Rejected Separate Classic Gens (1-5) from Modern Tiering Policy

[Kristyl]

Hide

^ had a conversation with Jirachee which I think maybe gives a good idea of mine and many others perspective when it comes to tiering for old gens.

Old gens make tiering decisions with the intent of making the meta game better by removing something the players believe is either threatening the identity of the tier or taking the game out of the players hand more often then not. When deciding if something should be removed from the meta game I would say people consider 2 things:
1. is it broken? does it take the game out of my hand or limit my team building?
2. what does the metagame look like with it gone? does removing this have a domino effect or take away something that isn't otherwise broken?
the 1st point is important too and currently this is assumed what most players vote based on, but in reality that isn't the case.

For example: Agility Pass/Baton Pass in ADV was suspect tested last year and no action went through despite the vast majority of ADV players believing that Ninjask is broken and should be removed from the meta game. So why didn't Agility Pass get banned? Because many players (like myself) believed that Agility BP Zapdos was not proven to be a problem yet and would be an unfortunate side effect of banning Agility Pass. Could Agility BP Zapdos be broken in the future? Maybe, but this hypothetical only serves to prevent immediate positive changes for ADV OU. Why weren't we allowed to suspect test just Ninjask? To my understanding the reasoning is that BP is the problem only on Ninjask, thus BP should be banned instead. To me this is a clear indication of tiering policy not serving the playerbase's wants and creating a situation where everyone ends up unhappy.

Ninjask and many other pokemon that were discussed last year (Iron Head Jirachi,Snow Cloak Froslass and now Sand Force Excadrill) are edge-cases. The leniency that peng is requesting should have a clear line in requesting stuff that the players of said metagame overwhelmingly want, and we already have methods such as playerbase survey to judge that. This kind of methodolgy would prevent stuff like "what about Latios without Draco Meteor?", which no top player is unironically asking for. I do not think that making an exemption for any of the tiering actions currently disallowed by policy that were brought up in this thread would "open the floodgates", and I believe what-aboutisms like this only serve to prevent well-supported changes for said metagames. Another distinciton between "what about Latios without Draco Meteor?" and "what about Jirachi without Iron Head?" is the RNG factor.

I'm not the best at being articulate and I feel like this thread may continue on for a while so maybe I can collect more of my thoughts in the future but to boil it all down I think public perception right now definitely feels that current tiering policy does not meet the standards that the old gen playerbases want, so something should change, simple as that. I genuinely don't think everything needs to be in writing, I dislike how we feel there is some scroll of text that is the end-all be-all that we must adhere to or smogon will collapse. I bit of leniency and common sense in some cases would go a very long way not just for tiering but in general. (Look at the recent Cloyster suspect test where people who laddered 4 months ago to vote on Cloy + Volc had to do it again to just vote on Cloyster, thats plain stupid im sorry.)

I think a signifcant number of these old gens' playerbases definitely feel that current tiering policy is inhibiting popular policy proposals in their tier that would make it better. Some exceptions being allowed if enough people on an playerbase survey supports it and if the metagame is established enough would go a long way in making people happy about the tiers they play. Also, I think it's worth saying that these complex bans should probably only apply when we're talking about BANNING something from an established tier. So for example, stuff like "Shaymin Sky without Air Slash in DPP" would be immediately shot down, as Shaymin Sky isn't a part of the identity of DPP OU, drawing a pretty clear distinction between that and complexities dealing with something like Jirachi. I know that "identity of a tier" is pretty vague but again, not everything needs to be in writing. Giving more power and trust to the councils of our old gens to make good changes for their playerbases when they've been proven to be qualified for the position is an overall net positive.

Idk hope I got my point across would appreciate a response soon from tiering admins or whoever.

Hide

Forgot to include this but wanted to elobarate on what I feel makes an old gen an old gen and why it is different tiering wise to current gen:
To me the difference between ADV OU and SV OU from a tiering perspective is the fact that SV OU is still having active changes made to it so it somewhat lacks an identity still. Whereas ADV OU is fairly well established and hasn't had any major tiering changes for over a decade. Wherever you draw the line for what an old gen is and what isn't is kind of abritrary, this thread title says 1-5 and I think thats valid but I would maybe expand it further to any tier at least 2 generation before the current one which would be 1-7 right now and 1-8 when gen 10 releases. Idk this is semantics I don't really care about where you draw the line but that feels right to me ig.

 

[Oatmon]

Would it be possible for a precise definition of the new tiering policy to be put forth please?

Most of the player base are uninformed of the exact ruling at the moment. There is a page called Tiering Policy Framework, but it is outdated since there are new policies concerning recent bans which haven't been added.

For instance, we are unable to ban moves if they are only broken on one Pokémon. However, in DPP, when we tried to ban Froslass, we were told we had to ban Snow Cloak, which included Glaceon as well, even though there were no problems with Glaceon.

Somewhere there should be a clause stating how these two outcomes come about. Which is why I am asking for a definition of the rules. If we are not told the rules, how are we meant to follow them?

 

[Emeral]

Council members, like all individuals, are subject to biases and external influences that can affect their decision-making processes. These biases may stem from personal preferences, past experiences, or even external pressures from the community or other stakeholders. For instance, a council member may have a favorite Pokémon that they feel inclined to protect from nerfs or bans, or they may be influenced by vocal members of the community advocating for certain changes.

Furthermore, personal relationships within the community can play a significant role in tiering dynamics. Those with close ties to influential community members or factions may feel compelled to align their decisions with the desires of those individuals, whether consciously or unconsciously. This can lead to decisions that are not necessarily in the best interest of the game as a whole but rather serve the interests of specific individuals or groups.

Certainly, implementing clear guidelines for decision-making helps mitigate the risk of potential biases or external pressures influencing tiering decisions. These guidelines serve as a framework for evaluating proposals and making decisions based on objective criteria rather than subjective opinions or personal preferences.

By adhering to established guidelines, council members can ensure that their decisions are grounded in principles that prioritize the long-term health and integrity of the game. This approach helps safeguard against the potential for decisions driven by interest or community pressure, as well as prevents favoritism towards specific Pokémons.

Over time, consistent adherence to these guidelines fosters trust within the community and maintains the integrity of the decision-making process. It also ensures that the game evolves in an impartial and equitable manner, even as council members change or new challenges arise. Ultimately, having clear guidelines in place promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness, which are essential for sustaining a healthy and thriving Pokémon community.

That's precisely why Complex banning Excadrill with Sand Force or Jirachi with Iron Head is a silly approach. If a Pokémon is deemed problematic, it makes perfect sense to focus on the Pokémon itself rather than implementing complex bans on specific moves that contribute to its imbalance. This allows to assess whether the Pokémon's strength or reliance on RNG warrants restriction, ensuring a competitive environment without resorting to overly complex bans that supposedly aim to preserve the subjective "iddentity" of the tier.

 

[Star]

The primary goal with our tiering policy is to tier Pokemon whenever possible and not moves / items / abilities etc because it's both the simplest approach and also fundamental to usage-based tiers. If we do feel it's absolutely necessary to tackle non-Pokemon elements (i.e. Last Respects this generation), we generally try to ensure that it is done as simply and cleanly as possible. Obviously, this policy has been fluid in the past and will remain fluid as new issues come up. This general premise has been discussed at length in various threads and won't be changing though.

With old gens in particular there have been a few arguments in this thread about how old gens being more stable / progressing slower and having a few decisions in the past not inline with modern policy means that they should allowed to make further complex bans. With regards to the first point, we don't believe theres any fundamental difference between making tiering decisions in current gens and past gens in the present day. We don't strictly follow policy in CG OU just because the meta moves quickly. That has absolutely nothing to do with choosing to suspect Annihilape instead of Rage Fist for example. It's not that we have "no idea if those strategies will even be that good in 6 months time"; we're perfectly aware Annihilape would be fine in OU without Rage Fist. We make the decisions to run simple suspects, primarily on Pokemon, because it's the right policy decision. At the end of the day, the only reason tiering decisions happen in any tier, current or old, is because there are people actively playing and advancing the state of the metagame and any tiering decisions we make today should be held to the same standard.

Regarding the fact that we've had decisions not in-line with policy in the past, that's obviously true but they are infrequent and in exceptional circumstances. The primary example that's been brought up repeatedly in this thread is the handling of Weather Abilities in BW. I'd like to reframe this from a different perspective. The combination of permaweather and related Speed Boosting abilities is unique to BW OU and isn't seen in prior or future OU generations. Tiering decisions at the time looked at complex ways to handle this identity of "weather wars" much in the way that we looked at complex ways to handle Tera at the start of SV OU. This ended up resulting in Drizzle + Swift Swim and Chlorophyll + Drought being complex banned, while Sand Rush was initially also complex banned with Sand Stream but later revised to be banned on its own. This is obviously messy and if we were to revisit this today we would likely just ban Swift Swim/Chlorophyll/Sand Rush entirely to keep it at a simple ability ban. Obviously, this is not a Pokemon ban but is an example of where we can be flexible with tiering policy in exceptional circumstances regarding the identity of the tier like we are with generational mechanics today.

We intend to use this flexibility never as a way to preserve a specific Pokemon, but rather as a consideration when tiering broader elements that truly define a tier. There's obviously also limits to that flexibility and we should never use it as a gateway to continually apply complex bans rather than fundamentally trying to tier Pokemon. Regarding points in this thread about "picking a side", we'd certainly choose to correct the "errors" in past gen tiering decisions whenever possible. However, we don't make changes to tiers by fiat and any decision ultimately needs a vote of some kind, which may or may not have support given that people are used to playing the metagame as it is. The BW council has discussed going back and simply banning Swift Swim/Chlorophyll as a whole which may have support, but I very much doubt we'd get votes for a simpler Baton Pass ban in ADV. As a general guiding principle for cases where we explore possible changes to these past inconsistent decisions, we will always aim to bring them more in line with current policy and simplify the ruleset. This is bound to happen on a case-by-case basis though as and when issues come up. It may lead to more discussions like these, but we think that's preferable to the alternatives of blanket overriding old decisions or using them as excuses to continue to make more inconsistent ones.

To summarize, we don't plan to separate old gens in tiering policy. Like mentioned above, we are willing to be flexible in exceptional circumstances as we always have been but we fundamentally believe that all tiering decisions in the modern day should be held to the same standard.