Our own tiering system: Empirical Tiers

[Zekurom]

Failing the "middle" suggestion, we could also give provisional rankings by base stats - for 7 tiers, the cutoffs are something like 300-360-405-460-490-580. If we also want some legendaries in Tier 6 instead of Tier 7, we can expand that to 300-360-405-460-500-660.

 

[coolking503]

At the top, so its less of a cluster to start. In the end the outcome should be the same, so I'd rather have less of a mess after the first month.

 

[Noivern]

When we put things at the top, and let the battles do their jobs, we'll see what is most viable - and it'll look too similar to what we currently have.

Nah. I'll just let everything start from the middle.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

I also vote form the top.

So this currently puts it
middle-5
top-3

 

[coolking503]

I, too, think the middle is best--perhaps with pulling out the >Base Stat 670s into the above-middle tier, and the bottom ~2% or something into the below-middle tier, to expedite things.

The bottom 2% would mean the worst 9 pokemon. Anyone who plays this tier is likely aiming to get that pokemon into a tier higher than it should be.

When we put things at the top, and let the battles do their jobs, we'll see what is most viable And this is bad why?- and it'll look too similar to what we currently have. So? if the tiers are drastically different something is wrong with them or us

Nah. I'll just let everything start from the middle.

I'm not sure this vote has been thought through.

 

[Noivern]

Hmm... actually... How are we supposed to encourage the use of all Pokémon, including what's in the Ubers list of Smogon's?

 

[Pidge]

I'd say start at the top.

Tell me if I understand correctly. Everyone plays with no Pokemon banned. Then you can 'empirically' determine that the top x% used Pokemon are the highest tier? Then we start playing the next lower tier with the Pokemon from the highest tier banned. The top x% of that metagame are tier 2. And so on?

 

[Axle Helios]

I'd say start at the top.

Tell me if I understand correctly. Everyone plays with no Pokemon banned. Then you can 'empirically' determine that the top x% used Pokemon are the highest tier? Then we start playing the next lower tier with the Pokemon from the highest tier banned. The top x% of that metagame are tier 2. And so on?

Actually, that's more like starting from the bottom. With starting from the top, only a few, x%, weak Pokémon move down, while the majority of stronger ones stay in one tier.

 

[Zekurom]

The bottom 2% would mean the worst 9 pokemon. Anyone who plays this tier is likely aiming to get that pokemon into a tier higher than it should be.

Worst 13, but I understand what you mean. Shouldn't only be 2% - maybe 10%.

Also, what's with the second part?

 

[coolking503]

Would you play in a tier with caterpie, sunkern, weedle, etc? Neither would I. the only people are the ones who want to prank the system by increasing their usage in a never played metagame by battling themselves or their friends. This creates enough usage to get sunkern, for example, into the tier above with other OU stuff.

@Axle: Not much stuff is used in Ubers, maybe 20 pokemon max. These will stay, most OUs will drop. Some of the pokemon in the OU tier will be Uber because they are viable there.

 

[Zekurom]

Would you play in a tier with caterpie, sunkern, weedle, etc? Neither would I. the only people are the ones who want to prank the system by increasing their usage in a never played metagame by battling themselves or their friends. This creates enough usage to get sunkern, for example, into the tier above with other OU stuff.

Seems more like an argument to start at the bottom than at the top.

 

[Angad]

Top. For the reasons stated prior.

 

[Zekurom]

So we're at 4 top, 5 middle.

@Axle: Not much stuff is used in Ubers, maybe 20 pokemon max. These will stay, most OUs will drop. Some of the pokemon in the OU tier will be Uber because they are viable there.

Again, it would take 4 or 5 months before we see the changes - in the first month, there might be about half the Pokémon that move out of Tier 7. Also, if you take a look at the page again, I made it deliberately difficult to get out of Tier 7, because I restated the cutoffs keeping in mind that the higher you go, the harder it should be to move, either up or down.

To use the Elo rating analogy again, it's kind of like how the FIDE will shrink your K-factor as your rating increases.

You're also forgetting that the tiers do not act as absolute banlists. That means that functionally, Tier 5 is the top tier in Month 2, etc.

 

[Pman]

start from tier 4 and work from there, It'll sort out either way after a couple of months

 

[Zekurom]

How many votes are we looking for, exactly?

Currently, we have the following votes for a starting tier (as of post #156):

Outright:
Tier 7 - 4
Tier 6 - 0
Tier 5 - 0
Tier 4 - 7
Tier 3 - 0
Tier 2 - 0
Tier 1 - 0
Other - 0

Other options:
Tier 4 with stragglers (counts as Tier 4) - 1
By stats - 0

Total votes - 11

 

[Thundagere]

I haven't been that active here lately, but I also think Tier 4 would be best. We can move up or down that way, which gives us a bit of leeway.

 

[Zekurom]

Also, if this system doesn't get used on Bulbagarden, can I get permission to use it on other competitive battling leagues such as the IAPL if it sets one up?

 

[Axle Helios]

Also, if this system doesn't get used on Bulbagarden, can I get permission to use it on other competitive battling leagues such as the IAPL if it sets one up?

Well, it was your idea, so I don't see why you'd even need permission.

 

[Zekurom]

Well, it was your idea, so I don't see why you'd even need permission.

Because by proposing the idea, I'm essentially "selling" the rights to you guys. This is just to make sure that there aren't any claims to exclusivity or original ownership.

 

[evkl]

You give us the right to use it (you can't propose it and then pull the plug if you get mad at us for something) but I don't think you relinquish the right to use it on your own independently, either.