An off-topic post about the nature of in game tiers, skip if you want
The in game tier lists were never meant to be truly efficient in every single way, otherwise squirtle will be xx tier due to his soloing potential. Instead from what i can see, the in game tier list assumes a set method of playstyle many ppl play(fight trainers, skip wilds) to generalize things and form a structure in which it becomes possible to form a ranking list.
Also, in game tiers in its nature can be fairly inaccurate due to many reasons
(1) Randomized ivs and nature: The trade onix in hgss having a -def nature will not find it that punishing becauae it walls the fk out of everyone anyway. But a a heracross with a bad attack nature will find it impossible to 2hko miltank with brick break, making the solo matchup completely against its favor because miltank can heal all the damage anyway.
(2)Assuming pokemom will be at a certain level: A kadaba being one level lower doesn't matter end game because it performs the same. But when things get a certain move or evolution around a boss, it becomes much harder to rank things. For instance, in this very tier list, i find ppl discussing whether gyarados is possible to get before misty or not. While the answer seems to be yes, depending on team composition and just general playstyle of skipping certain trainers, this entire point becomes iffy.
(3)Teams with slow leveling experience groups, grabbing six mons at the very early game, skipping trainers: All of these affect yr entire teams performance.
(4) It checks solo performance: Particularly becomes notable when it comes to setting up pokemon requiring additional effort like berries/ rare candies and unreliable strategies.
(5)Banning x items: Completely overpowered and screws the entire concept of in game tiers but you can't deny their efficiency.
(6) Every player has their way of playing the game.
I do understand Lonely's perspective about how the in game tier lists can be unhelpful at times due to all these inaccuracies. But i don't see it possible to take account of all these limitations and still make tiering lists possible because it will require an absurd amount of sample size, which we unfortunately don't have. Considering that these tier lists do a good job of generally representing whats good and whats not good anyway, i don't see an issue about letting things go this way.
The in game tier lists were never meant to be truly efficient in every single way, otherwise squirtle will be xx tier due to his soloing potential. Instead from what i can see, the in game tier list assumes a set method of playstyle many ppl play(fight trainers, skip wilds) to generalize things and form a structure in which it becomes possible to form a ranking list.
Also, in game tiers in its nature can be fairly inaccurate due to many reasons
(1) Randomized ivs and nature: The trade onix in hgss having a -def nature will not find it that punishing becauae it walls the fk out of everyone anyway. But a a heracross with a bad attack nature will find it impossible to 2hko miltank with brick break, making the solo matchup completely against its favor because miltank can heal all the damage anyway.
(2)Assuming pokemom will be at a certain level: A kadaba being one level lower doesn't matter end game because it performs the same. But when things get a certain move or evolution around a boss, it becomes much harder to rank things. For instance, in this very tier list, i find ppl discussing whether gyarados is possible to get before misty or not. While the answer seems to be yes, depending on team composition and just general playstyle of skipping certain trainers, this entire point becomes iffy.
(3)Teams with slow leveling experience groups, grabbing six mons at the very early game, skipping trainers: All of these affect yr entire teams performance.
(4) It checks solo performance: Particularly becomes notable when it comes to setting up pokemon requiring additional effort like berries/ rare candies and unreliable strategies.
(5)Banning x items: Completely overpowered and screws the entire concept of in game tiers but you can't deny their efficiency.
(6) Every player has their way of playing the game.
I do understand Lonely's perspective about how the in game tier lists can be unhelpful at times due to all these inaccuracies. But i don't see it possible to take account of all these limitations and still make tiering lists possible because it will require an absurd amount of sample size, which we unfortunately don't have. Considering that these tier lists do a good job of generally representing whats good and whats not good anyway, i don't see an issue about letting things go this way.