Both UU and OU are supposed to be balanced (at least as balanced as possible) tiers, but the way OU is defined marginalizes UU and threatens to imbalance it. OU is defined solely by usage. A UU pokemon that is used a sufficient amount is likely to be switched to OU. From a definitional standpoint, this makes sense. If it's being used that much, it is by definition overused and deserves to be there.
But its usage in one tier says nothing about its power and role in another tier; the same reasoning is applied to non-uber pokemon that function well in ubers. A pokemon may serve an important role in UU but be forcefully removed simply because its newfound niche in OU has raised its usage above that pre-set threshold. It may no longer be underused, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its influence in UU.
This is largely a theoretical concern, and to my knowledge, no major problems have arisen. The best example I can think of is Tentacruel. It was performing fine in UU until Obi's stall team was presented, people started using it in OU and discovered how useful it was, and it was inevitably promoted to OU. I don't play UU, but I do lurk allot, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that Tentacruel was too much for UU. I don't know much about play in UU; for Tentacruel I only know that he's used very differently between the two tiers due to Toxic Spikes playing a less prominent role in UU. I'd appreciate input from experts.
Do I not understand the definitions properly? Is something other than usage also used in deciding UU -> OU changes? In any event, barring a sudden and dramatic new discovery that would lead to a worst case scenario like I first described, I see no practical reason to change a system that everyone has been long accustomed to and that has managed to work so far. The best ideas for changes I can think add an extra layer of complexity to the system, and that's not something we strive for (if we can avoid it). I made this topic both to be sure of my understanding of pokemon tiering and, if I'm correct, to share a concern that people don't *seem* to be aware of (maybe it just never came up).
But its usage in one tier says nothing about its power and role in another tier; the same reasoning is applied to non-uber pokemon that function well in ubers. A pokemon may serve an important role in UU but be forcefully removed simply because its newfound niche in OU has raised its usage above that pre-set threshold. It may no longer be underused, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its influence in UU.
This is largely a theoretical concern, and to my knowledge, no major problems have arisen. The best example I can think of is Tentacruel. It was performing fine in UU until Obi's stall team was presented, people started using it in OU and discovered how useful it was, and it was inevitably promoted to OU. I don't play UU, but I do lurk allot, and I don't recall anyone ever saying that Tentacruel was too much for UU. I don't know much about play in UU; for Tentacruel I only know that he's used very differently between the two tiers due to Toxic Spikes playing a less prominent role in UU. I'd appreciate input from experts.
Do I not understand the definitions properly? Is something other than usage also used in deciding UU -> OU changes? In any event, barring a sudden and dramatic new discovery that would lead to a worst case scenario like I first described, I see no practical reason to change a system that everyone has been long accustomed to and that has managed to work so far. The best ideas for changes I can think add an extra layer of complexity to the system, and that's not something we strive for (if we can avoid it). I made this topic both to be sure of my understanding of pokemon tiering and, if I'm correct, to share a concern that people don't *seem* to be aware of (maybe it just never came up).