain degree)
=====================================
The analysis format and the GP process are, first and foremost, methods of implementing the Smogon style guide; the great thing about style guides is that they can ensure a publication is consistent within itself while still leaving enough room for different writers or sections to adopt any formats/heading combinations that ensure the information they are covering is presented in as good a form as possible, and that applies to everything from Encyclopedia Brittanica to contentless gossip magazines.
For example, when I open a video game magazine I don't see 50 pages of info that's all presented in exactly the same way, I see a number of sectioned off areas which all use the formats which are the most appropriate for their purpose while still adhering to the same spelling/grammar standards that the style guide provides; you have:
- Reviews for new releases
- With every game having their own set of unique headings, as opposed to generic ones that are applied universally (what Smogon does)
- One or two "ranking" articles (think "Top 100 Nintendo Games Of All Time," "Reasons why you should buy a Nintendo Switch" etc.)
- A few "social" pages
- social media highlights
- images readers have sent in (e.g. Official Nintendo Magazine had an 'AR photos' page for a while)
- something jokey from the magazine staff
- cool things people have done relating to games (e.g. a report on that dude who made a scale model of the Starship Enterprise in Minecraft, an article about people working in robotics/AI etc.)
- etc.
- A list of must-buy games for the current gen consoles that evolves slowly from month to month
- Maybe a few other sections/choice articles too, depending on their relevance to the specific publication and how many more pages they have to fill on that month's edition
If I open Landorus-T's analysis, I see a six individual articles: OU, Uber, Doubles, Battle Spot Singles, VGC18 and Monotype—think of it like a Pegi guide to competitive Pokemon, except that it's about Landorus-T specifically rather than about competitive 'mons as a whole. Each of these articles serves a different purpose, and consequently their formats need to be adjusted according to said purpose. First and foremost the format should serve the playerbase of the tier it is written for, and if certain information is more relevant to one playerbase than it is to another then it should absolutely be given more emphasis in its respective tier's article, and if something is pointless/largely obsolete in another tier they should be allowed to merge it into another section to prevent sections with 0–2 sentences in them. For this reason, articles should be able to vary in format according to their respective needs.
But how about across Pokemon within the same tier? Or even across individual sets on a Pokemon? This is in theory a little more difficult to approach at first, because the amount of handholding someone will need when using something like Skarmory or Chansey, which basically boils down to "switch in on physical/special attackers and heal up regularly," is obviously a hell of a lot less than it is for frail wallbreakers like Mega Medicham/Tapu Lele/Zard Y or setup sweepers like Volcarona/DD Zard X/fast offensive DD Zygarde/whatever, which need info on the best ways of getting them onto the field, the best Pokemon to try and get them out against, what Pokemon need to be removed before it's safe to set up a sweep etc. and even little things like the optimal gender/shininess in the case of Pokemon like Greninja or Genesect that don't want to inadvertently reveal aspects of their sets prematurely. However, this conflict of necessity causes issues in that having multiple different formats on different Pokemon in a tier or, even worse, within a single article is messy and leads to a lot more work than necessary in the QC stage due to writers shuffling it around willy-nilly.
However, I think that this is an issue that can be solved easily by merging together "similar" sections within a tier's overall format and then having that overall format vary from tier to tier—for example:
I feel that Moves+Set Details are ultimately similar enough to be merged into one big "set details" section (especially considering how slim both sections are looking now that we're cutting fluff) and I feel that Usage Tips+Team Options serve somewhat similar roles to one another in that they provide tips for how to integrate something into both a strategy and a team to the point that I feel they both fit under something like "Strategy Tips" or something provided that teammate examples are mostly displayed in categories rather than as individuals.†* One other advantage of merging them in this instance is that writers are able to work in miniature "set overviews" into there for Pokemon which have a bajillion different sets, which works wonders when deciding whether, say, a Choice Scarf set is better for your team than a Swords Dance set or whatever (especially given newer players' tendencies to build teams entirely off of resistances).
† "Volcarona is best brought out using complementary VoltTurners, notably including Tapu Koko and Landorus-T, which bait bulky Grass-types for Volcarona to force out and set up on."
* I could definitely see an argument for a better name for the merged section, I just can't think of on the spot.
† "Volcarona is best brought out using complementary VoltTurners, notably including Tapu Koko and Landorus-T, which bait bulky Grass-types for Volcarona to force out and set up on."
* I could definitely see an argument for a better name for the merged section, I just can't think of on the spot.
The dynamics of teambuilding and in-battle strategy are reasonably different to singles to the point that it makes sense to leave TO and Usage Tips as their own separate entities, meaning that it is best to have the sections be Set Details, Usage Tips and Team Options as opposed to Set Details and Strategy Tips.
With that said, I do still think think that there still need to be global elements that make analyses recognisable across format barriers; so overarching sections—Overview, Other Options and Checks and Counters—should be present on all analyses, even if they are filled with single sentences like "this Pokemon has no other viable options" whereas those under individual sets vary from tier to tier, with the primary idea being that anything which has a high chance of being 1–2 sentences long doesn't need to be its own section.
I feel that standard tiers likely won't need any variation in format. 6v6 singles with no restrictions on typing or anything similar feel like you're playing the same game even after taking into account differences in banlists. However, in the case of doubles and maybe even Battle Spot formats and monotype, it definitely makes more sense to merge sections differently or perhaps even omit individual sections if it's felt that they are too niche for the format in question (see: team options in Monotype, at least to a certain degree)
So I'm gonna throw my 2cents in a weird, uncharsticaly short way :P
A few weeks ago me and some other users (I remember The Dutch Plumberjack was one of them) were talking about the value of consistency in formating. I was pretty adamant about throwing consistentcy out the window in exchange for custom sections / headers depending on the Pokemon, but I was convinced that there's actually an interesting middle ground to consider here!
Why not used bold text as a secondary header of sorts, meaning we can still have custom "sections" while having a consistent place for things to be?
So for example, instead of having movesets and set details, we can merge that into one section that every Pokemon has (lets just call it set comments for now). We then use bold as our secondary header that's more Pokemon dependent. So for example, on a simple Choice Scarf Landorus-T set, we could have "Set at a glance" or something as the only subheader, that consicely explains every single choice on the moveset in a few sentences.
Meanwhile, on something more complicated like Battle Spot SIngles bulky Mimikyu set, we could have multiple subheaders under the set comments section. So for example, we could have "Moves" for focusing on the moveset decsions, "Defensive Benchmarks" that cover the purposes of several EV spreads, and under Team Options, we could have headers for regular teammates and a header for Trick Room teammates in particular.
If we go with this system, I think we should establish the "consistent sections" each set would have as their main header. I think Set Comments, Usage Tips, and Team Options would cover just about everything. Meanwhile, with the bold sub headers, we can encourage people to go crazy there, and have that stuff organized AFTER the writing is done worst case if people think writing with subheaders in mind is too much work.
While I'm a big proponent for making the analysis format much more flexiable, I think using subheaders is a good compromise because while it gives analyses a consistent structure of sorts, it still allows for a lot of customization in how you present information!
A few weeks ago me and some other users (I remember The Dutch Plumberjack was one of them) were talking about the value of consistency in formating. I was pretty adamant about throwing consistentcy out the window in exchange for custom sections / headers depending on the Pokemon, but I was convinced that there's actually an interesting middle ground to consider here!
Why not used bold text as a secondary header of sorts, meaning we can still have custom "sections" while having a consistent place for things to be?
So for example, instead of having movesets and set details, we can merge that into one section that every Pokemon has (lets just call it set comments for now). We then use bold as our secondary header that's more Pokemon dependent. So for example, on a simple Choice Scarf Landorus-T set, we could have "Set at a glance" or something as the only subheader, that consicely explains every single choice on the moveset in a few sentences.
Meanwhile, on something more complicated like Battle Spot SIngles bulky Mimikyu set, we could have multiple subheaders under the set comments section. So for example, we could have "Moves" for focusing on the moveset decsions, "Defensive Benchmarks" that cover the purposes of several EV spreads, and under Team Options, we could have headers for regular teammates and a header for Trick Room teammates in particular.
If we go with this system, I think we should establish the "consistent sections" each set would have as their main header. I think Set Comments, Usage Tips, and Team Options would cover just about everything. Meanwhile, with the bold sub headers, we can encourage people to go crazy there, and have that stuff organized AFTER the writing is done worst case if people think writing with subheaders in mind is too much work.
While I'm a big proponent for making the analysis format much more flexiable, I think using subheaders is a good compromise because while it gives analyses a consistent structure of sorts, it still allows for a lot of customization in how you present information!