Rate Pokémon Data Explorer and preliminary results!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лип 2024
- If you liked rating Pokémon and seeing how your votes compared to the average, just wait until you see what the RatePKMN Data Explorer has to offer!
Rate Pokémon Data Explorer: ratepkmn.com/data
--
Support me on Ko-Fi to join the UmbreonLibris community on Discord: ko-fi.com/umbreonlibris
Become a channel member to unlock custom emotes for comments and live chat: bit.ly/JoinLibros
Check out my custom merch: bit.ly/LibrisMerch
Follow me on Twitter: / umbreonlibris
Related projects
Canalave Video Library: / canalavevl
The New 151: / new151
--
Guest music by @KaiCyreus
Music by @northerndistrict
Intro: “Distortion (UmbreonLibris Version)”
Outro: “The Next Chapter”
Logo by @AdeptCharon - Ігри
Not only did we get the analysis, we also got one of the most thorough data exploration app ever! Thank you all for the whole project! It'll fuel forum wars for years to come!
Hmm... it's interesting, the higher base stat total a pokemon has, the more complex the pokemon tends to be, makes sense enough. Oh, the same is true with complexity and coolness.
That makes sense! Higher base stats usually means fully evolved or legendary, and those tend to be more complex designs.
This is all so fascinating. You've done a truly fantastic job with this project and I cant wait to see the future of it!
This is such an amazing project
Maybe you can try to contact other UA-camrs to feature this on their channel? To get more data
I didn't give any Pokémon I rated a bad review, at worse I rated them mid. I still think every of Pokémon have something going for them, and I do like every Pokémon, even the elemental monkeys. Great vid dude, I can tell the experiment worked well because all of these results make sense.
I used to think this way and for the most part i agree but there’s just some that the more time i sit with them, the more i hate them. The Klink line does NOT need to be three Pokémon, many people feel similarly about Pawmo’s line and the same can be said for many older designs. Speaking of… Jynx exists. and for me mon that i find super conflicting i’ll still appreciate the aspects i like more, more, compared to the aspects i dislike. But pokemon like tsareena, aromatisse, cinderace and greedent actively make me cringe and enjoy media they’re apart of less. Also jynx. Jynx is insane.
@@BalloonSeasonArchive I can understand that, funny you mention Tsareena and Cinderace since those are actually some of my favorites.
That is an amazing tool man! I’m so jealous
Jealous? How come? You have as much access to the data as I do!
@@UmbreonLibris I don’t have enough resources to make up something that cool
Thanks for setting this up and reporting the early finds! So stoked for you guys to have gotten as much data as you did so quickly too! Super fascinating stuff. I tried to do my part but I'll jump back into the site soon to add my two cents again! :)
Umbreon! I get so happy when I see you have a new video out. This is a fantastic, smart project and I'm excited to participate
Woah this is so SO cool!
What a great deed to offer this to everyone to view!
All this data analysis, and then there is goldango XD
But seriously, this is such an amazing project! :)
Great work. This really helps to point out THE facts, besides just opinions, on Pokemon designs
Oh man I was so excited to see this come out and I need to get back to rating more Pokémon.
Also funnily enough one of the first things I did was look at the FAQ for the criteria because I wanted to make sure that the data I provided was aligned with the intent of the project. And when there were certain descriptors I wasn’t sure how to work with.
Like the ugly beautiful divide was one where I specifically needed to understand “conventional beauty v ugliness” because I consider Skeledirge to be very beautiful but I feel like generally it leans into more “ugly” design choices that probably make it more cool.
This is a wonderful project and the different variety of variables added in like type and stats are definitely fun to mess around with.
Can’t wait to see what the results are like over time.
This is awesome!
This is fantastic
Well done to you and Stapo for an excellent tool for pokemon enjoyers and fakemon designers!
May I know where you first announced this (was it discord)? Keen to stay updated with developments like this
The original announcement was included in my previous video, and also made separately on a community post and on Twitter. As long as you're following the channel, you'll see any future updates :)
this is amazing, i find myself rating pokemon on the page from time to time just for fun XD, if i ever find that i want to make a video related to your data and hard work, how could it be the best way to give credit?
No credit necessary, but a shout-out to ratepkmn would be super appreciated!
@@UmbreonLibris got it !! thanks for all your effort!
Awesome features! I have one issue though, it is that I can't see the ratings I have already given. I am wondering, as new Pokemon get anounced, how do you plan for people to rate those instead of getting a random Pokemon that appears on their screen?
Btw, I noticed as I was rating that designs were usually rated complex with regards to their appearance, to me, it didn't go to far up the scale if the origins and inspiration were not very complex. I put Skeledirge super high for instance but did not put say Parkia that high, even though it is "complex" visually. But as you said, we all have different definitions of the terms and that's the whole point of letting us rate them. If the different categories were universally agreed upon for each design it would just be another tier list of people saying how much they like them.
We have added an option to download the rating history of the current session :) Check the top of ratepkmn.com/data
The algorithm that picks which Pokémon to show next isn't entirely random; it prioritizes the designs with the fewest ratings to ensure all designs get the same number of ratings. So as new Pokémon get added, they will be presented first until their number of ratings catches up with the rest.
@@UmbreonLibris Awesome! 👍
Btw, after having exhausted all there was to rate in Pokemon, 😆 I just started rating evolution lines.
I'm down to the end of gen 5 (gonna finish up tomorrow 😴) but yeah, it 's interesting to see that some gens have trends of Pokemon that either "just get bigger" or some that have barely any change when evolving.
I just thought that might interest you to know for your statistics, what are the most successful evolution lines.
Atm I have Eevee, Magikarp, Burmy and Tyrogue at the top. Funny how lines with multiple evolutions have a high chance to be "better". To me they just make more sense and feel more complete.
I tried adding to the data, and thought I'd share my experience with it, in case the insight is helpful.
I found that in some cases the criteria were a bit puzzling to apply to certain pokémon, as the extremes of the sliding scales weren't necessarily inverse to one another. Trying to rate graveler was a standout example of this. Intuitively, I wouldn't call graveler cartoony, but how am I supposed to rate it in terms of realism if nothing in real life looks anything like it? Similarly, I wasn't sure whether to rank it as fantastical by virtue of rock monsters being something we don't have in real life, or as normal by virtue of boulders themselves being quite common in real life. Graveler is also probably one of the least biological pokémon in gen 1, but at the same time, ranking it as artificial didn't make much sense either - people don't craft boulders, they just show up.
The other thing I found difficult was figuring out the thresholds of the various levels. Like, just about any pokémon would probably rank below my absolute favourite in terms of likeability, but it also doesn't seem to make that much sense to save the far end of the likeability scale for my top 10 favourites. Still, I kind of couldn't help doing that. I also found the humanoid scores difficult to apply in a similar way; should having a face like a human be sufficient to keep a pokémon from being given the least humanoid rating? By that criteria, only a very few like starmie and roggenrola would apply for that rating, but on some level it's hard to rate any other pokémon on that level when thinking there probably are pokémon out there that are less humanoid.
I'm not sure how specific these sorts of dilemmas are to me, but I was wondering if it might be easier for some to rate designs relative to one another instead of in a bubble. That also might help with the issue of answers being skewed by people potentially unconsciously rating designs in relation to what they last saw (I recall rating poochyena quite a bit more cartoony than its average rating, and wonder if I'd have done the same of I'd rated its design after something like slowbro rather than whatever I actually was shown right before poochyena). The data from that might be a bit more difficult to interpret, for all I know, but it's a thought I had.
Thank you for contributing! And I appreciate your thoughts. Those are all questions we grappled with when designing the site. I suggest you have a look at the FAQs for our thoughts: ratepkmn.com/#faq
If you feel that doesn't quite address something, feel free to reach out!