Definitions in Pokemon

[relaunched]

As a game of skill, competitive Pokemon battling is very precise, giving real -- if sometimes difficult to measure -- benefits to players who make the correct choices both in teambuilding and in battle. It follows that in discussing this game, we should strive to be as precise as possible in our ideas and the language with which we convey them. Some ideas are very easy to convey, and the meanings of terms like "OHKO" are self-evident. Yet I for one have been very confused by some of the language used in many forum posts, especially Suspect and Viability Ranking threads, and see this as a problem. In particular, there seems to be no consensus on the meaning of "broken", and I often find my mental definitions of "bad" and "outclassed" are the reverse of other people's. The former is particularly troubling, as suspect threads get clogged up with posted arguments that can't be understood by many readers simply because the author chose controversial words upon which to frame his/her main point.

So what can we do to solve this problem? I see two natural solutions:

1. Stop using words like "broken" and "outclassed" in these contexts, and instead use words most everyone can understand.
2. Come up with standardized definitions (in words everyone can understand) for these terms and a clear, designated place to put them, so these words are well-used, not abused and confused.

Some questions to think about for discussion:

Do you agree or disagree that we need to use words precisely on the forums? Why?

Do you agree or disagree that we don't use some words precisely on the forums? Why?

If you agree that the problem I present is indeed a problem, which of my solutions is the most appropriate, and are there more appropriate solutions?

Would you be willing to stop using such controversial terms as "broken" in the contexts I discussed, to further clarity of discussion on Smogon?

 

[ganj4lF]

Unfortunately, concepts like "brokenness" are inherently subjective, so it's impossible to precisely formalize them. I agree that this fact causes huge amounts of frustration and troubles when discussing about...well, almost anything connected to the tiering process and bans (that's why I tend to avoid those kinds of discussions) but in my opinion we can't do much to prevent this situation from happening.

 

[Cai278]

I completely agree. Threads need to be made more approachable and easier to understand by using a more precise word choice (i.e. broken meaning the Pokemon doesn't fit well in the tier by either being to powerful or to weak).

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Well outclassed is fairly straightforward, X Pokemon performs Y job much better than Z pokemon of the same variety as X. There may be some debate as where or not Z Pokemon is really inferior to Z, but that is why we can debate it.

Brokeness is hard to quantify, as ganj4lF said, it is high subjective. I suppose one could argue about a certain Pokemon's counters vs usefulness vs the average OU Pokemon, but even that falls if you are talking about defensive or support Pokemon.

We discuss them because they are subjective overall, otherwise we could have a robot tier our Pokemon.

 

[GCSChris]

The thing is terms like broken are generally subjective as said by ganj4lf, although generally I'm almost certain it means something that is unfair to a point that it "breaks the game".

I hate to quote Urban Dictionary, but it pretty much described my definition of broken ina game context in a way I couldn't articulate well.
"A game object or facility that is too good to exist. It is so powerful that it is unbalancing and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use this to be competitive."

Regardless of what broken means, the point is people overuse the term so much that it has basically taken on a synonym for competitive or good. This is really confusing for others trying to understand what their fellow Smogonites are trying to convey through their posts, which is why I really like this idea.

 

[SmashBrosBrawl]

My definition of broken- The pokemon is too powerful for the tier by virtue of extremely high stats (deoxys-a) or a unique combination of stats and movepool/ability (darkrai).
The first definition is a non-brainer but the second is more subjective and the one most commonly used. Theres simply no way to make this completely objective as the word ''broken'' is just the general way to describe something you feel that need to be banned. The arguments for this must be as objective as possible but the true definition of a ''broken'' pokemon will always be related to the user experience on the ladder and his thoughs about the metagame. Theres no problem using the word as long as your arguments are consistent.

 

[Pikachuun]

Smash just defined broken perfectly. I cannot add anything else.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

The problems here doesn't seem to be so much the specific definition of the word, but the degree to which we find it necessary to use it. For example, I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that "broken" means something in the ballpark of "too good for the metagame," and "outclassed" generally means "something does what it does better." The degree of said terms is generally what is in question. For example, brokenness decided by a Pokemon's number of viable counters or how much it shapes the metagame? If a Pokemon has a slight niche, is it really outclassed, or does the effectiveness of this niche determine whether or not it can be considered "outclassed?"

That said, I do think that we can easily use terms such as these in discussions, but sometimes it might be necessary to clarify what degree we hold certain conditions to before they can be classified as one of these terms (which I've found that most forum debaters tend to do without even thinking too hard about it).

 

[Gary]

I completely agree with this thread. People use terms in the wrong context or at the wrong times, thus giving the wrong ideas to newer, less experienced players. For example, a common misinterpretation among newer players are the terms counter and check. I've noticed that a lot of inexperienced members define a counter, as something that can simply beat something else, when in fact it's that opposite. For example, Latias can come in on pretty much any attack that Breloom uses, and then proceed to threaten it with Psychic, Draco Meteor, HP Fire, etc. That's a counter. Latias can come in on Garchomp to check it, but only if it gets a free turn to do so, thus making it a check.

The same principle can apply to the terms "bad" and "outclassed". Just because a Pokemon is outclassed by something else, doesn't make it bad. For example, Haxorus is outclassed by pretty much every Dragon-type in the tier, but Haxorus is still an outstanding Pokemon. There's just better stuff out there. If anyone calls Haxorus bad just because it's outclassed, then they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Oh, and yes, the term broken is used so loosely on this website that it's really starting to piss me off. If someone completely new to the competitive scene were to join Smogon right now, and after a few weeks we asked him/her to give us definition of broken, they would probably say:

A Pokemon is considered broken if its extremely successful in a specific role or two.

Now, I don't want to start an argument, but I think that the above sentence is how most players would view the term broken, or that's at least how I see it being used on Smogon. For example, Genesect WAS broken. Why? Simple. It could do everything, and there was no reason to not use Genesect. You could fit that fucker on every single team, and it would do just fine. It was never a liability. Ever. It could revenge kill, sweep, wallbreak, scout, you name it. If your team was weak to something, Genesect probably had a move in its arsenal to handle it. Hate Stall? Use Genesect. Hate rain? Surprise them by putting Thunder on Genesect. Want a better sun team? Use Genesect. Want a better rain team? Use Genesect. Sand, Genesect. Hail? Genesect. Get my point? Genesect was so good at everything, that the Pokemon itself was straight up broken. It got to a point where you had to have something on your team to handle every Genesect set out there, or else your team will fail.

Now here's an example of someone using the term broken incorrectly. During the Keldeo and Tornadus-T suspect test, and even in one of the recent Smogcasts, people were calling Keldeo broken. Straight up. Keldeo itself, is not broken at all. It's extremely dangerous, and can pull off a number of sets successfully and needs to be watched out for, but is it broken? Of course not. What is broken, is Keldeo in the rain. That doesn't make Keldeo itself broken. It makes the factor broken. Rain makes Keldeo good, to better. Without rain, Keldeo is much easier to handle, but outside of rain, Keldeo is nowhere near broken. Like I said, I refuse to start an argument about what is and isn't broken, so I'm just going to stop there about Keldeo and Genesect.

 

[Halcyon.]

I think Melee Mewtwo started a definitions thread a while back to clear stuff up about this. Personally i thought it was a great idea, and I think it should have been stickied so that newer players could look at what each of the random terms being thrown around left and right meant. Obviously there's going to be some subjectivity, but if we have more concrete criteria (even though whether or not a given suspect meeting those criteria would be subjective), it would be easier to pin down exactly what is broken and what isn't in the tier.

Here's the definitions thread.

 

[Electrolyte]

I actually doubt that the community doesn't understand what broken itself means- it just disagrees on which Pokemom fall under that definition and which don't, which then becomes completely subjective and opinionated. I'm sure most people agree that broken = a Pokemon that excels in a metagame in a way that causes significant turbulence in that metagame, as most have defined it in this thread, but what they disagree on is what exactly causes such turbulence.

You can agree on what broken means, but that doesn't mean you will agree on what it describes- as 'broken' is an opinionative adjective that some people may describe certain Pokemon with and others different Pokemon. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't agree on the meaning of broken.

I do not feel as if it is wise to strictly define the word 'broken' because it is subjective and it is opinionated, as I explained above. Many different Pokemon fall under the definition of 'broken' for many different reasons- and it is not wise to attept to specify and characterize all of these Pokemon in a strict and short definition. 'Broken' is an opinionative term and can apply to any vast range of Pokemon so long as a person thinks that those Pokemon are broken- it is an opinion. Thus, turning it into a fact by giving it a clear cut definition is unwise, as if is impossible to encompass every single current or future broken Pokemon into such a factual definition. 'Broken' is a situational term and really has many many variables that can justify its usage, so we should try to create a 'ball park' idea instead of a strict definition. We don't need to focus so much on making this definition exact, because that will only hurt us.

 

[Curtains]

I always use genesect as the bases for if something is broken or not. If it has as much as a impact as that then it is broken. Genesect was just crazy... You can actually feel it having an impact on teambuilding. Brokenness is all opinion imo.

 

[relaunched]

So I'm going to respond about a couple things, first about "bad" vs. "outclassed" and then about "broken".

Well outclassed is fairly straightforward, X Pokemon performs Y job much better than Z pokemon of the same variety as X. There may be some debate as where or not Z Pokemon is really inferior to Z, but that is why we can debate it.

You might think this, but there are actually a lot of forum posters who define "outclassed" and "bad" differently than you and I do, and often have a rather confused way of thinking about it. Looking at the rest of English though, your definition seems consistent. This is one reason I started the thread.

P.S. Explanations like yours are going to give people headaches when Gen VI comes out. :P

I think Melee Mewtwo started a definitions thread a while back to clear stuff up about this. Personally i thought it was a great idea, and I think it should have been stickied so that newer players could look at what each of the random terms being thrown around left and right meant. Obviously there's going to be some subjectivity, but if we have more concrete criteria (even though whether or not a given suspect meeting those criteria would be subjective), it would be easier to pin down exactly what is broken and what isn't in the tier.

I am aware of Mewtwo's dictionary thread, and it quite excites me, but the thread is hardly well-publicized. Part of the goal of this thread I've started is to encourage stickying said thread. Also, if you see this MM, could you add "outclassed" to the definitions thread?

Thanks to everyone who explained that "brokenness" is a subjective idea. Having seen the word in such a variety of contexts, I actually didn't understand what people meant by it, and now I see why -- because everyone has their own mental specifications for how the metagame should be, and thus has their own understanding of what is broken. My confusion was not that people disagree on the meaning, but rather that people disagree on what fits it (though in a sense that does mean they disagree on the meaning).

Again though, I think this would be useful to explain as a standard, as I've been confused as to "broken"'s meaning since I joined Smogon, and perhaps others are confused in the same way.

 

[GCSChris]

Curtains: I've done a similar thing; Genesect the prime example of a broken Pokemon.
Again it's not that people don't know what broken means, it's just they have different "levels of unfair" reach brokeness in their eyes.
And outclassed means that Pokemon A does generally the same thing better than Pokemon B. Bad just means its not good in any respect. Outclassed is more of a comparitive term.

 

[Gary]

Broken is indeed interpreted differently depending on the player. Like myself and others have said, Genesect is the perfect example of a all around broken Pokemon. It's just broken period. Landorus is an example of a Pokemon that many consider to be broken because of one specific set, the special sets. Not much in this metagame aside from Celebi, Rotom-W to an extent, and a few gimmicky Pokemon can properly switch-in on Sheer Force Landorus, and even check it if it's running Rock Polish. Some may even say the Sand Force sets are broken as well, but most argue against the Sheer Force special sets. The Pokemon itself isn't neccesarily broken, it's just the set. Same goes with Choice Specs Keldeo in the rain. The Pokemon itself isn't broken, but the set is. Then again, any Keldeo set is extremely hard to handle in rain.

 

[BKC]

Seeing as our goal in creating a competitive metagame is to facilitate an environment where the better player wins most of the time, I'd have to say that something's broken if it takes unreasonable measures to defend against it, and/or if it allows lesser players to win games that they shouldn't have.

 

[Reymedy]

Brokeness ain't "hard" to quantify. It's more like, "long".
It just requires to set tools that no one here have the patience to create.
Want a proof ? Instead of setting those tools, we got that thread about "ranking" and the discussions are about "I think this thing is too strong because X and Y".
But before being about to really rank pokemons, we would need to be able to rank moves (thus move pools), typings, abilities, set of stats...

Maybe I'm not being clear here, but some people may see what I mean.

 

[Gary]

Brokeness ain't "hard" to quantify. It's more like, "long".
It just requires to set tools that no one here have the patience to create.
Want a proof ? Instead of setting those tools, we got that thread about "ranking" and the discussions are about "I think this thing is too strong because X and Y".
But before being about to really rank pokemons, we would need to be able to rank moves (thus move pools), typings, abilities, set of stats...

Maybe I'm not being clear here, but some people may see what I mean.

Agreed. The OU ranking thread is beginning to turn into a "OU Favorite Ranking thread", where people are nominating Pokemon that have no place in certain ranks but like the Pokemon aesthetically or on paper, so they vote it up. I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if these people would back up their arguments with actual facts, but alas, most of them just over exaggerate the obvious. Players need to think hard why they think a Pokemon should move up, and come up with solid evidence to back it up.

 

[Soul Fly]

Has anyone seen a rise in "I have used (insert shitty pokemon) with Scizor and Keldeo and laderred to to (insert some half-decent ladder ranking)"

We really need a damn-good definition of "viability"..

can the oxford scholars step up please.

 

[relaunched]

Brokeness ain't "hard" to quantify. It's more like, "long".
It just requires to set tools that no one here have the patience to create.
Want a proof ? Instead of setting those tools, we got that thread about "ranking" and the discussions are about "I think this thing is too strong because X and Y".
But before being about to really rank pokemons, we would need to be able to rank moves (thus move pools), typings, abilities, set of stats...

Maybe I'm not being clear here, but some people may see what I mean.

What's a sketch of how you would quantify brokenness? I think it would involve making a lot of assumptions that do indeed depend on your view of what's broken and what's not. People disagree on what we should strive for in a metagame, so I don't see how we could make a solid brokenness metric without it being disagreed with by some people -- even a majority of people. It gets hairier when you note that many people would prefer to play many metagames, all with different "themes".

Seeing as our goal in creating a competitive metagame is to facilitate an environment where the better player wins most of the time, I'd have to say that something's broken if it takes unreasonable measures to defend against it, and/or if it allows lesser players to win games that they shouldn't have.

I like BKC's suggestion of a definition for "broken", but there's definitely some that needs to be fleshed out, especially "allows lesser players to win games that they shouldn't have." One way to interpret this is that the gap between an optimal teambuilding choice/in-game play and a suboptimal teambuilding choice/in-game play is small if lesser players are winning many games they shouldn't. Also "better player" is pretty annoying to define, because being a good Pokemon player involves both good team selection and good play in-game, and we have to somehow combine those two metrics in a certain way. How much should we value teambuilding, and how much should we value in-game play? I'd say we should value teambuilding much more because much of the reason we play Pokemon is that it's a complex RPS-like game, and that in-game play is extraordinarily simple compared to a game like chess. Others disagree with me and think BW2 for example is horrid because it's so matchup-based. These are the issues we get in to when we try to quantify/define brokenness.

 

[Reymedy]

How to argue for the sake of it...

You contradict yourself heavily. If you fix assumptions for once, then you can fix the definition of brokeness. Simple logic.
And there is no other way to fix a theorical and opinion based concept, but to make assumptions. Mark my words.

And yes, some people will still disagree. What's your point ? You're fool enough to believe your "definitions", with words, with opinions, etc.. will make everybody on the same page ?
Go ahead, I'll be waiting.
You're not changing anything with that thread if you go that way, you're just encouraging people to repeat the same stuff that have been said over and over in every single past suspect thread.

Finally, you're in the OU section, no point bringing the "different tiers, different metrics" arguement, and it would be a lazy excuse anyway.

PS : Pokemon is nothing but numbers. Base Stats, Base Power, % usage, number of resistances, number of weaknesses, PP, % Health... And you tell me that you rather use "words" to create an unbiased concept about judging a pokemon's power ? Yes, that sounds so logical to me.

 

[vyomov]

OK, so I'd like to discuss defining "bad". The issue with defining bad is that it varies from one role to another. For instance, a bad sweeper is a mon that possesses one of the following traits:
a) Needs excessive time to set up(excessive to the point that the opponent can defeat said mon in the time required)
b) Cannot deal more than 45% to the most common walls in the metagame
c) Has a bad defensive typing AND is too slow to take care of the weaknesses
d) Has a bad offensive typing and is not compensated for by a good movepool

It is my firm belief that the best way to define bad is not to define the term as such, but rather to define bad in terms of the roles: bad spinner(Torkoal), bad sweeper(Flygon) and bad wall(Steelix).

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

OK, so I'd like to discuss defining "bad". The issue with defining bad is that it varies from one role to another. For instance, a bad sweeper is a mon that possesses one of the following traits:
a) Needs excessive time to set up(excessive to the point that the opponent can defeat said mon in the time required)
b) Cannot deal more than 45% to the most common walls in the metagame
c) Has a bad defensive typing AND is too slow to take care of the weaknesses
d) Has a bad offensive typing and is not compensated for by a good movepool

It is my firm belief that the best way to define bad is not to define the term as such, but rather to define bad in terms of the roles: bad spinner(Torkoal), bad sweeper(Flygon) and bad wall(Steelix).

Such a definition has problems with niche Pokemon. Lets say you run a Pokemon to cover only a handful of very harmful threat to your team, or have it do one very crucial thing for your team. This Pokemon has very little overall usefulness, but with the right use, it can be very effective, even the glue to hold together a team. Yet, but this definition, it is classified as a bad Pokemon.

 

[Jukain]

Honestly, "bad" is too vague of a word to define properly. There are so many levels and potential meanings of "bad" that attempting to do so is a fruitless endeavor. You'd be best to use a word like "inferior."

@Soul Fly on "viable": For something to be viable, it must be worth using over other Pokemon. It must fill a definitive role and be able to achieve some sort of success. Success in Pokemon is defined as anything at furthers your strategy. Therefore, any Pokemon that can be useful is viable.

I think that it's pretty hard to say what's broken because it all comes down to subjectivity. I for one never thought Genesect was broken. I'm not alone in that matter (though in the minority). I wouldn't have banned Blaziken, Excadrill, Thundurus, Deoxys-S, Deoxys-D, or Tornadus-T either. However, I thought that Sand Veil Garchomp was unequivocally broken. In my opinion, broken means that something makes the game unplayable. SV Chomp made games luck-dependent; the game could be over if you missed just one move. It is important to note that unlike other forms of hax, Sand Veil (and Snow Cloak for that matter) cannot be managed by the player.

 

[relaunched]

How to argue for the sake of it...

You contradict yourself heavily. If you fix assumptions for once, then you can fix the definition of brokeness. Simple logic.
And there is no other way to fix a theorical and opinion based concept, but to make assumptions. Mark my words.

And yes, some people will still disagree. What's your point ? You're fool enough to believe your "definitions", with words, with opinions, etc.. will make everybody on the same page ?
Go ahead, I'll be waiting.
You're not changing anything with that thread if you go that way, you're just encouraging people to repeat the same stuff that have been said over and over in every single past suspect thread.

Finally, you're in the OU section, no point bringing the "different tiers, different metrics" arguement, and it would be a lazy excuse anyway.

PS : Pokemon is nothing but numbers. Base Stats, Base Power, % usage, number of resistances, number of weaknesses, PP, % Health... And you tell me that you rather use "words" to create an unbiased concept about judging a pokemon's power ? Yes, that sounds so logical to me.

I know well that you have to make assumptions to fix a theoretical concept. I'm pretty sure I said that in my post. I don't think I'm contradicting myself. The problem is, I doubt we can find a set of assumptions to make that close to a majority of people would agree on. Actually though, it could be interesting to try. Maybe coming up with such a set would be worthwhile. I no longer think that a definition of "broken" will make people on the same page. As I think I've established in the post, I misunderstood the concept of "brokenness" to begin with, naively thinking we could find a nice definition of it. I do believe that with simpler terms like "bad" and "outclassed", it is worthwhile and not hard to get people on the same page, and we can even make rather formal mathematical definitions if we wish to.

Actually, the "different tiers" argument is most satisfying to some. Some players would rather not have a uniform way of tiering, and would rather play a variety of different metagames. I hardly see how it's pointless to post this in the OU forum, especially since there are multiple OUs and we can assume that making a decision about tiering policy now will effect future OUs, making difference of tiers a relevant concern, even if it is ultimately dismissed and thought to be a poor way of approaching tiering.