|
|
Post by Ortheore on Aug 9, 2020 10:23:21 GMT
Hi all, I was discussing RBY2K20 with DA, and suggested that having some sort of list of ways that one could contribute to this site might be cool. However, before creating such a list, I think it’s important to lay out some sort of long-term vision for this site- I think we can all agree that we’re trying to be the home of RBY, but what does that look like, and how do we get there? Obviously, I’m just another user, and I’m far from an expert in what the ideal path should be. So I thought it would be ideal to open this thread as something of a discussion as to what route we go down. I know most of this discussion will take place on Discord, which is fine, but I thought that something as broad and encompassing as this would be better served with a forum thread for more detailed discussion. The three core areasIn my mind, there are three core areas that we need to focus on to establish our site: • Tournaments • Developing learning resources • Producing content Tournaments are a given, as if no-one’s actually playing the game, what’s the point? Learning resources are useful for bringing in new players and also for promoting this site as the authority for all things RBY. These resources can also be used as content, though of course, we should be producing content beyond just resources, such as videos/streams of tournament matches and various articles discussing things. TournamentsTournaments are obviously the lifeblood of any competitive community. It should go without saying that we should aim to run our tournaments as smoothly and drama-free as possible, but we need to do more than that to make our tournament scene as strong as possible So how can we make our tournaments the best they can be? I’d like to propose a few ideas: • Be critical of our standard tournament format. I think we should constantly be looking for ways to improve our tournaments, which means recognising where they fall short and what they do well. But… • Experiment with alternate tournament formats as side tournaments. The best way to explore new ideas is to just test them, so long as we’re not experimenting with our core tournaments. Side tournaments with alternate formats should ideally be run with a view of that tournament format theoretically supplanting whatever standard we use. This is in contrast to how side formats on Pokemon Perfect such as Fuchsia and Saffron were run- they tended to be aimless gimmicks. • Data. Personally I find data interesting so if we collect as much as possible from our tournaments, that would be cool- I understand there’s already work being done in this regard • Robust player rankings or even a player rating system. This is already planned to be done in some capacity, but I think we could theoretically even go as far as implementing something like what’s seen in tennis or chess. There are of course further details to be discussed in that regard though, such as what rating system we use, how the results are presented, and how we handle results from other sites. On that note, I think we DEFINITELY should incorporate results from other sites, otherwise we’re simply not presenting an accurate picture Let me know what other ideas you have! ResourcesPersonally, I think analyses are just the starting point for possible resources we can create for RBY. • Analyses. These can range in detail, from a quick summary of a pokemon, to a deep dive into incorporating a pokemon into teams and thoroughly examining its strengths and challenges • Discussing teambuilding patterns • General competitive pokemon advice. This can range from strategy and tactics, to even mundane things like ensuring you’re in the best mindset for play I also think we should deliberately broaden the scope of the resources we create in terms of the level of ability they cater to. • Completely new to RBY • Intermediate level players • Expert players (expect resources here to have less of an authoritative tone and be more of an open-ended discussion) • Completely new to competitive battling in general? Let me know what other resources you think we can provide! Another critical issue is ensuring that our resources are maintained and don’t fall out of date. Highlighting resources that haven’t received a substantial change in a while is the bare minimum here imo. I think the ideal thing would be to flag old resources for review and put them in some sort of queue ContentI think we all know what content means, but in practice it’s really broad. I think that formats that we should look to target include: • Streams • Videos • Written articles- note that working out the best way to reach people with written articles is crucial. Do we start a blog? • Social media posts • Podcasts? This one’s probably not realistic but it’s theoretically possible As for the types of content we produce, I’ll just throw some ideas out there: • Tournament streams • Gameplay analysis • Teambuilding analysis • Literally every resource we create can be repurposed as content • Metagame report- analysis of metagame trends, and speculation of what might be to come • Player interviews and spotlights • Pokemon spotlights One thing is that I think we should look to try to create a pool of ideas for content- at the very least this can function like a task board or bounty list or something. But the most valuable thing would be reusable ideas- ones that can be done in many different ways, or that frequently refresh themselves and become usable again (like how the meta seems to change annually these days, so you could find yourself doing an annual meta report).
In any case, let me know what other ideas you have for content we can produce
=================
ScopeOne important question should be what the scope of RBY2K20 is. I’ll be blunt here- I personally don’t care for many formats besides RBY OU/1U. However, DA is indicated to me that he envisages this place as the centre of all things RBY, which includes alternate formats, mods and maybe lower tiers as well. Nonetheless, I think we should be deliberate about where we focus our efforts, and I believe RBY OU/1U should be our focus. You are of course welcome to disagree as to which formats should be prioritised- that’s why I raised this point after all. Of course, if you’re passionate about an OM, mod or potential tiering project, we should in no way discourage you from putting energy towards that- it’s important that everyone enjoy what they do, and who knows, perhaps this alternate format will take off and come to rival more established formats. However, at the time of writing this post, RBY OU and 1U seem most prominent to me personally, and I believe we should focus our efforts on them if possible. One question I think is worth discussing is whether we explicitly define certain “core” formats and others as alternate formats. If we do, what would that look like in practice? Another thing worth addressing is a potential tiering project. I firmly believe we should not be in any rush whatsoever to try this, and should strongly consider whether or not we do this at all. If we do, we should be critical of how we conduct it, so that we can actually maintain the tiering system and ensure it stays alive. Where possible we should learn from the successes and failures of the tiering project on Pokemon Perfect as well. Tech stuffI’d really look forward to hopefully seeing some tech projects take off that improve the way this site operates. Obviously, any technical projects we undertake would ideally either directly improve our site/forums/Discord or address our 3 core areas. Personally, I have more than a few ideas I’d like to try, and I’d certainly encourage suggestions, but I will note that we’re still working on getting everything up and running, so do bear that in mind (hence why I haven't listed my ideas here) OtherI swear I had something to put here, but I can’t recall…
I honestly think keeping track of all the possible things that can be done and converting that into discrete, manageable chunks is a role in and of itself. At the very least, I think it's valuable, and I would do it, except a) I'm not active enough on Discord and I don't envisage that changing and b) I don't really want an ongoing commitment- I'd rather contribute where/when I can
|
|
|
|
Post by Plague von Karma on Aug 10, 2020 6:09:39 GMT
Good post! RBY 2k20, as far as I know, aims to be the hub for all things Gen 1. I think we can agree on that, and I think it's the best concept a Pokemon website dedicated to a generation has ever looked at. It allows players and contributors to be adventurous and provide info on a lot of areas that usually just aren't looked at. I think this reflects in how OMs have been experimented with more than usual as well: it's just available now. TournamentsI'm not really the best with tournaments, and it's something I need to work on, but I think the data area has boundless potential. Smogon, for example, puts usage stats into the Usage, Movesets, Leads and Team Comps (though this bit doesn't matter much). I think this has potential for more exploration and could lead to a lot. Perhaps someone analyzes the data every few months? Perhaps we could use graph representation to show how the format changes over time? We can see this on Porydex, which I feel deserves some kind of use on 2k20. Hell, you could incorporate usage stats into our analysis pages too. There is a lot you can do with usage stats, and I think there's a lot to work with that Smogon doesn't work with on its own. Resources
So from what I've seen with the Guides and dexes so far, a lot of the stuff you outlined is covered. I do think that a lot of "fundamentals" need to be looked at though. Typical, commonplace things such as switching could easily be covered in detail. Hell, an article about how paralysis affects the game could be super interesting and would apply to all formats. On Pokemon Perfect, Disaster Area would post risk-reward calculations about whether a Pokemon would win a lead scenario, or something weird/cool like Metronome odds. I think that kind of stuff could easily be put into huge articles with more calculations. There's a whole range of host to work with here, many of which apply to different skill levels, and many old resources that could easily be updated. It's partly why I made the RBY Resource Hub: go through old stuff, and work with them in a present-day context. I really like the idea of queuing outdated resources to be revamped. Perhaps some kind of stickied thread in The Workshop could be done, but automation would be ideal. Maybe a 6-month "review" cycle could be used, then contributors decide if it needs to be updated. ContentI think the Pokemon Spotlight idea could be extended to putting a 2k20 analysis into a video format, and having it available on the analysis page once it's uploaded. This would add a whole new dimension to the analysis format, and is something that most websites would have huge issues pulling off. RBY is a small generation though, which makes it feasibly possible. I also think Metagame History videos could serve as an easily reusable content idea; looking at old concepts that fall in and out of favor, and why it happens, such as Lead Victreebel in OU. This could provide interesting insight, and history, in and of itself, is a resource. Maybe there's an old tactic that can see use again, who knows? ScopeI agree that OU/1U should be the central focus of the site, possibly the latter being the top priority, given what Disaster Area wants. I really think that the OU and 1U Dexes need work, and I may see about trying to work on that area more. I took over Sceptross's WIP Rhydon analysis on Smogon a few days ago, so I may see about trying to rewrite one for here too to get stuff started. I kind of think the OU/1U focus was a bit affected due to my work output, though this isn't the fault of anyone, I don't think. It's just a matter of time everyone has, and I kind of don't have a life. I think the amazing support of OMs is important though, since it helps emphasize that the community is bold, open and most of all, adventurous. RBY has a reputation for being static and unchanging, and while it isn't true, this helps to work at rectifying that. Hell, we're even seeing a couple new faces in the community. I think the "core" format area relatively simple: 2k20 and Smogon's formats should be "core", and maybe Violet given the site's massive support of it. They're on the front page of the site, so it seems to already be decided, I guess? I think tiering Tradebacks would be the play to make, especially since we have "1U" already. Part of why Pokemon Perfect's didn't quite work out, imo, is because it was too similar to Smogon. From an outside perspective, many would think "Well Smogon has OU and UU, why would we need this?". Is it wrong to think of it like that? I feel it's subjective. I think having a substantial difference at base: tradebacks, in this case, it can be more easily explored while having more differences. I think being more open to tiering changes would also be good, such as doing something with Psywave according to the Community Surveys that were performed. Exploring DV legality could also be done. A big issue people have with OU right now, is that the council moves very slowly. If tiering is to be done, I think being more proactive and open to discussion should be a massive step in making it work. This, in turn, would show that RBY 2k20 is the bold, adventurous website. On the note of being more adventurous, there were ideas thrown around in the Discord for a "Complete a Pokemon" OM format where some of the leaked beta RBY Pokemon are "finished". This was with the intention of exploring OU/1U in more detail. I think this could also serve as an interesting way to explore tiering. That's all I really have in terms of opinions, the rest I can't really give much of an answer to. Once again though, amazing post Ortheore! |
|
|
|
Post by Ortheore on Aug 14, 2020 3:21:21 GMT
Good post! RBY 2k20, as far as I know, aims to be the hub for all things Gen 1. I think we can agree on that, and I think it's the best concept a Pokemon website dedicated to a generation has ever looked at. It allows players and contributors to be adventurous and provide info on a lot of areas that usually just aren't looked at. I think this reflects in how OMs have been experimented with more than usual as well: it's just available now. TournamentsI'm not really the best with tournaments, and it's something I need to work on, but I think the data area has boundless potential. Smogon, for example, puts usage stats into the Usage, Movesets, Leads and Team Comps (though this bit doesn't matter much). I think this has potential for more exploration and could lead to a lot. Perhaps someone analyzes the data every few months? Perhaps we could use graph representation to show how the format changes over time? We can see this on Porydex, which I feel deserves some kind of use on 2k20. Hell, you could incorporate usage stats into our analysis pages too. There is a lot you can do with usage stats, and I think there's a lot to work with that Smogon doesn't work with on its own. Resources
So from what I've seen with the Guides and dexes so far, a lot of the stuff you outlined is covered. I do think that a lot of "fundamentals" need to be looked at though. Typical, commonplace things such as switching could easily be covered in detail. Hell, an article about how paralysis affects the game could be super interesting and would apply to all formats. On Pokemon Perfect, Disaster Area would post risk-reward calculations about whether a Pokemon would win a lead scenario, or something weird/cool like Metronome odds. I think that kind of stuff could easily be put into huge articles with more calculations. There's a whole range of host to work with here, many of which apply to different skill levels, and many old resources that could easily be updated. It's partly why I made the RBY Resource Hub: go through old stuff, and work with them in a present-day context. I really like the idea of queuing outdated resources to be revamped. Perhaps some kind of stickied thread in The Workshop could be done, but automation would be ideal. Maybe a 6-month "review" cycle could be used, then contributors decide if it needs to be updated. ContentI think the Pokemon Spotlight idea could be extended to putting a 2k20 analysis into a video format, and having it available on the analysis page once it's uploaded. This would add a whole new dimension to the analysis format, and is something that most websites would have huge issues pulling off. RBY is a small generation though, which makes it feasibly possible. I also think Metagame History videos could serve as an easily reusable content idea; looking at old concepts that fall in and out of favor, and why it happens, such as Lead Victreebel in OU. This could provide interesting insight, and history, in and of itself, is a resource. Maybe there's an old tactic that can see use again, who knows? ScopeI agree that OU/1U should be the central focus of the site, possibly the latter being the top priority, given what Disaster Area wants. I really think that the OU and 1U Dexes need work, and I may see about trying to work on that area more. I took over Sceptross's WIP Rhydon analysis on Smogon a few days ago, so I may see about trying to rewrite one for here too to get stuff started. I kind of think the OU/1U focus was a bit affected due to my work output, though this isn't the fault of anyone, I don't think. It's just a matter of time everyone has, and I kind of don't have a life. I think the amazing support of OMs is important though, since it helps emphasize that the community is bold, open and most of all, adventurous. RBY has a reputation for being static and unchanging, and while it isn't true, this helps to work at rectifying that. Hell, we're even seeing a couple new faces in the community. I think the "core" format area relatively simple: 2k20 and Smogon's formats should be "core", and maybe Violet given the site's massive support of it. They're on the front page of the site, so it seems to already be decided, I guess? I think tiering Tradebacks would be the play to make, especially since we have "1U" already. Part of why Pokemon Perfect's didn't quite work out, imo, is because it was too similar to Smogon. From an outside perspective, many would think "Well Smogon has OU and UU, why would we need this?". Is it wrong to think of it like that? I feel it's subjective. I think having a substantial difference at base: tradebacks, in this case, it can be more easily explored while having more differences. I think being more open to tiering changes would also be good, such as doing something with Psywave according to the Community Surveys that were performed. Exploring DV legality could also be done. A big issue people have with OU right now, is that the council moves very slowly. If tiering is to be done, I think being more proactive and open to discussion should be a massive step in making it work. This, in turn, would show that RBY 2k20 is the bold, adventurous website. On the note of being more adventurous, there were ideas thrown around in the Discord for a "Complete a Pokemon" OM format where some of the leaked beta RBY Pokemon are "finished". This was with the intention of exploring OU/1U in more detail. I think this could also serve as an interesting way to explore tiering. That's all I really have in terms of opinions, the rest I can't really give much of an answer to. Once again though, amazing post Ortheore! Data Regarding data, I think your ideas of more readily displaying how usage changes over time could be good, as well as integrating usage stats into analyses. One thing with smogon's usage stats that I find quite interesting is the teammates section, which is potentially really cool, but I'm also not sure how solid the data is
A big question I have in terms of data is what our sample size should be. Obviously our tournaments are the main source, but do we also pull from off-site tournaments or even the ladder? I think we shouldn't use ladder data as I think we should focus on tournament play, but taking data from smogon/PP tours could potentially be a lot more work, as even if they have usage stats, it might not capture everything we would ideally want to
Resources A lot of the article ideas you mention seem to me like one-off ideas for articles, which are definitely worth collecting, but I'm not sure there's any one category they fall under
I think a 6 month expiration date for resources is reasonable from an accuracy standpoint, but my concern is that it might be too frequent and either trivialise the review process or be too much work. A year seems appropriate to me. For the past two years, it's been right around SPL that people have agreed that there's been significant changes- which suggests a yearly cycle might be more fitting
Content The spotlight video and also metagame history are both great ideas (tbh I was considering doing a metagame history style thing for Chansey, which would definitely be an interesting candidate for such an article). As for video analysis, I will note that we would definitely need video editing help to make it interesting- when I was considering how much effort to put into my own youtube channel, I considered such videos and decided that to actually make effective use of the video format, it would require a lot of video editing work, and that just wasn't something I was prepared to do
Scope I honestly don't have much to say here, but your point that any tiering project should be based on 1U, not OU, is a really good suggestion for reasons you mention. "Competing" with smogon is probably something we want to avoid as much as possible. On that note, I can't recall how DA's Counter survey was set up- did it make a clear distinction between 1U and OU, and emphasise that 1U is not really tied in any way to smogon? Because I know with the PP Counter vote, a number of people have explicitly voted to "follow smogon"
|
|
|
|
Post by Plague von Karma on Aug 15, 2020 13:35:32 GMT
Good post! RBY 2k20, as far as I know, aims to be the hub for all things Gen 1. I think we can agree on that, and I think it's the best concept a Pokemon website dedicated to a generation has ever looked at. It allows players and contributors to be adventurous and provide info on a lot of areas that usually just aren't looked at. I think this reflects in how OMs have been experimented with more than usual as well: it's just available now. TournamentsI'm not really the best with tournaments, and it's something I need to work on, but I think the data area has boundless potential. Smogon, for example, puts usage stats into the Usage, Movesets, Leads and Team Comps (though this bit doesn't matter much). I think this has potential for more exploration and could lead to a lot. Perhaps someone analyzes the data every few months? Perhaps we could use graph representation to show how the format changes over time? We can see this on Porydex, which I feel deserves some kind of use on 2k20. Hell, you could incorporate usage stats into our analysis pages too. There is a lot you can do with usage stats, and I think there's a lot to work with that Smogon doesn't work with on its own. Resources
So from what I've seen with the Guides and dexes so far, a lot of the stuff you outlined is covered. I do think that a lot of "fundamentals" need to be looked at though. Typical, commonplace things such as switching could easily be covered in detail. Hell, an article about how paralysis affects the game could be super interesting and would apply to all formats. On Pokemon Perfect, Disaster Area would post risk-reward calculations about whether a Pokemon would win a lead scenario, or something weird/cool like Metronome odds. I think that kind of stuff could easily be put into huge articles with more calculations. There's a whole range of host to work with here, many of which apply to different skill levels, and many old resources that could easily be updated. It's partly why I made the RBY Resource Hub: go through old stuff, and work with them in a present-day context. I really like the idea of queuing outdated resources to be revamped. Perhaps some kind of stickied thread in The Workshop could be done, but automation would be ideal. Maybe a 6-month "review" cycle could be used, then contributors decide if it needs to be updated. ContentI think the Pokemon Spotlight idea could be extended to putting a 2k20 analysis into a video format, and having it available on the analysis page once it's uploaded. This would add a whole new dimension to the analysis format, and is something that most websites would have huge issues pulling off. RBY is a small generation though, which makes it feasibly possible. I also think Metagame History videos could serve as an easily reusable content idea; looking at old concepts that fall in and out of favor, and why it happens, such as Lead Victreebel in OU. This could provide interesting insight, and history, in and of itself, is a resource. Maybe there's an old tactic that can see use again, who knows? ScopeI agree that OU/1U should be the central focus of the site, possibly the latter being the top priority, given what Disaster Area wants. I really think that the OU and 1U Dexes need work, and I may see about trying to work on that area more. I took over Sceptross's WIP Rhydon analysis on Smogon a few days ago, so I may see about trying to rewrite one for here too to get stuff started. I kind of think the OU/1U focus was a bit affected due to my work output, though this isn't the fault of anyone, I don't think. It's just a matter of time everyone has, and I kind of don't have a life. I think the amazing support of OMs is important though, since it helps emphasize that the community is bold, open and most of all, adventurous. RBY has a reputation for being static and unchanging, and while it isn't true, this helps to work at rectifying that. Hell, we're even seeing a couple new faces in the community. I think the "core" format area relatively simple: 2k20 and Smogon's formats should be "core", and maybe Violet given the site's massive support of it. They're on the front page of the site, so it seems to already be decided, I guess? I think tiering Tradebacks would be the play to make, especially since we have "1U" already. Part of why Pokemon Perfect's didn't quite work out, imo, is because it was too similar to Smogon. From an outside perspective, many would think "Well Smogon has OU and UU, why would we need this?". Is it wrong to think of it like that? I feel it's subjective. I think having a substantial difference at base: tradebacks, in this case, it can be more easily explored while having more differences. I think being more open to tiering changes would also be good, such as doing something with Psywave according to the Community Surveys that were performed. Exploring DV legality could also be done. A big issue people have with OU right now, is that the council moves very slowly. If tiering is to be done, I think being more proactive and open to discussion should be a massive step in making it work. This, in turn, would show that RBY 2k20 is the bold, adventurous website. On the note of being more adventurous, there were ideas thrown around in the Discord for a "Complete a Pokemon" OM format where some of the leaked beta RBY Pokemon are "finished". This was with the intention of exploring OU/1U in more detail. I think this could also serve as an interesting way to explore tiering. That's all I really have in terms of opinions, the rest I can't really give much of an answer to. Once again though, amazing post Ortheore! Data Regarding data, I think your ideas of more readily displaying how usage changes over time could be good, as well as integrating usage stats into analyses. One thing with smogon's usage stats that I find quite interesting is the teammates section, which is potentially really cool, but I'm also not sure how solid the data is
A big question I have in terms of data is what our sample size should be. Obviously our tournaments are the main source, but do we also pull from off-site tournaments or even the ladder? I think we shouldn't use ladder data as I think we should focus on tournament play, but taking data from smogon/PP tours could potentially be a lot more work, as even if they have usage stats, it might not capture everything we would ideally want to
Resources A lot of the article ideas you mention seem to me like one-off ideas for articles, which are definitely worth collecting, but I'm not sure there's any one category they fall under
I think a 6 month expiration date for resources is reasonable from an accuracy standpoint, but my concern is that it might be too frequent and either trivialise the review process or be too much work. A year seems appropriate to me. For the past two years, it's been right around SPL that people have agreed that there's been significant changes- which suggests a yearly cycle might be more fitting
Content The spotlight video and also metagame history are both great ideas (tbh I was considering doing a metagame history style thing for Chansey, which would definitely be an interesting candidate for such an article). As for video analysis, I will note that we would definitely need video editing help to make it interesting- when I was considering how much effort to put into my own youtube channel, I considered such videos and decided that to actually make effective use of the video format, it would require a lot of video editing work, and that just wasn't something I was prepared to do
Scope I honestly don't have much to say here, but your point that any tiering project should be based on 1U, not OU, is a really good suggestion for reasons you mention. "Competing" with smogon is probably something we want to avoid as much as possible. On that note, I can't recall how DA's Counter survey was set up- did it make a clear distinction between 1U and OU, and emphasise that 1U is not really tied in any way to smogon? Because I know with the PP Counter vote, a number of people have explicitly voted to "follow smogon"
I think for teammates, you could put that on analyses very easily. Possibly with a "Team Options" section like how Smogon does it for current-gen analyses. Though at the same time, following Smogon shouldn't be what we do every time. Perhaps we could expand on this in some way, but I'm not completely sure as to how. As for pulling usage, I'm also of the opinion that we should pull from off-site stats and place them in a different set. So for example, we could have "2k20 Stats" and "w/Other Stats", maybe? It's definitely a lot of work, but it could be an invaluable resource. Lead statistics have a lot of potential to be more detailed, we could possibly analyze how openings go? ResourcesYeah, a lot of my ideas are definitely one-off things. It provides at least a year or more of content though, which I'm optimistic about. I also agree that yearly review could be more effective from a management standpoint. ContentI've actually been working on a Snorlax History video with Amaranth and some people from my personal YouTube channel. I quit Smash recently and the channel is likely entering a new direction. We do some pretty high-budget stuff on a passion project, as you'll see from the latest video that was uploaded. I could possibly find a way to collaborate with or promote 2k20 on these videos, depending on how the direction of this goes. ScopeI'm not sure how Disaster Area came up with his surveys, but the results and stuff are here if you want to check those out. It seems to be 2k20-based, but it's vague. I think it's best to ask him. It doesn't seem many say to follow Smogon. |
|
|
|
Post by Disaster Area on Aug 15, 2020 15:22:49 GMT
Only just noticed this thread (maybe you should have pinged me about this somewhere haha, anyway...) I'll give my thoughts piece by piece. The three core areasIn my mind, there are three core areas that we need to focus on to establish our site: • Tournaments • Developing learning resources • Producing content Just to say, yes this is a great way to think about things and more or less is the way I've been thinking about it too. • Be critical of our standard tournament format. I think we should constantly be looking for ways to improve our tournaments, which means recognising where they fall short and what they do well. But… Just a heads up on what the standard format will look like: - 3 season tournaments, each single elim, points calculated as was done on PP, bo5 each round. - depending on size of tournaments across season, top 4 or top 8 in season points will play a double elim (or if really low # of season participants, single elim) playoffs tour. - if there's a points tie to get into the top 4 or top 8, there will be a round robin tour or tours to determine who makes the cut • Data. Personally I find data interesting so if we collect as much as possible from our tournaments, that would be cool- I understand there’s already work being done in this regard Yep, have been making a lot of progress on this this week • Robust player rankings or even a player rating system. This is already planned to be done in some capacity, but I think we could theoretically even go as far as implementing something like what’s seen in tennis or chess. There are of course further details to be discussed in that regard though, such as what rating system we use, how the results are presented, and how we handle results from other sites. On that note, I think we DEFINITELY should incorporate results from other sites, otherwise we’re simply not presenting an accurate picture We have a player rankings system planned same as the one used on PP. Would be interested in ideas that go beyond this too. Alternative ways to measure this level of success would also be interesting. I don't know about a more complete grading system that incorporates other sites at the moment... not saying we shouldn't do it but saying it's a stretch goal at best. ResourcesPersonally, I think analyses are just the starting point for possible resources we can create for RBY. agreed. I also like everything you say in this section. Another critical issue is ensuring that our resources are maintained and don’t fall out of date. Highlighting resources that haven’t received a substantial change in a while is the bare minimum here imo. I think the ideal thing would be to flag old resources for review and put them in some sort of queue This is really dependent on having the capacity to update resources. One thing we do have already is every article, guide, etc. will have a date attached to it, so that if we do have the capacity to update content in due course then it will be easy to find where there's the greatest need. ContentI think we all know what content means, but in practice it’s really broad. I think that formats that we should look to target include: • Streams • Videos • Written articles- note that working out the best way to reach people with written articles is crucial. Do we start a blog? • Social media posts • Podcasts? This one’s probably not realistic but it’s theoretically possible All of these are good ideas, but can be difficult to find people to make them happen. Currently have mmf who has a lot of streaming experience planning to stream our tour finals. Would be good to have a news feed on the site's homepage for articles or something like that. Currently we have channels acting like that on discord but I would like something on-site too. Social media is something someone will have to come and ask to be in charge of, currently very low on the priority list but would be good if we could manage. Same w/ podcasts. The types of content section you wrote is good. ScopeOne important question should be what the scope of RBY2K20 is. I’ll be blunt here- I personally don’t care for many formats besides RBY OU/1U. However, DA is indicated to me that he envisages this place as the centre of all things RBY, which includes alternate formats, mods and maybe lower tiers as well. Nonetheless, I think we should be deliberate about where we focus our efforts, and I believe RBY OU/1U should be our focus. You are of course welcome to disagree as to which formats should be prioritised- that’s why I raised this point after all. Yeah, OU/1U in particular and to a lesser degree any metagame with a season should be our main focuses. But also depends on where the energy to write stuff is - I won't stop people from contributing other format type stuff and since there's the energy for it right now, that's why there's a lot of that content being made currently. One question I think is worth discussing is whether we explicitly define certain “core” formats and others as alternate formats. If we do, what would that look like in practice? I think we do. There's 2 different categories, does the metagame have its own season, or does it not (in which case it's a possibility to be played in the Other Formats season). If a meta has its own season, it's more of a core format requiring more attention. Another thing worth addressing is a potential tiering project. I firmly believe we should not be in any rush whatsoever to try this, and should strongly consider whether or not we do this at all. If we do, we should be critical of how we conduct it, so that we can actually maintain the tiering system and ensure it stays alive. Where possible we should learn from the successes and failures of the tiering project on Pokemon Perfect as well. I would like to do a tiering project but it's a long way in the distance (1-2 years+ maybe). Important part of it would be with new metagames that they become actively played as part of a season and there is: - a strict schedule on when and how cutoff changes are decided - clarity on who's responsible for making changes, what the scope of those changes could be, etc. I honestly think keeping track of all the possible things that can be done and converting that into discrete, manageable chunks is a role in and of itself. I really don't disagree with that at all, lol. I think tiering Tradebacks would be the play to make, especially since we have "1U" already. Part of why Pokemon Perfect's didn't quite work out, imo, is because it was too similar to Smogon. From an outside perspective, many would think "Well Smogon has OU and UU, why would we need this?". Disagree with this honestly. The problem was going too far too fast, some bad tiering decisions, and not having a solid plan to make every tier we made actively and consistnetly played on site. ScopeI honestly don't have much to say here, but your point that any tiering project should be based on 1U, not OU, is a really good suggestion for reasons you mention. "Competing" with smogon is probably something we want to avoid as much as possible. On that note, I can't recall how DA's Counter survey was set up- did it make a clear distinction between 1U and OU, and emphasise that 1U is not really tied in any way to smogon? Because I know with the PP Counter vote, a number of people have explicitly voted to "follow smogon" Yes our tiering project would be with 1U not OU. Do plan to support active UU tournaments if the smogon RBY UU community wants them, but we won't be responsible for its tiering at all. The counter survey here happened before anything happened on smogon fwiw, so people weren't voting to follow what smogon did. |
|
