logs of vr discussion

14:39:59 |c|#Disjunction|ok
14:40:08 |c|#Disjunction|so idc about being formal about this
14:40:14 |c|#Disjunction|so let's just discuss the first topic
14:40:19 |L| Jariibo
14:40:21 |c|@Montsegur|pastebin it
14:40:23 |c|@Montsegur|nigga
14:40:33 |c|&raseri|:s
14:40:35 |c|@Kiyo|:s
14:40:37 |c|@Realistic Waters|s:
14:41:06 |J|~Hollywood
14:41:12 |J| Gargamod
14:41:18 |c|#Disjunction|/announce http://pastebin.com/RpxYmJR8
14:41:22 |c|#Disjunction|this is our list of topics
14:41:28 |c|#Disjunction|with my thoughts on it too
14:41:30 |N|~hollywood|hollywood
14:41:31 |c|~hollywood|why are you announcing it lol
14:41:32 |c|#Disjunction|but y'know it's just notes
14:41:36 |c|#Disjunction|because I like
14:41:38 |c|#Disjunction|blue text
14:41:51 |c|&raseri|hi holly
14:41:59 |c|~hollywood|me
14:42:03 |c|&raseri|disjunction you lead this
14:42:08 |c|&raseri|im a follower
14:42:09 |c|#Disjunction|so the first point of discussion is converting the ranks
14:42:13 |c|#Disjunction|to the way doubs does theirs
14:42:31 |userstats|total:18|guests:0| :10|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
14:42:34 |c|@Kiyo|i'm in favor of doing so
14:42:34 |c|#Disjunction|For reference: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/doubles-ou-viability-rankings.3535930/
14:42:34 |N| lolbro|thelaughingbrother
14:42:37 |c|@Montsegur|I thought the point was there was something wrong
14:42:38 |c|~hollywood|lol my niece and nephew are watching little einsteins an they just showed a piece of tchaicovsky music and im like why lol
14:42:39 |c|@Kiyo|i think the current way we rank mons
14:42:44 |c|@Kiyo|i.e. a, b, c
14:42:44 |c|&raseri|what i like about the dubs system is it gives a place for pokemon that define a specific playstyle
14:42:48 |c|&raseri|but arent as useful outside of it
14:42:51 |c|~hollywood|is exactly the same as the way dubs does?
14:42:52 |J| BIGHypnotize
14:42:56 |c|@Kiyo|skews peoples ideas of how good a mon should be
14:43:04 |c|~hollywood|in what way exactly is a, b, c different from 1, 1.5, 2
14:43:06 |c|@Kiyo|i think it should be modeled after not exactly the same
14:43:06 |J| tv4c
14:43:08 |L| lolbro
14:43:12 |c|~hollywood|one is numbers one is letters
14:43:12 |c|@Montsegur|so then why don't we make our own system / adapt definitions
14:43:21 |c|&raseri|its more of the definitions
14:43:22 |c|&raseri|i think
14:43:23 |c|#Disjunction|I don't think there would be much of a change if we swapped to doubs ranks
14:43:24 |c|@Kiyo|because if you tell someone something is D rank
14:43:34 |c|@Kiyo|and if you tell them its rank 4
14:43:38 |c|@Kiyo|rank 4 sounds less harsh
14:43:39 |c|@Kiyo|imo
14:43:52 |c|@Montsegur|so then they'd be more likely to use mediocre mons
14:43:55 |c|@Kiyo|idk its subjective but its better than people using school grades as a basis for what a mon should be
14:43:57 |c|~hollywood|yes because it's not as easy to understand
14:43:58 |c|~hollywood|lol
14:44:02 |c|~hollywood|it should sound harsh
14:44:03 |c|@Montsegur|which you said was part of the problem
14:44:05 |c|~hollywood|those pokemon are not very good
14:44:07 |J| lolbro
14:44:09 |c|&raseri|i really just prefer the definitions
14:44:12 |c|&raseri|idc about letters vs numbers
14:44:16 |c|@Kiyo|but our rankings arent harsh enough right now
14:44:21 |c|@Montsegur|yah definitions are out of date
14:44:21 |c|~hollywood|so let's fix that
14:44:21 |c|@Kiyo|we have fucking 42 A rank mons
14:44:25 |c|@Kiyo|and we all know
14:44:36 |c|#Disjunction|Like I said on the paste, I think NU's meta should cater more towards how we have a bigger range of viable options
14:44:38 |c|@Montsegur|i agree Kiyo, but then you and everyone else says this mon should go up
14:44:39 |c|@Kiyo|there arent THAT many good mons
14:44:41 |c|#Disjunction|the Doubs list doesn't do that and just
14:44:44 |c|#Disjunction|mushes everything together
14:44:53 |c|&raseri|musharna
14:44:54 |c|#Disjunction|we could go with less specific ranks
14:44:59 |c|@Montsegur|there are more good mons in this tier imo then there are in other tiers
14:45:03 |c|#Disjunction|like A/A-, B/B-
14:45:09 |c|@Realistic Waters|i like the idea of less specific ranks
14:45:12 |c|~hollywood|there's an inherent and ignored problem with viability rankings
14:45:14 |c|~hollywood|which is mainly
14:45:17 |c|#Disjunction|but that wouldn't address Kiyo's concern
14:45:19 |L|+Megazard
14:45:21 |c|#Disjunction|about it sounding harsh
14:45:21 |c|~hollywood|pokemon aren't directly comparable
14:45:26 |c|~hollywood|and that's what the VR thread does
14:45:43 |c|@Kiyo|i tried bringing up a "vr in a vaccuum" philosophy a while ago
14:45:48 |c|@Kiyo|and it just makes things more difficult
14:45:48 |c|&raseri|so what can we do to fix that
14:45:53 |c|@Kiyo|on some level you have to compare mons
14:45:59 |c|@Montsegur|the vr is based upon the current meta
14:46:02 |c|~hollywood|there's really no way to do that
14:46:11 |c|~hollywood|yes but the current meta
14:46:17 |c|~hollywood|is also subjectiv
14:46:18 |c|~hollywood|e
14:46:19 |c|@Montsegur|like rhdyon might be S in this one but not S in a different one
14:46:26 |c|~hollywood|and constantly changing
14:46:35 |c|@Kiyo|we could make more objective requirements
14:46:39 |c|&raseri|so we just need to change things
14:46:39 |c|#Disjunction|maybe we should be evaluating each mon instead of comparing them
14:46:42 |c|&raseri|when the meta changes
14:46:43 |c|&raseri|hm
14:46:52 |c|~hollywood|well the meta changes
14:46:56 |c|~hollywood|every game
14:46:59 |L| BIGHypnotize
14:47:04 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction I don't compare the mons to the other mons in the rank I compare them to the letter
14:47:12 |c|@Kiyo|ideally that should work
14:47:15 |c|@Kiyo|but no one else does that
14:47:19 |c|@Montsegur|ik
14:47:35 |J| Jariibo
14:47:36 |c|#Disjunction|ok ok so we're getting off track from the first topic
14:47:36 |L| Jariibo
14:47:38 |c|@Kiyo|we could simply start shooting down requests if they dont meet objective requirements or explain themselves in the post
14:47:39 |c|~hollywood|i mean even on any given team
14:47:52 |c|#Disjunction|is the general consensus that changing to the doubs ranks wouldn't fix any inherent problems?
14:47:54 |c|~hollywood|one pokemon could fit the definition better than another and be lower ranked
14:48:01 |c|@Kiyo|i mean on any given team a mon can be S rank as well
14:48:06 |c|#Disjunction|all I've heard in favor of it is that it sounds less harsh
14:48:23 |c|&raseri|i like that it gives a place for mons that define specific playstyles
14:48:24 |c|~hollywood|who cares about harshness
14:48:30 |c|@Montsegur|I don't see how there is really enough of a difference or how its really fixing the real problem
14:48:30 |c|~hollywood|as long as the rankings are accurate
14:48:32 |c|@Kiyo|everyone who posts in the vr
14:48:33 |c|&raseri|but arent as useful outside of that
14:48:33 |c|@Kiyo|cares
14:48:39 |c|~hollywood|ok but why
14:48:45 |J| Pokedots
14:48:47 |c|@Kiyo|no one actually cares about an accurate representation of the meta
14:48:50 |c|@Kiyo|and thats the first problem
14:48:55 |c|~hollywood|why should we not be harsh on relicanth
14:48:56 |c|#Disjunction|yea it sounds like an aesthetic change to me
14:49:01 |c|@Kiyo|people only care about there shit mons getting ranks
14:49:02 |c|~hollywood|or frillish
14:49:04 |c|~hollywood|etc
14:49:17 |c|@Kiyo|we should be harsh on relicanth
14:49:22 |c|@Kiyo|idk why its C+ or w.e it is now
14:49:25 |c|~hollywood|it's D
14:49:25 |c|#Disjunction|it's D
14:49:27 |c|@Realistic Waters|yeah
14:49:29 |c|~hollywood|that's why i brought it up
14:49:35 |L| ElegyOfVGC
14:49:41 |c|#Disjunction|once we address over inflation I'd like to talk about unranking it, though
14:49:44 |c|@Kiyo|lemme take a look at the vr right quick
14:49:44 |c|@Montsegur|idc if we do dubs or stick to the current way or make up a new way as long as we are able to show people that certain ranks mean a certain thing
14:49:46 |c|&raseri|i like relicanth
14:49:47 |c|&raseri|:s
14:49:50 |c|@Montsegur|and that they aren't comparable to other mons
14:49:51 |c|@Realistic Waters|I like Frillish
14:49:56 |J| METAPHYSICAL
14:49:58 |c|~hollywood|anything raseri likes should probably be D rank anyways
14:50:01 |c|&raseri|^
14:50:06 |c|&raseri|faier
14:50:07 |c|&raseri|fair
14:50:11 |c|@Kiyo|like why do we have shit like
14:50:26 |c|@Kiyo|rapidash ranked at C+
14:50:43 |c|~hollywood|because on paper it's a fine pokemon
14:50:46 |c|@Kiyo|like the majority of C- rank
14:50:48 |c|~hollywood|it fits the definition of C rank
14:50:50 |c|@Kiyo|deserves to be unranked
14:50:54 |c|#Disjunction|because comparable to other Pokemon in C+ right now it's effective
14:51:06 |c|#Disjunction|but if we had a list that was representative of what C should actually be
14:51:08 |c|&raseri|the d rank mons
14:51:08 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo I've done that and then you've literally said oh its fine if we rank those mons
14:51:08 |c|~hollywood|i dont think anything in C- deserves to be unranked
14:51:09 |c|#Disjunction|it should be D max
14:51:10 |c|@Montsegur|;;;;
14:51:11 |c|&raseri|are better than c-
14:51:16 |c|~hollywood|not exaggerating, none of those pokemon are unviable
14:51:21 |c|@Kiyo|i mean i would prefer the ranking of more poekmon
14:51:23 |c|@Kiyo|than less
14:51:23 |c|~hollywood|and a few of them are good
14:51:27 |c|@Kiyo|but in order for that to work
14:51:32 |c|@Montsegur|hollywood i agree, people just think if its not A then its bad
14:51:32 |c|@Kiyo|we need to expand the rankings
14:51:39 |c|@Kiyo|cuz we have way mroe "viable shit"
14:51:48 |c|&raseri|we could add a rank near the bottom for niche choices
14:51:50 |c|&raseri|that are viable
14:51:58 |c|@Kiyo|like i agree C- mons can be used and made effective
14:52:09 |c|@Kiyo|but for the vast majority of teams and circumstances
14:52:11 |c|@Montsegur|ok so what it sounds like is since we have way more viable shit then other metas we need to come up with a way to convey that
14:52:12 |c|&raseri|things that can work but you probably shouldnt use unless you really need it
14:52:12 |c|@Kiyo|they shouldnt be used
14:52:24 |c|&raseri|kiyo rank
14:52:28 |J| Luck O' the Irish
14:52:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :13|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
14:52:33 |c|#Disjunction|I think what NU is inherently struggling with compared to other tiers is that we have so much shit that could function very well just on the premise of their typing
14:52:37 |c|~hollywood|we have a way to convey that
14:52:39 |c|~hollywood|it's called D rank
14:52:42 |c|@Kiyo|like dude whens the last time you saw anyone use a vullaby
14:52:48 |c|&raseri|early XY
14:52:49 |c|@Montsegur|I saw FLCL use one
14:52:51 |c|@Montsegur|once
14:52:52 |c|@Kiyo|how often do you have to see a mon used to even know if it works
14:52:59 |c|~hollywood|i used it on stall a while back
14:53:02 |c|@Kiyo|like i legitimately have not seen vullaby since early xy
14:53:04 |c|@Montsegur|its not a bad mon
14:53:07 |c|~hollywood|it's the best lilligant counter in the tier
14:53:09 |c|~hollywood|and a defogger
14:53:11 |c|@Montsegur|its just not good
14:53:11 |c|~hollywood|also beats shiftry
14:53:14 |c|@Kiyo|its not a bad mon, but would you ever consider it for a team
14:53:21 |c|@Montsegur|yes
14:53:21 |c|@Kiyo|do you think its viable in the meta
14:53:22 |c|~hollywood|why not
14:53:22 |c|&raseri|only on very specific teams
14:53:28 |c|~hollywood|it's pelipper but with different resistances
14:53:48 |c|@Montsegur|if the team I was building needed soemthing to remove hazards and stop lillligant / shiftry
14:53:52 |c|@Montsegur|then yes I would use it
14:53:52 |c|&raseri|nu has to many viable pokemon
14:53:54 |c|~hollywood|the only reason why i think pelipper is a "better" pokemon outside of the different resistances is because of scald
14:54:01 |c|~hollywood|but foul play isn'
14:54:04 |c|~hollywood|t far off
14:54:05 |c|#Disjunction|yeah NU has tons of viable pokemon
14:54:11 |c|#Disjunction|so how do we represent that in our list
14:54:14 |c|@Kiyo|we have plenty of viable pokemon
14:54:15 |c|#Disjunction|without over inflation
14:54:16 |L| METAPHYSICAL
14:54:17 |c|~hollywood|by moving things to D
14:54:21 |c|&raseri|strict definitions
14:54:22 |c|&raseri|and using d rank
14:54:26 |c|@Kiyo|are we trying to represent mons that can be used if they fulfill a specific niche
14:54:31 |c|@Montsegur|I think we need to expand our rankings and move from a different system
14:54:33 |c|@Kiyo|or are we accurately trying to represent the metagame
14:54:34 |c|~hollywood|if that niche is important enough
14:54:34 |c|~hollywood|sure
14:54:47 |c|&raseri|something like ban gay rank
14:54:49 |c|&raseri|ben
14:54:50 |c|~hollywood|there is no single metagame
14:54:58 |c|#Disjunction|I remember Nozzle mentioned splitting the list into maybe 2 or 3 separate lists
14:55:02 |c|~hollywood|tournament metagame is different from high ladder metagame is different from mid ladder metagame
14:55:07 |c|#Disjunction|like an Offensive VR and a Defensive VR
14:55:12 |c|~hollywood|and all of those are constantly fluctuating
14:55:13 |c|@Montsegur|I think that B up is representing the metagame and that even if a mon is bad in the meta but still good it falls to C
14:55:15 |c|@Kiyo|why are we not just catering to high level play
14:55:23 |c|@Kiyo|liek why do i give a fuck about low ladder meta
14:55:25 |c|~hollywood|high level play isnt even just one metagame
14:55:29 |c|@Montsegur|you can use those mons in high level play
14:55:40 |c|@Kiyo|high level tour play and high level ladder play are similar to a certain degree
14:55:42 |c|~hollywood|and we arent necessarily catering to non-high level play
14:55:47 |c|@Kiyo|but i agree taht tour level play
14:55:49 |c|~hollywood|my point is that there is no single metagame
14:55:53 |c|@Kiyo|you'll see way more lower ranked mons
14:56:06 |c|~hollywood|yea because consistency is less important in tours
14:56:18 |c|~hollywood|you have to win one game with any given team
14:56:18 |c|@Kiyo|ok so what is the point of having viability rankings
14:56:25 |c|#Disjunction|mons that aren't consistent are used in tours for counter picks, though
14:56:31 |J| HJAD
14:56:34 |c|#Disjunction|we shouldn't rank a mon because it's a good counter pick to something
14:56:38 |c|~hollywood|it's still important to have some way of representing what's good and what's not
14:56:42 |c|#Disjunction|well we shouldn't rate it highly anyways
14:56:44 |c|~hollywood|i never said we should
14:56:59 |c|#Disjunction|#Disjunction: I remember Nozzle mentioned splitting the list into maybe 2 or 3 separate lists
14:57:00 |c|#Disjunction|#Disjunction: like an Offensive VR and a Defensive VR
14:57:03 |J| Companeros
14:57:04 |c|&raseri|i dont like splitting it
14:57:05 |c|&raseri|:s
14:57:05 |c|~hollywood|but if your opponent spams offensive grass-types vullaby is a pretty high pick
14:57:07 |c|@Montsegur|me neither
14:57:14 |c|@Kiyo|i dont like splitting it
14:57:15 |c|~hollywood|splitting it is a really bad idea
14:57:20 |c|#Disjunction|how so
14:57:25 |c|~hollywood|people will be like "ok my team needs a defensive pokemon now"
14:57:34 |c|~hollywood|"mega audino is s rank in defensive vr so i'll put it on my team"
14:57:44 |c|&raseri|and it makes things harder for the average user
14:57:45 |c|~hollywood|it doesnt cater to the people who we are trying to help with the vr thread
14:57:48 |c|&raseri|having things in different place
14:58:00 |c|&raseri|it might be helpful for decent players
14:58:01 |c|&raseri|but
14:58:05 |c|@Kiyo|who are we trying to help with the vr thread
14:58:06 |c|&raseri|those are the ppl that dont really need the VR
14:58:08 |c|&raseri|in the first place
14:58:17 |c|~hollywood|and defensive teams rely more on synergy than they do using "good pokemon"
14:58:17 |c|#Disjunction|yeah ok
14:58:23 |c|@Montsegur|raseri those decent players from other tiers use the vr rankings when making teams
14:58:24 |L| HJAD
14:58:26 |c|#Disjunction|we're helping people who are trying to learn the tier
14:58:27 |c|@Kiyo|cuz by ranking shit like vullaby i dont really see you helping a new user to nu
14:58:31 |c|@Kiyo|maybe thats just me tho
14:58:33 |c|#Disjunction|whether they are experienced users looking in
14:58:36 |c|#Disjunction|or new users altogether
14:58:37 |c|@Montsegur|I've had ppl thank me for them and the links to the analyses before
14:58:41 |c|~hollywood|ranking shit like vullaby in C- is helpful
14:58:53 |c|~hollywood|if it wasn't ranked you might not even know it's a playable mon in the tier
14:59:04 |c|&raseri|i mean decent at nu @ mont
14:59:07 |c|@Kiyo|i dont understand why you're for ranking vullaby and not ranking frillish
14:59:12 |c|~hollywood|they're both ranked
14:59:13 |c|@Kiyo|theyre essentially on the same level
14:59:19 |c|~hollywood|but the specifics arent important right now anyways
14:59:19 |c|@Montsegur|C- conveys to me that in general I woulldn't use Vullaby but it has a specific niche that can fit on enough teams to be semi decent
14:59:27 |c|@Kiyo|you just said 5 min ago frillish and relicanth shouldnt be ranked
14:59:28 |c|@Kiyo|lol
14:59:31 |c|~hollywood|no i didnt
14:59:31 |c|&raseri|maybe drop vullaby to d or something
14:59:35 |c|~hollywood|i said they were D
14:59:39 |c|&raseri|and move muk to s
14:59:40 |c|~hollywood|and should be judged harshly
14:59:44 |c|~hollywood|which i still believe to be true
14:59:55 |c|#Disjunction|ok then I guess maybe a new discussion point should be brought up
14:59:55 |c|@Kiyo|so are we judging vullaby harshly enough
14:59:56 |c|&raseri|i think we should just be harsh
14:59:58 |c|&raseri|witrh everything
15:00:00 |c|#Disjunction|Should we divide the D Ranks again?
15:00:02 |c|@Kiyo|because i certainly dont think you are
15:00:03 |c|~hollywood|it really does not matter right now
15:00:04 |c|&raseri|no
15:00:07 |c|@Kiyo|and to be completely honest
15:00:11 |c|#Disjunction|If we're putting more emphasis on D Rank then it might help
15:00:14 |c|&raseri|divided d ranks dont help much
15:00:15 |c|&raseri|hm
15:00:16 |c|&raseri|good point
15:00:17 |c|@Kiyo|the community didnt like it when i made a rough new vr rankings
15:00:23 |c|@Kiyo|that had extremely harsh rankings
15:00:25 |c|~hollywood|i very well might not be but that's not the point
15:00:27 |c|&raseri|i liked kiyo rankings
15:00:46 |c|@Montsegur|cause you had things like 5 lvls were they were and probably at least 3 below where they should be
15:00:49 |c|&raseri|Disjunction lets talk about rank definitions
15:00:58 |c|@Montsegur|yah lets do that
15:01:04 |c|&raseri|its a good point to go through
15:01:06 |c|@Montsegur|cause I think thats one of the big problems
15:01:07 |c|&raseri|from here
15:01:09 |c|&raseri|i agree
15:01:16 |c|@Montsegur|that and inflation
15:01:18 |c|&raseri|Pokemon that have a good matchup vs a large portion of the metagame, are either quite powerful or offer great team support, and can fit on almost any team. You can't really go wrong by using these Pokemon.
15:01:18 |c|&raseri|thats
15:01:20 |c|@Kiyo|ok what points are we judging mons based on
15:01:21 |c|&raseri|doubles rank 1
15:01:25 |c|#Disjunction|the tangy: they didnt like kiyo rankings because he posted questionable things without asking anybody
15:01:25 |c|#Disjunction|the tangy: not because they were harsh
15:01:40 |c|@Montsegur|it was a preliminary rankings
15:01:41 |c|&raseri|Reserved for Pokemon who can sweep or wall significant portions of the metagame with little support, and Pokemon who can support other Pokemon with very little opportunity cost ("free turns").
15:01:42 |c|&raseri|Also the home of Pokemon who can easily perform multiple roles effectively, increasing their versatility and unpredictability. If the Pokemon in this rank have any flaws, those flaws are thoroughly mitigated by their substantial strengths.​
15:01:47 |c|&raseri|is ours
15:01:55 |c|@Kiyo|its not like those rankings i made were official in any way lol
15:02:00 |c|@Kiyo|why should i have contacted others
15:02:00 |c|@Montsegur|one option is to delete the definition altogether
15:02:02 |c|@Kiyo|also raseri
15:02:03 |c|~hollywood|the only real problem with ours imo are that they're too wordy
15:02:04 |c|#Disjunction|ok yeah sorry I was looking for Kiyo ranks
15:02:07 |c|@Montsegur|which was brought up multiple times
15:02:14 |c|@Kiyo|can we just stop working off of current definitions altogether
15:02:18 |c|@Kiyo|and make new ones
15:02:21 |c|&raseri|yes
15:02:23 |c|~hollywood|deleting the definitions altogether literally makes it just comparing apples to oranges
15:02:28 |c|&raseri|i like
15:02:29 |c|~hollywood|it would create more problems and solvenothing
15:02:31 |c|#Disjunction|I would be all for making new definitions
15:02:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :13|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:02:31 |c|&raseri|doubles definition
15:02:35 |c|&raseri|as a starting point
15:02:37 |c|@Kiyo|we're creating a new definition hollywood
15:02:39 |c|&raseri|and work from there
15:02:42 |c|@Montsegur|wait I think we might need more than just -/ /+
15:02:42 |c|@Kiyo|not getting rid of them altogether
15:02:42 |c|&raseri|instead of using ours
15:02:44 |c|@Montsegur|for each letter
15:02:48 |c|@Kiyo|i just dont want to work off of the current ones
15:02:49 |c|~hollywood|nigga
15:02:51 |c|&raseri|what is an s rank mon
15:02:52 |c|&raseri|?
15:02:55 |c|~hollywood|@Montsegur: one option is to delete the definition altogether
15:03:06 |c|@Kiyo|im assuming he means in regards to creating a new one
15:03:07 |c|@Montsegur|I dont agree with it, it was just brought up in the thread a bunch
15:03:18 |c|@Kiyo|o thats retarded we're not doing that
15:03:22 |c|@Montsegur|I think we need a new one
15:03:25 |c|~hollywood|yea im not crediting it with you just saying that it wouldnt do anything positive
15:03:25 |c|&raseri|ya
15:03:31 |c|@Kiyo|we definitely need a new definition
15:03:31 |c|&raseri|lets work on a new definition
15:03:34 |c|@Kiyo|so what are the things
15:03:35 |c|#Disjunction|I also mentioned deleting definitions in the paste because a lot of the time people just ignore them
15:03:38 |c|@Kiyo|we want to judge mons based on
15:03:48 |c|@Montsegur|before we do that real quick I think we need more than just -/ /+ for each letter
15:03:54 |c|@Montsegur|cause its causing over inflation
15:03:54 |c|&raseri|or
15:03:56 |c|&raseri|we add more letters
15:03:58 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:04:03 |c|~hollywood|or we keep it like it is
15:04:03 |c|@Montsegur|yah we can add more letters
15:04:05 |c|@Kiyo|we have more viable mons than every other tier
15:04:08 |c|~hollywood|and keep in mind overinflation exists
15:04:09 |c|@Kiyo|why shouldnt we have more ranks
15:04:14 |c|&raseri|if we need more ranks
15:04:16 |c|&raseri|we can add them
15:04:17 |c|&raseri|later
15:04:17 |c|@Kiyo|overinflation is ruining the ranks tho
15:04:18 |c|@Kiyo|lol.
15:04:21 |c|@Montsegur|if we add more letters it would take away the sense of over inflation
15:04:26 |c|~hollywood|so keep that in mind when we make changes
15:04:30 |c|&raseri|definitions first
15:04:31 |c|~hollywood|we've done it before
15:04:32 |c|&raseri|imo
15:04:33 |c|#Disjunction|we have the E Rank already
15:04:34 |c|&raseri|Realistic Waters
15:04:35 |c|#Disjunction|why not use it
15:04:42 |c|@Kiyo|what we've done before isnt fucking working tho
15:04:44 |c|@Kiyo|lol
15:04:49 |c|~hollywood|it did work for a long time
15:04:50 |c|@Montsegur|cause E rank is for everything unranked
15:04:54 |c|~hollywood|in XY zeb fixed the overinflation problem
15:05:03 |c|~hollywood|but it obviously eventually came back
15:05:05 |c|&raseri|there wasnt an overinflation problem in BW NU either
15:05:08 |c|&raseri|afaik
15:05:12 |c|@Montsegur|BW NU had less mons
15:05:12 |c|&raseri|well a bit of one
15:05:13 |c|@Kiyo|so we'll just fix it every 6 months
15:05:15 |c|&raseri|cause i was stubborn
15:05:17 |c|@Kiyo|why not fix the fucking root problem
15:05:17 |c|#Disjunction|Zeb brought up a great point in the thread by saying that D Rank, currently, shows new users that some of their faves are just not great
15:05:23 |c|&raseri|and wouldnt drop mush
15:05:28 |c|#Disjunction|if we moved some of those mons to E that'd accomplish the same thing
15:05:29 |L| Frogeggs
15:05:32 |c|@Kiyo|but the mons that new players shouldnt be using
15:05:35 |c|@Kiyo|arent all represented in D
15:05:40 |c|#Disjunction|but it'd leave D open as a viable rank for at least remotely viable mons
15:05:41 |c|#Disjunction|like Simipour
15:05:44 |c|#Disjunction|which is utter trash
15:05:46 |c|#Disjunction|but has one niche
15:05:49 |c|&raseri|i prefer d to be for semiviable mons
15:05:51 |c|&raseri|and e for
15:05:52 |c|&raseri|things people use
15:05:54 |c|&raseri|that are trash
15:05:55 |c|#Disjunction|that makes it worth it sometimes
15:05:58 |L| the tangy
15:06:01 |c|@Montsegur|I think there is a stigma with D / E that they're terrible so if we add on another letter I think we could also possibly move over to different symbols or somethin
15:06:02 |c|#Disjunction|yea that'd be the idea ras
15:06:16 |c|&raseri|just add a random greek letter
15:06:18 |c|~hollywood|E should absolutely be the rank for Pokemon that should not see use on any team
15:06:20 |c|@Kiyo|there is a huge stigma with the rankings
15:06:26 |c|@Kiyo|thats why i suggested number rankings
15:06:31 |c|&raseri|whats an example of an
15:06:32 |c|&raseri|e rank mon
15:06:35 |c|@Kiyo|like it doesnt actually change anything
15:06:41 |c|~hollywood|Shroomish
15:06:41 |c|#Disjunction|if we move to a new ranking there would eventually just be a stigma with that
15:06:45 |c|@Kiyo|but people have pre concieved notions that D mons are trash
15:06:46 |c|&raseri|ya there is less stigma with number rankings
15:06:52 |c|@Kiyo|and wont let their faves fall their
15:06:55 |c|@Kiyo|even if they deserve it
15:06:57 |c|~hollywood|except
15:06:59 |c|~hollywood|it's not up to them
15:07:03 |c|~hollywood|so they can deal with it
15:07:14 |c|@Kiyo|its a community run thread at heart
15:07:15 |c|&raseri|[12:56] &raseri: whats an example of an
15:07:16 |c|&raseri|[12:56] &raseri: e rank mon
15:07:16 |c|&raseri|that ppl use
15:07:19 |c|&raseri|not shroomish
15:07:33 |c|~hollywood|uh
15:07:38 |c|#Disjunction|KINGLER
15:07:39 |c|~hollywood|there's not much
15:07:44 |c|&raseri|maybe armaldo
15:07:46 |c|~hollywood|kingler probably isn't e-rank
15:07:48 |c|&raseri|but even thast can work
15:07:52 |c|@Montsegur|Armaldo is E
15:07:53 |c|~hollywood|i dont think armaldo is either
15:07:54 |c|&raseri|kingler is bad
15:07:59 |c|&raseri|armaldo is pretty close
15:07:59 |c|&raseri|to e
15:08:04 |c|~hollywood|unfezant
15:08:07 |c|&raseri|it has a small niche i guess
15:08:09 |c|~hollywood|wobbuffet
15:08:11 |c|@Realistic Waters|Armaldo is worse than kingler
15:08:11 |c|@Montsegur|ok so amraldo and kingler both have things that seem like they're desirable
15:08:11 |c|@Kiyo|ok real talk we need to stop being so fucking nice about this
15:08:13 |c|~hollywood|wigglytuff
15:08:18 |c|&raseri|as a spinner on rain that doesnt struggle w/ kanga
15:08:20 |c|@Kiyo|idgaf if you CAN use armaldo and it has a very small niche
15:08:23 |c|@Kiyo|you dont fucking use it
15:08:26 |c|#Disjunction|see we have over inflation because it's so easy to say something isn't E
15:08:28 |c|&raseri|army of armaldos
15:08:28 |c|~hollywood|kiyo
15:08:31 |c|~hollywood|this is a community run thread
15:08:34 |c|~hollywood|respect my opinion please
15:08:35 |c|~hollywood|=(
15:08:37 |c|&raseri|Blaziken1337: regigigas and slaking
15:08:41 |J| The Idealistic
15:08:43 |c|&raseri|good e rank
15:08:44 |c|&raseri|imo
15:08:47 |c|@Kiyo|like we're not getting anywehere with this
15:08:47 |c|@Realistic Waters|tru
15:08:52 |c|@Kiyo|every time we bring up a shit mon
15:08:53 |c|@Kiyo|someone says
15:08:56 |c|~hollywood|>unfezant
15:08:57 |c|~hollywood|>wobbuffet
15:08:59 |c|@Kiyo|"well it has a small niche"
15:09:00 |c|#Disjunction|right right ok
15:09:00 |c|~hollywood|>wigglytuff
15:09:07 |c|&raseri|>armaldo
15:09:07 |c|#Disjunction|let's get to definitions
15:09:09 |c|&raseri|ya
15:09:13 |c|~hollywood|yes we're talking about pokemon that there is literally no reason to use
15:09:13 |c|@Kiyo|2/3 have small niches i could argue for
15:09:14 |c|&raseri|i still support starting with
15:09:16 |c|@Kiyo|but i know theyre trash
15:09:16 |c|#Disjunction|I think once we establish definitions we can address this
15:09:17 |c|&raseri|doubles definitions
15:09:18 |c|&raseri|and
15:09:20 |c|@Montsegur|lets switch over to the greek numeral system and add in one more rank
15:09:20 |c|@Kiyo|and im keeping my mouth shut
15:09:20 |c|&raseri|working from there
15:09:22 |c|~hollywood|i can come up with reasons to use armaldo
15:09:26 |c|@Kiyo|defensive unfezant works
15:09:28 |c|~hollywood|i cant come up with reasons to use unfezant
15:09:31 |c|&raseri|i can come up with reasons to use wigglytuff
15:09:34 |c|&raseri|but
15:09:35 |c|~hollywood|why would you use it over something else
15:09:36 |c|&raseri|its still ass
15:09:36 |c|@Kiyo|wigglytuff is a solid competitive av user
15:09:41 |c|@Kiyo|like agian
15:09:44 |c|#Disjunction|it has great coverage
15:09:47 |c|#Disjunction|and a unique typing
15:09:48 |c|@Kiyo|idgaf if you can come up with reasons to use a mon
15:09:48 |c|~hollywood|that niche isn't something that's needed for a team
15:09:51 |c|@Kiyo|if its ass its ass
15:09:53 |c|&raseri|ok
15:09:56 |c|~hollywood|armaldo is a spinner that beats kangaskhan and zangoose
15:09:56 |c|@Kiyo|and it should be reflected as such
15:09:56 |c|&raseri|definitions
15:09:57 |c|&raseri|pls
15:10:05 |c|~hollywood|that's a much better niche than "av competitive pokemon"
15:10:15 |c|@Kiyo|again what are the criteria for what we want these mons to meet
15:10:32 |c|&raseri|idk
15:10:33 |c|@Kiyo|1.splashability
15:10:33 |c|@Kiyo|2.reliablility
15:10:34 |c|@Kiyo|3.consistency
15:10:35 |c|@Kiyo|what else
15:10:45 |c|@Montsegur|are we adding in another letter?
15:10:47 |c|~hollywood|power level probably
15:10:51 |c|~hollywood|not right now mont
15:10:52 |c|&raseri|we can discuss that later
15:10:55 |c|&raseri|if we need it
15:11:03 |c|@Montsegur|I think that would affect the definitions tho
15:11:03 |c|@Kiyo|how are you definining power level
15:11:07 |c|~hollywood|not sure
15:11:10 |c|@Kiyo|mont we'll get ot that whn we get to it
15:11:10 |c|~hollywood|but like
15:11:17 |c|~hollywood|some pokemon are just clearly stronger than others
15:11:20 |c|~hollywood|whether offensively or not
15:11:20 |c|&raseri|like sawk
15:11:24 |c|@Montsegur|there is pure power output
15:11:28 |c|~hollywood|right
15:11:35 |c|@Montsegur|but like rampardos has the highest in the game
15:11:37 |c|@Montsegur|but its not S
15:11:42 |c|@Kiyo|lets try to make this as objective as possible
15:11:44 |c|~hollywood|did you listen
15:11:45 |c|~hollywood|to what i said
15:11:46 |c|~hollywood|lol
15:11:48 |c|&raseri|i think those 3 are a good starting point
15:11:50 |c|~hollywood|by stronger i dont mean
15:11:53 |c|~hollywood|"hits harder"
15:11:57 |c|#Disjunction|Pokedots: maybe "threat level" > power level?
15:12:04 |c|@Kiyo|ok i like that
15:12:08 |c|~hollywood|that's fine yes
15:12:08 |c|&raseri|ya
15:12:12 |c|@Kiyo|how hard a mon is to deal with offensively or defensively
15:12:12 |c|&raseri|thats good
15:12:14 |c|@Kiyo|is a good one
15:12:17 |c|@Kiyo|so thats 4
15:12:29 |c|&raseri|s rank should have
15:12:31 |c|&raseri|most of those
15:12:31 |userstats|total:19|guests:0| :12|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:12:38 |c|@Montsegur|at least 3 if not all 4
15:12:40 |c|&raseri|idk if they need to be all 4
15:12:41 |c|&raseri|but
15:12:43 |c|&raseri|at least 3
15:12:43 |c|&raseri|for sure
15:12:51 |c|@Montsegur|I think we should make 5 and then have it be at least 4/5
15:12:52 |c|@Kiyo|they have all 4 currently
15:12:53 |c|@Kiyo|imo
15:12:55 |c|&raseri|and they shouldnt be bad in the 4th
15:12:56 |c|&raseri|ya rn
15:13:00 |c|~hollywood|if there is a 5th
15:13:00 |c|~hollywood|sure
15:13:00 |c|&raseri|i think they all fit
15:13:01 |c|&raseri|all 4
15:13:04 |c|~hollywood|but we dont need to force it
15:13:07 |c|@Montsegur|yah
15:13:08 |c|@Kiyo|Blaziken1337:(Private to +Kiyo) what about versatility
15:13:09 |c|@Kiyo|~hollywood: if there is a 5th
15:13:15 |c|@Kiyo|do we want to include this
15:13:17 |c|&raseri|versatility
15:13:18 |c|&raseri|hmm
15:13:20 |c|&raseri|its a nice trait
15:13:21 |c|@Kiyo|like mesprit has 8 sets
15:13:21 |c|&raseri|to have
15:13:22 |J| pus shaneghoul
15:13:23 |c|@Montsegur|versatilityis nice
15:13:24 |c|@Kiyo|but that doenst make it great
15:13:29 |c|&raseri|sawk doesnt have a lot of sets
15:13:29 |c|@Montsegur|like rhydon is versatile
15:13:30 |c|~hollywood|i dont think versatility really matters
15:13:31 |c|~hollywood|that much
15:13:33 |c|&raseri|but its good at everything else
15:13:33 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:13:34 |c|~hollywood|i mean it's definitely good
15:13:37 |c|#Disjunction|I don't think versatility should make a mon
15:13:37 |c|~hollywood|to have
15:13:38 |c|@Kiyo|i think we can consider
15:13:38 |c|&raseri|versatility is a nice
15:13:39 |c|@Kiyo|it
15:13:40 |c|&raseri|bonus trait
15:13:41 |c|@Kiyo|but its like
15:13:43 |c|@Montsegur|that could be a sub trait
15:13:43 |c|@Kiyo|a bonus
15:13:44 |c|@Kiyo|yeah
15:13:46 |c|~hollywood|but if a pokemon does one thing better than anything else in the tier
15:13:47 |c|~hollywood|yea
15:13:49 |c|@Kiyo|its like worth half a point
15:13:51 |c|&raseri|its a cool thing to have
15:13:54 |c|&raseri|but you dont need it
15:14:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok so its a two parter
15:14:08 |c|~hollywood|like i would credit mesprit with versatility but wouldnt take away from sawk for being mostly one-dimensional
15:14:10 |J| krices
15:14:14 |L| pus shaneghoul
15:14:17 |c|@Montsegur|if its versatile than two of those roles need to not be overshadowed
15:14:22 |L| krices
15:14:31 |c|~hollywood|versatility also plays into the other traits
15:14:42 |J| METAPHYSICAL
15:14:58 |c|@Kiyo|like sawk has 4 roles
15:15:01 |c|@Kiyo|you could argue that
15:15:06 |c|@Kiyo|but if i only use 1 of them
15:15:10 |c|@Kiyo|like 95% of the time
15:15:11 |c|@Montsegur|also guys feel free to PM us with ideas for this like pokedots and blaziken did
15:15:15 |c|&raseri|^
15:15:20 |J| Steakburgers
15:15:22 |c|@Kiyo|does the fact that it can run cs, cb, lum, etc matter
15:15:23 |c|~hollywood|ok i
15:15:26 |c|~hollywood|gotta run out and get more short for work
15:15:29 |c|~hollywood|i'll be back in like 20
15:15:29 |J| buggelz
15:15:31 |c|&raseri|:o
15:15:34 |c|&raseri|oki
15:15:35 |c|@Montsegur|ok, we'll update you
15:15:37 |c|@Montsegur|when you get back
15:15:39 |J| FoxxyStyles
15:15:40 |c|&raseri|lets ruin nu while hes gone
15:16:01 |c|@Montsegur|anarchy
15:16:07 |L| FoxxyStyles
15:16:07 |J| Jizznado
15:16:07 |c|&raseri|ok so
15:16:09 |c|@Kiyo|so i like versatility being included
15:16:10 |c|&raseri|where are we at
15:16:10 |c|&raseri|now
15:16:14 |c|#Disjunction|hi sorry got distracted for a sec
15:16:18 |c|@Kiyo|but its a really low relevance to rank imo
15:16:19 |c|&raseri|i like versatility being a bonus
15:16:20 |c|@Montsegur|I think we have main traits and then sub traits
15:16:22 |c|&raseri|like
15:16:24 |c|&raseri|we dont punish
15:16:25 |c|@Kiyo|unless the mon has like 4 great sets
15:16:26 |c|&raseri|for not having it
15:16:27 |c|@Kiyo|that all get usage
15:16:28 |c|#Disjunction|we were discussing what we're looking for in Pokemon when discussing them, right?
15:16:31 |c|#Disjunction|how can we apply those traits
15:16:32 |c|@Kiyo|yeah no punish for not having it
15:16:34 |c|#Disjunction|to a definition
15:16:39 |c|@Montsegur|sub traits can help a mon get a rank but they dont directly give a mon said rank
15:16:42 |c|@Kiyo|only reward it if the mons sets actually see use
15:16:47 |c|&raseri|yaa
15:16:55 |c|&raseri|idc about RP physcal aurorus
15:16:58 |c|&raseri|that doesnt count
15:17:08 |c|@Montsegur|physical aurorus can still tear a team a new one
15:17:12 |c|&raseri|ya but not RP
15:17:17 |c|#Disjunction|^
15:17:18 |c|@Montsegur|but band / specs
15:17:20 |c|@Kiyo|ya but its usage is like 1/100 auros
15:17:20 |c|@Montsegur|difference
15:17:22 |c|&raseri|ok
15:17:23 |c|@Montsegur|is what I'm saying
15:17:23 |c|@Kiyo|so is it that relevant
15:17:24 |c|&raseri|so we have s rank down
15:17:25 |c|&raseri|yn
15:17:40 |c|@Kiyo|yeah who wants to write up definitions
15:17:41 |c|@Montsegur|even if people don't use it I still think if its good enough it should be factored in
15:17:43 |c|&raseri|not me
15:17:52 |c|#Disjunction|we could make it an objective criteria
15:17:56 |c|#Disjunction|like if a mon fulfills
15:18:01 |c|#Disjunction|4/5 of the criteria
15:18:01 |c|@Montsegur|my example is that rhydon in XY wasn't used whatsoever but it still held A rank cause it was good
15:18:06 |c|#Disjunction|it can be safely placed in B
15:18:09 |c|#Disjunction|or A
15:18:17 |c|&raseri|1/5 should be threat level for a rank
15:18:20 |c|@Kiyo|yeah but i rly hated the xy vr's for that reason
15:18:24 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction I said 4/5 is good but we don't have a 5th definition
15:18:32 |c|&raseri|meme factor.
15:18:34 |c|#Disjunction|what were the definitions
15:18:34 |c|&raseri|xd
15:18:35 |c|@Montsegur|and we dont wanna force one
15:18:45 |c|@Kiyo|splashability
15:18:49 |c|@Kiyo|reliablity
15:18:52 |c|@Kiyo|consistency
15:18:59 |c|@Montsegur|fuck
15:19:00 |c|&raseri|threat level
15:19:02 |c|@Montsegur|I just copy and pasted
15:19:05 |c|@Kiyo|threat level
15:19:07 |c|@Montsegur|yah
15:19:10 |c|@Kiyo|yeah and versatility
15:19:13 |c|#Disjunction|what about metagame relevance
15:19:13 |c|@Montsegur|not necessarily in that order
15:19:18 |c|#Disjunction|like
15:19:19 |c|&raseri|doesnt that fit into threat level
15:19:23 |c|@Kiyo|i think metagame relevance and threat level
15:19:24 |c|@Montsegur|yah it does
15:19:27 |c|@Kiyo|should go hand in hand
15:19:28 |c|#Disjunction|Uxie/Mesprit weren't good in Sneasel meta
15:19:31 |c|@Kiyo|but realisticly
15:19:32 |c|@Kiyo|they wont
15:19:34 |c|@Kiyo|tbch
15:19:36 |c|&raseri|fair
15:19:45 |c|#Disjunction|but Rhydon is really good in this meta
15:19:47 |c|@Montsegur|versatility was agreed that it shouldn't be a main one
15:19:56 |c|@Montsegur|cause the majority of mons wont hit it
15:20:02 |c|@Kiyo|yeah i kinda want to tie usage in somehow
15:20:05 |c|@Kiyo|that isnt just usage
15:20:10 |c|@Kiyo|so i like metagame relevance
15:20:11 |c|&raseri|idk if i want to do that
15:20:15 |c|#Disjunction|I don't
15:20:17 |J| mazanya
15:20:19 |c|@Montsegur|ladder is notorious for having things that have high usage that are ass
15:20:20 |c|&raseri|you get really good mons
15:20:22 |c|&raseri|people just dont use
15:20:23 |c|@Montsegur|so thats a no from me
15:20:47 |J| Void Chrono
15:20:51 |c|@Kiyo|METAPHYSICAL: and saying these mons are all good / work on one specifc team
15:20:51 |c|@Kiyo|METAPHYSICAL: doesn't mean they are viable
15:20:57 |c|@Kiyo|yeah that falls under splashability
15:21:04 |c|@Kiyo|yn
15:21:10 |c|&raseri|y
15:21:12 |c|#Disjunction|y
15:21:13 |c|&raseri|| 42   | Kangaskhan         |  5.55033% | 11902  |  3.797% | 9477   |  3.885% |
15:21:30 |c|@Kiyo|ok so theres not a way to objectively do it
15:21:37 |c|@Kiyo|and less subjective shit is better
15:21:44 |c|&raseri|i dont think we should focus on being purely objective
15:21:51 |c|#Disjunction|agreed
15:21:57 |c|#Disjunction|the criteria have room to be subjective
15:22:00 |c|&raseri|having a subjective bit in the criteria
15:22:01 |c|&raseri|is fine
15:22:02 |c|@Kiyo|to an extent i'd prefer more objective requirements tho
15:22:03 |c|&raseri|and even then
15:22:06 |c|&raseri|its subjective
15:22:13 |c|&raseri|like what defines consistent
15:22:15 |c|&raseri|where is the line drawn
15:22:16 |c|&raseri|etc
15:22:17 |c|@Kiyo|like people have told me they dont think they need a normal reisst on every tema
15:22:22 |c|&raseri|does tauros count as consistent
15:22:24 |c|&raseri|with rock climb
15:22:27 |c|@Kiyo|and i say have fun losing to kangaskhan and tauros
15:22:31 |userstats|total:25|guests:0| :18|+:1|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:22:35 |c|@Kiyo|i'd say  tauros consistenly does its job
15:22:38 |c|@Montsegur|there are mons that will hit all these things and just not be good in the meta
15:22:40 |c|&raseri|85% of the time
15:22:43 |c|@Montsegur|so some subjectivity is required
15:23:01 |c|#Disjunction|Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
15:23:07 |c|#Disjunction|all have room for subjectivity
15:23:09 |c|@Kiyo|i just dont want the level of subjectivity
15:23:11 |c|@Kiyo|to be like
15:23:17 |c|@Kiyo|clefairy is C rank material
15:23:17 |c|@Montsegur|the first 3 are more objective
15:23:19 |c|@Kiyo|cuz its good
15:23:20 |c|@Kiyo|haha
15:23:23 |c|&raseri|haha
15:23:23 |c|@Montsegur|yah
15:23:26 |c|@Montsegur|i agree
15:23:28 |c|@Kiyo|cuz i feel like thats waht half the posts are
15:23:29 |c|@Kiyo|rn
15:23:32 |c|@Montsegur|which is the issue with overrating things
15:23:37 |c|&raseri|i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
15:23:38 |c|#Disjunction|like you could easily say CM Clefairy has a high threat level because not every team has a check to it
15:23:38 |c|@Montsegur|but I also dont wanna underrate things
15:23:49 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
15:23:49 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
15:23:50 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
15:23:50 |c|@Kiyo|&raseri: i used clefairy on a team recently b- rank pls
15:23:56 |c|@Kiyo|this is how i read 90% of the noms
15:24:03 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction even if you don't have a check to clefairy you have a check to CM pokemon
15:24:17 |c|@Montsegur|so good teambuilding will account for it anyways
15:24:18 |J| bouff
15:24:18 |c|&raseri|unless your check doesnt beat clef
15:24:21 |c|&raseri|by chance
15:24:29 |c|&raseri|but
15:24:32 |c|&raseri|thats not relevant
15:24:35 |c|#Disjunction|CM Megadino wouldn't beat CM Stored Power Clef
15:24:40 |c|#Disjunction|but yea
15:24:40 |c|@Kiyo|#Disjunction: Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
15:24:42 |c|@Montsegur|what doesn't beat clefairy that doesn't beat megadino?
15:24:49 |c|@Kiyo|ok so those are the criteria for s atm?
15:24:52 |c|@Montsegur|*that does beat dino
15:24:53 |c|&raseri|yes
15:24:56 |c|&raseri|i suport that
15:25:00 |c|@Kiyo|does anyone now how to say splashability so it doesnt sound stupid
15:25:05 |c|#Disjunction|I think effect on metagame could be reworded
15:25:08 |c|@Kiyo|like ability to work on a number of teams?
15:25:09 |c|#Disjunction|but
15:25:09 |c|&raseri|!dt magikarp
15:25:09 |c|~|/data-pokemon Magikarp
|raw|<font size="1"><font color=#585858>Dex#:</font> 129&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Gen:</font> 1&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Height:</font> 0.9 m&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Weight:</font> 10 kg <em>(40 BP)</em>&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Dex Colour:</font> Red&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Egg Group(s):</font> Water 2, Dragon&nbsp;|&ThickSpace;<font color=#585858>Evolution:</font> Gyarados (20)</font>
15:25:10 |c|@Montsegur|in one word?
15:25:13 |c|#Disjunction|it's not super important
15:25:21 |c|@Kiyo|ok i'll work on wording rn
15:25:23 |c|@Montsegur|or can I use several
15:25:25 |c|@Kiyo|you guys can nom shit
15:25:33 |c|@Kiyo|that makes this diffreent
15:25:35 |J| ShadowDragoon666
15:25:36 |c|@Kiyo|from A
15:25:44 |c|@Kiyo|fuck i cant speak
15:25:53 |c|@Kiyo|make criteria for A mons based on S criteria
15:25:56 |c|@Kiyo|while i type
15:25:56 |c|@Kiyo|imo
15:25:57 |L| buggelz
15:26:00 |c|&raseri|ok
15:26:06 |c|#Disjunction|my suggestion still stands to make subsequent ranks dependent on filling criteria
15:26:18 |J|+King UU
15:26:27 |c|#Disjunction|like A Rank fulfills 4/5, B rank fulfills 3/5, C rank fulfills 2/5, D rank fulfills 1/5
15:27:10 |c|&raseri|a-rank = fulfulls the majority of the criteria as defined, but is missing in one area, or 2 areas if it defines a great teamstyle
15:27:11 |J| grizord
15:27:20 |c|&raseri|last bit im not sure of
15:27:28 |c|#Disjunction|also unsure
15:27:30 |c|&raseri|and 1 of the 5 should be
15:27:35 |c|&raseri|threat level
15:27:41 |c|#Disjunction|I think "great" could be reworded to "dominate"
15:27:42 |c|&raseri|it can also fill them
15:27:49 |c|&raseri|to a lesser degree
15:27:49 |c|@Montsegur|but there will be some B / C / lower ranks that fill more than 3 and by that definition should be higher
15:27:51 |c|&raseri|than s rank
15:27:55 |c|&raseri|ya
15:27:57 |c|&raseri|when we get lower
15:27:59 |c|&raseri|it gets more subjective
15:28:18 |c|#Disjunction|that's true
15:28:20 |c|@Montsegur|I think we need to expand each one into some sub sections
15:28:26 |c|@Montsegur|and then see if they fit from there
15:28:28 |c|@Montsegur|for the lower ones
15:28:46 |c|&raseri|Blaziken1337: maybe also look at in terms of how much something is outclassed
15:28:55 |c|@Montsegur|yah thats a good one
15:28:58 |c|#Disjunction|Kiyo wouldn't be happy about that
15:29:00 |c|#Disjunction|but I would agree
15:29:04 |c|@Montsegur|well
15:29:06 |c|@Kiyo|im fine with taht
15:29:09 |c|#Disjunction|o
15:29:16 |c|@Montsegur|kabutops completely outclasses armaldo imo
15:29:19 |c|@Kiyo|i realized a month ago theres no way to do this perfectly
15:29:21 |c|@Montsegur|or for the most part
15:29:26 |c|@Kiyo|and outclassing something is an ok enough argument
15:29:28 |c|#Disjunction|we could come up with negative definitions
15:29:29 |c|@Kiyo|for the sake of the thread
15:29:32 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:29:32 |c|#Disjunction|things that hold a mon back
15:29:34 |c|&raseri|a rank should fulfill most of the s rank criteria, but be missing something
15:29:36 |c|@Kiyo|i like negative things
15:29:38 |c|#Disjunction|such as being outclassed
15:29:43 |c|&raseri|Pokedots: I don't think a clear cut 1/5 or 3/5 of the criteria would work that well, I'd just say how they do when judged by each criteria
15:29:48 |c|@Kiyo|i think being weak against higher ranked pokemon
15:29:49 |c|&raseri|so if we want to be
15:29:51 |c|&raseri|objective
15:29:51 |c|@Kiyo|should be a criteria
15:29:54 |c|&raseri|ya
15:29:58 |c|&raseri|1 sec
15:29:58 |c|@Kiyo|to a certain extent
15:30:01 |c|&raseri|im wording something
15:30:06 |J| The Testing Wind
15:30:07 |c|@Kiyo|https://titanpad.com/Nxc84zWqD9
15:30:08 |L| grizord
15:30:08 |c|#Disjunction|negative criteria can work more subjectively
15:30:10 |J| grizord
15:30:13 |c|@Kiyo|also tahts what i have for S rank rn
15:30:15 |c|@Kiyo|it needs work
15:30:31 |c|&raseri|if we want to be objective, then maybe each category should be given a rank too,
15:30:32 |c|&raseri|like
15:30:42 |c|@Kiyo|like threat level is more important
15:30:45 |c|&raseri|we acn have 2 pretty consistent mons
15:30:49 |c|&raseri|but one is a bit mnore consistent
15:30:52 |c|@Kiyo|than variety of teams
15:30:53 |c|&raseri|and that needs to be accounted for
15:30:53 |c|@Kiyo|or smth
15:31:08 |L| The Testing Wind
15:31:17 |c|&raseri|ya i like that definition
15:31:24 |c|&raseri|threat level is most important
15:31:33 |c|#Disjunction|hmm
15:31:39 |L| Luck O' the Irish
15:31:41 |c|#Disjunction|if we wanted to completely overhaul the thread
15:31:50 |c|#Disjunction|we could get rid of categorizing all of the mons
15:32:00 |c|#Disjunction|and list their traits
15:32:03 |c|#Disjunction|then rank their traits
15:32:12 |c|&raseri|that sounds like lots of work
15:32:18 |c|#Disjunction|like Rhydon would have S consistency
15:32:20 |c|#Disjunction|or something
15:32:26 |c|&raseri|in theory that works
15:32:31 |userstats|total:27|guests:0| :19|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:32:35 |L|~hollywood
15:32:37 |c|&raseri|if we dont take into account
15:32:38 |c|&raseri|amount of work
15:32:41 |c|#Disjunction|that way we can qork on a case by case basis
15:32:43 |c|&raseri|a little blurb about the pokemon
15:32:44 |c|@Montsegur|in theory that works but when updates roll around it will take way to much time
15:32:46 |c|&raseri|could be helpful
15:32:56 |c|&raseri|so people know why
15:32:58 |c|&raseri|Rhydon is S
15:33:00 |c|#Disjunction|and it would help alleviate the problem of mons that are subpar being unrepresented
15:33:04 |c|@Montsegur|blurb could be helpful
15:33:12 |c|@Kiyo|it would be nice to start ranking each mons traits
15:33:14 |c|@Montsegur|I think the blurb could go in a second post under the actual rankings
15:33:18 |c|@Kiyo|but i agree thats a project for another ay
15:33:25 |c|@Montsegur|cause it would get super cluttered under each mon
15:33:32 |c|@Montsegur|we need a to do list
15:33:55 |c|&raseri|when are we going to rank pokemon
15:34:07 |L| Companeros
15:34:09 |c|@Kiyo|after B rank is done imo
15:34:11 |c|@Montsegur|after we get the ranks defined
15:34:18 |c|@Montsegur|ok we can do that
15:34:24 |c|@Montsegur|and then see if we need another letter
15:34:28 |c|@Montsegur|at that point in time
15:35:14 |c|@Kiyo|so i've been offscreen
15:35:18 |c|#Disjunction|so how are we handling definitions then
15:35:21 |c|@Kiyo|what have you guys come up with for A rank definitions
15:35:43 |c|#Disjunction|we've been discussing objectively ranking mons
15:35:56 |c|#Disjunction|vs subjectively to a rank like we have been
15:35:57 |L| grizord
15:36:03 |c|#Disjunction|then we got on the topic of negative characteristics
15:36:07 |c|#Disjunction|and didn't go anywhere with that
15:36:23 |c|@Kiyo|ok so lets list some negative things that can be accoutned for
15:36:30 |c|@Kiyo|>hazard weakness
15:36:35 |c|@Kiyo|>speed
15:36:36 |L| tv4c
15:36:42 |c|@Kiyo|>general bulk
15:36:43 |c|@Montsegur|passivness
15:36:45 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:36:56 |c|&raseri|poor matchup vs relevant pokemon
15:37:00 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:37:00 |c|#Disjunction|how much should some of these weigh against the main 5 characteristics, though
15:37:05 |c|@Montsegur|outclassed
15:37:08 |c|@Kiyo|lolbro: priority
15:37:17 |c|@Kiyo|i think that can fall under a speed argument
15:37:19 |c|@Montsegur|if we go into moves tho
15:37:25 |c|&raseri|ya it fits with speed
15:37:25 |c|@Montsegur|then we will have a huge list
15:37:26 |J|~hollywood
15:37:33 |c|@Kiyo|and passiveness falls under momentum lolbro
15:37:47 |c|@Kiyo|err other way around but yh
15:38:03 |c|@Montsegur|hi holly, we got threat level as the 5th one and are now making a negative list
15:38:06 |J| Adaire
15:38:27 |c|@Montsegur|I dont think a mon should be dinged for not having uturn tho
15:38:31 |c|@Montsegur|or any other move for that matter
15:38:34 |c|@Kiyo|no but a pokemon like prinplup
15:38:35 |c|@Montsegur|~~unless its scald~~
15:38:41 |c|#Disjunction|passiveness = momentum suck
15:38:41 |c|@Kiyo|that literally gives  a free turn when you defog
15:38:42 |L| Adaire
15:38:45 |c|@Kiyo|is a momentum suck
15:38:53 |c|@Kiyo|it forces you to switch and take a hit
15:38:59 |c|@Kiyo|because you lost momentum
15:39:15 |c|@Montsegur|but since it can have things like toxic and defensiveness that can be neutralized
15:39:22 |c|@Montsegur|that also has to play into it
15:39:22 |c|@Kiyo|to an extent yes
15:39:30 |c|~hollywood|setup fodder is bad
15:39:33 |c|&raseri|being a momentum sap should let you be dinged
15:39:37 |c|#Disjunction|one problem I'm seeing with this system is if we make it too complicated, people who are joining the thread will struggle to make the appropriate noms
15:39:39 |c|~hollywood|having u-turn helps not be setup fodder
15:39:42 |c|@Kiyo|agree with raseri
15:39:51 |c|~hollywood|not having u-turn doesn't make you setup fodder
15:39:55 |c|&raseri|ya i dont want a complicated system
15:40:02 |c|&raseri|which is why i dont want things to be
15:40:04 |c|&raseri|to objective
15:40:08 |c|~hollywood|garbodor isn't setup fodder for much
15:40:09 |c|~hollywood|mantine is
15:40:11 |c|@Kiyo|i dont think having passiveness makes it complicated
15:40:14 |c|~hollywood|if it had u-turn it wouldn't be
15:40:17 |c|~hollywood|but it doesn't
15:40:22 |c|@Kiyo|like hollywood is giving good examples
15:40:25 |c|~hollywood|so it's passive and shit that doesnt mind scald sets up on it
15:40:32 |c|&raseri|yaa
15:40:35 |c|~hollywood|that's not very much and mantine sucks for a number of reasons
15:40:36 |c|@Kiyo|most of our defoggers are momentum sucks for example
15:40:48 |c|~hollywood|but the point stands that not having u-turn isn't the reason why mantine should be ranked low
15:40:52 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:40:54 |c|~hollywood|but it sure doesn't help
15:41:10 |c|@Kiyo|when talking about momentum we're not specificly talking about u-turn and volt switch for the record
15:41:16 |c|@Montsegur|I just think that adding moves as part of the negative list will make it to convoluted
15:41:27 |c|@Montsegur|but uturn and that fall under passivness
15:41:35 |c|@Kiyo|yeah agreed i wouldnt specifically mention any moves
15:41:40 |c|@Kiyo|cuz like holly said
15:41:58 |c|@Kiyo|cuz of what holly said*
15:42:31 |c|@Montsegur|so we have a p decent negative list right
15:42:31 |userstats|total:24|guests:0| :16|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:42:41 |c|#Disjunction|ok so for negative definitions (I'm keeping a list) we have passiveness, outclassed, hazard weakness, speed, general bulk
15:42:44 |J| Adaire
15:42:58 |c|@Kiyo|outclass should be at the top fo the list
15:43:02 |c|@Kiyo|hazard weakness on low end
15:43:09 |c|@Kiyo|speed and general bulk in between
15:43:12 |c|@Kiyo|and passive below that
15:43:13 |c|@Kiyo|imo
15:43:15 |c|@Montsegur|we can arrange order later imo
15:43:22 |c|@Montsegur|for both list
15:43:23 |c|@Montsegur|s
15:43:26 |c|#Disjunction|that's 5 negative characteristics
15:43:26 |L|@Realistic Waters
15:43:29 |c|#Disjunction|how should we compare those
15:43:31 |c|&raseri|poor matchups
15:43:34 |c|&raseri|needs to be on there
15:43:37 |c|@Kiyo|o yeah
15:43:38 |c|#Disjunction|to mons with plenty of positive characteristics
15:43:39 |c|@Kiyo|thats a big one
15:43:41 |c|&raseri|^
15:43:45 |c|#Disjunction|y
15:43:48 |c|#Disjunction|but my point stands
15:43:54 |c|&raseri|compare them
15:43:55 |c|&raseri|subjectively
15:44:01 |c|@Kiyo|strengths outweigh flaws is really subjective
15:44:04 |c|@Kiyo|but its best way to do it
15:44:09 |c|@Montsegur|should the negative list also be for S rank?
15:44:09 |c|@Kiyo|unless someone has another idea
15:44:11 |c|&raseri|how much do its negatives
15:44:12 |c|&raseri|hurt it
15:44:17 |J| Blast Chance
15:44:18 |c|@Kiyo|i think it should apply to s rank as well
15:44:21 |c|~hollywood|the importance of each quality matters too
15:44:21 |c|&raseri|compared to how much the positives help it
15:44:23 |c|@Kiyo|like arhc and mag are sr weak
15:44:23 |c|@Montsegur|hi blast
15:44:24 Blast Chance was promoted to Room Moderator by Disjunction.
15:44:24 |N|@Blast Chance|blastchance
15:44:25 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction
15:44:26 |c|@Montsegur|o
15:44:27 |c|&raseri|blast
15:44:27 |c|#Disjunction|I gottem
15:44:28 |c|&raseri|:)
15:44:30 |c|@Kiyo|yeah i agree with hollywood
15:44:32 |c|@Blast Chance|helo
15:44:36 |c|~hollywood|like
15:44:37 |c|@Kiyo|thats why i wanted an order to it
15:44:42 |c|@Montsegur|blast ill update you in PM
15:44:45 |c|&raseri|we need a negative definition
15:44:46 |c|&raseri|VR
15:44:49 |c|@Kiyo|liek hazard weakness is a flaw but its not crippling in archeops case
15:44:55 |c|&raseri|hazard weakness is a c rank
15:44:55 |c|@Kiyo|so its still s rank
15:44:56 |c|&raseri|flaw
15:44:57 |c|&raseri|haha
15:45:11 |c|~hollywood|it's hard to come up with
15:45:16 |c|~hollywood|a specific example
15:45:19 |c|~hollywood|but like
15:45:21 |L| Adaire
15:45:48 |J| Companeros
15:45:48 |c|@Montsegur|hazard weaknes + no reliable recovery
15:45:53 |c|@Montsegur|is crippling
15:45:57 |c|@Montsegur|like CB scyther
15:45:58 |c|~hollywood|regirock being good against normals is less important because so is rhydon and that threatens more offensively
15:45:58 |c|&raseri|to some pokemon
15:46:14 |c|&raseri|brb
15:46:15 |c|~hollywood|so it's more important to compare it to rhydon in effectiveness than to look at the things it does on paper
15:46:16 |c|@Montsegur|and regi is more passive than rhydon
15:46:34 |c|#Disjunction|so in that case holly Rhydon's ability to outclass Regi would be more important
15:46:58 |c|@Blast Chance|so are we talking about specific pkmn or specific ranks atm
15:47:09 |c|@Kiyo|defining ranks
15:47:16 |c|@Kiyo|making criteria that mons can meet
15:47:18 |c|@Kiyo|to fit into them
15:47:34 |c|@Montsegur|but using pokemon as examples
15:47:43 |c|@Kiyo|yeah visualization helps
15:47:59 |c|@Kiyo|ill brb
15:48:01 |c|#Disjunction|I wouldn't mind comparing negative ranks with positive ones subjectively
15:48:06 |c|~hollywood|yea i'm trying to come up with examples for everything
15:48:09 |c|#Disjunction|but then I can easily see
15:48:13 |c|~hollywood|we have S and E hammered out though right?
15:48:15 |c|#Disjunction|that the ranks wouldn't change much
15:48:26 |c|@Montsegur|[12:16] Pokedots: I think D rank should have a mention of being useful in specific matchups (tours) but aren't consistent (ladder)
15:48:31 |c|#Disjunction|in terms of people nominating them
15:48:33 |c|@Montsegur|kind of relevant to E
15:48:38 |L| Void Chrono
15:48:44 |c|~hollywood|well the extremes are the most important to define
15:48:48 |c|~hollywood|everything else is pretty simple
15:48:49 |c|#Disjunction|^
15:49:00 |c|~hollywood|you can just slide down the scale from the two starting points
15:49:07 |L| Companeros
15:49:07 |c|#Disjunction|I think S, A, and D are most important
15:49:08 |c|#Disjunction|right now
15:49:11 |c|@Montsegur|I dont want to rank every NFE and PU mon that clearly shouldn't be used tho
15:49:33 |c|#Disjunction|we could
15:49:40 |c|#Disjunction|move things from D to E
15:49:43 |c|#Disjunction|when we want to unrank
15:49:48 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, nfe
15:49:48 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pikachu, Sandslash, Nidorina, Nidorino, and 121 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
15:49:53 |c|#Disjunction|as a kind of transition to being unranked
15:49:56 |c|@Montsegur|that would be over 121 mons
15:50:00 |c|~hollywood|nu nfe is all nfes not above nu
15:50:12 |c|@Montsegur|oh i forgot pu
15:50:16 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, pu, nfe
15:50:16 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Butterfree, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pidgeot, Raticate, Fearow, and 257 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
15:50:19 |c|@Montsegur|yah
15:50:19 |c|~hollywood|!ds all, nu, nfe, !nfe
15:50:19 |raw|<div class="infobox">A search with the parameter 'all' cannot be broadcast.</div>
15:50:23 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, nfe, !nfe
15:50:23 |raw|<div class="infobox">A search cannot both exclude and include a tier.</div>
15:50:26 |c|~hollywood|cry
15:50:28 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
15:50:31 |c|~hollywood|i want
15:50:36 |c|~hollywood|nfe but not in the "tier" nfe
15:50:59 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, nfe, !pu
15:50:59 |raw|<div class="infobox">Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Metapod, Kakuna, Pidgeotto, Pikachu, Sandslash, Nidorina, Nidorino, and 121 more. <font color=#999999>Redo the search with 'all' as a search parameter to show all results.</font></div>
15:51:01 |c|@Montsegur|!ds nu, dark type, !nfe
15:51:01 |raw|<div class="infobox">Cacturne, Liepard, Malamar, Pawniard, Shiftry, Skuntank</div>
15:51:08 |c|@Montsegur|pawniard gets included
15:51:12 |c|~hollywood|well it's not nfe
15:51:13 |c|~hollywood|tho
15:51:14 |c|~hollywood|it's lc
15:51:16 |c|@Montsegur|o
15:51:18 |c|~hollywood|by "nfe" definitions
15:51:18 |c|@Montsegur|hmm
15:51:19 |c|~hollywood|that is
15:51:27 |c|~hollywood|!ds nu, bug type, !nfe
15:51:27 |raw|<div class="infobox">Crustle, Pinsir, Scyther, Vivillon</div>
15:51:30 |c|~hollywood|wont exclude scyther either
15:51:33 |c|~hollywood|because it's considered nu
15:51:40 |c|#Disjunction|ok so can we get a summary
15:51:41 |c|~hollywood|anyways this is mostly unimportant
15:51:44 |c|#Disjunction|of all the changes so far?
15:51:52 |c|@Montsegur|!ds fighting type, nu, !nfe
15:51:52 |raw|<div class="infobox">Combusken, Gurdurr, Hariyama, Hitmonchan, Poliwrath, Primeape, Sawk</div>
15:51:59 |c|@Montsegur|gurdurr is there
15:52:08 |c|~hollywood|yes i just explained why
15:52:27 |c|~hollywood|i think what it boils down to is the niche of D rank mons being important enough to include it
15:52:31 |userstats|total:23|guests:0| :15|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
15:52:39 |c|@Montsegur|I think so
15:52:52 |c|@Montsegur|I think that caters more to the average / slightly above average player
15:52:54 |c|#Disjunction|that and rank definitions
15:53:05 |c|@Montsegur|who has gotten used to the top rank mons and is starting to expiriment a bit
15:53:59 |c|@Montsegur|should we take a 15 minute coffee break?
15:54:09 |c|~hollywood|i just got back -_-
15:54:10 |c|#Disjunction|I have to leave in 45
15:54:11 |c|@Montsegur|cause kiyo and ras aren't here and blast is busy flying planes
15:54:28 |c|@Montsegur|this might need to be a two part discussion :/
15:54:41 |c|&raseri|im here
15:54:44 |c|&raseri|now
15:54:47 |c|&raseri|im tired tho
15:54:48 |c|@Kiyo|im here now
15:54:48 |c|&raseri|:s
15:54:53 |c|@Kiyo|football soon tho
15:54:56 |c|&raseri|o
15:55:00 |c|@Kiyo|maybe wecan carry into pms?
15:55:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok lets continue then and at least get the definitions done today
15:55:03 |c|&raseri|ya
15:55:07 |c|&raseri|what do we have
15:55:08 |c|&raseri|so far
15:55:11 |c|@Kiyo|^
15:55:15 |c|~hollywood|is there anything else important other than definitions?
15:55:22 |c|@Montsegur|inflation
15:55:23 |c|~hollywood|reranking i guess but that doesnt need to be done in realtime
15:55:29 |c|@Montsegur|and a possible new letter to adjust for that
15:55:33 |c|#Disjunction|yeah I think if we got definitions in place we could just re-rank all of the mons
15:55:39 |c|#Disjunction|and we'd have an accurate list
15:55:56 |c|&raseri|dont put things in ranks higher than they deserve
15:56:00 |c|&raseri|dont be hesitant to drop bad shit
15:56:07 |c|@Montsegur|inflation is part of the reason why this all happened, and since we have more viable mons that need to be ranked than certain ranks seem over inflated
15:56:13 |c|#Disjunction|yea mont is really stingy about dropping blatantly bad shit
15:56:15 |c|#Disjunction|like Simipour
15:56:19 |c|#Disjunction|>:(
15:56:26 |c|@Montsegur|so unrank lapras
15:56:27 |c|@Montsegur|got it
15:56:30 |c|@Blast Chance|^
15:56:31 |c|~hollywood|you know what else would help with overinflation
15:56:39 |c|~hollywood|only doing suggested reranks
15:56:48 |c|~hollywood|and not just throwing out the list for everyone to comment on
15:57:05 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo suggested doing definitions down to B and then start ranking them
15:57:12 |c|@Montsegur|and then we can see if overinflation is an issue
15:57:17 |c|@Kiyo|i think we need to look at mons more frequently
15:57:17 |c|@Montsegur|if it isn't great
15:57:26 |c|@Montsegur|if it is then we can fix it when we get there
15:57:29 |c|@Kiyo|like there are mons that havent had discussion
15:57:31 |c|@Kiyo|since xy
15:57:32 |c|~hollywood|i mean like i said defining b/c is less important
15:57:35 |c|~hollywood|"less good than a rank"
15:57:39 |c|~hollywood|"less good than b rank"
15:57:39 |c|@Kiyo|we should re look at each section weekly
15:57:58 |L| Blaziken1337
15:58:01 |c|~hollywood|yea a full revamp would help with that
15:58:01 |c|@Montsegur|I have free weekends now
15:58:05 |c|~hollywood|we did the same in bw2
15:58:08 |c|~hollywood|and it helped a ton
15:58:08 |c|@Montsegur|but thats hard to do with everyones schedule
15:58:16 |c|~hollywood|not everyone has to be there
15:58:20 |J| LeoLancaster
15:58:20 |c|@Montsegur|i think that biweekly is more managble
15:58:26 |L| mazanya
15:58:28 |c|~hollywood|when we did it in bw2, it was
15:58:30 |c|&raseri|free viability council
15:58:31 |c|~hollywood|me, ras, ebeast
15:58:35 |c|~hollywood|and i think flcl for like half the time
15:58:36 |c|@Montsegur|raseri I did that
15:58:38 |c|@Kiyo|like even if its 3 people
15:58:39 |c|@Montsegur|nerd keep up
15:58:42 |c|~hollywood|i even convinced them to put stantler in D
15:58:45 |c|@Kiyo|and we just run it by everyone else in a pm
15:58:47 |c|&raseri|stantler was good
15:58:48 |c|@Kiyo|i think its ok
15:58:48 |c|~hollywood|and it stayed there for a couple months
15:58:49 |c|~hollywood|:)
15:58:50 |c|&raseri|it beat mola
15:58:57 |c|~hollywood|best wallbreaker
15:59:00 |c|&raseri|i was mainly just a tyrunt
15:59:03 |c|&raseri|in bw viability
15:59:09 |c|@Montsegur|Kiyo the one issue with the PM is that no one replies in a timely fashion
15:59:15 |c|@Montsegur|aside from like hollywood
15:59:16 |c|@Kiyo|then fuck em
15:59:18 |c|&raseri|^
15:59:19 |c|&raseri|fuck em
15:59:25 |c|@Montsegur|with the last viability council
15:59:27 |c|@Kiyo|if they cant be active they dont get a say
15:59:29 |c|&raseri|no reply = no opibion
15:59:32 |c|#Disjunction|yea honestly the people who are on right now
15:59:36 |c|#Disjunction|are the only people who would respond
15:59:38 |c|#Disjunction|+finch
15:59:40 |c|@Montsegur|or raseri saying only list the important changes
15:59:40 |c|@Montsegur|lol
15:59:43 |c|#Disjunction|but finch would just yell
15:59:43 |c|#Disjunction|D:
15:59:55 |c|@Montsegur|finch is in his rebel stage
15:59:57 |c|@Montsegur|as a teenager
16:00:03 |c|&raseri|so
16:00:05 |L| ShadowDragoon666
16:00:06 |c|&raseri|free council
16:00:08 |c|&raseri|fuk piratepad
16:00:11 |c|@Montsegur|I did that
16:00:13 |c|&raseri|it just ends up as memes
16:00:17 |c|~hollywood|so do pms
16:00:18 |c|~hollywood|lol
16:00:18 |c|&raseri|do it again
16:00:36 |c|#Disjunction|oh another thing
16:00:37 |c|@Montsegur|Ok I'll make a PM after this is done
16:00:37 |c|&raseri|and focusing more on things brought up in the thread
16:00:37 |c|@Kiyo|new pm
16:00:38 |c|#Disjunction|I had on the paste
16:00:39 |c|@Kiyo|nice.
16:00:42 |c|#Disjunction|was discussing S/S-
16:00:44 |c|&raseri|add tennis so we can have
16:00:45 |c|&raseri|donuts
16:00:50 |c|@Kiyo|we dont need S / S-
16:00:52 |c|#Disjunction|:donut:
16:00:55 |c|@Kiyo|if a mon is borderline S
16:00:57 |c|@Kiyo|its A+
16:00:59 |c|@Kiyo|or should be
16:01:02 |c|@Kiyo|see: magmortar
16:01:03 |c|&raseri|^
16:01:08 |c|@Kiyo|should be A+
16:01:09 |c|@Blast Chance|ya
16:01:13 |c|#Disjunction|I feel like
16:01:14 |c|@Kiyo|i took a step back and looked at it
16:01:15 |c|@Montsegur|-
16:01:15 |c|#Disjunction|we're going around
16:01:17 |c|@Blast Chance|no s+ or s-
16:01:17 |c|~hollywood|what changed your mind
16:01:17 |c|#Disjunction|in circles now
16:01:21 |c|@Montsegur|nigga noms it for S
16:01:29 |c|@Montsegur|and now that he caught flak wants it in A+
16:01:33 |c|~hollywood|yes so you ask him why he changed his mind about it
16:01:37 |c|~hollywood|rather than pointing fingers
16:01:47 |c|@Montsegur|you asked for me :)
16:01:47 |c|#Disjunction|I honestly still support mag for S
16:01:50 |c|@Kiyo|it doesnt have the staying power it needs to be effective
16:01:52 |c|&raseri|don-don donuts, let's go nuts
16:01:55 |c|~hollywood|common courtesy 101: how not to be a dick
16:02:15 |c|~hollywood|magmortar is also ugly
16:02:21 |c|@Montsegur|its a duck
16:02:24 |L| LeoLancaster
16:02:26 |c|@Kiyo|its also partially due to the fact aht
16:02:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :12|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
16:02:32 |c|@Kiyo|i want to abuse lilligant and vivillon
16:02:35 |c|~hollywood|it's not a duck
16:02:37 |c|@Kiyo|and idont want people to know mag is good
16:02:38 |J| pus shaneghoul
16:02:38 |c|&raseri|booburn
16:02:38 |c|#Disjunction|Mag is quite splashable, it's consistent no matter which set you use, it's reliable despite its reliance on Focus Blast
16:02:44 |c|@Montsegur|wait magmar is the duck
16:02:48 |c|~hollywood|i never thought it was reliable
16:02:51 |c|@Kiyo|i mean i can still argue it for S
16:02:57 |c|@Kiyo|but i think its borderline
16:02:59 |c|#Disjunction|and I don't think I even need to talk about its threat level or effect on the meta
16:03:02 |c|@Kiyo|im happy with S or A+
16:03:02 |c|&raseri|its a+ imo
16:03:02 |c|~hollywood|it's matchup-dependent
16:03:11 |c|~hollywood|it just so happens that a lot of people in nu dont know how to play non-balance
16:03:11 |c|@Montsegur|lets get back to the definitions
16:03:12 |c|@Kiyo|its really not matchup dependent
16:03:14 |c|@Blast Chance|if it's borderline just put it a+ then
16:03:16 |c|@Montsegur|we've got A
16:03:17 |c|@Kiyo|it just shits on all playstyles
16:03:18 |c|@Kiyo|lol
16:03:19 |c|~hollywood|and that's mag's best matchup
16:03:21 |c|&raseri|not rain
16:03:22 |c|~hollywood|it's sO bad vs offense
16:03:23 |c|&raseri|:)
16:03:50 |c|#Disjunction|at least this proved that the new criteria is still subjective
16:03:54 |c|~hollywood|definitions
16:03:59 |c|~hollywood|S rank: hammered out
16:03:59 |c|#Disjunction|it'll at least provide structure to posts
16:04:00 |c|@Kiyo|nah dude mag functions well vs offense
16:04:05 |c|@Kiyo|its just not a free switch in to shit
16:04:09 |c|@Kiyo|like it is vs balance
16:04:11 |c|~hollywood|A rank: S-rank definitions, just not as S-rank
16:04:19 |c|~hollywood|B: replace S with A
16:04:21 |c|&raseri|b-rank: worse than a rank but still good
16:04:24 |c|~hollywood|C: replace A with B
16:04:33 |c|&raseri|d: niche shit
16:04:37 |c|&raseri|e: bad shit
16:04:46 |c|~hollywood|E: might have a niche but that niche isnt important enough to consider it for a serious team
16:04:50 |c|@Montsegur|but C rank mons might fill out 4/5 but not be B
16:04:58 |c|&raseri|owell
16:05:06 |c|&raseri|if it barely fills 4/5
16:05:07 |c|&raseri|it can be c
16:05:10 |c|&raseri|we can be subjective
16:05:22 |c|~hollywood|a C rank pokemon can't fill 4/5
16:05:25 |c|&raseri|the criteria are a starting point
16:05:29 |c|&raseri|not an ending point
16:05:30 |c|~hollywood|if it does those things but not well
16:05:30 |c|&raseri|imo
16:05:35 |c|~hollywood|it doesnt really do those things at all does it
16:05:43 |c|&raseri|aurorus for s
16:05:48 |c|~hollywood|if youd never use that pokemon for that thing
16:05:55 |c|~hollywood|then it doesnt really do it
16:05:58 |raw|<div class="broadcast-blue"><b>&amp;raseri: aurorus for s</b></div>
16:05:58 |c|~hollywood|even if it does
16:06:02 |c|~hollywood|stop.
16:06:23 |c|~hollywood|what are the criteria we wanted out of S?
16:06:25 |c|@Montsegur|ok so we have the definitions that we want to apply to every mon
16:06:25 |c|&raseri|ugh fck my headphones are breaking
16:06:32 |c|@Montsegur|and we don't wanna change them per rank
16:06:43 |c|@Montsegur|or not to a serious extent
16:06:50 |c|@Montsegur|just the amount of change you mentioned above
16:06:59 |c|@Blast Chance|so what's the definition of s anyway
16:07:06 |c|~hollywood|i just asked that
16:07:08 |c|#Disjunction|criteria for S should be fulfilling all 5 criteria with a limited number of the negative criteria
16:07:09 |c|~hollywood|still wanting it
16:07:17 |c|@Montsegur|Disjunction can you list
16:07:20 |c|@Montsegur|the pros / cons pls
16:07:25 |c|@Montsegur|cause you said you were keeping a list
16:07:28 |N| HATE IDIOTS|metaphysical
16:07:37 |c|~hollywood|note i also dont think definitions are actually that important
16:07:41 |c|~hollywood|you can twist anything to fit anything
16:07:44 |c|#Disjunction|passive, outclassed, weak to hazards, speed, general bulk, matchup
16:07:52 |c|#Disjunction|for negatives
16:07:53 |c|#Disjunction|Splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
16:07:55 |c|#Disjunction|for positives
16:08:01 |c|@Montsegur|no matter what we do its gonna be somewhat subjective
16:08:10 |c|~hollywood|yea like no C rank mon
16:08:13 |c|~hollywood|should be splashable and reliable
16:08:45 |c|@Blast Chance|definitions are still important for the initial ranks
16:08:50 |c|@Blast Chance|after that
16:08:57 |c|@Blast Chance|you can just compare the mons
16:09:00 |c|@Blast Chance|in those ranks
16:09:04 |c|~hollywood|so i guess we can more clearly define the lower ranks
16:09:13 |c|~hollywood|i dont expect any C rank pokemon to be splashable or reliable
16:09:14 |L| Pokedots
16:09:15 |c|~hollywood|if it was it wouldnt be C rank
16:09:26 |c|@Montsegur|blast we wanted to avoid doing that though
16:09:32 |c|~hollywood|in fact i dont really expect any of those except maybe threat level to apply to C rank
16:09:54 |c|#Disjunction|it might have ok levels of consistency
16:10:01 |c|@Montsegur|C rank mons can be consistent
16:10:07 |c|~hollywood|why?
16:10:21 |c|~hollywood|there aren't so many consistent pokemon that we can't fit them all in B or higher
16:10:22 |c|@Montsegur|the job that they might be doing might not be warrant a higher rank
16:10:32 |c|#Disjunction|Rampardos is very consistent at its job of setting Stealth Rock
16:10:36 |c|@Montsegur|like I would argue that miltank is a p consistent pokemon at setting up rocks and paralyzing shit
16:10:51 |c|@Montsegur|but I don't think it should be a B mon
16:10:58 |c|~hollywood|yes but that doesnt make it a consistent pokemon
16:11:07 |c|~hollywood|if you only wanted a consistent stealth rock setter
16:11:13 |c|@Montsegur|it consistently sets up rocks and paralyzes stuff?
16:11:14 |c|@Blast Chance|I thought c rank was like for things
16:11:20 |c|~hollywood|nvm that should really never be a thing
16:11:21 |c|~hollywood|lol
16:11:21 |c|@Blast Chance|that are consistent
16:11:25 |c|@Blast Chance|just not practical
16:11:28 |c|@Blast Chance|usually
16:11:31 |c|#Disjunction|Blast just try and forget
16:11:35 |c|#Disjunction|what VR has been up until now
16:11:37 |c|~hollywood|i dont think something can be impractical and consistent
16:11:38 |c|#Disjunction|we're trying to rework it
16:12:18 |c|@Montsegur|miltank fits some of the more negative criteria though
16:12:23 |c|@Montsegur|which is why it should be ranked lower
16:12:24 |c|#Disjunction|yes
16:12:27 |c|#Disjunction|I was about to say
16:12:31 |userstats|total:20|guests:0| :12|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
16:12:36 |c|#Disjunction|we're not only judging them based on the positive criteria
16:12:37 |c|~hollywood|yea i'm looking at Cs
16:12:44 |c|~hollywood|and i really dont see anything consistent or splashable
16:13:04 |c|@Montsegur|I'd say there are a lot of consistent rock setters
16:13:05 |c|~hollywood|anything that could be considered either
16:13:10 |c|@Montsegur|but a lot of them are either passive
16:13:10 |c|#Disjunction|ok how about we make Consistency and Splashability a requirement for B rank and up
16:13:11 |c|~hollywood|is much less so than other things in higher ranks
16:13:18 |L| Jizznado
16:13:28 |c|#Disjunction|that leaves three positive requirements for C Ranks
16:13:31 |c|~hollywood|carbink can consistently set stealth rock
16:13:35 |c|~hollywood|but that doesnt make it a consistent pokemon
16:13:41 |c|@Montsegur|a lot of the positive traits get over shadowed by the mons negative traights
16:13:44 |c|&raseri|so can graveller
16:13:45 |c|&raseri|:)
16:13:52 |c|@Montsegur|which is how it should be in the lower ranks
16:13:55 |c|~hollywood|you almost never want a pokemon strictly for the job of getting up stealth rock
16:14:34 |c|~hollywood|"consistent rocks setter" is not a role but a trait
16:14:50 |c|@Montsegur|like I'd say ninjask can consistently uturn on things, but its crippling rock weakness and somewhat weaker of a uturn makes it a C rank mon
16:15:00 |c|~hollywood|yes and "consistent u-turner" is not a role
16:15:03 |c|~hollywood|it's a trait
16:15:23 |c|#Disjunction|what would your example of a Pokemon that fills the consistent role be, holly?
16:15:26 |c|~hollywood|"consistent pokemon" should be all around consistent in the things it does
16:15:34 |c|#Disjunction|if "fulfilling its intended purpose" is not what you're looking for
16:15:51 |c|~hollywood|fulfilling its intended purpose is what i'm looking for
16:15:59 |c|~hollywood|ninjask's intended purpose isnt to use u-turn
16:16:10 |c|@Montsegur|its to outpace things and grab momentum
16:16:11 |c|~hollywood|rampardos's intended purpose isnt to use stealth rock
16:16:19 |c|~hollywood|those things are important parts of them
16:16:25 |c|~hollywood|but if that was all they did they would never see use
16:16:41 |c|~hollywood|ninjask doesnt hit very hard which is why it uses u-turn so much
16:16:46 |c|#Disjunction|the only reason I would use Rampardos is its Stealth Rock set, though
16:16:48 |c|~hollywood|so it's not a consistent offensive pokemon in comparison to scyther
16:16:56 |c|~hollywood|which hits hard and gets momentum and is fast
16:16:59 |c|#Disjunction|I don't care about anything else Rampardos does as long as it gets Stealth Rock
16:17:06 |c|@Montsegur|so for below B rank we should just rank it based on how little negatives it fills out?
16:17:06 |c|~hollywood|rampardos sets stealth rock but it's also really strong
16:17:17 |c|~hollywood|if you just wanted to get up stealth rock you'd be better off using carbink
16:17:30 |c|@Montsegur|carbink doesn't have mold breaker
16:17:32 |c|#Disjunction|that's not true
16:17:43 |c|#Disjunction|if I wanted a dedicated rocker I wouldn't ignore Carbink entirely
16:17:45 |c|#Disjunction|and go for Rhydon
16:17:54 |c|~hollywood|yes because rhydon is consistent in many ways
16:17:56 |c|~hollywood|not just setting stealth rock
16:18:01 |c|#Disjunction|so while Carbink has a level of consistency it is entirely outclassed by Rhydon
16:18:06 |c|~hollywood|rampardos sees little usage because it's only consistent in one way
16:18:12 |c|@Montsegur|but if he needs something to get up rocks against xatu teams then he would go for rampardos
16:18:23 |c|~hollywood|so it isn't a "consistent pokemon" even if it is "consistent" in its main intended role
16:18:36 |c|@Montsegur|i dont follow
16:18:39 |c|@Montsegur|i kind of do
16:18:47 |c|&raseri|raspardos
16:18:49 |J| geeezeer
16:18:52 |c|&raseri|(i dont have anything to contribute)
16:18:54 |c|#Disjunction|Rampardos doesn't have the same level as splashability as Rhydon, though
16:19:13 |c|#Disjunction|I guess it isn't consistent either
16:19:15 |c|#Disjunction|as a Stealth Rocker
16:19:19 |c|@Montsegur|but it still consistently sets up rocks
16:19:20 |c|#Disjunction|because it only has one shot to do it
16:19:23 |c|~hollywood|miltank consistently paralyzes things and sets stealth rock
16:19:24 |c|@Montsegur|cept against taunt
16:19:24 |c|#Disjunction|it reliably sets them up
16:19:27 |c|#Disjunction|but not consistently
16:19:32 |c|#Disjunction|reliable =/= consistent
16:19:33 |c|~hollywood|however, it's also setup fodder for klinklang and rhydon
16:19:42 |c|@Montsegur|I'd argue that things in D / even C- shouldn't be consistent
16:19:42 |c|~hollywood|which are two really high threat pokemon in the tier
16:19:48 |c|#Disjunction|which would be
16:19:50 |c|#Disjunction|its matchup
16:19:57 |c|#Disjunction|referring to another negative we have listed
16:19:59 |c|~hollywood|so it might be consistent in those roles but other pokemon can fulfill those roles while also beating those things
16:20:03 |L| geeezeer
16:20:14 |c|~hollywood|everything ranked should be consistent in some way
16:20:17 |c|@Montsegur|which means its outclassed
16:20:21 |c|~hollywood|that doesnt make everything ranked a consistent pokemon
16:20:26 |c|~hollywood|yes, outclassed means inconsistent
16:20:34 |c|#Disjunction|I wouldn't say that
16:20:38 |c|~hollywood|if it were more consistent in those important roles, it wouldn't be outclassed
16:20:48 |c|~hollywood|i guess it ties into splashability
16:20:59 |c|@Montsegur|a lot of these things tie into each other
16:21:10 |c|~hollywood|yes miltank is consistent in x roles but rhydon is also consistent in those x roles while also being consistent in y roles
16:21:11 |c|@Montsegur|we're just trying to make it easier to understand for everyone
16:21:16 |c|@Montsegur|yah
16:21:27 |c|~hollywood|i dont personally consider miltank consistent
16:21:30 |c|~hollywood|if i did i'd use it
16:21:44 |c|@Montsegur|which ties back to the subjectivity of all of this
16:21:46 |c|~hollywood|but it's also definitely not nearly as splashable as higher ranked support pokemon
16:22:00 |L| Gargamod
16:22:04 |c|~hollywood|and its threat level is minimal vs most teams
16:22:09 |c|@Montsegur|yah
16:22:21 |c|@Montsegur|and it also has negative traits that affect it
16:22:24 |c|#Disjunction|I think holly's argument could lead to another positive trait
16:22:27 |c|#Disjunction|that some mons should follow
16:22:31 |userstats|total:18|guests:0| :10|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
16:22:31 |c|#Disjunction|miltank IS a consistent rocker
16:22:34 |c|#Disjunction|but it doesn't do much else
16:22:35 |c|~hollywood|volbeat is really consistent in its role
16:22:41 |c|#Disjunction|so perhaps number of roles a mon can fill in one slot
16:22:42 |c|~hollywood|it's one of, if not THE best, in its job
16:22:47 |c|~hollywood|but its job isnt that important
16:22:47 |c|#Disjunction|is another positive criteria we could include?
16:22:52 |c|@Montsegur|yah
16:22:54 |c|~hollywood|because the archetype you use it on is not consistent
16:22:57 |c|#Disjunction|like Rhydon fills 5/6 defensive niches
16:23:02 |c|#Disjunction|along with a couple offensive ones
16:23:02 |c|~hollywood|that would be versatility/splashability
16:23:08 |N| shaneghoul|pusshaneghoul
16:23:11 |c|@Montsegur|like rhydon can be rocks / defensive / specially / CM phsycic check
16:23:22 |c|@Montsegur|versatility is like rhydon can be defensive and offensive
16:23:28 |c|~hollywood|weak to fighting and dislikes knock off, still beats malamar
16:23:31 |c|~hollywood|:-)
16:23:33 |c|@Montsegur|ya
16:23:42 |c|@Montsegur|so thats a role that you can put onto your team
16:23:48 |c|#Disjunction|I'd prefer rewording splashability to versatility then
16:23:50 |c|~hollywood|do based on
16:23:51 |c|@Montsegur|cause you need some way to beat malamar on a good team
16:23:52 |c|#Disjunction|and explicitly defining it
16:23:57 |c|~hollywood|splashability/consistency/threat level
16:24:00 |c|~hollywood|what are the other ones?
16:24:03 |c|@Montsegur|versatility isn't splashability tho
16:24:06 |c|@Montsegur|imo
16:24:12 |c|~hollywood|if a pokemon is versatile it's splashable
16:24:15 |c|#Disjunction|reliability and effect on meta
16:24:16 |J| Pokedots
16:24:18 |c|~hollywood|the reverse isnt
16:24:20 |c|~hollywood|inherently true
16:24:26 |c|~hollywood|but it's usually the case
16:24:28 |N| pus shaneghoul|shaneghoul
16:24:29 |c|@Blast Chance|tauros has one set
16:24:41 |c|#Disjunction|yes but that one set fills a number of offensive niches
16:24:52 |c|~hollywood|ok so
16:24:54 |c|@Montsegur|tauros has 3 sets :(
16:24:56 |c|#Disjunction|so its not all about how many different sets a mon can run
16:24:58 |c|@Montsegur|its only ranked for one tho
16:24:59 |c|~hollywood|checklist for archeops
16:25:07 |c|@Montsegur|versatile
16:25:09 |c|~hollywood|i think it has a very high threat level
16:25:13 |c|@Montsegur|y
16:25:21 |c|~hollywood|i dont think any of the others
16:25:25 |c|~hollywood|necessarily apply
16:25:26 |c|@Montsegur|its pretty splashable across offensive teams
16:25:32 |c|~hollywood|i strongly disagree
16:25:38 |c|~hollywood|and even if that is the case
16:25:40 |c|#Disjunction|it has a strong effect on the meta
16:25:42 |c|~hollywood|that's just offensive teams
16:25:47 |c|#Disjunction|it forces you to run flying checks
16:25:52 |c|~hollywood|i dont think it has that strong of an effect on the meta either
16:25:59 |c|~hollywood|that's true, but good teams should have flying checks anywas
16:26:03 |c|#Disjunction|you don't run flying checks for any other mons
16:26:03 |c|~hollywood|even if archeops wasnt in the tier
16:26:11 |c|#Disjunction|it's literally just chops
16:26:12 |c|@Montsegur|swellow
16:26:17 |c|~hollywood|you run normal checks
16:26:19 |c|#Disjunction|swellow doesn't run flying stabs now
16:26:22 |c|~hollywood|which are also flying checks
16:26:31 |c|@Montsegur|who doesn't run BB on physical swellow
16:26:31 |c|#Disjunction|that's not true
16:26:34 |c|~hollywood|yes
16:26:35 |c|~hollywood|it is
16:26:35 |c|#Disjunction|if you're running rocks yea
16:26:40 |c|~hollywood|and physical swellow isnt good
16:26:40 |c|#Disjunction|but if you're running ghosts or gurdurr
16:26:41 |c|~hollywood|=\
16:26:44 |c|#Disjunction|as your normal checks
16:26:46 |c|~hollywood|you dont run ghosts to check normals
16:26:49 |c|#Disjunction|those aren't flying resists
16:26:52 |c|~hollywood|because then you get stomped by kanga
16:27:01 |c|~hollywood|barring maybe like
16:27:02 |c|~hollywood|gourgeist
16:27:32 |c|#Disjunction|sometimes my teams are just naturally good against kanga
16:27:36 |c|~hollywood|also you run flying checks for scyther too
16:27:50 |c|@Blast Chance|yeah idt archeops is that splashable
16:27:52 |c|~hollywood|and vivillon
16:27:55 |c|~hollywood|because you run rhydon
16:27:59 |c|~hollywood|which covers all of these things
16:27:59 |c|~hollywood|lol
16:28:05 |c|@Blast Chance|all it really does is hit hard
16:28:13 |c|~hollywood|i really dont think archeops has a large effect on the metagame/teambuilding
16:28:17 |c|@Blast Chance|at least on offense
16:28:36 |c|~hollywood|it's also
16:28:41 |c|~hollywood|impossible to counter in the teambuilder
16:28:43 |c|~hollywood|so you just
16:28:46 |c|~hollywood|dont really bother countering it
16:29:00 |c|~hollywood|which goes further into power level
16:29:04 |c|~hollywood|or whatever wording we decided for that
16:29:14 |c|@Montsegur|threat level?
16:29:15 |c|@Montsegur|splashability, reliability, consistency, threat level, and effect on metagame
16:29:15 |c|~hollywood|but takes away from the other cats
16:29:19 |c|~hollywood|yea threat level
16:29:32 |c|~hollywood|tauros, on the other hand
16:29:34 |c|~hollywood|i think fits all of those
16:29:46 |c|~hollywood|effect on the metagame less than the others, but it's still there
16:30:00 |c|@Montsegur|ok so if a mon excels really well at one then it can give a boost to the others?
16:30:08 |c|~hollywood|i dont think so
16:30:18 |c|#Disjunction|I still don't think chops deserves S
16:30:21 |c|~hollywood|i dont think archeops should be s
16:30:23 |c|@Blast Chance|me neither
16:30:25 |c|~hollywood|havent for a while
16:30:34 |c|@Blast Chance|but everyone else does haha!
16:30:51 |c|~hollywood|i originally got it up there
16:30:53 |c|~hollywood|but that was
16:30:56 |c|~hollywood|mega steelix meta
16:30:57 |c|@Montsegur|and when I moved it down there was a shit storm (partially cause we didn't discuss it)
16:31:00 |c|~hollywood|which was a very long time ago
16:31:06 |c|~hollywood|yea you should
16:31:10 |c|~hollywood|not give into shitstorms
16:31:11 |c|@Blast Chance|well yeah we shouldve
16:31:12 |c|#Disjunction|but while I don't think it deserves S, it definitely has a strong impact on the meta imo
16:31:16 |c|~hollywood|just make sure everyone is on board before you do something
16:31:19 |c|~hollywood|then you can pin it on us
16:31:28 |c|~hollywood|and they'll get mad at us instead
16:31:35 |c|@Montsegur|I do that half the time but I take responsability when i also agree
16:31:36 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
16:32:03 |c|~hollywood|the problem with archeops is that even offensive teams still want defensive synergy
16:32:09 |c|~hollywood|and archeops offers little to none
16:32:14 |c|@Montsegur|bulkchops
16:32:20 |c|~hollywood|because it cant even switch into most resisted hits without going into defeatist
16:32:31 |userstats|total:19|guests:0| :11|+:2|%:0|@:3|★:0|#:1|&:1|~:1
16:32:33 |c|~hollywood|bulkychops is ass and has basically always been ass
16:32:37 |c|~hollywood|just use offensive defog
16:32:47 |c|@Blast Chance|no that sounds even worse
16:32:51 |c|~hollywood|nah it's good
16:32:56 |c|@Montsegur|i like offensive defog
16:32:57 |c|~hollywood|you just dont use it as a dedicated hazard remover
16:33:07 |c|~hollywood|helps vs spikes-stack
16:33:17 |c|@Montsegur|i like late game defoggers
16:33:33 |c|@Montsegur|cause most people think you'll defog right away if you have it
16:33:36 |c|~hollywood|you cant really use bulky archeops as a dedicated hazard remover either
16:33:44 |c|~hollywood|which is why i like offensive defog so much more
16:33:50 |c|#Disjunction|ok well
16:33:52 |c|#Disjunction|in any case
16:33:57 |c|~hollywood|so hard to find free turns defensively with it
16:33:59 |c|#Disjunction|we're decided on the criteria-based system?
16:34:00 |c|@Montsegur|i was thinking more of a normal check, which is what it originally was intended for (i think)
16:34:01 |c|~hollywood|not hard to do the same offensively
16:34:03 |c|~hollywood|i think so
16:34:14 |c|#Disjunction|did we want to re-rank everything
16:34:20 |c|@Montsegur|not today
16:34:25 |c|~hollywood|yea just not now
16:34:25 |c|@Montsegur|we can start
16:34:32 |c|@Montsegur|I'll make a PM
16:34:35 |c|#Disjunction|why not start a piratepad/pm
16:34:36 |c|~hollywood|this would be the ideal situation to piratepad
16:34:37 |c|@Montsegur|and we can do it over the next week
16:34:37 |c|~hollywood|yea
16:34:44 |c|#Disjunction|then we can work on it throughout the week
16:34:50 |c|~hollywood|because we're not judging based on people's posts
16:34:51 |c|@Montsegur|yah
16:34:55 |c|@Montsegur|**break**
16:34:58 |c|@Montsegur|hut hut hike
16:35:01 |c|#Disjunction|I gotta go in 5 anyhow
16:35:02 |c|~hollywood|gross
16:35:06 |c|~hollywood|my dad just turned on football
16:35:14 |c|#Disjunction|(puke)
16:35:15 |c|~hollywood|football is for BOYS
16:35:16 |c|@Montsegur|we still need to include peoples posts
16:35:23 |c|~hollywood|boys are ICKY AND HAVE COOTIES
16:35:28 |c|~hollywood|yea but it's not the main focus
16:35:32 |c|#Disjunction|just not in the preliminary ranks
16:35:34 |c|#Disjunction|imo
16:35:36 |c|@Montsegur|i would just include the general consensus of the thread as another vote
16:35:47 |c|@Montsegur|anyways
16:35:56 |c|@Montsegur|tis been fun, ill get the PM up now
16:35:57 |c|#Disjunction|ok can I make post now or should we wait til we have ranks hammered out
16:36:04 |c|@Montsegur|I'll make a post
16:36:05 |c|@Montsegur|you can leave
16:36:07 |c|#Disjunction|but I have
16:36:08 |c|#Disjunction|logs
16:36:09 |c|#Disjunction|nerd
16:36:09 |c|@Montsegur|like you need to
16:36:09 |c|~hollywood|hey guys vigoroth is rly good
16:36:11 |N| shaneghoul|pusshaneghoul
16:36:11 |c|~hollywood|read about it
16:36:12 |c|~hollywood|http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/oras-nu-viability-rankings.3545276/page-12#post-6449005
16:36:24 |L|~hollywood
16:36:28 |c|@Blast Chance|(monkey)
16:36:44 |c|#Disjunction|oh I guess
16:36:47 |c|#Disjunction|I don't have logs
16:36:52 |c|#Disjunction|oh well!
16:36:55 |c|@Montsegur|yah
16:37:00 |c|@Montsegur|hollwood needs to get them
16:37:03 |c|@Montsegur|*y
16:37:06 |c|@Blast Chance|lol
16:37:15 |c|#Disjunction|it's not important
16:37:18 |c|#Disjunction|i m o
16:37:21 |L| Steakburgers
16:37:41 |c|@Montsegur|raseri
16:37:43 |c|@Montsegur|grab logs
16:37:44 |c|@Montsegur|!
16:37:48 |c|&raseri|ok
16:38:28 |c|@Montsegur|ty
16:38:32 |c|@Montsegur|paste em for me pls