is manicuring old gens to make them more enjoyable a detriment though?
a lot of the stigma surrounding old gens tiering is that we should let old dogs lie, right? we tend to operate under the assumption that we shouldn't revise these gens, given they are 'said and done', so to speak.
with metagame development comes new resources used and discovered, and metagames are constantly cycling and evolving. the current iteration of dpp that is played today is drastically different from when it was the modern gen. this is to say that we shouldn't treat dpp tiering with any more scrutiny or pause than current generation tiering.
that being said, i don't believe a certain strategy needs to be "dominant" if it is proven to strip player autonomy and create formulaic matchups wherein your win or loss is out of your hands. we don't need strict usage criterion to nerf a strategy which has proven to eliminate interaction and crapshoot matchups.
a lot of the stigma surrounding old gens tiering is that we should let old dogs lie, right? we tend to operate under the assumption that we shouldn't revise these gens, given they are 'said and done', so to speak.
with metagame development comes new resources used and discovered, and metagames are constantly cycling and evolving. the current iteration of dpp that is played today is drastically different from when it was the modern gen. this is to say that we shouldn't treat dpp tiering with any more scrutiny or pause than current generation tiering.
that being said, i don't believe a certain strategy needs to be "dominant" if it is proven to strip player autonomy and create formulaic matchups wherein your win or loss is out of your hands. we don't need strict usage criterion to nerf a strategy which has proven to eliminate interaction and crapshoot matchups.