BF Suggestions Thread (policy/features, not about sets)

Discussion in 'Gen 6 Battle Factory' started by Xdevo, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. Xdevo

    Xdevo Phrasing Super Moderator Tour Director Super Moderator Tour Director

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    I've been put into the co-leader position of Battle Factory, so bring all of the bitching here. If you have any ideas of changes that could be made, post here.

    Post any sets that you feel should be edited, added, or deleted in Battle Factory here.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    First major suggestion, removing the weather reliant Pokemon from Ubers (and OU). Personally, I'm on the fence with this one, since certain things (like Excadrill) are pretty popular in Ubers. I can understand why people don't like them, considering that they are extremely harmful if you don't receive their respective weather starter.

    Secondly, the ability to weight Pokemon for usage. This is more of a programming issue, but would still be insanely helpful to make BF more competitive.

    Lastly, past gens. This is an almost entirely programming issue, but it still is something that should be done.

    These are some of the ones from the last thread that (to my knowledge) have not been talked about:

    This one is a bit different, but would be very useful for the future to make a way to have BF UU, BF LU, BF Ubers etc, should the demand arise.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 5, 2014
  2. Weavile

    Weavile Phoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    890
    Should we not go through with the weighting process, I feel that removal of some Pokémon may need to be considered. Pokémon such as Lugia in BF Ubers and a lot of the Shell Smashers in LC. These Pokémon are reasonable in their normal metagames but require prep that BF of course won't usually make. Lugia especially can be almost literally unbreakable will a large percentage of BF teams. I had something else but I forgot for now.
     
  3. ZoroDark

    ZoroDark i know everything

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    There is a thread for this now!

    Anyway, I think most BF tiers are pretty much ok, except for OU and Ubers. A lot of pokes in those tiers only function under a certain weather, and if you get them paired with another weather or no weather at all, they'll just suck (Kabutops without Kyogre in Ubers is nothing more than death fodder). Removing them all together isn't that great a solution since they help shape and define the tier. A solution to this problem may be to code that you need to have a Kyogre on your team to be able to get a Kabutops; a necessary condition. I remember mibu having problems with this because it's a pretty big change, and he also brought up the slippery slope argument. Thoughts?
     
  4. Orcelot

    Orcelot AKA Angelus

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    419
    Likes Received:
    4
    Personally, I think the weather abusers in Ubers have got to go. Yes, they're a big deal in the Ubers metagame, but Battle Factory is not quite the same and it can leave people with an almost useless Pokemon if there is not the appropriate weather summoner on either team. Excadrill could probably stay as it's still fairly useful even out of Sand. It's pretty bulky, has a good attack stat, can lay SR + Spin and has some handy resistances/immunities (dragon/electric).

    The ability to edit sets would be very useful. I've seen a couple of sets there weren't bad but would be better off with a slight change. Only one that I can think of at the top of my head is the UU Choice Scarf Zoroark set lacking U-turn. Also, I can help with UU/LU/NU if reviewers are needed for those tiers.
     
  5. Professor Oak

    Professor Oak same Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep Forum Administrator Server Owner Social Media Rep

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,580
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    PO Trainer Name:
    Professor Oak
    Battle Factory heads (i.e. mib / devo) should still not be able to approve their own sets.

    A lot of poor sets have been submitted and accepted by mibuchiha, with no one else reviewing the set. This is something that has been bugging me for a while.
     
  6. Xdevo

    Xdevo Phrasing Super Moderator Tour Director Super Moderator Tour Director

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    I wholeheartedly agree. No one should be allowed to accept their own sets. I personally can think of a few situations where being able to accept your own sets could be useful (you are the only reviewer for said tier on, but have the input from other reviewers from other tiers), but hopefully there are enough active people that you can either wait, or just let mib or myself know.
     
  7. mibuchiha

    mibuchiha Was yea ra chs ieeya.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    290
    PO Trainer Name:
    mibuchiha
    Okay, I'll sum up the needed changes and other things as the last thread is dead. Some new stuff added, some devo already mentioned.

    1. Separate pools for BF3 and BF6

    Have been brought up before in the past, but not much nowadays. People just stopped caring to it I suppose. The motivation for this is fairly obvious; some sets work only in BF3 and vice versa. However given that many sets do work in both, or rather, we are only used to making them work in both, this is mostly speculation for the time being. Explorable? I certainly think so. Worth the trouble? That's for you guys to decide.

    2. Ability to edit sets.

    Very desirable because for minor changes, typing them out is far less trouble. It also removes the need for a particular set to be re-reviewed entirely after resubmission. Can be made to work similar to this:

    /edit (set id, assuming a Pressure Ho-oh): ev 252 atk 252 spe 4 hp: nature jolly: trait regenerator

    3. Duplicate checker

    Was done, but definitely could be much better. The demand for it to be the exact similar set including the order of moves makes it not as useful as it was hoped to be. 2 changes that would drastically increase the usefulness of this feature would be to allow it to detect sets sharing exact moves regardless of their order and also for it to detect if a set has similar EV distribution (within a margin to be decided by reviewers). Also, perhaps instead of having it reject the same sets outright, it gives a warning to reviewer instead, as it is possible for sets to share the same moves and spread but play out differently. Haban and Scarf Palkia, for an example at the top of my head.

    4. Enabling/disabling pokemon

    Mostly useful for lower tiers during shifts, as a pokemon that was shown to be good but for some reason moves up, in the event it comes back down at a later point, would not need to be rebuilt from scratch again. If this is implemented, then it should show which pokemon are enabled/disabled when people (reviewers only for disable?) use /pokeslist.

    5. Formes to be listed separately

    Arceus is a serious pain to check, which is the primary motivation for this change. I am aware that because of the way pokemon is selected, separating the entries would wreck the implementation of species clause within BF and even without this, it would given an unfair weight to Arceus to be selected into a team. The way I understand it, the selection is done randomly at each step, starting from tier, pokemon, and then set. I suggest a new step is added before set selection; forme(s). Pokemon without alternate formes can skip this step and pokemon with those will have all their formes with equal chance of being selected. This will solve both species and weighting problem within the current random selection scheme. Notice, however, that this suggestion will make Arceus-Fire as likely as Arceus-Ghost or Oxy-A equally likely as Oxy-S, independent of set count, if we implement it as I suggested.

    6. Test play feature for reviewers

    Lets reviewers to play an unrated battle in a BF tier of their choice without leaving it up to chance. There is a difference between sets that look good on paper and sets that actually perform and often this can be hard to determine. So instead of accepting sets that seem good only to have people bicker about why it sucks, revs get to test it directly after accepting it, which should lead to a much better reviewing step.

    7. Reviewer (and users) activity log

    Some reviewers suck. I suck. Since we can store the submission and acceptance record for a particular set, I don't see why can't we search within the database what has a rev accepted (rejection records can be too wasteful to store) or what has someone submitted (and then get accepted). This makes it much easier to identify the helpful ones, the shitty ones etc in order to decide who to welcome into the team or fire.

    8. Multigen support

    In an indefinite hiatus at the moment but I believe it is prime time to bring it back up, with gen 6 dawning upon us and we'll undoubtedly want to keep the gen 5 BF. I don't know the details of the bug so I can't suggest how can it be fixed, but I urge Crystal (and anyone else capable of contributing) to get this up and running as it will be a lot of fun. The multigen BF I envision is one where you can't know in advance which gen you will get, so with the current scheme, that means introducing a new selection step before all else; gen. However I remember Crystal telling me that such a BF will involve some fundamental change to the coding of PO itself, therefore it cannot be done. I don't know whether you guys will want to have a multigen BF where you can decide to play gen 4, 3 or whatever prior to playing or the way I envision it, but either way it will be fun. One of the motivation for inability to select gen was that it forces people to play past gens within BF. BF seems to have quite a good popularity so I think this is a good way for use to solve (or at least, somewhat reduce) the catch-22 problem of people not playing past gen because no one plays it, but no one plays it because people are not playing it.

    Okay that's all for the feature talk.

    Now, for the weighting issue. Simply put, I am against any sort of disturbance toward the randomness in set selection in BF. Why? Because to me, BF is a tier where all the elements of a particular meta is present EXCEPT the conscious choices made by the players prior to battling. Pokemon is a game of synergy, we all get that. It is a complex thing so I won't get into them. But I believe we all agree that teambuilding is at least half the battle in any tier. However, in BF, it is precisely this element that is not present. The sets are given to you randomly after all. Sure, we can code in some rigs to make it more competitive, but I believe such rigs will no matter what be arbitrary. BF is about making what was given to you work, instead of making what you have work for you. In this regard BF is similar to CC than the meta. Except, of course, the sets in BF are actual sets of the meta, their functionality are deemed sufficiently good by the reviewers that accept them.

    Back to the main point. To demand a synergistic team in a tier where teambuilding is not present is to me silly. And to introduce arbitrary parameters toward that end is even sillier. If the parameter is loose enough to allow for some degree of randomness still, then it will still give awkward teams that people will complain about. On the other hand, if we remove all the sets that demand synergy to work (like Chlorophyll abusers in OU for example), we will be left with a small pool of very versatile sets that can function without much support at all. Sounds great, but nope. It will for sure be very different from the meta BF is supposed to simulate in the first place, because this meta is shaped largely by conscious choices and we removed all the elements that require them to work. And then there's the issue of arbitrariness. Whichever point we set as the 'too much support required to leave it to chance' threshold, there will be awkward situations just above that chance. An example is Ferrothorn in Ubers. It's often seen with Kyogre because rain reduces the amount of pain it takes from fire moves (good enough to get a move in to scarf palkia instead of being OHKO'd). While certainly it needs the presence of Kyogre far less than Kabutops does, it does, in some measure, reliant on Kyogre. We can find many other such situations by varying our threshold. So, how do we decide which is the reasonable point? And how does our choice meet both the requirement of working well despite random chance while also remaining an accurate representation of the metagame? I don't see a simple number fixing the situation. It'll be just, instead of getting a one too many otherwise functional UU pokemon in OU, you get Tyranitar and Ninetales in the same team, which is in my opinion just as awkward. Except the former is impartial chance, the latter is weird rigging. People talk as if the it happens way too often, but I believe it is no more true that people complain about getting haxed way too often. Only relevant because such events make people salty, and they ignore whenever it works in their favor/as it's supposed to. And lastly, which I believe is the fatal objection towards the rigging, is that if our rigs are too good that we always perfectly functional team and good matchup on either side, it's either we hand out teams instead of sets in the first place or that we have such a good script that it seems like AI to me, for its ability to decide what to give for it to be a great game. The former is no more than a glorified and restricted pool of RMT and the latter, we might as well play Wifi OU itself. All in all, I'm against rigging.

    Stuff like Lugia, weather pokes etc just happens to fall under this. I don't know what is this very specialized preparation needed to beat it in BF Ubers as I can kill it just fine bar getting really bad teams, but as I said, in that case it's just the RNG messing with me. I think of it as no worse than happening to have brought a team with shitty matchup into a game and then losing as a result. Unlucky, nothing more.

    Okay, lastly, I resign from all BF related duties. Life is speeding up and while I'm not quitting PO (my activity will probably be rather similar as before), arguing about this, urging for that and such are pretty low in my list of priorities. I shall go back to taking PO as a place to have fun and at times, socialize with the few of my friends here. ZoroDark, you'll have to find another Ubers reviewer. For the Raducan case, I'll leave it entirely to you. You may reject him outright or give him a new sort of test as you see fit. And Xdevo, I hope BF will be better under your management and hopefully someday it'll even have the true multigen support I really wanted.

    To everyone else that worked with me, it's been great. I had to fire most of you all due to various reasons and I feel bad about it, but the early stages were hectic and I couldn't have brought BF to this point without you guys. You may not have any badges and such to prove it, but I know and will testify that your contributions are very real indeed.

    There's that. I'll respond to anything you have to say about any points of this post (and the discussion that might follow, assuming I will still have access to this thread) but I won't be doing anything else to BF, at least until I get everything in RL sorted out.

    (19:38:45) ±Chatot: mibuchiha removed mibuchiha from the channel admin list!
    (19:39:13) ±Deoxys: mibuchiha fired mibuchiha from reviewing Wifi Ubers!
    (19:39:21) ±Chatot: mibuchiha removed mibuchiha from the channel owner list!
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
  8. Elements

    Elements BOOMER SOONER Forum Moderator Server Staff Forum Moderator Server Staff

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    48
    PO Trainer Name:
    Elements
    Indigo log of a pretty good dicussion about BF

    [secret]
    (14:15:27) Elements: I'm really happy with the BF
    (14:15:29) ~Hanako: mahnmut wasn't was he?
    (14:15:43) Elements: that seems like a great way to get more people contributing
    (14:15:43) ~Hikari: diamond*
    (14:15:43) ~Hikari: he was a SA
    (14:15:43) %ShowMeTheMankey: MU iirc
    (14:15:43) ~Professor Oak: we need to expand the publicity the non-server stuff gets
    (14:15:43) %Cirno: well, if we go back to SA days
    (14:15:44) ~Hikari: which basically is MU
    (14:15:44) Elements: but is it advertised enough on the server / forums?
    (14:15:48) ~Hanako: well
    (14:15:53) ~Hanako: there were a fuck tonne of SAs
    (14:15:56) Viderizer: umm
    (14:15:57) ~Hikari: y
    (14:15:58) ~Hanako: which is why i'm not including them
    (14:16:02) ~Professor Oak: only a few were active though
    (14:16:05) Viderizer: does someone still update the mac versions
    (14:16:08) ~Professor Oak: Lam
    (14:16:08) ~Hanako: lamp
    (14:16:11) ~Professor Oak: if it's not updated, shout at him
    (14:16:13) ~Hikari: only a handful were actually useful
    (14:16:14) %Cirno: I should probably go back to tournaments
    (14:16:17) Viderizer: i'm running on an ancient source build
    (14:16:20) %Cirno: and do stuff there
    (14:16:21) Viderizer: like 7 months old
    (14:16:30) ~Professor Oak: @Ele
    (14:16:34) ~Professor Oak: probably not
    (14:16:45) Elements: I think that's something that xdevo should definitely look at
    (14:16:49) ~Professor Oak: due to the nature of it, it is also hard to see people contributing to BF
    (14:16:51) Elements: I know he is trying to find a home for BF too
    (14:16:54) Viderizer: i don't remember how lamps config scripts worked again
    (14:16:56) Elements: like either in Cstaff
    (14:16:57) ~Hikari: oh yeah
    (14:16:58) fitzy: There was an app thread for bf
    (14:16:59) ~Hikari: Professor Oak
    (14:16:59) ~Professor Oak: cos it's server-only
    (14:17:00) Elements: or a forum dedicated to it
    (14:17:01) ~Hikari: I have to talk with you
    (14:17:02) ~Hikari: about that
    (14:17:02) fitzy: but it's dead
    (14:17:08) ~Hikari: I was gonna do it yesterday
    (14:17:10) ~Hikari: but you left
    (14:17:10) ~Professor Oak: without a hub dedicated to talk about said contributors
    (14:17:11) Viderizer: and I also remember you needed to change the makefile...
    (14:17:13) Viderizer: ugh
    (14:17:13) ~Hikari: as soon as I got online
    (14:17:13) Elements: I personally think a forum for it might help
    (14:17:14) ~Professor Oak: (i.e. it's not trivia)
    (14:17:19) Orcelot: I offered my help with BF but nobody got back to me on that
    (14:17:32) ~Hanako: well
    (14:17:34) ~Hikari: Orcelot, contact Xdevo
    (14:17:36) ~Hanako: idk what would go in the forum
    (14:17:45) ~Professor Oak: Same.
    (14:17:46) ~Hanako: putting it in channel staff wouldn't be so bad tho
    (14:17:49) Orcelot: I already posted in the BF thread about it
    (14:17:53) ~Professor Oak: That was a discussion we had before
    (14:18:03) ~Professor Oak: But it was rejected at the time due to the poor contributors to BF
    (14:18:06) ~Professor Oak: read: jasonpwn
    (14:18:11) ~Hikari: BF has improved
    (14:18:12) ~Professor Oak: read: oak said get fucked
    (14:18:14) Elements: I guess I just view Cstaff as just you know channel staff
    (14:18:16) ~Hikari: and is going to keep improving
    (14:18:19) Elements: and BF seems to be growing more and more popular
    (14:18:20) ~Professor Oak: technically
    (14:18:20) ~Hikari: with Xdevo leading it
    (14:18:22) ~Professor Oak: Battle Factory
    (14:18:24) ~Professor Oak: is a channel
    (14:18:32) Finchinator: #BF Review
    (14:18:33) Elements: that it could warrant a subforum at least in Gen 5 discussion
    (14:18:35) Elements: or some shit
    (14:18:35) ~Hikari: Xdevo gets a lot of shit, but he is seriously a good contributor
    (14:18:43) Finchinator: btw
    (14:18:45) ~Professor Oak: he just needs to be less of a shithead
    (14:18:46) Finchinator: can we dereviewer
    (14:18:47) ~Professor Oak: but tbh
    (14:18:50) Finchinator: inactive reviewers
    (14:18:53) Finchinator: or should i talk to
    (14:18:53) Finchinator: devo
    (14:18:55) Finchinator: about that
    (14:18:56) ~Hikari: Devo
    (14:18:58) Finchinator: kk
    (14:19:01) ~Hikari: He removed Meeps yesterday
    (14:19:01) Elements: I definitely want to help out in BF, but alas no pokemon knowledge
    (14:19:03) ~Professor Oak: I think I view xdevo in a similar light to how coyo views ele
    (14:19:04) ~Hikari: he's doing a cleanup
    (14:19:10) ~Professor Oak: shithead before contrib
    (14:19:12) Finchinator: RIP MEEPS
    (14:19:24) ~Hikari: Also I spoke with Xdevo about BF being in cstaff
    (14:19:26) ßasedVictory: Meeps is quitting so he doesn't really care
    (14:19:31) Finchinator: ^
    (14:19:32) ~Hikari: basically he wants a place to discuss serious stuff
    (14:19:38) ßasedVictory: I think he's bringing two of the same Poke this week because there's no species clause in POCL rules
    (14:19:39) ~Professor Oak: (20:19:46) ßasedVictory: Meeps is quitting so he doesn't really care
    (14:19:47) ~Professor Oak: Is that 2 times, or 3 now?
    (14:19:49) ~Hikari: changes to BF, improvements, discuss sets, nominate possible reviewers, etc
    (14:19:50) ~Professor Oak: I lost count after 1.
    (14:19:55) ßasedVictory: 2
    (14:20:10) ßasedVictory: But this time is because he's losing interest, I believe him on that one
    (14:20:13) ~Professor Oak: Also, my comment probably sounded worse than I intended it to
    (14:20:14) ~Hikari: he wants everything to be more organized
    (14:20:15) ßasedVictory: Other time he was just embarrassed
    (14:20:17) Elements: The thing I enjoy most on PO is discussing policy shit
    (14:20:24) Elements: but not much of that is happening
    (14:20:25) Elements: lol
    (14:20:26) ~Professor Oak: Was a legit q, wasn't being sarcastic
    (14:20:28) ~Hikari: and I'm him on that
    (14:20:31) Elements: that isn't strictly pokemon related
    (14:20:43) ~Professor Oak: with him*
    (14:20:50) ~Hikari: We could give him another subforum, but personally I'd prefer user Channel Staff
    (14:20:55) ~Hikari: using*
    (14:20:59) fitzy: (20:19:54) ßasedVictory: I think he's bringing two of the same Poke this week because there's no species clause in POCL rules
    (14:21:01) fitzy: 6 sawks
    (14:21:06) fitzy: what can go wrong
    (14:21:10) ~Professor Oak: lmao
    (14:21:14) ßasedVictory: SR and Scarf Rotom-S
    (14:21:15) ßasedVictory: Gg
    (14:21:22) Umbreonn is idling.

    (14:21:24) Elements: I just think that Cstaff and BF should remain two seperate entities
    (14:21:27) Viderizer: 6 espeed arceus
    (14:21:27) Finchinator: '_'
    (14:21:48) ~Professor Oak: Yeah
    (14:21:48) ~Professor Oak: I do kinda agree that BF seems... distant from the current VR stuff
    (14:21:49) ~Professor Oak: in that
    (14:21:53) ßasedVictory: Anybody joining Smogon Tour tonight?
    (14:21:56) ~Hikari: it does
    (14:21:56) ~Professor Oak: non-battlers can do VR stuff
    (14:21:57) ßasedVictory: Err *evening
    (14:22:05) ~Professor Oak: but not really do BF
    (14:22:05) fitzy: what tier case?
    (14:22:08) ßasedVictory: ADV
    (14:22:09) ~Hikari: but BF do need to be more organized
    (14:22:19) Elements: I agree with that
    (14:22:19) Satori Komeiji changed names and is now known as Wriggle Nightbug.

    (14:22:25) ~Hikari: because right now BF organization consist of a thread 90% of the reviewers can't read
    (14:22:29) ~Hikari: and topics in the channels
    (14:22:30) Elements: it needs to be more organized before a subforum can be established for it
    (14:22:59) Elements: but I think there is a better place than Cstaff
    (14:23:01) Elements: maybe like
    (14:23:01) ~Professor Oak: Plan for BF:
    (14:23:02) Finchinator: cased, i'm joining
    (14:23:03) Elements: Side Meta for now
    (14:23:04) Elements: ?
    (14:23:07) ~Professor Oak: 1) Making sure current organisation is complete
    (14:23:10) ~Hikari: yeah but that would be public
    (14:23:13) ~Hikari: which isn't ideal
    (14:23:14) ~Professor Oak: 2) Ensure there are some active reviewers
    (14:23:21) ~Professor Oak: 3) Check activity of reviewers
    (14:23:24) Elements: why not keep it in Metagame Dev?
    (14:23:26) Elements: or if we have to
    (14:23:28) Elements: Indigo Social
    (14:23:31) Elements: that's not being used at all
    (14:23:32) ~Hanako: BF reviewers don't have access
    (14:23:34) ~Hikari: becase not all reviewers have access
    (14:23:38) ~Professor Oak: 4) If 1-3 are done, make subforum for further expansion and collab
    (14:23:54) Aurist: (20:23:34) Wifi LC battle between fitzy and Mylo Xyloto started.
    (14:23:55) ~Hanako: I don't think it needs its own subforum
    (14:24:02) ~Professor Oak: I think subforum of PO Server is best option for Battle Factory
    (14:24:09) ~Professor Oak: It doesn't fit in anywhere else.
    (14:24:12) Elements: yeah
    (14:24:18) ~Hikari: We can make it fit in Channel Staff
    (14:24:25) ~Hanako: There's simply not enough you could put in there
    (14:24:27) ~Hikari: CStaff is what we want it to be
    (14:24:28) ~Hikari: js
    (14:24:32) ~Hanako: Unless you started reviewing sets on forums
    (14:24:57) ~Hikari: it doesn't fit our current VR standards
    (14:24:58) ~Professor Oak: Additional BF Review for Forums?
    (14:25:02) ~Hikari: but we can simply change the standards
    (14:25:07) ~Professor Oak: allows non-server peeps to contribute
    (14:25:23) ~Professor Oak: sets can then be submitted by reviewers and finalised on the server
    (14:25:46) @[LD]Jirachier: mp
    (14:25:47) @[LD]Jirachier: p
    (14:26:03) ~Professor Oak: If people truly think that Battle Factory has a huge potential for contribution
    (14:26:21) ~Professor Oak: expanding it on both forums and server is the best way to reach out to as many potential contributors as possible.
    (14:26:24) Elements: I think BF offers a nice gateway into more major contributing
    (14:26:40) ~Professor Oak: also, good BF Reviewers could make good QC
    (14:27:07) ~Professor Oak: So we could eventually, if we decided to do so, merge BF and QC
    (14:27:17) ~Professor Oak: and have all sets approved for our analyses on BF
    (14:27:21) ~Professor Oak: and vice versa
    (14:27:22) Wavy: so what's the deal with the Wiki
    (14:27:30) ~Professor Oak: ...fuck, I knew that'd bring up that question
    (14:27:34) ~Hikari: (14:56:22) +Professor Oak: If people truly think that Battle Factory has a huge potential for contribution
    (14:27:35) ~Hikari: I do
    (14:27:54) ~Hikari: Smogon's randbats is by far their most popular tier
    (14:28:06) ~Hikari: we can make something as good or better than that
    (14:28:13) ~Hikari: so the potential is huge
    (14:28:16) Aurist: y
    (14:28:17) ~Professor Oak: With regards to BF: In expansion of BF thread, post the Indigo log relevant to it, and we can discuss the ideas on the forums.
    (14:28:41) Wavy: we should have like
    (14:28:43) Wavy: a competitive site
    (14:28:53) ~Professor Oak: I'm gonna get onto that discussion in a moment
    (14:29:08) ~Professor Oak: which is why I'm trying to redirect BF discussion to forums
    (14:29:11) ~Professor Oak: especially cos devo gets involve then, considering he's offline atm
    (14:29:44) ~Professor Oak: So
    [/secret]
     
  9. Xdevo

    Xdevo Phrasing Super Moderator Tour Director Super Moderator Tour Director

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    So, I've fired all of the people I've yet to see since getting back; I'll just put them here because I like keeping track of things.

    (13:17:29) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired Fabian. from reviewing Wifi OU!
    (13:17:46) +Xdevo: haven't seen him in ages and is a poor user etc
    (13:18:14) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired ThatIsWhatSheSaid from reviewing Wifi UU!
    (13:18:19) +Xdevo: Doesn't join the channel
    (01:41:05) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired meeps from reviewing Wifi NU!
    (01:41:09) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired meeps from reviewing Wifi LC!
    (17:44:38) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired Blimlax from reviewing Wifi Ubers!
    (17:45:34) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired Crying Lightning from reviewing Wifi LC!
    (17:51:47) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired New Breed from reviewing Wifi LU!
    (17:52:05) ±Deoxys: Xdevo fired Photoshop from reviewing Wifi UU!



    My thing with cstaff; I don't really care where BF goes on the forums; I just want a place where I can keep track of things like the above, have some smaller threads for things like improvements, and a better way to keep track of terrible sets. It doesn't particularly matter where it goes, but of the subforums we have right now, Cstaff is the one where it fits the most, since it is technically a channel on server. I'm not a fan of putting it in Side Metas, since it's not really a side meta (Sulcata, Roku, and myself were not in-charge of it before), but it really doesn't matter.

    Another thing I think is a decent idea, I'd like to give all of the tier leaders access to the channel (not reviewers if they don't want/aren't active enough), since they all /can/ contribute to the channel in some way, I'd hope it'd help make the channel a bit more open despite being closed.
     
  10. Finchinator

    Finchinator IT’S FINK DUMBASS

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,309
    Likes Received:
    2,287
    PO Trainer Name:
    Finchinator / Finch
    I have a question (albeit, it is 1 AM so it may be a stupid question, but bare with me.)

    Are there any rules on what kind of Pokemon should be accepted and such? Obviously, viable pokemon.
    However, how viable, how much of a niche do they need, how far should we stretch into the realms of possible Pokemon for each tier? Should we use usage as an indicator for if a Pokemon should have a set in a tier, or reviewers personal opinions?

    I.e: Do we want Pokemon like: Sawk in LU, Escavlier in UU, Slowbro in OU, Scizor in Ubers, etc.?

    Pokemon that have a decent niche and a set or two that are viable, but lack usage in the tier (notice how all the Pokemon I listed weren't above 4% usage in the respective Metagames.)

    Anyway, I'll just leave this here because it just popped into my mind and it'll give us a better idea of what needs to be added/taken-away to make BF the best quality for players.

    Note: Sulcata, Celes, and I cut down the amount of Pokemon from about 83 to 62, based on deletion of Pokemon such as: Flygon, Hitmontop, Omastar, Gorebyss, and other lower tier Pokemon that DO have a nice, but aren't that good, nor common. It was mainly due to users complaining that their teams were half UU Pokemon which weren't solid in OU, though.)
     
  11. pokemonnerd

    pokemonnerd Only uso listens to pnerd. Devo too. Article Contributor Article Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    888
    Sawk can actually function moderately well in LU, but it's for the most part outclassed by hitmonlee so I'd say no.

    Figuring out which sets to accept really should fall on the individual reviewers. I'm assuming they know what they're talking about since they were appointed in the first place. Common sense would dictate to not include things like Belly Drum Clefable, since something like that in particular needs a certain amount of team support to function. I'd keep this as a general rule: if there is a pokemon that can do the job better than the one you're thinking of possibly removing, then take it out. Because certain NU pokemon function very well in LU while others just don't.
     
  12. Weavile

    Weavile Phoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    890
    Moved this thread to the new BF Subforum for obvious reasons. This is now public.
     
  13. Epikhairz

    Epikhairz Delta Stream

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    102
    PO Trainer Name:
    Epikhairz
    Weeee I've followed this thread for quite a while but now I finally can post! :3.

    A month back or so, I recieved a complaint from Prince LudwigVKoopa about the BF system in general. I'll try to keep it as objective as possible but basically, he complained that the locking of IRC channel #BF Review to the general public made BF review an elitist system and that the channel was locked just so that the revs would not have to hear feedback from other regular users iirc. I lost logs of this convo unfortunately ;~;.

    Thoughts?

    EDIT: On a sidenote, move the BF Rev app thread here or start a new one
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2013
  14. sulcata

    sulcata stéphane curry best waifu Forum Moderator Server Administrator Forum Moderator Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    744
    Locking the channel #BR Review from the public was done so for a very good reason. So we can stop having users waste our time with asinine suggestions such as CM Virizion in Ubers because at +6/+6 it can 2HKO Lugia with HP Ice. Having half the channel question deletes of Pokemon who have terrible sets or just don't belong is also quite a pain and slows the process down. If users wish to help contribute to the channel they can sign up as a reviewer or just submit sets which can be done by any user anywhere. As one of the original reviewers (before we even had separated tiers), I'd say the channel ran a lot more smoothly when it was just reviewers.
     
  15. Afro Smash

    Afro Smash Mfw I'm living the Australian dream

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    854
    PO Trainer Name:
    Afro Smash
    Being able to edit sets would be nice, not a major concern though.

    Being able to pick which tier you get in BF is something I really want, i don't like playing LC or OU so I either have to play through a boring game or forfeit straight away and lose rank (not that I care about BF rank, just still annoying.)

    Being able to weight pokemon for usage is also something I want, although tbh it depends what BF wants to be because it's never been clear to me, are we trying to represent the metagame or be our own seperate metagame? I've always just used it to play for fun when I can't be bothered to teambuild and to discover effective sets.

    Also i'd like to be able to have more than 15 sets in the queue at once, usually when I submit sets it's after a tier change, so there are a lot of new pokes/sets to submit, and whilst I'm doing it I check through every poke in the tier to see if their sets can be improved/need to be changed to adapt to the new threats, so usually have more than 15 to submit at any 1 time. I imagine it was put there to stop people spamming but if the cap could be raised to 30 or something it would be much appreciated.
     
  16. Disaster Area

    Disaster Area Badged Deucer

    Joined:
    May 10, 2013
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    226
    PO Trainer Name:
    Disaster Area
    I know this is unlikely to be a very helpful suggestion but I've noticed, with general agreement I think, that the OU metagame and Random Battle metagame are quite different. This seems like I'm coming from somewhere a bit farfetched, but in BF 6v6 you get 6 pokemon, choosing the lead with the thanks of Wifi clause, and in Wifi OU it's the same. Then, in standard BF you have to choose which 3 pokemon you use.. maybe making at least the OU one slightly more relevant to the pace of the random battle metagame might be a relevant suggestion? I appreciate I might be misguided, since Drizzle+Switf Swim, and Excadrill, are both allowed in RB but not in OU. And even if this is relevant, any consequent implications of it would be difficult to consider.

    Just wanted to say my piece, sorry if it's of little or no use.
     
  17. Princess Luna

    Princess Luna Resident Pegasister

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    1
    not sure if this is just me but 9/10 in a BF tournament i get LC
    like seriously ive had uu once and LU once every other battle was LC
    laddering is normally fine though i get a good variety of battle types but in Tours it's always LC
     
  18. sulcata

    sulcata stéphane curry best waifu Forum Moderator Server Administrator Forum Moderator Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    744
    It's randomized equally between all tiers, getting LC too frequently is just luck. It could also just be that you disregard the times you don't get LC because you see it as normal. If you really think there's a problem with the randomization of tiers, I would come up with actual numbers rather than vague observations.

    Also, BF isn't meant to emulate random battle. Originally the tier was created to be similar to Battle Factory in-game where trainers choose preset Pokemon and battle with them. We've modified the idea by separating into tiers (only the main Wifi tiers) and it seems unlikely that Random Battle will be added as a pack in the future. As Battle Factory is split into tiers, the first and foremost goal will always be to represent the tiers as completely as possible.

    On a side note, calling BF 3v3 "standard" is probably inaccurate now that BF 6v6 is the default tier for Android and Webclient (or so I think).
     
  19. Xdevo

    Xdevo Phrasing Super Moderator Tour Director Super Moderator Tour Director

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    As it stands, Battle Factory 3v3 and 6v6 use the same database of sets. 6v6 is the "competitive" version which is based on the supported "official" tiers (Ubers, OU, UU, LU, NU, LC). 3v3 is little more than an afterthought as far as I'm concerned. Random Battle most likely isn't going to be kept across the generation, being as it was only a failed attempt to recreate an in-game ruleset. So I see no reason to alter the ruleset to fit it.


    Well, this is going to sound harsh, but Ludwig was the biggest reason BF was closed. He both submitted terrible and unwanted sets and then stubbornly and constantly argued that they have some insignificant niche in the tier. People like him in the chat made others not want to review and was a major turn off to potential members of BF reviewing staff and to the current ones. I'm not going to chase off a number of people who are good at what they are doing to let people who aren't capable of understanding why something shouldn't be in a tier run the show.

    @Sidenote, I'll probably start a new one once a few things are set-up.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2013
  20. Afro Smash

    Afro Smash Mfw I'm living the Australian dream

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    854
    PO Trainer Name:
    Afro Smash
    I wasn't saying I get more LC or OU than other tiers, I was just saying I'd rather be able to choose what BF tier I play, rather than risk getting a tier I don't want to play, as it just wastes my time.
     
  21. mibuchiha

    mibuchiha Was yea ra chs ieeya.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    290
    PO Trainer Name:
    mibuchiha
     
  22. Afro Smash

    Afro Smash Mfw I'm living the Australian dream

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    854
    PO Trainer Name:
    Afro Smash
    How'd ya mean abusable? do you mean people playing 1 tier to get high on the ladder etc? because if we did allow you to choose your tier, I imagine we'd create seperate ladders for each tier, but still keep a random BF tier.

    I just don't really see the cons of allowing people to choose the BF tier they want to play, like I don't know who loses in that situation.
     
  23. mibuchiha

    mibuchiha Was yea ra chs ieeya.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    290
    PO Trainer Name:
    mibuchiha
    As should be clear from my original post, I start with the a priori belief that

    1. BF is attempting to represent its respective metagame and
    2. All of its aspects, barring the members of its pools, are inherently random.

    All other concepts relating to it like ranking in BF are related to the above 2. So yeah, getting to play only the tier you're sort of good at to achieve high BF ranks (assuming they're not separated, which is the current case) is an act of abuse.

    Edit: While the idea of completely separating the BF tiers is neat, it is quite unrelated to this (since I suggested it as a privilege to revs and not a feature of BF available to all) and so should be discussed as a separate matter.
     
  24. Xinc

    Xinc Time for Oras?

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    14
    I enjoy the BF and BF 6v6 tiers. As to my understanding, BF and BF 6v6 use the same pool, which can lead to some lack of balance especially since some Pokemon sets are balanced in 6v6 but are overly powerful in BF, such as Shell Smash Focus Sash Cloyster. (Most other versions of Cloyster, such as holding another item, become less viable in BF 6v6).

    Also, congrats on being coleader, xdevo.
     
  25. Afro Smash

    Afro Smash Mfw I'm living the Australian dream

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    854
    PO Trainer Name:
    Afro Smash
    so we cant ever play 5th gen bf again?
     
  26. sulcata

    sulcata stéphane curry best waifu Forum Moderator Server Administrator Forum Moderator Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    744
    As far as I am concerned there is not going to be an exception, such an exception would only lead to people then saying to get rid of Arceus and friends as well, which is not an accurate depiction of the metagame at all. And yes, this is XY Ubers being depicted by Battle Factory. If XY Ubers is unbalanced, then so be it. Exceptions are about as "slippery a slope" as it gets.

    @Afro Smash, no we can play Gen 5 again, but after multi-gen support is created. Currently you are playing Gen 5 sets with Gen 6 mechanics (hence Nature Power being tri attack). Unless someone wants to code this in the near future, I don't see it being something that happens soon.
     
  27. Xdevo

    Xdevo Phrasing Super Moderator Tour Director Super Moderator Tour Director

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    Hi, if you have set issues then use the set changes thread that is also in this subforum. This thread is for issues surrounding the whole of batlle factory.
     
  28. DSM01

    DSM01 Jammin' out

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    59
    I don't know if this has been brought up already, but in OU I think there should be a limit of one Mega Stone per team. Currently you can have multiple Pokemon with Mega Stones on the same team, but you can only Mega Evolve one of them. I've had multiple matches like this including one where I had Pinsir with Pinsirite and Charizard with Charizardite X, meaning that the one I didn't Mega Evolve was dead weight. (Fun fact: I didn't realize this caveat when the match occurred and Mega'd my Gardevoir, meaning I had two useless Pokemon on my team!) While some non-Mega'd Pokemon aren't completely useless (Tyranitar), others are (Pinsir) and I don't think it's fair to saddle a player with these Pokemon. Limiting it to one Mega Stone per team also more accurately represents the OU metagame, where few, if any, players carry multiple Megas per team.

    On an unrelated note, when can we expect UU to be implemented? When we have more scripters?
     
  29. sulcata

    sulcata stéphane curry best waifu Forum Moderator Server Administrator Forum Moderator Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    744
    One mega per team is currently supported by Xdevo and I. It's pretty much a matter of scripters. UU is already being implemented, but we need sets submitted for us to review and add. We can't have a pack with only 18 or so Pokemon.
     
  30. Edna

    Edna Chasing the Dragon Forum Moderator Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    1,820
    PO Trainer Name:
    Edna
    Hey guys,
    Recently I played BF, took a Ditto on the team and copied a Kanga. Return was very weak due to no max hapiness so I think this should be fixed!
     
    Disaster Area likes this.
  31. sulcata

    sulcata stéphane curry best waifu Forum Moderator Server Administrator Forum Moderator Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    968
    Likes Received:
    744