All Gens Second most "skilled" OU meta

[asbdsp]

This thought spurred on by my looking at the variances in Ciele's player records spreadsheet for SPL. Thread title is obviously a bit controversial, but I've heard the idea bandied about that GSC OU is the most skilled, and I do think that makes sense (I'm biased though as a GSC player).

So as to the topic at hand, I think the answer is definitely not XY OU or RBY OU, also dont think it's DPP OU, so that leaves one of ADV OU or BW OU. Would be interested to hear top SPL level players' opinions on this though. Hopefully without it becoming a flamefest. :)

Edit: For the purposes of this thread, the definition of "skilled" is one which creates the widest possible separation between results of "good" and "bad" players, just to put something of an objective idea into it.

 

[Bedschibaer]

I don't think it's as black and white (xP) as you think to label GSC the most skilled or skill-intense meta and eliminating RBY and XY right off the bat. From my experience every tier needs a slightly different set of skills and abilities for one to perform well in, as well as just general knowledge about the competitive intricacies of mons in general (prediction, damage and odds calculation, reading a gamestate, creating a gameplan, thinking ahead, etc.). What you have to keep in mind is that there is RNG in this game regardless of the generation. Even if it's the "best" player in the world going up against someone who is just decent at laddering there is a certain chance that the favorite in the match loses, due to the amount of randomness in every single turn.

I guess that is one of the common misconceptions about how RBY is only hax and therefor doesn't require that much skill. I blatantly think that's not true, I see it more as the playingfield that both competitors go into being a lot rougher and a lot less forgiving. But I don't particularly think rby games (or especially series) are decided or influenced by luck more often than any other gen. The better player still usually wins, just like in any other gen. There are enormous win-rates among certain RBY players, just look at the enormous separation in results between marcoasd and any other player really, not only having scored the most points due to the amount of seasons he has played in but also easily averaging the most points per season: http://www.pokemonperfect.com/forums/index.php?threads/seasons-results-spreadsheet.3992/
I guess what also plays into RBY being a lot more skill-testing than people giving it credit for is how matchup is almost completely eliminated and every series is entirely decided by the decisionmaking of the competitors and the rng of the game. Other gens add a certain element of matchup into it. I am not saying any tier is entirely matchup based, but there are significant advantages and disadvantages you can get way before the game even started. The only question that stands is if you consider teambuilding a skill linked to playing or separate from it. I personally am more leaning towards the latter, considering there's players who build and play well and ones that only do either particularly well.

I think there is a certain problem with only looking at the spl results as data, because those stats have a couple of issues: There is an incredibly narrow sample size (9 games or less per season for most players), they don't factor in things like quality of competition (all respect to people like Chaser, but a 10-1 run in rby spl wouldn't be possible these days) and there are certain players who seem to appear in every spl and many that come and go. Just look at the BW results for example. Soulwind not only has the most wins, he also has by far the most consecutive starting seasons in bw spl. This is not to take away from his accomplishments, it should just show how impossible it is to reach his spl results for anyone else, assuming Soulwind keeps up results like he did.

Another question that arises is: does a wide separation between results automatically mean the gen is more skill-intensive? Doesn't a pool of players where nobody dominates mean that all the players are similarly skilled, without actually having too many implications on the tier played?
I guess you can't really link things like individual players' results to the quality of the metagame played, because by that metric blarajan's XY LC run of 11-0 and 7-4 would mean the tier he played would be the best, which I honestly haven't heard anyone claim ever.

 

[Alpha Male Psyduck]

Edit: For the purposes of this thread, the definition of "skilled" is one which creates the widest possible separation between results of "good" and "bad" players, just to put something of an objective idea into it.

You could look at the GXE's of top ladder players of different gens. GXE's would also be based over a large sample size, so they would be less skewed by short term results that are outside of the norm. If you look at GXE's, the top ladder players in RBY usually hover around 90 (give or take a few points), which is actually pretty much the same, if not a little higher than the top GXE's of GSC players. The RBY GXE's are also higher than most of the other gens too.

RBY is no more luck based than other gens, people who feel that it is just lack a full understanding of the meta. One of the biggest skills in RBY, considering that crits (and paras/mons with twave) are more common than in other gens, is being able to figure out lines that mitigate your chance of being haxed while increasing your chance of haxing your opponent. Often times in RBY games if you get "haxed" you can go back and point out moves you did that put you in a potentially bad position in the first place, where as there might have been a better line to take to mitigate your chance of losing.

 

[asbdsp]

You could look at the GXE's of top ladder players of different gens. GXE's would also be based over a large sample size, so they would be less skewed by short term results that are outside of the norm. If you look at GXE's, the top ladder players in RBY usually hover around 90 (give or take a few points), which is actually pretty much the same, if not a little higher than the top GXE's of GSC players. The RBY GXE's are also higher than most of the other gens too.

RBY is no more luck based than other gens, people who feel that it is just lack a full understanding of the meta. One of the biggest skills in RBY, considering that crits (and paras/mons with twave) are more common than in other gens, is being able to figure out lines that mitigate your chance of being haxed while increasing your chance of haxing your opponent. Often times in RBY games if you get "haxed" you can go back and point out moves you did that put you in a potentially bad position in the first place, where as there might have been a better line to take to mitigate your chance of losing.

I don't think ladder GXEs are the best indicator for the simple reason that GSC ladder is the least active of all of them. In basically any other ladder there is usually a game being played during "European" hours or whatever you want to call main peak hours, the opposite is true for GSC where usually there is not a game. Worst ladder for GSC will obviously bring down the ladder stats for a GSC player.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

As an RBYer myself I of course agree that it's highly skill testing itself but what disqualifies it for me is that at high levels of competition the spaces to outplay and outmaneuver your opponent become extremely limited and largely determined by the RNG, taking for example positions where each player has a durable Snorlax counter and a special threat or two and the direction of the game becomes determined by whoever can score the paralysis in the current Zam war, a player hasn't been given the chance to work themselves into an advantage but must outplay based on the result of the RNG input given similar high level skills.

Other generations have an inherently higher skill cap due to the larger diversity of teams which generally allows each player to play for a distinctive win condition where rng is not the deterministic input that allows them to play from a certain game state. Taking GSC or ADV as examples (with each successive generation branching further on options available), the capacity to play for Spikes as a stall win condition spikes the skill cap of the meta significantly in how it interacts with switch timing and how it can hinder or enable offensive strategies in a way that RBY can't match.

RBY is by far the generation most encapsulated by the idea of a "war of attrition" but in that regard it's also the one where RNG has the greatest impact on game states and game defining events, and thus the one where the most agency is removed from the players. As a result, despite the incredibly high level of play one can achieve within it, when compared across all the other tiers the maximal skill capacity has to be considered the lesser of the group.

 

[asbdsp]

I really do appreciate, and have a lot of respect for all of the old gens, having played them all myself, and especially a decent amount of RBY and BW in addition to GSC. They each hold a certain place for me, so I don't mean to disparage any. I think if there's a few I've played less it would be ADV and DPP, as I wasn't into competitive mons then, and them being EV metas, they're inherently a bit less accessible for new players.

Bedschibaer's points: I do think the main proof against RBY would be that matches are best 2/3. To me, that's a definite concession to the idea that each individual game, as an entity in and of itself is more determined by RNG factors than is acceptable.

As far as SPL is concerned, I think that data set is very useful, for the following reason. SPL managers want to win, and regardless of which meta a win comes in, it's still a win. So I think even if one field of players is a bit weaker, well that would be incentive to throw in a more skilled player and see what they could do. Eventually, with enough time and big enough sample size, the sort of effect of variable playerbase would be self-correcting.

 

[Smurf.]

ADV

 

[xray]

I think this little discussion is absolutely stupid. Every player will always "root" for the tier he prefers and the tier he plays a lot. As Beds said: in order to be successful at those different modes each mode requires a different mindset of understanding.
Stop discussing what tier is the most competetive ...and yes, I can definitely tell you that ORAS is definitely not bottom 2. (Maybe thats cause I'm an ORAS main who knows)

 

[Mr.E]

Taking GSC or ADV as examples (with each successive generation branching further on options available), the capacity to play for Spikes as a stall win condition spikes the skill cap of the meta significantly in how it interacts with switch timing and how it can hinder or enable offensive strategies in a way that RBY can't match.

Agreed on RBY -- it's still a skill to play off the RNG, but it's not a terribly desirable way to do things -- and I'll maintain Gens 2-3 are the most skill-testing because after a certain point (Gen 4 or 5), the number of available team options is so numerous that it's beyond impossible to account for. Well, as Beds put it, they're not really less skill-intensive so much as they test different skills but I think it's more desirable from a competitive standpoint for in-game skill to be emphasized. Gens 2-3 have enough options that every battle doesn't feel samey like RBY, nevermind toning down the RNG (particularly crit rates north of 20%) and fixing bugs, but not so much that most things can't be accounted for, so they largely come down to in-battle maneuvering and mindgames where you have more direct information and interaction with the opponent.

Later gens increasingly emphasize scouting and teambuilding as the amount of team options increase and you're mostly trying to insulate yourself and attack the most likely stuff your opponent is to bring. Because the removal of all-max-stats and addition of various high-powered attacks (Overheat variants, particularly Draco Meteor) and items (more Choice items, Expert Belt and Life Orb, later Gems and eventually Megastones), the game is increasingly fought before the battle begins because once it starts, there's much less room to maneuver yourself into an advantage. Gen 7 at least tried to pull back on the ridiculousness by nerfing most 100+ power base attacks, lowering critical hit and confusion failure rates, and de-emphasizing Megas.

Unless it's modern stall vs stall, which is way more toxic than the common perception of Gen 2 being all stall. Gen 2 doesn't have literally endless matches, which is exceptionally dumb from a competitive standpoint, because the defensive mons still have max attacking stats and there's no bullshit like Regenerator.

 

[asbdsp]

Agreed on RBY -- it's still a skill to play off the RNG, but it's not a terribly desirable way to do things -- and I'll maintain Gens 2-3 are the most skill-testing because after a certain point (Gen 4 or 5), the number of available team options is so numerous that it's beyond impossible to account for. Well, as Beds put it, they're not really less skill-intensive so much as they test different skills but I think it's more desirable from a competitive standpoint for in-game skill to be emphasized. Gens 2-3 have enough options that every battle doesn't feel samey like RBY, nevermind toning down the RNG (particularly crit rates north of 20%) and fixing bugs, but not so much that most things can't be accounted for, so they largely come down to in-battle maneuvering and mindgames where you have more direct information and interaction with the opponent.

Later gens increasingly emphasize scouting and teambuilding as the amount of team options increase and you're mostly trying to insulate yourself and attack the most likely stuff your opponent is to bring. Because the removal of all-max-stats and addition of various high-powered attacks (Overheat variants, particularly Draco Meteor) and items (more Choice items, Expert Belt and Life Orb, later Gems and eventually Megastones), the game is increasingly fought before the battle begins because once it starts, there's much less room to maneuver yourself into an advantage. Gen 7 at least tried to pull back on the ridiculousness by nerfing most 100+ power base attacks, lowering critical hit and confusion failure rates, and de-emphasizing Megas.

Unless it's modern stall vs stall, which is way more toxic than the common perception of Gen 2 being all stall. Gen 2 doesn't have literally endless matches, which is exceptionally dumb from a competitive standpoint, because the defensive mons still have max attacking stats and there's no bullshit like Regenerator.

Your opinion on Gen 5 OU?

 

[Mr.E]

gen 5 is the most mechanically degenerate but I ain't played it so I don't really have an opinion dood

other than lmao kyurem-b

 

[Zokuru]

Unless it's modern stall vs stall, which is way more toxic than the common perception of Gen 2 being all stall. Gen 2 doesn't have literally endless matches, which is exceptionally dumb from a competitive standpoint, because the defensive mons still have max attacking stats and there's no bullshit like Regenerator.

What do you mean by " Modern Stall " ?

 

[Mr.E]

the kind that kills you almost exclusively through passive damage and boredom

 

[Zokuru]

the kind that kills you almost exclusively through passive damage and boredom

Yeah, so true hard stalls.

 

[asbdsp]

gen 5 is the most mechanically degenerate but I ain't played it so I don't really have an opinion dood

other than lmao kyurem-b

If you have an appreciation for ADV, I'd say BW is also a fun change of pace dude. Nice and centralized too so not exactly hard to get into. Definitely very challenging and time consuming to master though.

 

[asbdsp]

What do you mean by " Modern Stall " ?

Not Mr. E, but I'd call this an example: http://jskingboo.github.io/showdown/replays/OU-2016-10-06-abr-idmtubby.html

There's something inherently a bit more scary about the ability of bulky regenerator mons and pp restoration to create pretty much endless battles, even to a Gen 2 stall player.

Also @rep, much lulz, always stay salty smogon.

 

[Zokuru]

Not Mr. E, but I'd call this an example: http://jskingboo.github.io/showdown/replays/OU-2016-10-06-abr-idmtubby.html

There's something inherently a bit more scary about the ability of bulky regenerator mons and pp restoration to create pretty much endless battles, even to a Gen 2 stall player.

Also @rep, much lulz, always stay salty smogon.

He was talking about GSC Modern Stall I'm pretty sure.

 

[Dre89]

RBY definitely requires a lot of skill, but the high level of RNG means that you can often win without being the better player. GSC is considered higher-skill than RBY because advantages are attained through outplaying the opponent, as opposed to RNG far more often than in RBY. GSC is also deeper because there are more viable pokemon, movesets, and general team strategies than in RBY so there are more factors you have to consider.