"A defense metric I'd like to see: "nuisance" factor. Rank defenders based on how long it takes to defeat them against the opponent they are most vulnerable against."

#PokemonGO: TL;DR: Rank defenders based on how long it takes to defeat them against the opponent they are most vulnerable against.The current gold-standard defensive metrics are based on some excellent work by /u/Qmike, /u/Professor_Kukui, and /u/dneal12 (I'm pretty sure those links are all up to date as of this posting, but correct me if any of that is old). A commonality across all three spreadsheets is that they compare pokemon by approximating their behavior in general. That is, without regard to who is attacking a gym, how much damage should we expect this pokemon to deal out/sink-up in a particular battle?This approach worked well early in the game, and in particular before these spreadsheets were released, because they essentially operated under the assumption that there was a roughly uniform chance that a player would be attacking a gym with any pokemon. But, courtesy of these reports, excellent attacker and defender rankings have been available for some time. As a consequence, people have developed specialized attacker arsenals that are very effective at bringing down gyms. This, I believe, leads to some inappropriate rankings because they don't properly take into account type weaknesses.To this end, I propose the following: for any particular current methodology, pair each pokemon with the attacker they are most vulnerable to and simulate a battle. Then, rank pokemon based on how long it takes to defeat them against their most difficult adversary. In essence: if someone is attacking this gym, how much of a pain will this defender be? via /r/TheSilphRoad http://ift.tt/2dMXHxe