I like the D
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Drastic Tier Shifts
- Thread starter ryan
- Start date
What does 'more lax' in this instance mean? You mean more lax than the quickdrop system we have right now? Also does this system only apply for the tier-jumped mon; if so that sounds more complicated than it needs be to keep track of.
I'm not really sure what 'external metagame considerations' is supposed to imply, but looking at the context here I can only assume it means the metagame shifts that occur from the release of new games within the Generation. So you're saying that if a mon was in BW NU and jumps to BW OU, it gets to go straight back to BW NU if it does drop, but if the mon was BW NU and jumps to OU ~the instant BW2 begins, it needs to drop slowly? If that's the case, wouldn't the window for the mon to jump/drop between different parts of the same Generation be technically really small? Should the mon stays in its home tier for either: (a) a month or (b) until the official usage stats per 3 months comes around [I don't actually know which one you'd apply here] after the new part of the Gen is introduced, it's already become part of BW2 NU and no longer subject to slowly dropping once it jumps to BW2 OU. Not to mention that I don't particularly see a need to segregate parts of the same Generation like this when they're not too wildly different from each other; it's different from separating between entire Generations themselves, where new mons & mechanics are introduced and the lower tiers haven't even been established yet.
What I'd like to see is a system that doesn't allow higher tiers to "bully" much lower tiers by taking a mon and have them wait ~two months at the very least to even hope to see the mon again. At the same time, I also want the system to still be fair and precise about things: if say an RU mon is shown to have sufficient usage in both OU and UU (normal procedure means it rises to OU), when that mon falls from OU it should be to UU since it was, for a moment, officially part of that tier.
I myself would prefer option c), as I don't feel the separate parts of the same Generation are different enough to be worth segregating when deciding usage, plus it only matters for a couple of months at most anyway.
D is an incomplete decent option. If the Pokémon gained something though the same part of the generation (read event moves à la Nasty Plot Celebi in gen 4, HA à la contrary Serperior in gen 5/6), it should be treated the same. It's actually even more important than just changing the part of the generation, who cares if the Pokémon didn't change between XY and ORAS.
C is a better D. I can understand Josh point, but I see C as an actually simpler version of D, and we have the tier leaders who can use the quickban option in the case of Feraligatr dropping from UU. I trust them more than I trust a "standard what-should-drop-fast-and-what-shouldn't equation".
B has potential but "a more lax quickdrop system" doesn't mean anything as of now.
A is the safe option that would work, but why not having B/C/D if we can make them better than just "safe".
C is a better D. I can understand Josh point, but I see C as an actually simpler version of D, and we have the tier leaders who can use the quickban option in the case of Feraligatr dropping from UU. I trust them more than I trust a "standard what-should-drop-fast-and-what-shouldn't equation".
B has potential but "a more lax quickdrop system" doesn't mean anything as of now.
A is the safe option that would work, but why not having B/C/D if we can make them better than just "safe".
Vinc2612 makes a good point, but I'd take it in the opposite direction:
Drop back to the original tier if nothing significant has changed with the Pokemon since it rose (i.e. no new legal move, ability or forme). And--what the hell--let it go across sub-generations (fine to drop in ORAS to tier it hasn't been in since XY.
This is far from a perfect solution, but the potential "damage" (playable for 1-3 months in a lower tier) is limited vs. the gain (faster metagame convergence).
Drop back to the original tier if nothing significant has changed with the Pokemon since it rose (i.e. no new legal move, ability or forme). And--what the hell--let it go across sub-generations (fine to drop in ORAS to tier it hasn't been in since XY.
This is far from a perfect solution, but the potential "damage" (playable for 1-3 months in a lower tier) is limited vs. the gain (faster metagame convergence).
Agree with Antar's above post, change my vote to C
Wait a second; why would the mon getting a significant change or not suddenly become a factor to whether it gets to drop tiers or not? Pretty sure constant usage and banning sorts those kinds of Pokemon already, as they always have (Hidden Abilities, or tutor moves like ORAS Pangoro). Even if the mon does get "buffed" between its jump and time to drop, I don't see the need to deviate from the scheduled drop; if the mon ends up too strong for its home tier, at least it'll be given a fair chance to be banned. Isn't the suggestion of this newer system more to deal with fluctuating usage trends for Pokemon regardless of whether the mon has been "buffed" or not?
Last edited:
@below yes
Last edited:
Punchshroom, the scenario I'd like to avoid is of the following form (although it obviously didn't happen this way IRL):
By my interpretation, a Pokemon with a new "game-changing" forme, ability or move might as well be a completely new mon.
To be clear, people who are agreeing with me but voting C, is C now with my added caveat?
- Contrary-less Serperior is PU
- Gets Contrary. Quick-rises to OU because it's new and shiny.
- Three months later its usage places it not quite in OU, it drops, goes back to PU
- It's broken AF in PU, NU and RU, while UU usage is only like 4% (not high enough to quicj-rise), so one (or all) of those lower tiers run suspect tests to ban it
- Three months later, Serperior is in UU, and those suspect tests were moot
By my interpretation, a Pokemon with a new "game-changing" forme, ability or move might as well be a completely new mon.
To be clear, people who are agreeing with me but voting C, is C now with my added caveat?
Antar that wouldn't actually happen because most likely PU, NU, and RU would all be in a race to who would quickban it first.
In any case, I don't like anything that substantially subjective. Obviously Contrary is an enormous change, but many changes are way smaller. Saying automatically drop if there is NO new move etc is silly as hell. Every new game of a generation has new learnsets.
So let's test the theory. All a Pokemon gets that's relevant is new move tutor move(s). This then makes them OU viable, when they were in a much lower tier before the change. I don't remember what these Pokemon were like in the metagames before the change, but consider the following changes, examples of many many others.
Cloyster getting Explosion (again after losing it post-GSC) in ADV as a Fire Red/Leaf Green tutor move.
Jirachi, Gengar, Bronzong, Azelf, etc getting Trick in DPP as a HGSS/Platinum move tutor move.
Scizor getting Superpower and Bug Bite in DPP as HGSS/Platinum move tutor moves.... and Bullet Punch as a new Level-Up move in Platinum and HGSS.
In the first, Cloyster now serves basically the same role as ever, except it's also an emergency button against things like Suicune and Snorlax and has a way to punish Starmie or other Waters switching in.
In the second, these Pokemon are, except maybe Rachi, all better known for other sets, but Trick makes their lesser-used Scarf/Band sets much more potent.
In the third, Scizor gained the moves that define both of its common sets - SD and CB. But before those moves came in, it could run other similar, but less effective sets before the tutor moves, since it already learned SD, Roost, U-Turn, X-Scissor, Brick Break, Pursuit, and Quick Attack.
Let's suppose each of these raised a Pokemon from ADV or DPP "RU" to OU after the new game changed the Pokemon. They each drop from OU usage. Which of these is substantially changed enough to drop to UU and which was insignificantly changed enough that it would drop straight back to RU? If that's clear to you, then great, but it's sure as hell not clear to me.
The whole point of this thread was to come up with a hard and fast rule, not more subjective decisions.
In any case, I don't like anything that substantially subjective. Obviously Contrary is an enormous change, but many changes are way smaller. Saying automatically drop if there is NO new move etc is silly as hell. Every new game of a generation has new learnsets.
So let's test the theory. All a Pokemon gets that's relevant is new move tutor move(s). This then makes them OU viable, when they were in a much lower tier before the change. I don't remember what these Pokemon were like in the metagames before the change, but consider the following changes, examples of many many others.
Cloyster getting Explosion (again after losing it post-GSC) in ADV as a Fire Red/Leaf Green tutor move.
Jirachi, Gengar, Bronzong, Azelf, etc getting Trick in DPP as a HGSS/Platinum move tutor move.
Scizor getting Superpower and Bug Bite in DPP as HGSS/Platinum move tutor moves.... and Bullet Punch as a new Level-Up move in Platinum and HGSS.
In the first, Cloyster now serves basically the same role as ever, except it's also an emergency button against things like Suicune and Snorlax and has a way to punish Starmie or other Waters switching in.
In the second, these Pokemon are, except maybe Rachi, all better known for other sets, but Trick makes their lesser-used Scarf/Band sets much more potent.
In the third, Scizor gained the moves that define both of its common sets - SD and CB. But before those moves came in, it could run other similar, but less effective sets before the tutor moves, since it already learned SD, Roost, U-Turn, X-Scissor, Brick Break, Pursuit, and Quick Attack.
Let's suppose each of these raised a Pokemon from ADV or DPP "RU" to OU after the new game changed the Pokemon. They each drop from OU usage. Which of these is substantially changed enough to drop to UU and which was insignificantly changed enough that it would drop straight back to RU? If that's clear to you, then great, but it's sure as hell not clear to me.
The whole point of this thread was to come up with a hard and fast rule, not more subjective decisions.
Sure, but when one Pokemon gets new things in the middle of a generation, so do tons of other Pokemon. The ORAS metagame is substantially different from the XY metagame. So was HGSS compared to original DP, etc. You can't isolate that Pokemon 1 moved up because of its move tutor move as opposed to Pokemon 1 moved up because of Pokemon 2's new great set that Pokemon 1 conveniently counters.
Just dividing it based on sub-generations is a nice easy rule that most accurately reflects when most changes happen for Pokemon and can easily be applied without subjectivity.
Just dividing it based on sub-generations is a nice easy rule that most accurately reflects when most changes happen for Pokemon and can easily be applied without subjectivity.
No, obviously if a mon gets a really good ability (sheer force gatr) that is more likely to impact its usage than a shift between games, but if its a random move like moonblast on Celebi, then it definitely has less impact than a game release. Obviously it will be more rare that some random tutor move corresponding with a rise multiple tiers by a mon (like if Tangrowth randomly got Dazzling Gleam as it moved to OU, it was probably irrelevant), but if we are trusting councils to do it between game changes then we might as well for tutor moves / abilities as well. I meant original C.
It seems that the majority of tier leaders support dropping the Pokemon back into its original tier in some form (and it's been a few days since anyone posted in here), so I'm going to call that part done.
Now, as for the actual clause we're going with, Sam and I had discussed this and came up with the following proposal:
"A Pokemon that rises more than one tier in a given usage cycle, then drops out of that tier in a later cycle will be placed back in its original tier unless:
- The Pokemon gained enough usage in the middle tier to move up to that tier in the usage cycle where it jumped over the tier
- The Pokemon gained a major addition in either movepool or ability that caused it to initially rise."
The first clause is best explained by example: say Tangrowth jumps from RU to OU in usage cycle 1, but also had enough usage in UU to rise to UU in cycle 1 had it not jumped to OU. If it fell out of OU in cycle 2, then it would go to UU because it had enough usage to be UU previously. The second clause is intentionally subjective and should be left up to the tier leader(s) at the time, because it's a "I know it when I see it" type of scenario. Sheer Force Feraligatr is the best example, since it made the Pokemon _that_ much better to jump from NU to UU.
Asking tier leaders again for their opinions.
Now, as for the actual clause we're going with, Sam and I had discussed this and came up with the following proposal:
"A Pokemon that rises more than one tier in a given usage cycle, then drops out of that tier in a later cycle will be placed back in its original tier unless:
- The Pokemon gained enough usage in the middle tier to move up to that tier in the usage cycle where it jumped over the tier
- The Pokemon gained a major addition in either movepool or ability that caused it to initially rise."
The first clause is best explained by example: say Tangrowth jumps from RU to OU in usage cycle 1, but also had enough usage in UU to rise to UU in cycle 1 had it not jumped to OU. If it fell out of OU in cycle 2, then it would go to UU because it had enough usage to be UU previously. The second clause is intentionally subjective and should be left up to the tier leader(s) at the time, because it's a "I know it when I see it" type of scenario. Sheer Force Feraligatr is the best example, since it made the Pokemon _that_ much better to jump from NU to UU.
Asking tier leaders again for their opinions.
I hope I'm not overstepping any boundaries here (since I ain't tier leader and all), but I just wanna ask one (hopefully) final question:
Since Clause 2 looks like it falls to the tier council's judgement, why use that to involve any more tiers than just the respective one to decide the mon's tier placement when quickbanning accomplishes pretty much the same thing with less hassle?
Clause 1 is pretty much how I expected it to go, but Clause 2 puzzles me since I don't really see the point to it. Like this sounds like it requires both the 'former home' tier to declare the mon broken without even touching it at all and for the upper tier to officially acknowledge the mon as part of their tier; why doesn't the 'former home' tier simply resort to quickbanning instead (like they always have), without having to wait for / needing the upper tier's input whatsoever?
Since Clause 2 looks like it falls to the tier council's judgement, why use that to involve any more tiers than just the respective one to decide the mon's tier placement when quickbanning accomplishes pretty much the same thing with less hassle?
Last edited:
It's functionally identical to a quickban and if it requires more than a 30 second conversation between the tier leaders then it doesn't apply (as in if there's a debate as to whether or not the change was relevant, then it wasn't relevant enough to trigger the clause).
So with this clause, what this means is that, for example, should a NU-to-UU mon may fall, it can end up in RU (despite not ever having received the usage to be considered a resident, so already this seems "wonky" to me) as opposed to BL3, even though it still comes down to whether the NU council deems it broken? My question is what does Clause 2 even add to the current 'tierfall-to-quickban' system that is already effectively in place? Because to me, this clause seems rather unnecessary and we can easily make do without it.
Last edited: