Lower Tiers A continuation of NU and PU tiering discussion and rising Hitmontop and Rhyhorn to NU

[BeeOrSomething]

To summarize discussion from the GSC discord and to follow up on the previous discussion thread about tiering changes and the recent NU VR update, there has been ongoing discussion about rises and drops between NU and PU, especially since PUCL player signups are currently open and the tournament will be taking place soon. The purpose of this thread is purely to focus on rises from PU to NU, primarily that of Hitmontop and Rhyhorn. A separate thread will open regarding drops, so please do not discuss them here.

Hitmontop and Rhyhorn both ranked highly on the NU VR, with Hitmontop placing at 18/B and Rhyhorn placing just behind at 19/B. Hitmontop is following up on a 25/B rank on the May 2025 VR 32/C2 rank on the April 2024 VR while Rhyhorn is following up on a 30/C2 rank on the May 2025 VR. Both Pokemon have been perceived for some time now as being NU caliber and that they should be risen from PU to NU to more accurately reflect their current tiering status.

Some possible arguments for and against their rise:
Hitmontop

For: Hitmontop has on 3 consecutive VRs been ranked above several Pokemon that were and still are ranked NU, including two consecutive VRs of being in B rank, which many would consider as an "official" cutoff between NU and PU. Hitmontop is widely acknowledged by top players and the rest of the playerbase as being a legitimately good pick and a true part of the NU metagame, as evidenced by its placing in the top 20 on the most recent VR, which also follows the largest period of activity GSC NU has had in a long time.
Against: We should not be rising Pokemon from PU to NU, only banning to PUBL and then later rising from PUBL to NU if the situation calls for it, whether on principle of the tiers being frozen or out of a desire for changes to PU not being made by the NU side.

Rhyhorn

For: Rhyhorn has risen greatly recently all the way to top 20 on the NU VR, sitting alongside many staples of the tier and above many Pokemon currently ranked NU. Rhyhorn has been rated highly by much of the playerbase and has seen consistent tournament usage and success since it became a thing.
Against: Outside of the whole question of rises presented in the "against" for Hitmontop, Rhyhorn has only been ranked with respect towards it on the last two VRs, the second of which was only 8 months ago. There is significantly less long-term backing that it has sustained viability perception over an extended period and is not just enjoying a temporary spotlight.

Many, including myself, have clamored for change in the PU metagame. Rising Hitmontop and Rhyhorn would achieve this while changing GSC tiers to more accurately represent the true status and viability of Pokemon within those tiers.

The ultimate goal of this thread is this:
Determine if Hitmontop and/or Rhyhorn should be risen to NU, preferably as soon as possible to try and push a decision through (if one is made that one or both should rise) before PUCL begins. Again, both do not have to rise; just Hitmontop or just Rhyhorn rising is perfectly acceptable if we agree on that. Ideally, we can finish discussion quickly and move to a vote that can conclude as soon as possible, or at the very least, before PUCL Week 1.

This thread is made more from the perspective of NU making the decision, though the PU perspective is still absolutely taken into consideration and we invite PU players to share their thoughts. GSC has control over both NU and PU, so we can make decisions based on consensus either way. Please comment accordingly with this philosophy.

Tagging NU players to participate in the conversation:
MrSoup Shengineer BigFatMantis leoperi JensenDale Real FV13 Estarossa DAWNBUSTER Lyra hammer798 Zpice LustfulLice zben plznostep Oathkeeper Indulge in dreams feen

If you do not feel qualified to speak or do not wish to speak, obviously feel free to abstain from the conversation. However, I encourage everyone to say what they have to offer if they feel comfortable doing so.

 

[leoperi]

I feel like just rises will just make the tier even more limiting than already is idt i would like rises without drops. I belive a tour without hitmontop and rhyhorn would be better to test out first if would be good to rise them.

 

[Leeto64]

Not THE most experienced NU player and barely touched PU; I highly approved of some changes on the latter but that's discussion i'd leave to the PU players, specially, i'd personally approve at least Top going up but i'm genuinely worried if losing it would deeply harm PU, a tier I feel may be somewhat centralized rn.

I hope my sentiment is clear enough where it's PU who should be more concerned if it can make do without Top (maybe Horn too) or if it'd be best we let them keep it for a while; as much as I dislike the idea of "frozen tiers", I myself would be worried if any staple in NU got taken by UU, or if UU dropped a total monster of a pokémon into NU (remember we had a tour testing if Omastar would drop into NU)

 

[JensenDale]

I mean if we're looking at the NU perspective here these two mons have shown they both have very strong and consistent roles within NU. Top for it's good place on stall and its curse variant. Rhyhorn itself is the symbol of why the rocks are so important in NU especially with the combo of Curse and Roar. Stant of course has this combo but Rhyhorn is used for it generally due to its mu against the normals we know and love.

If I'm speaking honestly I consider these both NU mons. They have shown and delivered. I would be covering over the PU perspective more however I know that is already being taken into consideration and I don't think it will be ignored.

To respond to prior comment(s), I don't think the bridge to UU and NU is comparable to the bridge between NU and PU. Reasoning is both communities are very content, and very happy with both states of those metagames. From UU I say this as someone who sees the comments about it often, and from NU I say it as a member of that community. The two bridges shouldn't be compared in my opinion.

EDIT: Forgot to include this explicitly, but I wouldn't mind if both of these mons rose.

 

[MrSoup]

Rhyhorn
NU: Rhyhorn is pretty fantastic right now. It has pretty decent usage and I think is generally agreed upon to be a pretty staple part of the tier right now. However, I would be against a rise. It has only had two placements on the NU VR. It also has not consistently been in B ranks, with the most recent VR being a high performance compared to last. I'd like to see some more proof overtime that Rhyhorn is NU-caliber. I believe this post is the first time Rhyhorn was used or discussed in NU. It's only been about 16 months. Let's let him cook more.
PU: Rhyhorn seems integral as the tier's normal resistant phaser. I think its a positive force on the meta. I'd be against a rise. However, I would be in favor of committing to revisit Rhyhorn next VR to check on its performance and its place in the future PU meta.

Hitmontop
NU: Two consecutive VR placements in B ranks in NU as well as a third C rank prior. Longer-lasting effects on the metagame. By NU standards I'm for Hitmontop rising. He's a big constraint on the builder and strong on multiple different types of teams.
PU: Hitmontop is very important to the PU meta. I have heard some feel its not a good presence, while others said that they wouldn't care if it were gone or not. I think it certainly isn't as positive of a force as Rhyhorn on the meta, but don't feel informed enough to say it's neutral or negative. What I will say, though, is that Hitmonchan is in PUBL and can always be revisited as PU thinks through its tiering efforts post drops/rises. I'm indifferent.

 

[Indulge in dreams]

（Due to a significant disparity between my reading and writing proficiency in English, the following original Chinese text was composed by me and translated into English by DeepSeek. If any phrasing causes offense, please feel free to reach out promptly.）

I believe that a high ranking in the NU VR is not sufficient justification for these Pokémon to be tiered up. On one hand, they often serve as niche counterpicks in NU and lack the consistent raw strength expected of permanent fixtures. On the other hand, within PU, they are merely strong options, not dominant, boss-level threats.

Of course, I am speaking from the perspective of a PU player. Since their tier-up would most directly impact PU, and out of concern for tiering stability, I would prefer to maintain the current environment. If they must be tiered up, then perhaps certain other Pokémon should be dropped down as well. If we are restructuring, let's be thorough—though, it seems there aren't any clear candidates for a drop.

The metagame is also part of what determines a Pokémon's strength. Hmm... well, honestly, what I'm trying to say is a bit messy. Anyway, I oppose this decision unless I can see Hitmontop deliver more standout performances in NU across various future tournaments.

 

[BeeOrSomething]

I just want to remind that we are also going to pursue drops from NU to PU, but we felt that separating issues between threads would help improve focus on each individual element of drops and rises.

On Rhyhorn:
I wouldn't rise it. I don't think it has quite enough longevity in the tier to justify a rise. It's also a very important part of PU. I am open to it rising in the future, but I think we should wait for another NU VR update or two.

On Hitmontop:
I'm in favor of rising it. It's been a good and proven NU Pokemon for close to well beyond a year now and on 3 consecutive VRs. Contrary to others, I do not really consider Hitmontop such an absolutely important and integral part of the PU metagame. It is certainly very good, but it is far from the most meta-defining thing and is replaceable/unnecessary on many teams. I don't think it leaving would significantly harm the PU metagame, though not that I think it can go that much lower. I say, why not try something out while giving Hitmontop its proper flowers in NU.

 

[BigFatMantis]

I understand that this thread is intended only to discuss rises, but I think the process of what we're doing overall is important in how we make those decisions, so I made a post here explaining my reasoning on how I think we should be proceeding with this. I won't discuss it further here, I'll focus on the topic at hand.

- I think this should most definitely rise. It's an NU mon for sure. It's been B ranked twice in a row now, has consistently been on the VRs period, and even passes the vibes test on when I see Hitmontop I see it as a pure NU mon. I don't really think there's any sound tiering reasoning for not rising it unless we just decide we don't do rises at all. Because if there's ever been a candidate to rise if we do rises, it's Hitmontop, and not rising it while claiming we are actively making tiering changes to PU is silly. I can't imagine a scenario where we entertain several drops and don't rise Hitmontop - the only possible plausible somewhat ok reasoned hypothetical situation would be a world where we don't really change PU but drop Arbok bc it's E twice in a row and leave the tier as is. That's the only way I can internally justify not rising Hitmontop.

-

- I mean, this should rise too, it's right under Hitmontop on the VRs, both of which damn well made it near A Rank. But it's fairly new to the VRs and only ranked B this slate, so it wouldn't bother me much if we didn't rise it based on that. What would bother me very much so, however, is not rising it because we don't want to take it away from PU. I don't think that this should override the process at all - if anything it's a minor consideration but if Rhyhorn was B+ Rank three times in a row for example then I don't think it's status in PU has any relevance, it's an NU mon at that point and should rise. I still think it should rise anyways but again I wouldn't lose sleep over it staying put for now. But it's very clearly NU and, if we're gonna be serious, it's going to in all likelihood be B rank again next VR.

Really looking forward to the chaotic drops thread.

 

[BigFatMantis]

Sorry for the double post, but now that I've read the drops thread, I wanted to post based on PU.

I already said that we shouldn't base a decision on rising on not wanting to take it away from PU, but I understand there is at the very least a small consideration there. That being said, a PU player, here are my thoughts on the two leaving based on the new drops thread:

Hitmontop is not really essential to the tier anymore if any number of drops happen especially since I believe Hitmonchan will likely be unbanned too. I don't think it's even essential right now, but in a new metagame with drops + Hitmonchan it's most definitely not that needed (still good but not "omg don't take it away"). Rhyhorn, on the other hand, is still just as good and just as important and, in fact, might even get better.

I'm not saying make a decision based on this, but I wanted to drop those thoughts since I omitted the PU perspective in my prior post.

 

[torkonpeter]

ok so im from the pu community so i should not have the last word for the discussion of nu wants to do with the builder but i am an big proponent for active tiering rises and drops so im completly for hitmon and even rhyhorn rising tiers are suprisingly addaptable so those rises most like wont make the tier much better or worse

now to my problem with this thread i dont think the drops should happen for pucl or that pucl should accept any changes right befor it starts especially an change of only rises unless the nu community decides they only want to rise mons into the tier and not do any drops the reason for that is that if pucl has an tier pu-rises and then we later do drops we created an version of the tier just for pu players to have somthng difrent but that wont be the true pu tier or give the new version of pu any real cross development we can add to the new pu that we wouldnt alredy get if pu stays the same more optimized meta of curent gsc.
pucl pu wouldnt get any of the advantages the suspect teast slot gives to ss pu while still giving pucl the disadvantage of players needing to reunderstand the meta during the tour which makes the gsc slot less serious.
i much rather give the old gsc pu one last send of tournament that we then can use to creat stuff like an unoficcial old pu vr for history preservertion
i dont even think pucl should accept gsc pu if it does the drops and rises direcly befor the tour as there alredy are multiple problem mons mentiond during theorymoning so there is an solid chance pucl would need to do the micky thing of changing the alowed mons during the tour or play the entire time with quick ban worthy mons in the tier
even though i against pucl accepting the drops im not against the drops happening befor pucl if this happens i think we could either just let the players play with challange codes or make the smogtours server change at an later date as rby alredy did multiple times when they got drops in the middle of tournaments

 

[DD Joe]

Personally, I would be happy to see hitmontop rise.

It's an NU mon and it's problematic in PU for multiple reasons.

I really like Rhyhorn in PU and would prefer it stayed. Having a solid, phazing phys wall with rock stab is something very precious in the tier and I enjoy building with it.

Therefore I would be for Hitmontop rising and Rhyhorn staying in pu.

 

[LHF]

Some off the cuff statements:

On Rhyhorn:
I wouldn't rise it.

I would not send Rhyhorn to NU but my reasoning differs from yours and I think it's important to talk about why from an internal consistency standpoint. Unfortunately one of the few quirks(some would say flaw depending on how low of a LT they play) about Smogon is that higher tiers have always been able to historically poach tools from lower tiers during active generations. While I understand GSC has some more flexibility here with respect to how they wish to handle rises and drops for unofficial tiers, I don't think artificially preserving Rhyhorn's role in the tier just because "it's good for it" is good enough reasoning. Shakeups happen and meta shifts are inspired by things like this; that's literally the point of us evaluating these tiers years later after their inception.

Now as for WHY Rhyhorn should not rise: Rhyhorn's meteoric rise is worth noting but the main thing I look at is "consistency." Rhyhorn has only recently started being treated with respect, and it remains to be seen if it will be held in as high a light as it was in 2025. If people are clamoring for change and see Rhyhorn as unhelpful toward a better GSC PU(which does not seem to be the case), then the better move would be to suspect Rhyhorn instead of just facilitating a fast rise to NU for the sake of it. But again, that probably should not happen unless the PU base itself believes it should.

The important part is that GSC NU players will not lose access to Rhyhorn by proxy of it staying PU or PUBL, so we really lose nothing by giving it more time to evaluate if it is genuinely worthy of NU status. I would say that the better move is to rise Rhyhorn to NU IF its performance is roughly equal to or better than it was in 2025.

On the other hand I am 100% in favor of plucking Hitmontop out of PU exactly because of this reasoning. Hitmontop has progressively shown that it's a valuable and rising stock in GSC NU - not just based off arbitrary usage or even WR, but as Soup points out it jumped seven spots on the VR in back to back years. It has the consistency to prove its worth in the tier and does not look out of place at all when you assess it compared to other threats in the format. Whether Hitmontop is Mr. Irrelevant or broken as shit in PU, it literally would not matter because of its performance in NU. Thus, it is an NU pokemon and should rise from PU.

tl;dr: put Rhyhorn on the Hitmontop performance plan and rise it in 2027 if its 2026 usage is as good as it was in 2025, but leave it be for now. Hitmontop SHOULD be NU. Free drops alongside rises

 

[BigFatMantis]

ok so im from the pu community so i should not have the last word for the discussion of nu wants to do with the builder but i am an big proponent for active tiering rises and drops so im completly for hitmon and even rhyhorn rising tiers are suprisingly addaptable so those rises most like wont make the tier much better or worse

now to my problem with this thread i dont think the drops should happen for pucl or that pucl should accept any changes right befor it starts especially an change of only rises unless the nu community decides they only want to rise mons into the tier and not do any drops the reason for that is that if pucl has an tier pu-rises and then we later do drops we created an version of the tier just for pu players to have somthng difrent but that wont be the true pu tier or give the new version of pu any real cross development we can add to the new pu that we wouldnt alredy get if pu stays the same more optimized meta of curent gsc.
pucl pu wouldnt get any of the advantages the suspect teast slot gives to ss pu while still giving pucl the disadvantage of players needing to reunderstand the meta during the tour which makes the gsc slot less serious.
i much rather give the old gsc pu one last send of tournament that we then can use to creat stuff like an unoficcial old pu vr for history preservertion
i dont even think pucl should accept gsc pu if it does the drops and rises direcly befor the tour as there alredy are multiple problem mons mentiond during theorymoning so there is an solid chance pucl would need to do the micky thing of changing the alowed mons during the tour or play the entire time with quick ban worthy mons in the tier
even though i against pucl accepting the drops im not against the drops happening befor pucl if this happens i think we could either just let the players play with challange codes or make the smogtours server change at an later date as rby alredy did multiple times when they got drops in the middle of tournaments

I understand where you're coming from with this, and trust me I can really appreciate the desire for a legacy tournament to close out a tier. But the fact of the matter is that, if we don't play PUCL with the new drops and/or rises, then we are significantly delaying the development of the new metagame, potentially by over half a year. GSC Slam starts end of February (though presumably we can talk to hosts to make PU one of the final cups sometime in March). If there is no hard tournament data by the time that starts in March for PU, then we have minimal resources for GSC PU for slam and will either have to also keep playing the old PU for that tournament (which is very very long) or make people play with basically no resource help unless you have some mainer friends (not ideal for a Slam style tournament). And if that's the case, then you're talking about now going into May without really getting hard tournament data on the new tier. Then there's no more official GSC PU tournaments until sooner or later GSC PL is around the corner in September, and testing out the new tier officially in a tournament setting for the first time in GSC PL, the most prestigious GSC tournament on the website, is not ideal (in addition to the fact we are now 9 months removed from potential changes at that point).

I don't think anything is going to be immediately destabilizing by itself to the point it renders the tier unplayable - based on the discussion in the other thread I don't believe something like Ledian is dropping (and even if it did you could always QB it and revisit it later). I hate to get sidetracked because this is a thread on rises, but I just wanted to address this since it was stated but also provide a framework of, what I believe, the new PU would like with, what I believe, is a general consensus among the rises and drops that I frankly don't think is going to change:

Leaving PU:
Entering PU:
Unbanned from PU: (possibly Whirl too but not a near guarantee like these two imo)

This isn't an argument for that to happen it's what I honestly see occurring based on everything I've read with like 90% likelihood very soon. I don't immediately see anything that is going to cause a huge fuss (maybe Farfetch'd but we'll see) of an issue and I think it's important to get as many tournament games as possible in PUCL to really see what minor adjustments need to be done by Slam time to help further stabilize and create resources. You could even just QB Farfecth'd immediately before PUCL started if you just didn't want to deal with that yet and test it in later as a PUBL in a later tour. I'm not even trying to theorymon here I just really don't see any huge outliers. Some of these might very very good, some might be total garbage in the new tier layout, and maybe one or two might be a little much but nothing the tier can't at least adjust to until the playerbase decides they'd rather not have it.

PU has a lot of potential to become a great tier. I've believed this for a long time. It's not even that bad right now (I disagree with how bad Bee thinks it is) but it clearly could get much much better, and this is a great step towards that. Further evaluations of Rhyhorn, Ledian, and Lickitung (and any other fringe mons) next time can also help keep moving it.

 

[LHF]

Going to use torkon's RBY point to actually help support BFM's case here. RBY UU basically underwent a complete transformation and went through a lot of development due to having the RBYPL stage. But I think a more apt comparison here would be to talk about RBY NU's current role in ALTPL. 2026 RBY NU is in its literal infancy stages as a tier and the tournament is helping accelerate its development rapidly because people obviously want to help contribute toward their teams winning.

Pushing GSC PU changes in time for PUCL stands to only benefit the tier in the long run. If someone wanted to take up the mantle to hold a "GSC PU farewell tournament" then that's fine, but tiering focus should always be on what makes the meta more playable and competitive. Holding a tier's development back just for the sake of "stability" in PUCL genuinely does not help the best interest of the tier and its playerbase as a whole.

This just hit me actually - SS PU is doing a suspect slot, which is bound to shake up how people prep. And why are they doing this instead of a suspect tour? Because PUCL is likely to attract the most people who are interested in playing their tier and give them a competitive stage in which to shape their opinion.

I'll close with this quote because I couldn't phrase it any better than BFM did

But the fact of the matter is that, if we don't play PUCL with the new drops and/or rises, then we are significantly delaying the development of the new metagame, potentially by over half a year. GSC Slam starts end of February (though presumably we can talk to hosts to make PU one of the final cups sometime in March). If there is no hard tournament data by the time that starts in March for PU, then we have minimal resources for GSC PU for slam and will either have to also keep playing the old PU for that tournament (which is very very long) or make people play with basically no resource help unless you have some mainer friends (not ideal for a Slam style tournament). And if that's the case, then you're talking about now going into May without really getting hard tournament data on the new tier. Then there's no more official GSC PU tournaments until sooner or later GSC PL is around the corner in September, and testing out the new tier officially in a tournament setting for the first time in GSC PL, the most prestigious GSC tournament on the website, is not ideal (in addition to the fact we are now 9 months removed from potential changes at that point).

 

[torkonpeter]

I understand where you're coming from with this, and trust me I can really appreciate the desire for a legacy tournament to close out a tier. But the fact of the matter is that, if we don't play PUCL with the new drops and/or rises, then we are significantly delaying the development of the new metagame, potentially by over half a year. GSC Slam starts end of February (though presumably we can talk to hosts to make PU one of the final cups sometime in March). If there is no hard tournament data by the time that starts in March for PU, then we have minimal resources for GSC PU for slam and will either have to also keep playing the old PU for that tournament (which is very very long) or make people play with basically no resource help unless you have some mainer friends (not ideal for a Slam style tournament). And if that's the case, then you're talking about now going into May without really getting hard tournament data on the new tier. Then there's no more official GSC PU tournaments until sooner or later GSC PL is around the corner in September, and testing out the new tier officially in a tournament setting for the first time in GSC PL, the most prestigious GSC tournament on the website, is not ideal (in addition to the fact we are now 9 months removed from potential changes at that point).

I don't think anything is going to be immediately destabilizing by itself to the point it renders the tier unplayable - based on the discussion in the other thread I don't believe something like Ledian is dropping (and even if it did you could always QB it and revisit it later). I hate to get sidetracked because this is a thread on rises, but I just wanted to address this since it was stated but also provide a framework of, what I believe, the new PU would like with, what I believe, is a general consensus among the rises and drops that I frankly don't think is going to change:

Leaving PU:
Entering PU:
Unbanned from PU: (possibly Whirl too but not a near guarantee like these two imo)

This isn't an argument for that to happen it's what I honestly see occurring based on everything I've read with like 90% likelihood very soon. I don't immediately see anything that is going to cause a huge fuss (maybe Farfetch'd but we'll see) of an issue and I think it's important to get as many tournament games as possible in PUCL to really see what minor adjustments need to be done by Slam time to help further stabilize and create resources. You could even just QB Farfecth'd immediately before PUCL started if you just didn't want to deal with that yet and test it in later as a PUBL in a later tour. I'm not even trying to theorymon here I just really don't see any huge outliers. Some of these might very very good, some might be total garbage in the new tier layout, and maybe one or two might be a little much but nothing the tier can't at least adjust to until the playerbase decides they'd rather not have it.

PU has a lot of potential to become a great tier. I've believed this for a long time. It's not even that bad right now (I disagree with how bad Bee thinks it is) but it clearly could get much much better, and this is a great step towards that. Further evaluations of Rhyhorn, Ledian, and Lickitung (and any other fringe mons) next time can also help keep moving it.

Going to use torkon's RBY point to actually help support BFM's case here. RBY UU basically underwent a complete transformation and went through a lot of development due to having the RBYPL stage. But I think a more apt comparison here would be to talk about RBY NU's current role in ALTPL. 2026 RBY NU is in its literal infancy stages as a tier and the tournament is helping accelerate its development rapidly because people obviously want to help contribute toward their teams winning.

Pushing GSC PU changes in time for PUCL stands to only benefit the tier in the long run. If someone wanted to take up the mantle to hold a "GSC PU farewell tournament" then that's fine, but tiering focus should always be on what makes the meta more playable and competitive. Holding a tier's development back just for the sake of "stability" in PUCL genuinely does not help the best interest of the tier and its playerbase as a whole.

This just hit me actually - SS PU is doing a suspect slot, which is bound to shake up how people prep. And why are they doing this instead of a suspect tour? Because PUCL is likely to attract the most people who are interested in playing their tier and give them a competitive stage in which to shape their opinion.

I'll close with this quote because I couldn't phrase it any better than BFM did

maybe i should have expressed myself clearer im mostly agaihnst creating an rises only meta game speficially only for pucl
i think there could be some problems if an pucl accepts the new pu but im much more ambiliviant towards that like i think an last tour for old pu and giving new pu some development time befor an team tour would be good but also would be ok with it being used to fast track developments
also only mentioned that in the discord but if tier changes happen i would like an one of Single elim tour for the new meta if no one else would wanna host such an tour i would even do that it was never my intention of waiting till the next origianaly planed tour as that would destroy all possible hype

 

[LHF]

maybe i should have expressed myself clearer im mostly agaihnst creating an rises only meta game speficially only for pucl
i think there could be some problems if an pucl accepts the new pu but im much more ambiliviant towards that like i think an last tour for old pu and giving new pu some development time befor an team tour would be good but also would be ok with it being used to fast track developments
also only mentioned that in the discord but if tier changes happen i would like an one of Single elim tour for the new meta if no one else would wanna host such an tour i would even do that it was never my intention of waiting till the next origianaly planed tour as that would destroy all possible hype

The point is not to make the tour only for PUCL though, which is what both BFM and I explicitly push back against. When you say that more time to develop before a teamtour would be a good idea, the specific principle is that the PUCL stage is where the development can and should happen. That's when people will be at their most motivated to figure things out and when advancements in metagames will be pushed. Having friendlies and random test games does not go nearly as far in accomplishing the goal of pushing the tier forward.

And as BFM also mentions, without this stage that's a LOT of lost time for the meta to have to catch up on, not to mention the data we would miss out on collecting for possible Slam samples(slamples?) and otherwise connecting dots on what new tiers will look like.

I want to be clear that I am not pushing for GSC PU drops/rises to happen prematurely. If we didn't have data that indicated where mons should properly go, or were just trying to change the tier for the sake of doing it, I would be right with you in saying to hold off. But we do have a good inkling of where mons can and should be going, and it fits in line with what's going to happen anyway.

Kicking the can down the road does not do anything except make current PUCL GSC PU players more "comfortable" with the slot because the meta has by and large been established. I don't want you to think I'm saying PUCL should be "sacrificed" for this new version of GSC PU. If anything I'm arguing that it helps the tier going forward, which is all that should really matter.

 

[torkonpeter]

The point is not to make the tour only for PUCL though, which is what both BFM and I explicitly push back against. When you say that more time to develop before a teamtour would be a good idea, the specific principle is that the PUCL stage is where the development can and should happen. That's when people will be at their most motivated to figure things out and when advancements in metagames will be pushed. Having friendlies and random test games does not go nearly as far in accomplishing the goal of pushing the tier forward.

And as BFM also mentions, without this stage that's a LOT of lost time for the meta to have to catch up on, not to mention the data we would miss out on collecting for possible Slam samples(slamples?) and otherwise connecting dots on what new tiers will look like.

I want to be clear that I am not pushing for GSC PU drops/rises to happen prematurely. If we didn't have data that indicated where mons should properly go, or were just trying to change the tier for the sake of doing it, I would be right with you in saying to hold off. But we do have a good inkling of where mons can and should be going, and it fits in line with what's going to happen anyway.

Kicking the can down the road does not do anything except make current PUCL GSC PU players more "comfortable" with the slot because the meta has by and large been established. I don't want you to think I'm saying PUCL should be "sacrificed" for this new version of GSC PU. If anything I'm arguing that it helps the tier going forward, which is all that should really matter.

the pucl drop only specfic tier was one of the proposed things and my post was mostly vs that like i said im mostly ambilivant towards the pucl using new pu if it uses the actual final pu builder we decided on and i think like you missed my second part of my message i never said wait till slam i specifcally said i want an one of single elim tour directly after drops and even without pucl that should be enough for some samples befor slam altough the samples would be better with pucl

 

[BeeOrSomething]

Hi, thank you to all of the people who participated in this complicated discussion here on the forums, in GSC cord, and elsewhere. MrSoup and I as GSC moderators have reviewed the opinions of all involved parties and have come up with a decision based on the majority so that dissent will be minimized. We are aware not everyone will be pleased as a result of this decision, but such a feat would be impossible.

The following changes will occur:

Hitmontop will be officially risen from PU to NU.
Tagging dhelmise and Marty to implement.

Rhyhorn and other PU Pokemon may be eligible for a rise in the future. Once again, this is not the end of our tiering efforts.