Announcement Regulation I Analysis Format Discussion (READ THE OP BEFORE VOTING)

Which analysis format do you prefer?

  • Total voters
    35
Flarefox_7

Flarefox_7

yeah
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Please do not vote if you do not have a genuine opinion on what format we should have or if someone tells you to vote for a certain option.

This post is going to be used as a place to discuss the new analysis format for VGC, however feel free to continue discussing this in the #analysis-talk channel on the Smogon VGC discord.

We have switched up the analysis format a lot for the past few regulations, however nothing really stuck. The three formats we used can be found here. The first one, posted by Zee, was the format for Regulation F analyses; examples can be found here. The second one was posted by Luna for Regulation G, and examples can be found here. The third one posted by Choruto was for Regulation H, and examples can be found here.

More specific examples for each Regulation can be found below:

https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/amoonguss/vgc24-regulation-f/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/incineroar/vgc24-regulation-f/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/rillaboom/vgc24-regulation-f/

https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/amoonguss/vgc24-regulation-g/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/incineroar/vgc24-regulation-g/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/rillaboom/vgc24-regulation-g/

https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/amoonguss/vgc/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/incineroar/vgc/
https://www.smogon.com/dex/sv/pokemon/rillaboom/vgc/
 
Last edited:
While I liked the idea of posting pros and cons for each set and the "playstyle" of a mon the way we did in Reg H on paper, it ended up being a rather large burden because it meant we were repeating a lot of the same information in an analysis. I'm more used to writing paragraphs for analyses because other analyses on Smogon do so, but there's nothing inherently wrong with bullet points if you can maintain the same level of detail. If I had to give an order to the analysis formats, it'd be G > F > H.
 
I'm agreeing with Tb0lt here, I feel like the H analysis format was a bit cluttered and the pros and cons, playstyle, and strategy comments felt like a chore to type out. I like F's immediate and straight foward bullet points, but I think it can be a bit too simplistic. Maybe the F analysis format would work on more niche and obscure mons, but when writing about more important metagame pieces and threats (Urshifu, Amoonguss, Calyrex), I don't think it works out. The G analysis format I feel is the best one out of all, I like the idea of two paragraphs and it works out nicely.
 
Im going to go with general consensus here and say Regulation G:

Regulation H is far too repetitive and can be a lot of work, which is usually fine but VGC regulations are only 4 months long and theres at least a few shifts in the meta every major event. The playstyle is just too hard to properly word on paper, since it can be team dependent and the core of it is still previous information processed together.

Regulation F's Overview part kind of generalized the Pokemon too much when I was writing and QCing. Some sets are polar opposites but are the same Pokemon so you had their counters and partners try and be put together to either read really awkwardly or be on the edge of being wrong. Reading this you'll get basic information from both sets instead of the one you're looking for and it can be tougher to learn from. Not to mention that it also means less available analysis for people to write, can see that as a more restrictive environment.

Regulation G, however, strikes that sweet spot in the middle. There is definitely repeated information between the sets since it's still the same Pokemon, but the writer is able to focus on one set and tackle many of its properties, so when I read these, I'm often very satisfied with the information I'm given. Also the easiest for new writers to enter considering its not extreme like Regulation H's long analysis, nor are analysis being taken in the first hour like with Regulation F's Pokemon analysis.
 
My personal ranking is F>G>H, however I believe that we should have some sort of new format since all of them have flaws.

I have heard people talking about how they prefer bullet points, and I have to agree; they are a lot easier to digest than paragraphs in my opinion. The Regulation F and H formats were a step in the right direction, but still not really bullet points, more like small paragraphs. I personally have liked the Draft and the BSS formats. I agree with the sentiment about the Regulation H format having a lot of unnecessary information; if it was shortened to one section on teambuilding and strategy comments it would probably be alright. The length and the sections for Regulation G are fine, I would be open to doing some sort of version with Regulation G format with bullets. I liked the Regulation F format; it could be refined a bit for sure but it's a step in the right direction.


A big thing that has come up is whether we should have one set per analyses or 2+ sets per analyses. The advantage of all the sets per mon is that the teambuilding does not have to repeat info with mons that are similar in teammates like support mons, while the advantage for one set per analyses is that it separates the teambuilding for mons where each set has different teammates and it is easier to remake/archive one set if significant metagame changes happen.
 
I personally enjoyed the Regulation G format for analysis writing, although F would be fine as well.

G is pretty easy to read and follow while still being easy to write. It also lets for more variety and more info IMO.

F is also good since it is a lot easier to write than the other two and is easy to follow, might just be a bit shallow.

H is the worst by far, annoying to write and read.
 
As a VGC player I hate to read so it's much easier for an analysis to be structured with bullet points/short paragraphs rather than one or two large paragraphs. I think one issue I have when reading through analysis is that it can often be a little difficult to actually find the information you are looking for. Most of the time when you read an analysis, you don't actually want to read the whole thing but instead find out one of two bits of information in it, such as what a spread does, why a move is picked over another move, how a pokemon synergies with other pokemon. I think whatever is picked there needs to be a better way of finding the information you want. Reg H had some aspects I liked, it was better with the sub headings but the format ending up meaning a lot of stuff was repeated and it was pretty pretentious to write and read through the whole thing. It would be much better if you did the strategy/role/overview comments first, then went through individual sets, then finally went through teambuilding partners for both.

Reg G was the worst, it is really difficult to read through those big paragraphs and difficult to actually find the information you want. Reg H was a little better but it was formatted really poorly, as you ended up repeating lots of information at different points. I think both in Reg G and H people tried to dive into specific interactions too much which didn't benefit the overall analysis, as the specific interaction can easily become dated as a format develops and different pokemon rise and fall in popularity. Like in Reg G one analysis wrote: (paraphrasing) amoonguss runs rocky helmet to break the sashes of pao, urshifu-s and mienshao, but like if we look at reg G currently, mienshao hardly sees any play (maybe making a resurgence atm but thats not so relevant to my point more a metagame thing). Reg F was definitely the best. It was much shorter and nice to read (and write!). I would prefer it to have a little more subheadings, help people find the information they are looking for, but that is less of an issue as due to the consistent formatting and shorter analysis made it easier to find information.
 
I only have experience writing with the Reg G and Reg H formats and between the two, Reg G felt much easier and natural from a writing stance. However as a reader, seeing two large paragraphs is unappealing to read through. I honestly quite like the Reg F format but they also look like multiple large chunks of text so it isn't easy to see particular info like what the pokemon does and its partners at a glance.

What I think would be nice is trying a new format which keeps the bullet points style from the Reg F format and implementing headers/labels for each section similar to the format BSS.
 
Writing: H > G > F (didn’t write for F but made an educated guess)
As a user: F > G > H
Overall G > H > F
Slightly biased due to only getting involved from H
Agree with points of F being too simplistic and H being too repetitive. G felt like a nice mix but could be improved for the user experience due to wordiness making it slightly difficult to discern information.
 
Last edited:
I agree bullet points are more pleasent to the eye and easier to read, but the interactions and elements of VGC feel like they have to be expanded on in a way that doesn't synergise with bullet points. Even Reg F had straight up mini-paragraphs for some bullet points and this is with giving the bare minimum information. It's weird to check the quality of the information in the analysis while also gauging how readable it is. Regulation H expanded more than Reg F but most people seem to have disliked it, this is likely due to how hard it is to write and how hard it is to read despite the bullet points.

I think Regulation G is the best we can do as of right now, it takes the best of both worlds in easy writing and giving useful information. Readers looking for specific information won't be reading bullet points anyway, they will ctrl+F 156 or Sacred Sword to find specific information, and they can do this with Regulation G too! Then as I've already said G is probably the best if a reader just wants to know the Pokemon / set in general.
 
This is probably a hot take but maybe we could introduce word/character limits for the paragraphs or split the format into more paragraphs for the Reg G format. Looking at the giant paragraphs, which is very noticeable in the Incineroar and Amoonguss examples, still feels quite intimidating (pun intended).

I also would like to suggest adding headings for each paragraph to help readers identify where they can find the info they are looking for especially because I don't think many readers will immediately resort to using Ctrl + F to search for specific words and phrases.
 
LovelyLuna said:
I agree bullet points are more pleasent to the eye and easier to read, but the interactions and elements of VGC feel like they have to be expanded on in a way that doesn't synergise with bullet points. Even Reg F had straight up mini-paragraphs for some bullet points and this is with giving the bare minimum information. It's weird to check the quality of the information in the analysis while also gauging how readable it is. Regulation H expanded more than Reg F but most people seem to have disliked it, this is likely due to how hard it is to write and how hard it is to read despite the bullet points.

I think Regulation G is the best we can do as of right now, it takes the best of both worlds in easy writing and giving useful information. Readers looking for specific information won't be reading bullet points anyway, they will ctrl+F 156 or Sacred Sword to find specific information, and they can do this with Regulation G too! Then as I've already said G is probably the best if a reader just wants to know the Pokemon / set in general.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with a lot of this. Do you have any examples for the interactions with VGC, it's not something I have noticed to be a flaw with bullet points. Also, Reg F was mini paragraphs because that seemed to be the intention; you have to name a lot of information in one set of bullets and people just assumed that meant "have one bullet for partners, one for matchups, etc. etc." which is a lot of information, so it's not really surprising to see that they became mini-paragraphs; if people had a problem with how writers were writing the analyses at the time, they could have said something. Also I don't think the Reg H format can be attributed to bullet points, it just had a lot of unnecescary information+it being long is not the fault of bullet points, bullet points can be shorter and easier to write.

RauVGC said:
This is probably a hot take but maybe we could introduce word/character limits for the paragraphs or split the format into more paragraphs for the Reg G format. Looking at the giant paragraphs, which is very noticeable in the Incineroar and Amoonguss examples, still feels quite intimidating (pun intended).

I also would like to suggest adding headings for each paragraph to help readers identify where they can find the info they are looking for especially because I don't think many readers will immediately resort to using Ctrl + F to search for specific words and phrases.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need word/character limits, different people/different mons just need more and less space to write. I don't fully know what you mean by headers here, do you mean like "moves", "items", etc? I personally think that makes the analysis too cluttered when people can just skim it to find that information.
 
Flarefox_7 said:
I don't agree with a lot of this. Do you have any examples for the interactions with VGC, it's not something I have noticed to be a flaw with bullet points. Also, Reg F was mini paragraphs because that seemed to be the intention; you have to name a lot of information in one set of bullets and people just assumed that meant "have one bullet for partners, one for matchups, etc. etc." which is a lot of information, so it's not really surprising to see that they became mini-paragraphs; if people had a problem with how writers were writing the analyses at the time, they could have said something. Also I don't think the Reg H format can be attributed to bullet points, it just had a lot of unnecescary information+it being long is not the fault of bullet points, bullet points can be shorter and easier to write.
Click to expand...
Im assuming Bullet points is F/H/Smogon Doubles, since I don't have another example to look at right now, but taking the Incineroar analysis in all for example, you get mini paragraphs just trying to explain a point. VGC being doubles means there's often more to synergy than there is on paper, even if you tried to split partners into multiple bullet points. Amoonguss for example, appreciates Incineroar Flare Blitzing Grass-types, Knocking Off Safety Goggles, Intimidate helping it live certain attacks, and creates a pivoting core with Incineroar switching in on Fire- and Ice-types that try to threaten Amoonguss, whilst resetting Intimidate, Fake Out, and Regenerator inthe process. (Now you still have to explain how Amoonguss allies Incineroar) You'll still end up with mini paragraph bullet points or end up with overlysimplified information that fdoesn't teach a reader as effectively.

Regulation G's format can handle this information best imo, I know some don't like reading paragraphs but if you want to read the full analysis you're going to be appreciating almost everything there as an important part of the set. While as I said if you only need specific information, bullet points don't really help pinpoint that when you cna just search for it.
 
LovelyLuna said:
Im assuming Bullet points is F/H/Smogon Doubles, since I don't have another example to look at right now, but taking the Incineroar analysis in all for example, you get mini paragraphs just trying to explain a point. VGC being doubles means there's often more to synergy than there is on paper, even if you tried to split partners into multiple bullet points. Amoonguss for example, appreciates Incineroar Flare Blitzing Grass-types, Knocking Off Safety Goggles, Intimidate helping it live certain attacks, and creates a pivoting core with Incineroar switching in on Fire- and Ice-types that try to threaten Amoonguss, whilst resetting Intimidate, Fake Out, and Regenerator inthe process. (Now you still have to explain how Amoonguss allies Incineroar) You'll still end up with mini paragraph bullet points or end up with overlysimplified information that fdoesn't teach a reader as effectively.

Regulation G's format can handle this information best imo, I know some don't like reading paragraphs but if you want to read the full analysis you're going to be appreciating almost everything there as an important part of the set. While as I said if you only need specific information, bullet points don't really help pinpoint that when you cna just search for it.
Click to expand...
tbh you can kind of just cover this in 1/2 bullet points.


-Incineroar is a good partner for Amoonguss as it removes Safety Goggles from opposing Pokemon and threatens Grass-types that are immune to spore. Amoonguss heals up and spores threats or whatever u want to say about that.

-Together they create a pivoting core as Incineroar switches in to Fire- and Ice-type attacks that threaten Amoonguss while Amoonguss switches in on water type attacks. Additionally, this allows Amoonguss to regain health w/ regenerator and allows Incineroar to re-Intimidate the opponents and reactivate fake out.

probably a bit lengthy sure but this is also one of the more complicated interactions that is present. I don't think we should do paragraphs when bullets are a lot better for the reader and can still handle vgc interactions fine.
 
Flarefox_7 said:
tbh you can kind of just cover this in 1/2 bullet points.


-Incineroar is a good partner for Amoonguss as it removes Safety Goggles from opposing Pokemon and threatens Grass-types that are immune to spore. Amoonguss heals up and spores threats or whatever u want to say about that.

-Together they create a pivoting core as Incineroar switches in to Fire- and Ice-type attacks that threaten Amoonguss while Amoonguss switches in on water type attacks. Additionally, this allows Amoonguss to regain health w/ regenerator and allows Incineroar to re-Intimidate the opponents and reactivate fake out.

probably a bit lengthy sure but this is also one of the more complicated interactions that is present. I don't think we should do paragraphs when bullets are a lot better for the reader and can still handle vgc interactions fine.
Click to expand...
Personally, doing this doesn't seem as appealing as paragraphs. Seperating information into 2 points so the format doesn't get messy. I can imagine some lengthier features like examples and having to restate the names at the start of the new bullet point. I'd be able to accept it more if I found bullet points that much better for the reader, but really can't see too major of a difference.
 
Ok so I think that F>H>G. They all have flaws but I think that the best format would be something like H but with the strategy comments and teambuilding sections shortened and combined. Synergy and specific partners can be the same sentence, weakness coverage can be at the end and you can talk about its role and playstyle after talking about the teams. F does this the most directly, which is why I had it as the best, but I think that a combination of paragraphs and bullet points can both work. A paragraph can be good for explaining a set but I don't want to have to search a paragraph for what my mon works well with.

In conclusion, reg H set analysis with bullet points explaining the rest seem like the best to me but I also haven't done too much reading here.
 
LovelyLuna said:
Personally, doing this doesn't seem as appealing as paragraphs. Seperating information into 2 points so the format doesn't get messy. I can imagine some lengthier features like examples and having to restate the names at the start of the new bullet point. I'd be able to accept it more if I found bullet points that much better for the reader, but really can't see too major of a difference.
Click to expand...
tbh I can't see this happening much, most interactions/pairings just need one bullet. Since there's a lot to Incin Amoong it naturally becomes longer.

Bullets have a pretty big difference for the reader imo. Splitting the text up can make it easier to read and take in the information. I don't exactly know how to describe it in words but a lot of people in this thread also seem to prefer bullets to paragraphs
 
i think i might be a bit of an outlier on this, but i genuinely prefer paragraphs to bullet points. having the information super disjointed throws me off and aesthetically feels kind of unprofessional to me. to me bullet points come off as low effort and less substantial, however I could definitely see that being a way easier method of delivering the information and making it more digestable.

i think there is certain information that is delivered better through bullet points, while other more intricate information would be better handled in paragraphs.

something that i think might work fairly well is having quick, bulleted information (common partners, mons it struggles against, explaining the set) delineated by some sort of heading for each segment and then having a paragraph of explanation after. so, for example, you list all of the mons that the given mon is a good partner with up front and then go into why within another paragraph. the point of this being that the information is easy to find (re: you don't have to dig through a huge paragraph to find it) and more accessible to the average reader. This allows for thorough analysis while making the key information easier to find and extract for players that aren't necessarily interested in deeply reading the analysis or only need a few key points of information.

for a quick visual reference, i'm thinking abt smth like this:

Common Partners​

- Mon 1
- Mon 2
- etc

analysis here...

Checks and Counters​

- Mon 1
- Mon 2
- etc

analysis here...
this was just my first thought, i think it would help readers a lot with finding the information they need to know and still allow for thoughtful and useful analysis! lmk what y'all think
 
Flarefox_7 said:
Bullets have a pretty big difference for the reader imo. Splitting the text up can make it easier to read and take in the information. I don't exactly know how to describe it in words but a lot of people in this thread also seem to prefer bullets to paragraphs
Click to expand...
My issue with bullet points in an analysis lies in the facts that A. in an analysis you would want full sentences and B. for me personally, when i read full-sentence bullet points i would rather have those points in one paragraph to make it smoother to read. As long as paragraphs don't have sentences that are too long and have proper grammar, i find it much easier to digest information from them than from bullet points. If length is an issue, different parts of the analysis could be split up into multiple paragraphs.
 
gephicka said:
i think i might be a bit of an outlier on this, but i genuinely prefer paragraphs to bullet points. having the information super disjointed throws me off and aesthetically feels kind of unprofessional to me. to me bullet points come off as low effort and less substantial, however I could definitely see that being a way easier method of delivering the information and making it more digestable.

i think there is certain information that is delivered better through bullet points, while other more intricate information would be better handled in paragraphs.

something that i think might work fairly well is having quick, bulleted information (common partners, mons it struggles against, explaining the set) delineated by some sort of heading for each segment and then having a paragraph of explanation after. so, for example, you list all of the mons that the given mon is a good partner with up front and then go into why within another paragraph. the point of this being that the information is easy to find (re: you don't have to dig through a huge paragraph to find it) and more accessible to the average reader. This allows for thorough analysis while making the key information easier to find and extract for players that aren't necessarily interested in deeply reading the analysis or only need a few key points of information.

for a quick visual reference, i'm thinking abt smth like this:

Common Partners​

- Mon 1
- Mon 2
- etc

analysis here...

Checks and Counters​

- Mon 1
- Mon 2
- etc

analysis here...
this was just my first thought, i think it would help readers a lot with finding the information they need to know and still allow for thoughtful and useful analysis! lmk what y'all think
Click to expand...
I don't hate the format, seems alright, I don't think it's that hard for readers to just read the analysis for a minute and see what common partners are though, so the part with the mons listed out just seems like fluff. Also for some Common Partners/checks and counters there are already headers so it should be easy for players to find them, I can add them if people want them.

Carrotman said:
My issue with bullet points in an analysis lies in the facts that A. in an analysis you would want full sentences and B. for me personally, when i read full-sentence bullet points i would rather have those points in one paragraph to make it smoother to read. As long as paragraphs don't have sentences that are too long and have proper grammar, i find it much easier to digest information from them than from bullet points. If length is an issue, different parts of the analysis could be split up into multiple paragraphs.
Click to expand...
Bullet points still have full sentences, or at least they should.

A lot of people seem to still like paragraphs, so this is my main proposal: for the next regulation (regulation I) I can try to make a bullet points analysis template with what everyone is saying here and we can try that for a bit. if it doesn't work we can change to paragraphs again for the regulation after that. I'm fine with doing paragraphs first but I assume by paragraphs people just want the reg g format with slight edits, so I would rather start with a new bullet points format and go from there.
 
Like this thread has been saying before I think the bullet point system with sentences would be best. I feel like writing up on an essays on what Urshifu does is redundant. It should just be the basics and the authors own analysis on the mon.
 
Bullet points seems much more important for actually achieving the goals of the analysis. Obviously they can't cover everything, but at some point you do need to cut your losses and accept that getting people to actually read them and learn what they can is more important than writing your entire thesis on the subject of what incin pairs best with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top