Hipmonlee
Have a nice day
The RBY OU council have been discussing where to draw the line between OU and UU.
Previously, this was working on the basis of anything ranked B or above would be OU and C or below would be UU. Unfortunately, the VR system does not automatically assign names to ranks. Up until now this had fallen to whoever was organising the VRs, but, thanks to fairly consistent ratings this has been a fairly straightforward call to make each year.
This year, Slowbro has thrown a spanner in the works.
I think we can pretty much all agree that we have a rank which is very clearly B, and a rank that is very clearly C, and one Pokemon hanging out in between them.
So it has fallen to the council to determine what should be done, and we have not come to an agreement on the best way forward, and so we are seeking input from the community.
We have discussed the following options:
This system is easy to organise and is flexible enough to cope with any possible arrangement of ranks that a VR might show up. It also covers scenarios where a pokemon is hanging out between A and B ranks for instance. However it seems somewhat at odds with the spirit of community VRs for the council to just make a ruling.
2. We define a number (n) of Pokemon that should be the minimum size of OU, and the rank that includes the nth Pokemon in the VR is OU and below that is UU.
This system is the easiest to implement. It mirrors the usage cutoff used in modern tiers. However, the number is ultimately arbitrary, and as with any arbitrary system it is possible that this will lead to scenarios in future that we might consider a bit weird.
3.The people chosen to submit VRs vote on where the cutoff should be.
This system is also very flexible, and is the most democratic, but is by far the most work. Quite frankly it sounds like a huge pain in the ass.
4. Some kind of statistical method where VR submitters provide their own cutoffs, and an aggregated cutoff is calculated.
Unfortunately the council does not have the capability to design such a system. If someone has an idea for such a method, please suggest it, and we will take it into consideration. Obviously it is too late to apply this method this year, so in this case the Council will make a decision this year, but for future years we will follow this method.
Another idea we considered was that whatever cutoff will result in the fewest Pokemon changing tier, but you could imagine a scenario where for multiple years in a row, the previous year’s top C rank and two lowest B ranks end up forming a rank together, and OU ends up adding a new Pokemon to B rank every year. It just could result in weird scenarios like this.
If anyone has any other ideas please post them in this thread.
It should also be noted that the Council is unanimous in agreeing that Slowbro should remain OU. So, for instance, when defining the number of OU pokemon, we suggest that the number should be 13. However, in the spirit of community VRs, we will consider all input in good faith, and act accordingly.
Previously, this was working on the basis of anything ranked B or above would be OU and C or below would be UU. Unfortunately, the VR system does not automatically assign names to ranks. Up until now this had fallen to whoever was organising the VRs, but, thanks to fairly consistent ratings this has been a fairly straightforward call to make each year.
This year, Slowbro has thrown a spanner in the works.
I think we can pretty much all agree that we have a rank which is very clearly B, and a rank that is very clearly C, and one Pokemon hanging out in between them.
So it has fallen to the council to determine what should be done, and we have not come to an agreement on the best way forward, and so we are seeking input from the community.
We have discussed the following options:
1. The Council assigns ranks.This system is easy to organise and is flexible enough to cope with any possible arrangement of ranks that a VR might show up. It also covers scenarios where a pokemon is hanging out between A and B ranks for instance. However it seems somewhat at odds with the spirit of community VRs for the council to just make a ruling.
2. We define a number (n) of Pokemon that should be the minimum size of OU, and the rank that includes the nth Pokemon in the VR is OU and below that is UU.
This system is the easiest to implement. It mirrors the usage cutoff used in modern tiers. However, the number is ultimately arbitrary, and as with any arbitrary system it is possible that this will lead to scenarios in future that we might consider a bit weird.
3.The people chosen to submit VRs vote on where the cutoff should be.
This system is also very flexible, and is the most democratic, but is by far the most work. Quite frankly it sounds like a huge pain in the ass.
4. Some kind of statistical method where VR submitters provide their own cutoffs, and an aggregated cutoff is calculated.
Unfortunately the council does not have the capability to design such a system. If someone has an idea for such a method, please suggest it, and we will take it into consideration. Obviously it is too late to apply this method this year, so in this case the Council will make a decision this year, but for future years we will follow this method.
Another idea we considered was that whatever cutoff will result in the fewest Pokemon changing tier, but you could imagine a scenario where for multiple years in a row, the previous year’s top C rank and two lowest B ranks end up forming a rank together, and OU ends up adding a new Pokemon to B rank every year. It just could result in weird scenarios like this.
If anyone has any other ideas please post them in this thread.
It should also be noted that the Council is unanimous in agreeing that Slowbro should remain OU. So, for instance, when defining the number of OU pokemon, we suggest that the number should be 13. However, in the spirit of community VRs, we will consider all input in good faith, and act accordingly.