Don't post sets without any actual testing

[Mille]

Your Jamming/Toxic/Skill Swap/Rest Defense Parsee might sound good on paper but if you don't know if it actually works against actual players, wait on posting it until you've used it more than once.

Please avoid posting gimmick sets that will only work once or against people that are marginally less smart than the average user.

Go into detail when talking about counters. Mention specific puppets or specific roles that stop the set you're posting, don't just post blanket statements like "fast things that can OHKO."

Also, please use text formatting such as bold to make threads easier to navigate.

Because I'm lazy To make things slightly easier I've hopefully made Doesnt and Shanks your new posting overlords for this subforum since I'd like to imagine they have enough common sense not to wipe posts off the face of the earth.

To wrap things up, here's Dr. Eggman enjoying a sandwich:

[joshcja]

Go into detail when talking about counters. Mention specific puppets or specific roles that stop the set you're posting, don't just post blanket statements like "fast things that can OHKO."

I tend to only do this if the check/counter list is going to be obscenely long or convoluted. Guess I'll go pretty things up with a few examples.

[shai_LP]

Go into detail when talking about counters. Mention specific puppets or specific roles that stop the set you're posting, don't just post blanket statements like "fast things that can OHKO."

I tend to only do this if the check/counter list is going to be obscenely long or convoluted. Guess I'll go pretty things up with a few examples.

If the check list is extremely long do something like

"Specially Defensive Phasers force out the Sub/CM set clean, in particular Puppet A and Puppet B both resist Puppet C's STAB's and can recover the damage off cleanly"

or of course, just list the most popular used/strongest counters after stating what exactly needs to be had to counter said Puppet + Set.

See: Shanks write-ups, even Agastya's write-ups were pretty upfront to the point with what killed Mimi and Goliath.

PS: An Emphasis on neater write-ups should also be a thing too, but not completely necessary.

[Naï]

Sure, thanks for saying that all my sets "will only work once or against people that are marginally less smart than the average user", I appreciate it :<



Just because it's a set idea, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, you know. Discussion is also useful for testing itself: for example, when I do test the Rain Dance ASanae set, I'll make sure I use it in a specific way, not trying to outright sweep, and likely switching in and out often. Likewise, I'll discard the TWave SG-abuse set even before using it, because TSanae would likely do a better job. And I would have taken none of either decisions had I not posted the set.

Instead, I think it should be okay for set ideas to be posted and discussed, as long as the author makes absolutely sure for everyone who's reading that it's untested, just an idea and still up for discussion. I did try to make that clear, what with all the conditionals I used and all, but I guess I should've made it clearer than that.



tl;dr: please consider making the rule "if it's untested, make it absolutely and crystal clear that it's just a set idea" instead of outright banning untested sets.

But well, if you still say no even after hearing me out, I'll comply. It's just that it'd honestly help me out a lot if I was allowed to discuss things - it did in the past - and banning every set idea discourages the creation of UU sets and such.



To wrap things up, here's a delicious sandvich for you all.

[DoctorShanks]

Gimmicky and untested sets generally go under the "Other Options" portion of a thread. A couple of nice quotes to go by are "Just because it's good on paper doesn't mean it's good in practice," or "Why do something that only works in specific situations you won't see very often... when you can do something more effective that works far more often?"

If you want to discuss an untested set in a thread, I don't see a problem with that. Unfortunately, the discussion isn't likely to carry on for very long if it's gimmicky or just downright bad.

tl;dr: please consider making the rule "if it's untested, make it absolutely and crystal clear that it's just a set idea" instead of outright banning untested sets.

Untested sets are fine only if they're not a main set in the OP. They should be collapsed and listed in other options with a couple of sentences, one of them being along the lines of mentioning that "this is untested."

I don't think this thread was aimed at you, or aimed at anyone specifically. No worries.

[Naï]

Okay, I understand. Good point.

Still, gimmicky isn't necessarily equals untested. There are thousands and thousands of sets around completely untested, and even puppets as a whole. Just look at UU.

Of course, if the following quote applies,

Why do something that only works in specific situations you won't see very often... when you can do something more effective that works far more often?

..., then the set itself isn't a set, it's just a gimmicky option.
I still feel kind of offended by what you're saying, in my eyes it seems like you're implying nicely a lot of things, but I guess it wasn't your intention :<

And of course, if the set is downright bad, then that was all there was to it, and if it's gimmicky then the discussion depends on how gimmicky it is and how often would it apply.

I don't think this thread was aimed at you, or aimed at anyone specifically. No worries.

Basically, it was aimed at me for being theoretical while I can't play Shoddy and pissing people off, at Josh for not being detailed enough on some of his sets and also pissing people off, and at you and Doesnt for telling you two you're mods. And eh, might as well make it a regulation topic to tidy things up.

Agas kind of says whatever's in his head :<

[DoctorShanks]

Sorry if I was implying anything rude. Agastya doesn't mean to be rude either.

As far as I know, your sets are simply random ideas thrown around between threads, which is A-OK in my book. Also, I'm going to work together with Josh to fix up his threads later at his leisure.

I've been unintentionally a mod for quite some time now, actually. I just sort of thought Agastya was aware of it. It doesn't mean that me and Doesnt are better or more important than anyone else, that line was meant to provide comfort to those who think the Movesets are getting a little out of hand. Every contribution here is appreciated, but some of it needs editing, some threads moreso than others. It'll be solved very soon.