GSC Ranking/rating system (like tiers... but not?)

[borat]

I have a bunch of tidbits lying around for when I rant about GSC, but is either incomplete or post worthy, so it just gets saved as a text document. Among them, I found this a little interesting. What I was planning to do was to definitively rate each pokemon based on several categories, and have an overall numerical score to show how good each pokemon stacked against one another with regards to offensive, defensive, which is broken down into more categories like power, potential, support, etc, as well as an overall score.

Since this was going to be entirely based on my opinion (which is almost as good as fact... almost), I figured I'd get the ranking down, then use more of "my opinion" to show numerically how big the difference actually was. Anyway, it turned out to be a pretty big project, and my 10 minutes or so a day of interest didn't really get me anywhere too far, however, I did compile this.

To quote what I wrote (which may or may not make sense, I don't really know, since it was written pretty brokenly):

New analysis/pokemon rating system

In short, it's a way to quantify how good a pokemon is using numerical values. It's largely subjective, but it breaks down in sub-categories that are somewhat comparable. The scores themselves aren't meant to be an accurate representation not from a independent level, but relative to other pokemon. In other words, the number should be viewed as a percentile if anything.

Each Pokemon will have their own rated distribution depending on their usage; some pokemon may have two distributions because they may serve different roles. Offensive pokemon are capped at 70/30 while defensive pokemon are capped to 15/85 to reflect the reality of GSC. This is because defensive attributes always play a role in offensive pokemon, whereas offensive potential don't necessarily matter to defensive pokemon. To balance things out, offensive moves always matter, since offense is a form of defense, whereas defensive moves don’t necessarily matter for an offensive attacker.

Offensive (100) -

Potential (55):
Power (25):
Support (20):

Defensive (100) -

Primary (50):
Secondary (10):
Support (40):

A quick explanation on the categories:

Offense:
Potential - ability to KO pokemon; the ability hit pokemon for 30%+ using all attacks; the ability to hit the relevant pokemon

Power - how hard it hits

Support - relevant moves that don't deal direct damage; offensive includes statuses, spikes, stat upping, BP, Screech, Pursuit, Roar/WW etc, as well as the likely-hood and effectiveness of using aforementioned moves

Defense:
Primary - primary defensive stat + total HP, primary defensive stat determined by typing; factors in resistances and ability to scare away attacker, factors in recovery moves as well; also factors in offensive potential (e.g. Machamp is not switching into Snorlax)

Secondary - secondary defensive stat + total HP, secondary defensive stat determined by typing; factors in resistances and ability to scare away attacker, factors in recovery moves as well; also factors in offensive potential (e.g. Machamp is not switching into Snorlax)

Support - relevant moves that don't deal direct damage; defensive include HB, Roar, Reflect, Light Screen Rapid Spin, Roar/WW, Growl, Charm, Haze, Paralysis, etc, as well as the likely-hood and effectiveness of using aforementioned moves; other intangibles include Ghosts blocking spin, Poisons and Steels blocking Toxic, Grounds blocking Thunder Wave, etc

* Speed is a subfactor of every category.

* If a category is irrelevant (as indicated by asterisk*), it will have the weighed average of the other categories so as not to affect the total score.

Example rates:

Snorlax (70/30) – 90.8

Offensive (100) - 92

Potential (55): 50
Power (25): 22
Support (20): 20

Defensive (100) - 88

Primary (50): 46
Secondary (10): 7
Support (40)*: 35

I'm not sure if I'll even be keeping the numerical distribution, who knows. But anyway, first things first, here's the ranking of pokemon's overall rating. It's non-numerical yet, but I thought I'd get the ranking down before assigning numerical values to them.

Overall

1. Snorlax
2. Zapdos
3. Raikou
4. Exeggutor
5. Skarmory
6. Machamp
7. Marowak
8. Suicune
8. Cloyster
10. Gengar
10. Vaporeon
12. Forretress
13. Starmie
13. Miltank
15. Blissey
16. Tyranitar
17. Steelix
18. Jolteon
19. Porygon2
20. Umbreon
21. Espeon
22. Nidoking
23. Rhydon
24. Heracross
25. Charizard
26. Misdreavus
27. Dragonite
28. Muk
29. Clefable
30. Tentacruel
31. Smeargle
32. Golem
33. Moltres
34. Kangaskhan
35. Jynx
36. Scizor
37. Houndoom
38. Alakazam
39. Donphan
40. Ursaring
41. Kingdra
42. Ampharos
43. Quagsire
44. Typhlosion
45. Slowbro
46. Jumpluff
47. Electabuzz
48. Meganium
49. Venusaur
50. Victreebel
51. Raichu
52. Omastar

Comments? Questions? Disputes?

[Crystal_]

Whoa!
I'd say though, that some pokemon's viability/usefulness will change depending on what is more common in the metagame imo.

Also, for example, Skarmory's secondary defense stat may not by as important as say, Suicune's, so maybe the maximum points a Pokemon could receive for each category, should not be the same for every poke.

Anyway, you have more reason than me to do it the way you are doing it after all. Great job!

[borat]

Depends how you look at it. Most of these pokemon are viable in all metagames. Look at it this way:

If a pokemon is popular, then clearly, it's viable, correct?

However, in that same meta, isn't there a pretty strong chance that the less used pokemon are less considered a threat, therefore less countered? So wouldn't that make them just as viable?

Unless the metagame turns completely special or something obscure, then in theory, most, if not all good pokemon are ALWAYS viable.

Look at Muk, when was the last time you've seen it? Probably never. However, I can easily tell you that it's probably a top 5 exploder in the meta, this very meta where Muk is absolutely extinct in. People suck, but that doesn't make the pokemon any less viable.

I see the metagame as a "trend", ultimately, the shit that are viable are viable, the shit that aren't, aren't. So unless everyone runs one specific team, then the good pokemon will always be good.

And with regards to Skarm vs Suicune, these were the scores I gave them at the time, however, it might change now, but you get the idea:

Suicune (20/80) – 83.6

Offensive (100) - 54

Potential (55): 27
Power (25): 12
Support (20): 15

Defensive (100) - 91

Primary (50): 47
Secondary (10): 10
Support (40): 34

Skarmory (15/85) – 83.05

Offensive (100) - 38

Potential (55): 16
Power (25): 10
Support (20): 12

Defensive (100) - 91

Primary (50): 50
Secondary (10): 4
Support (40): 37

Skarmory's secondary defensive stat, I feel like, is just as important as Suicune's. Skarmory's lack of spc def is what's preventing it from become the definitive physical wall, because even the weakest of spc attackers (snorlax, machamp, even hp fire forretress) can penetrate right through its spc side. It's almost irrelevant how good skarm blocks physical attacks because of that.

Also, updated rating scale a little bit.

[Crystal_]

Muk's usefulness depends on how common are Rhydon/Donphan etc. He was born in a meta where they were very common, but now, they doesn't actually exist.

About Skarmory-Suicune I'd say, that while Skarm loses all chances of walling anything with a special move (FB Lax/Champ/Wak), Suicune can continue walling Nidoking/Ttar/DNite with very little problems bar Thunder para.

Consecuenly I'd raise the secondary max value to at least 12 (of everything), since imo in Skarm case it prevents him for walling all forms of ph.sweepers, and in Suicune's case, it allows him to continue walling mixed stuff. And for example, Zapdos: What is his main defense stat? defense (Machamp/Hera) or SpD (Vap/Egg). And actually, most offensive pokes doesn't have a clear main defensive stat imo.

[borat]

Muk was "born" is an era where there were no rules, think 2002. Aka, before HP legends were even called HP legends. Aka, Rhydons weren't very common.

Also, what? Donphan? You mean Tyranitar/Gengar?

Also, Muk learns drain for rhydon, but I'd rather hit steelix/skarm/forretress.

Kinda how curselax can only hit either skarm or ttar/gengar/rhydon but not both, yet it remained as one of the most feared threats throughout? Look at Porygon2, Nidoking, Tyranitar, Charizard, Vaporeon, Gengar, etc etc, some of the most used offensive pokemon in GSC history, and remains so, despite having hard counters. So I don't see how just having a wall makes a pokemon any less viable, you look at the overall.

If they don't have a clear "main" attribute, then they'll receive the same scores for both. Distributing them in different ways wouldn't make any difference seeing that 25/50 + 5/10 is still the same as 20/40 + 10/20. But then again, the EXACT distribution still needs to be tweaked. I'm trying to figure out the general ranking.

Support stats are insanely high to keep stuff like Jolteon, Starmie, and Exeggutor in the running.

[Crystal_]

Yes Donphan. Forget Gengar. But ttar will need either EQ, Curse or Roar i think.
I wanted to say that Muk is now more useful since some of the Muk counters doesn't exist / are uncommon.

[Nitro]

Gengar is like the hardest counter for Muk there is.

Rhydon is pretty similar to Muk himself in that he's really capable himself but needs those hard counters to be lacking in the meta or already taken care of. Muk could always run Giga if Rhydon got popular somehow.

But yea Muk is a horror if your team happens to be unprepared.

Speaking of these offensive pokemon who need setup/favorable meta/whatever, it might be more interesting to set up some type of tier system where you have pokemon that are clearly above even those types of conditions like Lax, Zapdos and then on downward factoring in how many hard counters they have or pokemon they themselves hard counter, basically judging on versatility and how many teams they could work for (Lax makes just about every team better, where as Donphan seems like he only makes it on to a team that's already made and just happens to make use of a ground + spinner for some reason).