What are we tiering for?
As per Aldaron's policy framework, tiering decisions are made such that player skill determines the result of a match to the greatest extent possible. This framework, I will argue, is somewhat deficient.
I have a utilitarian view of tiering. Tiering should aim to create metagames which provide the best experience for as many players as possible. Tiering policy should thus reflect two major considerations:
If our metagames aren't sufficiently similar to cartridge play, people looking for a competitive Pokemon simulator won't play them. We have a lot of leeway here for making changes, but this is one reason we can't remove critical hits or secondary effects from moves.
The primary component of player enjoyment is that skillful play is rewarded. People have an innate desire to test themselves, better themselves, and prove themselves, and so derive satisfaction when given a platform for doing so.
But critically, rewarding skillful play is not the only component to maximising player enjoyment. To show this, consider the proposed Stealth Rock suspect test.
Stealth Rock does not significantly inhibit skillful play, and so under existing policy it should not be considered for a suspect test. Nevertheless, it is a popular source of complaint from players of all levels. In addition, a ladder without Stealth Rock in BW OU was regarded by many as being more fun than the standard metagame.
If a metagame without Stealth Rock was tested and found to be preferred by a clear majority of players (and it didn't inhibit skillful play or significantly reduce similarity to cartridge play) then it would be desirable to ban it, and our tiering policy should enable this. The fact that it doesn't suggests that the policy itself needs to be amended.
Note: Stealth Rock is an example only and any discussion of whether or not it should be tested belongs in its own thread. Similarly, the policy framework should be amended for its own sake and not specifically to enable a Stealth Rock test.
Interestingly enough, the principle of limiting collateral damage in banning decisions (which is quite topical thanks to Z-Moves) has no basis in rewarding skillful play, and shows that enjoyment is already a consideration in unofficial tiering philosophy (and this is far from the only example). The logic simply isn't being elucidated.
To sum up: I would like to see a re-evaluation of our policy framework, with a recognition that rewarding skill, although it should still form the basis of all or nearly all tiering decisions, is ultimately in service of player enjoyment. I also believe we should discuss the possibility that in specific circumstances, a suspect test should include personal enjoyment as a stated criteria for voters to consider.
As per Aldaron's policy framework, tiering decisions are made such that player skill determines the result of a match to the greatest extent possible. This framework, I will argue, is somewhat deficient.
I have a utilitarian view of tiering. Tiering should aim to create metagames which provide the best experience for as many players as possible. Tiering policy should thus reflect two major considerations:
1. Faithfulness to cartridge gameplay
If our metagames aren't sufficiently similar to cartridge play, people looking for a competitive Pokemon simulator won't play them. We have a lot of leeway here for making changes, but this is one reason we can't remove critical hits or secondary effects from moves.
2. Player enjoyment
The primary component of player enjoyment is that skillful play is rewarded. People have an innate desire to test themselves, better themselves, and prove themselves, and so derive satisfaction when given a platform for doing so.
But critically, rewarding skillful play is not the only component to maximising player enjoyment. To show this, consider the proposed Stealth Rock suspect test.
Stealth Rock does not significantly inhibit skillful play, and so under existing policy it should not be considered for a suspect test. Nevertheless, it is a popular source of complaint from players of all levels. In addition, a ladder without Stealth Rock in BW OU was regarded by many as being more fun than the standard metagame.
If a metagame without Stealth Rock was tested and found to be preferred by a clear majority of players (and it didn't inhibit skillful play or significantly reduce similarity to cartridge play) then it would be desirable to ban it, and our tiering policy should enable this. The fact that it doesn't suggests that the policy itself needs to be amended.
Note: Stealth Rock is an example only and any discussion of whether or not it should be tested belongs in its own thread. Similarly, the policy framework should be amended for its own sake and not specifically to enable a Stealth Rock test.
Interestingly enough, the principle of limiting collateral damage in banning decisions (which is quite topical thanks to Z-Moves) has no basis in rewarding skillful play, and shows that enjoyment is already a consideration in unofficial tiering philosophy (and this is far from the only example). The logic simply isn't being elucidated.
To sum up: I would like to see a re-evaluation of our policy framework, with a recognition that rewarding skill, although it should still form the basis of all or nearly all tiering decisions, is ultimately in service of player enjoyment. I also believe we should discuss the possibility that in specific circumstances, a suspect test should include personal enjoyment as a stated criteria for voters to consider.
Last edited: