Lower Tiers A continuation of NU and PU tiering discussion and drops from NU to PU

[BeeOrSomething]

See: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...d-rising-hitmontop-and-rhyhorn-to-nu.3776348/

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 to purely focus on drops from NU to PU. A separate thread is open regarding rises, so please do not discuss them here.

NU and PUBL Pokemon ranked below B on the official VR

Pokemon that could be argued as eligible for a drop from NU to PU:
- Arbok
- Azumarill
- Dragonair
- Dunsparce
- Farfetch'd
- Houndour
- Ledian
- Lickitung
- Magmar
- Raticate

Pokemon that could be argued as eligible for a drop from PUBL to PU, but only if drops from NU also occur (they were banned from PU for a reason):
- Furret
- Hitmonchan
- Poliwhirl

Many members of the GSC PU playerbase have found great dissatisfaction with the state of the metagame, even after Poliwhirl's ban (myself included). GSC PU is an extremely polarizing tier: it is often cited as being extremely slow and difficult to make progress in, with 100+ turn games being a frequent occurrence and players complaining about the tier being straight up unenjoyable due to situations where your team is completely choked out by the opposition's defense being somewhat common. Simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically, others also cite GSC PU as leading to frequent scenarios where one team completely steamrolls the other due to an extremely lopsided matchup or atrocious hax, causing completely unfair games that end in under 40 or 50 turns.

The end result is this: GSC PU's playerbase has been pretty steadily declining, many want some sort of change, and none has happened yet. The intention of this thread and the rise thread is to put in some work to provide that change and move towards a hopefully better future. So what can we do?

THE OPTIONS (not all are mutually exclusive)

1. Full Active Tiering for PU (full reset + continual maintenance) - All pokemon not currently deemed NU-caliber are dropped to PU based on the NU VR. PU is changed accordingly based on future NU VRs every first or second update (tbd).
Issues: Not consistent with other non-ZU GSC tiers, requires constant effort across years, playerbase size somewhat questionable

2. Cutoff Philosophy - NU Players collectively agree on a defined cutoff for what should and should not be "objectively" deemed NU-caliber in coordination with PU playerbase.
Issues: Inflexible unless cherrypicking is done as an alteration after the cutoff is selected, but at that point it's basically option 3

3. Subjective Selection based on NU retrospection (nuclear one-time option) - Drop all currently NU ranked Pokemon whom the NU playerbase deems not having been worthy of the NU distinction for an extended period of time (ex. we could decide Arbok should drop, but not Dragonair) and then let the tier settle.
Issues: Arguably prone to arbitrary/subjective selection, decision less directly in hands of PU playerbase

4. Subjective selection based on PU prospection (safe option) - Make eligible for drops all currently NU ranked Pokemon that are not deemed NU caliber by a cutoff and then the PU playerbase selectively determines which NU pokemon below that cutoff to allow to drop to PU.
Issues: Arguably prone to arbitrary/subjective selection, may not leave all Pokemon accurately represented by their tiering status which is somewhat counterintuitive (ex. Magmar could be dropped to PU even though its status of being perceived as not NU worthy is both a recent and non-universal sentiment)

5. Forgo drops completely, pursue suspect tests on PU Pokemon like Venomoth (conservative method)
Issues: Slow process, needs suspect tours. Venomoth especially is also the most defining pokemon in the tier and you could argue that if you make a change as drastic as banning it then it's better to go the reverse direction and do drops instead. Future bans may also be necessary

6. Do suspect drops (UU method)
Issues: Slow process, needs a lot of suspect tours at which point you could argue it's better to do something else

7. Do nothing
Issues: People are still going to be unhappy with the tier

The main objective of the thread is this:
Figure out a singular path forward on a consensus decision amongst the PU playerbase (and in cooperation with NU if necessary) and try to get the tier into a more enjoyable state again where people are excited to play. This is by no means the first step; quickbans and other future action can and will absolutely follow if necessary. The most important thing is just that we take that initial action and make a decision in the first place. The process as a whole could very well be a long effort, but the sooner we start, the less time PU will be in its current state of turmoil and the closer we are to a cleaner and more finalized version of the tier, one that we do want to play. This discussion has already been going on for months; I see no reason why it needs to drag on for even longer. We're in a new year, and GSCPL just ended, PUCL is coming very soon, and GSC Slam is in a month. It's time to finally make a decisive move forward.

Tagging PU Players to participate in the conversation:
Aurist DD Joe torkonpeter Estarossa BigFatMantis BloodAce vani LustfulLice Theycallmephil feen zben O1V7O2X9O DiannieRatson plznostep THE_CHUNGLER Lyra

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.

 

[BigFatMantis]

I made an easier to read list based on where they rank on the VRs bc I think that's important to see (also based on actual numerical rank I believe):

C Rank:
D Rank:
E Rank:

I'll make another post later with thoughts but just wanted to drop that in here

 

[BeeOrSomething]

I think we should pursue the NU retrospection method (option 3) or a mix of that and the cutoff philosphy (option 2 + 3). To me, those decisions have the least possibility for a negative impact. I understand option 4 as well, but I feel that tiers being accurate is fairly significant here if we're opening up the possibility of drops, and if anything, NU guys can just make their decision in tandem with PU or PU can just quickban stuff and basically the same result is achieved.

Essentially, I just see almost no downsides to option 3. The flexibility it offers is wonderful to ensure accuracy of tiering and metagame balance and the door for subjectivity leading to poor decisions should be mitigated by decisions being consensus.

I think 5 is a bad idea and 6 and 7 are completely unacceptable. Slowness of action is not at all desirable, and PU needs swift, drastic changes. I don't want the tier to be languishing in suspect hell forever nor its current state.

 

[BigFatMantis]

Ok so my actual thoughts:

I don't really like anything here besides 1 and 2, but I think more extended options based on that are needed. Method 3 only works if it's grounded in actual statistics and rankings (which makes it more like Method 2). If we're actually going to back up reasonings with VR rankings recent and past for Method 3 and/or usage stats then it's plausible but just saying on vibes what is NU or not is completely unacceptable.

The best method, imo, is to use Method 2 as a baseline (i.e. find a cutoff base), and then after that discuss if any of the mentioned mons merit not dropping based on past rankings/usage (for example, if we agree to drop all D Ranks, we can bring up if Lickitung should still be dropped since it was C rank last VR, etc). This is like "Method 2.5" I guess.

Method 4 seems completely opposite of how drops operate and contradicts everything I know about tiering philosophy. You don't ever drop mons based on the tier below it. If the tier below it doesn't like the drop or it destabilizes the meta they can take individual action to ban it. They can literally ban every single drop and suspect them one by one into the tier if they wanted to (sort of Method 6 but you gotta drop them all first), but it makes zero sense to dictate whether or not it drops in the first place based on the tier below. That's not how you categorize mons in tiers.

Once you get into Methods 5 and 6 you aren't really talking about dropping NU mons anymore so I don't see why the discussion should occur on those within NU. That has more to do with PU individually, nothing to do with NU. Method 6 is not even allowed unless you drop them all first anyways to PU and then ban them to PUBL, THEN suspect them. But again, that doesn't seem to have anything with us categorizing whether these mons are worthy of an NU ranking.

Method 7 I disagree with but it's not implausible. But if we do that, we are basically saying we sort of freeze tiers imo. That's not the most terrible thing in the world, but I don't think we should do it.

As a side plug, I already talked a lot about the possibilities here and rather like these options. Of these options, I like Option 1 or 2 of the Non-Active Tiering solutions.

 

[BeeOrSomething]

Ok so my actual thoughts:

I don't really like anything here besides 1 and 2, but I think more extended options based on that are needed. Method 3 only works if it's grounded in actual statistics and rankings (which makes it more like Method 2). If we're actually going to back up reasonings with VR rankings recent and past for Method 3 and/or usage stats then it's plausible but just saying on vibes what is NU or not is completely unacceptable.

The best method, imo, is to use Method 2 as a baseline (i.e. find a cutoff base), and then after that discuss if any of the mentioned mons merit not dropping based on past rankings/usage (for example, if we agree to drop all D Ranks, we can bring up if Lickitung should still be dropped since it was C rank last VR, etc). This is like "Method 2.5" I guess.

Method 4 seems completely opposite of how drops operate and contradicts everything I know about tiering philosophy. You don't ever drop mons based on the tier below it. If the tier below it doesn't like the drop or it destabilizes the meta they can take individual action to ban it. They can literally ban every single drop and suspect them one by one into the tier if they wanted to (sort of Method 6 but you gotta drop them all first), but it makes zero sense to dictate whether or not it drops in the first place based on the tier below. That's not how you categorize mons in tiers.

Once you get into Methods 5 and 6 you aren't really talking about dropping NU mons anymore so I don't see why the discussion should occur on those within NU. That has more to do with PU individually, nothing to do with NU. Method 6 is not even allowed unless you drop them all first anyways to PU and then ban them to PUBL, THEN suspect them. But again, that doesn't seem to have anything with us categorizing whether these mons are worthy of an NU ranking.

Method 7 I disagree with but it's not implausible. But if we do that, we are basically saying we sort of freeze tiers imo. That's not the most terrible thing in the world, but I don't think we should do it.

As a side plug, I already talked a lot about the possibilities here and rather like these options. Of these options, I like Option 1 or 2 of the Non-Active Tiering solutions.

5 and 6 are mostly listed here in this thread because I needed a place to include them in the same conversation under the bubble of "PU tiering" but I understand they aren't drops. Still think they're worth discussing.

Method 4 I understand does not really follow typical policy but several players discussed a desire to have such an option included even if I myself disagree with it, so I took it into consideration. Being realistic, it is not a likely outcome even if it does somehow receive majority support.

As for what you state is the best method, I agree pretty much. I probably should have stated more clearly, but yes, deciding what Pokemon qualify as NU caliber would be based on a multi-year VR cutoff system. It's an ideal solution to me with little downside while offering both NU and PU flexibility to decide how their tiers look (PU can qb things).

 

[MrSoup]

Option 3 is the only option that follows GSC precedent for rises and drops. Only in the initial creation of tiers, such as when PU was first formed, has a cutoff philosophy been used. In every historic instance of a GSC rise or drop, option 3 has been used.

However, option 3 should be informed by objective data points, such as VRs, and subjective data points, such as metagame impact. I'm pretty much in agreement with what Bee suggested in his first post. I think BFM's approach comes from a different angle than ours, but would ultimately result in a similar outcome. That being said, I'm going to personally push for 3 in order to adhere to historical precedent.

Now for my perspective on the actual drops. Based on the current and past VRs, a cutoff between C and D1 ranks makes the most logical sense to me to base an initial list of Pokemon. That would include Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Lickitung, Ledian, Farfetch'd, Azumarill, and Raticate. I think retiering anything in the C rank would be an overstep. This tier is full of Pokemon who could be B tier on a good day. With such high fluctuations from one VR to the next, C rank shouldn't be considered.


I would have no regrets about seeing any of these Pokemon go to PU for the PU council to decide metagame impact/health. Each of these has sustained a long period of metagame decline in both perceived viability and usage. While some of these Pokemon are occasionally used by NU players looking to fulfill specific niches for preferred archetypes, none hold a candle to even the worst NU Pokemon. I am all for dropping them.


It's of my opinion that we should not in any circumstances drop a Pokemon the community believes is 1. NU-worthy or 2. on a periodic down-turn that may not accurately reflect its actual place in the meta. While I whole-heartedly agree we should reference our VRs as a data point here, I also think we need to critically think about these decisions through some sense-checking. Above all, we should be considering our decisions' long-lasting impacts and attempt at all costs to avoid situations where Pokemon are rising and falling through tiers due to poor foresight on our end. When working with data, especially low quality data from a small sample size, it's essential to add stopping mechanisms for enhanced scrutiny.

Personally, I do not believe Ledian and Lickitung meet the criteria for leaving NU. Ledian is a core Pokemon in the speed-passing archetype that has gained particularly renewed interest in the last 6 months. It's also separated by the other drop contenders on the VR, being in the D1 rank, while others are in the D2 rank and below. In the current method for creating VRs, tier name means little and is not consistent from dataset to dataset. The interpretation that 'Ledian is in D rank' is accurate, but I think a more accurate analysis is 'Ledian is a rank above all other drop considerations.' The actual name of the tier, in my opinion, should hold little weight.

As for Lickitung, I believe its current ranking is a display of a periodic downward trend that is likely to be rectified. The Pokemon in ranks ~25-40 of the GSC NU VR tend to swing drastically from year to year. For example, Tangela rose 12 places this year from 32nd to 44th, while Bayleef dropped 10 from 29th to 39th. Compared to the May 2025 VR, Lickitung dropped 6 spots from 'C2,' and is at the lowest it has ever been on a VR. I believe Lickitung has a much greater metagame impact compared to the other six suspected drops, and I would not be surprised if it jumped up a significant amount of spots next year. Just from a glance, we can see it's ranked below extremely niche Pokemon, such as Omanyte and Bayleef. I'm arguing that this is a blip, and we should heavily consider its actual place in NU.

I do agree that Ledian and Lickitung are on the lower end of the viability spectrum when it comes to NU Pokemon, but I would not feel personally comfortable deeming them PU-level. I think each has significantly more viability then Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Farfetch'd, Raticate, and Azumarill and should be considered for staying NU. We're in a position where if we drop Pokemon, PU is expected to receive many new options + the current PUBLs. I do not think it would be a good decision to be hasty here. I think a reevaluation of these two come the next VR (along with Rhyhorn rising) would be a more prudent way to ensure we avoid having to retier these two as NU in the future.

I would like to invite any other NU players to give input on these 8 Pokemon and your perceived metagame impact of each, particularly for Ledian, Lickitung, or any of the other 6 you may deem to still be NU-worthy. Tagging some people not already tagged.
Shengineer DAWNBUSTER Real FV13 Zpice JensenDale

 

[Shengineer]

I support mrsoup’s suggestion, especially keeping ledian in NU, but the rest have been very poor for a long time and and clearly not nu-caliber. I’m indifferent on Lickitung. Ledian dropping would be OK but feels wrong...

 

[BigFatMantis]

If we're talking about individual mons, then I think all of D and E should drop including Ledian and Lickitung. Ledian is D Rank now two VRs in a row, I want to believe it will rise again but I'm just not sure. Lickitung was C last time but I don't ever see it getting better than C and C is just like the limbo tier. Which, I agree we should freeze C as the limbo tier to reduce extreme volatility and tier based on B and D for cutoffs.

HOWEVER, I do think there should be general agreement (not just majority rules but general agreement/consensus) on if these mons are NU or not, and if there's reasonable objectives then I see no problem with holding off on dropping them for now and reevaluating next time. I think the reasoning MrSoup laid out for not dropping Ledian is very reasonable, even if I disagree with it, and there's little sense to force a drop on it given MrSoup's analysis of it. We could always wait and see how it continues to perform. On Lickitung, I think simply the past C ranking last VR can form a rational basis in and of itself to hold off for now if people want. Again, I think they should drop, but not at the cost of sowing dissent and disagreement among the NU playerbase.

I want to also note that we don't really have use the letters as cutoffs - it's very possible to make after Ledian the cutoff if we believe Ledian and everything above it is NU. There are no established rules on that and the players know what a good NU PU cutoff looks like moreso than a machine spitting letter rankings does.

Agree that everything else should drop for sure.

 

[Real FV13]

Im not a regular PU player so probably my feedback gonna be a little simple or even useless here but Id like to express what i feel.
- I understand we need to find a cut in the VR to test new mons and explore their impact in PU, but at the same time VRs are very subjective even if an average is calculated, so I wouldnt use this as an auto method, its necessary to analyze each one individually.
- In this case, I can more or less agree with the results and these mons are probably the least used in NU, but that doesn't mean they are PU level, they are simply outclassed by others that are quite similar, while there are other pokes with more usage in NU that could be used in PU without destroying the metagame in my opinion (?) but it doesnt work like that.
- Analyzing these mons, I would only like to test PUBL+ and in PU, but I have the feeling that even could be too much for the actual PU due speed and movepool (screech, curse or mixed sets).
- The rest of the list are def too busted due movepool or a massive bulk on paper, specially offensive power and coverage. The drop of these mons means a radical change and a new tier from 0 which would need to be rebalanced over time again.

In short, I would test carefully PUBL+ (last mon ranked) and (personal opinion).
The others options are to dont drop anymon from NU or drop em all (following the VR results) creating a wild new PU with the consequent work that it would take to balance it in the future

 

[THE_CHUNGLER]

I support option 2 and option 3 really, both of which allow Pokemon that are convincingly not NU to drop to the tier below. It never made sense to me that Pokemon with 0 usage in NU tournaments consistently would never drop to PU. I would be fine personally with dropping all of the Pokemon listed in BFM’s post further up in the thread, even Lickitung and Ledian. I understand that there’s some doubt about these Pokemon and if they’re NU worthy or not, but that doesn’t matter much to me. Mainly because, it’s not strange that there would be Pokemon in PU that have a small niche in NU. This happens with other tiers all of the time, even tiers that are committed to full active tiering like RBY, where slowbro is still very usable in OU but dropped to UU anyway. If NU players want to rise ledian or lickitung’s rank on the next VR they’re free to do so.

I also don’t mind too much if ledian or lickitung don’t drop via method #3, honestly I don’t know enough about their niches in NU, so this isn’t a big deal to me and as BFM said, I wouldn’t want disagreement about 2 pokemon to cause any arguing.

I like the idea that pokemon should only drop to PU if they’re ranked below a certain threshold on multiple VRs in a row, and having a rule like this gives the process more legitimacy as we’re following a clear process that’s easy to explain to outsiders. Right now we can make an arbitrary designation as to what that threshold is and stick with it or change it later if there’s a good reason to.

I also want to say as a manager for the upcoming PUCL that will be very involved with the GSC slot unless I get hit by a car and die, I’m perfectly fine with dropping these pokemon to PU (after a council quick ban slate most likely?) and playing the new metagame in that tour. Not really the thread for that discussion yet before we decide what’s happening, but I don’t want people to get the impression that everyone playing or managing in PUCL would hate to play a metagame with drops. It would be a great testing ground for the new metagame and come on guys, it’s not that serious of a tour/would be a lot of fun.

 

[JensenDale]

Option 3 is the only option that follows GSC precedent for rises and drops. Only in the initial creation of tiers, such as when PU was first formed, has a cutoff philosophy been used. In every historic instance of a GSC rise or drop, option 3 has been used.

However, option 3 should be informed by objective data points, such as VRs, and subjective data points, such as metagame impact. I'm pretty much in agreement with what Bee suggested in his first post. I think BFM's approach comes from a different angle than ours, but would ultimately result in a similar outcome. That being said, I'm going to personally push for 3 in order to adhere to historical precedent.

Now for my perspective on the actual drops. Based on the current and past VRs, a cutoff between C and D1 ranks makes the most logical sense to me to base an initial list of Pokemon. That would include Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Lickitung, Ledian, Farfetch'd, Azumarill, and Raticate. I think retiering anything in the C rank would be an overstep. This tier is full of Pokemon who could be B tier on a good day. With such high fluctuations from one VR to the next, C rank shouldn't be considered.


I would have no regrets about seeing any of these Pokemon go to PU for the PU council to decide metagame impact/health. Each of these has sustained a long period of metagame decline in both perceived viability and usage. While some of these Pokemon are occasionally used by NU players looking to fulfill specific niches for preferred archetypes, none hold a candle to even the worst NU Pokemon. I am all for dropping them.


It's of my opinion that we should not in any circumstances drop a Pokemon the community believes is 1. NU-worthy or 2. on a periodic down-turn that may not accurately reflect its actual place in the meta. While I whole-heartedly agree we should reference our VRs as a data point here, I also think we need to critically think about these decisions through some sense-checking. Above all, we should be considering our decisions' long-lasting impacts and attempt at all costs to avoid situations where Pokemon are rising and falling through tiers due to poor foresight on our end. When working with data, especially low quality data from a small sample size, it's essential to add stopping mechanisms for enhanced scrutiny.

Personally, I do not believe Ledian and Lickitung meet the criteria for leaving NU. Ledian is a core Pokemon in the speed-passing archetype that has gained particularly renewed interest in the last 6 months. It's also separated by the other drop contenders on the VR, being in the D1 rank, while others are in the D2 rank and below. In the current method for creating VRs, tier name means little and is not consistent from dataset to dataset. The interpretation that 'Ledian is in D rank' is accurate, but I think a more accurate analysis is 'Ledian is a rank above all other drop considerations.' The actual name of the tier, in my opinion, should hold little weight.

As for Lickitung, I believe its current ranking is a display of a periodic downward trend that is likely to be rectified. The Pokemon in ranks ~25-40 of the GSC NU VR tend to swing drastically from year to year. For example, Tangela rose 12 places this year from 32nd to 44th, while Bayleef dropped 10 from 29th to 39th. Compared to the May 2025 VR, Lickitung dropped 6 spots from 'C2,' and is at the lowest it has ever been on a VR. I believe Lickitung has a much greater metagame impact compared to the other six suspected drops, and I would not be surprised if it jumped up a significant amount of spots next year. Just from a glance, we can see it's ranked below extremely niche Pokemon, such as Omanyte and Bayleef. I'm arguing that this is a blip, and we should heavily consider its actual place in NU.

I do agree that Ledian and Lickitung are on the lower end of the viability spectrum when it comes to NU Pokemon, but I would not feel personally comfortable deeming them PU-level. I think each has significantly more viability then Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Farfetch'd, Raticate, and Azumarill and should be considered for staying NU. We're in a position where if we drop Pokemon, PU is expected to receive many new options + the current PUBLs. I do not think it would be a good decision to be hasty here. I think a reevaluation of these two come the next VR (along with Rhyhorn rising) would be a more prudent way to ensure we avoid having to retier these two as NU in the future.

I would like to invite any other NU players to give input on these 8 Pokemon and your perceived metagame impact of each, particularly for Ledian, Lickitung, or any of the other 6 you may deem to still be NU-worthy. Tagging some people not already tagged.
Shengineer DAWNBUSTER Real FV13 Zpice JensenDale

Just wanted to share my agreement for this. I do think that Lickitung may be able to drop, but with SD + Stab Return + Eq all on the same set it's best to not let it drop at the moment.

For onlookers by the way, the mons above are either outclassed by existing mons in the tier or have a very minute niche to contribute to the tier. They have been at the bottom of the tier for quite a while, and I have no problem dropping all 6 to PU. I think this is a very sensible solution.

 

[Aurist]

I'd like to express support primarily for options 1 and 4. PU has nothing to lose by adopting a "modern" approach to viability based tiering in the adoption of a simple cutoff for drops + active tiering.

I believe that VR creation is robust and rigorous enough with the vapicuno method, and that attempts to loop in further discussion about what is or is not defined as a certain tier is 1. compounding the subjective aspects of VR tiering 2. undoing some of the work to quantify the opinions collated and 3. elongating and overcomplicating a process that we only need to follow once per year at most.

To me it seems that the only things standing in the way of full active tiering for PU are tradition/precedence which as far as GSC goes is a set of things that have never served PU particularly well nor promise to serve it in the future. We have people that want to play and contribute to GSC PU and I don't believe there is a downside to this process asking for maintenance, if anything it's more likely to keep people engaged.

We should keep things as simple as possible IMO and active tiering does that - we can skip the endless deep discussions that scare people off by making these discussions feel huge and forbidding and like if they don't make extremely high effort contributions then they might as well not contribute at all.

Option 2 I find marginally more acceptable than 3 because at least it sets a clear boundary and we work from there. 3 is to me the worst of the workable options and is a prime example of the huge forbidding and unnecessary discussions that I'm talking about. Option 5 is acceptable to me only if we simply cannot bring any outcome from this process. 6 and 7 I think are the worst possible outcomes for PU and we should avoid them.

Lastly, not sure which thread or place I should be saying this in but GSC PU in PUCL should go ahead with whatever changes we implement, we have little reason to delay the progress of the tier and much reason to move ahead.

 

[THE_CHUNGLER]

huge yap/naval gazing/struggle session incoming, you’ve been warned

I'd like to express support primarily for options 1 and 4. PU has nothing to lose by adopting a "modern" approach to viability based tiering in the adoption of a simple cutoff for drops + active tiering.

I believe that VR creation is robust and rigorous enough with the vapicuno method, and that attempts to loop in further discussion about what is or is not defined as a certain tier is 1. compounding the subjective aspects of VR tiering 2. undoing some of the work to quantify the opinions collated and 3. elongating and overcomplicating a process that we only need to follow once per year at most.

To me it seems that the only things standing in the way of full active tiering for PU are tradition/precedence which as far as GSC goes is a set of things that have never served PU particularly well nor promise to serve it in the future. We have people that want to play and contribute to GSC PU and I don't believe there is a downside to this process asking for maintenance, if anything it's more likely to keep people engaged.

We should keep things as simple as possible IMO and active tiering does that - we can skip the endless deep discussions that scare people off by making these discussions feel huge and forbidding and like if they don't make extremely high effort contributions then they might as well not contribute at all.

Option 2 I find marginally more acceptable than 3 because at least it sets a clear boundary and we work from there. 3 is to me the worst of the workable options and is a prime example of the huge forbidding and unnecessary discussions that I'm talking about. Option 5 is acceptable to me only if we simply cannot bring any outcome from this process. 6 and 7 I think are the worst possible outcomes for PU and we should avoid them.

Lastly, not sure which thread or place I should be saying this in but GSC PU in PUCL should go ahead with whatever changes we implement, we have little reason to delay the progress of the tier and much reason to move ahead.

I think this is a great post overall, but there are some things that worry me with active tiering in gsc pu.

You say there is no reason active VR based tiering can’t work in gsc pu. I think we need to be honest with ourselves though, that in a generation like gsc, PU is already using some of the absolute bottom of the barrel mons. Things like normal resists and spikers that define gsc as a generation can easily end up snatched by NU, creating a metagame that’s very difficult to build and play. If we implemented full active tiering with no ability to hold onto mons that move up on the NU VR, PU loses delibird and more importantly, rhyhorn while introducing a slew of strong normal types.

PU in my opinion already has problems with exploitable normal resists such as gastly (very defensively frail, but hit hard by any normal type’s coverage) and macargo (not only 4x weak to Seaking surf like rhyhorn, but also 4x weak to hp ground.) GSC is a generation where normal ground coverage is insanely good and available to every mon. (See: Snorlax lol)

You could fairly ask, what about gsc zu? This tier uses viability rankings and frequently has drops and rises that change the nature of the tier with an even worse selection of pokemon. However, we’ve already seen that the last round of tier shifts took 2 staple defensive pieces in bayleef and wartortle, while only dropping ariados and ponyta, ariados needed to be banned along with charmeleon. The current version of gsc zu sees very little play and has a very hard time developing its metagame outside of team tournaments. Gsc lower tiers are already losing players and many of the zu mainers that used to play gsc zu have dropped it which is a huge piece of the playerbase.

I think we owe it to ourselves to curate drops to a certain extent with collaboration from NU players in order to keep the metagame healthy and interesting. Obviously this is going to be arbitrary, but methods 2 and 3 let us consider the VR as a large piece of the puzzle while still keeping pieces of the metagame that have defined GSC PU for over a year. I think we need to use methods 2 or 3 first to limit the number of drops and rises, since GSC PU has not dropped pokemon into it for a very long time and for good reason (the tier doesn’t get played enough and there is no ladder to support metagame development). Hell, gsc pu JUST got added to team tours very recently and isn’t even being considered for PUs biggest team tour right now. After we do this sets of conservative drops, then we can look at what we’d need to do to support active tiering. Dropping just the C rank and below would be such a massive shift to the tier that it would need multiple tests and bans.

In summary I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the current level of player activity in GSC PU can support the drops and rises that would result from active tiering currently, even if it could be a goal for the future.

 

[Wanted in 49 States]

I'm going to excise some of the more productive parts from my previous post:

It is impossible for philosophies 1-4 to be objective at this point. You need to have an established process and an agreed upon criteria beforehand, otherwise you can choose whatever criteria you want that best aligns with your preferences (and it has happened!) Active tiering in RBY partly works because there are established expectations as to what will be counted as apart of the tier and what isn't considered apart of the tier due to an established hard cutoff at B/C beforehand. This in turn informs VRs submitted by voters. GSC doesn't have this, and some people consider C ranks as definitely apart of a tier, and others don't, which definitely affects the VRs themselves (without an agreed upon meaning and cutoff, viability could be "how core a mon is to the tier" or "how likely you are to win with this mon" or any other criteria. some people may have ranked mons they consider apart of the tier, namely BP mons and Magmar, below mons they consider not apart of the tier and would change their vote if cutoffs were defined to be "B ranks are NU mons, C ranks are PU mons")

Since no cutoff was determined beforehand, it really is difficult to determine what a voter means when they say a Pokémon is C rank or not. They could mean it is apart of the tier (like in the GSC OU VR or last years GSC UU VR) or not apart of the tier. As such, the VRs themselves are kind of vibes-based and even a simple cutoff is rather difficult to define. A vote between a B or C cutoff definition at this stage will definitely be determined more by preference than an objective metric (Delibird is in C tier so it will be a referendum on if you enjoy spikeless tiers). The vapicuno method does a good job in quantifying vibes, but the issue is that the lack of an established cutoff beforehand affects the submitted VRs themselves, since people just submit VRs that make sense to them without following a framework because a GSC tiering cutoff has never existed. Overcomplicating this process by adding differing rise/drop cutoffs, limbo tiers, x amount of VRs needed, etc. doesn't really fix this issue. In fact, they make it more subjective since you can invent whatever statistical criteria that best suits your preferences. Option 2 is basically option 3 but worded in a more palatable way.

I think the pursuit of objectivity here is not only impossible, but also misguided. It's important to note that this entire ordeal is entirely for PU's benefit. If it weren't, NU would just keep the status quo, and if it really wanted to update the NU list to be more accurate to the metagame, it would tell PU players to kick rocks as it rises Rhyhorn and possibly Delibird, because that is what tiering is supposed to be like on Smogon.com, it is tiering philosophy. As such, I think the conversation should focus on what gives PU the most tools to improve their tier. Actually being objective and following tiering philosophy entails telling PU players to beat it and figure things out by themselves.

I've already given my thoughts on how I think every option that isn't "do nothing" will be subjective no matter what, so I think at this point you should just cut out the middle man and directly ask the NU voters if they think X Pokémon is NU caliber or not rather than try to deduce from the VR what the theoretical average GSC NU voter thinks is NU caliber. Send out a survey with all Pokémon you could reasonably argue could be different tiers (Top, Horn, Dnair, Mag, Ledian, Licki, etc) and work from there. A survey would better quantify the vibes of what people consider NU than the VR, and would lead to concrete Y/N responses that are more easy to apply (at the end of the day, a Pokemon is either going to be NU or PU/PUBL, so the loss of nuance isn't a big deal).

It's of my opinion that we should not in any circumstances drop a Pokemon the community believes is 1. NU-worthy or 2. on a periodic down-turn that may not accurately reflect its actual place in the meta.

Just my two cents here: almost always, there are Pokemon/tiers that are kind of debatable if they are really apart of the tier or not. And you will get some placements wrong because no one knows the future, some will actually be PU Pokemon stuck in NU, and some will be NU Pokemon stuck in PU. But from my experience, the damage of putting a Pokemon in a tier too high is much larger than the damage of putting a Pokemon in a tier that is too low, especially if dropping mons again in the future is on the table. Being stringent and sending borderline NU mons to PU doesn't really affect NU, since they are still tournament legal even if they are in a tier below, and tend to be iffy cases anyways. And if they are too powerful in the tier below, PU has mechanisms to ban a problematic Pokemon. But for a PU Pokemon stuck in NU, there are three relevant problems:

• The misplaced Pokemon is illegal in the tier that it is "supposed" to be in, with no formal mechanism for it to drop. The situation is pretty much permanent in GSC.
• Especially if future updates are on the table, it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty where people think "why are we playing this metagame when it will eventually change when the rest of the PU mons drop?" This has happened before in RBY, RBY ZU was a completely dead metagame for around a year because of this.
• Even if future updates are completely ruled out, it will take up oxygen in the room since people will still ask for it, and those voices will be loud if the resulting PU metagame isn't that good. How much oxygen has Venusaur in UU taken up? Or the multi-year long debate of dropping UUBL mons?

In general, just giving PU more tools than it will need is the safer option.

 

[MrSoup]

But from my experience, the damage of putting a Pokemon in a tier too high is much larger than the damage of putting a Pokemon in a tier that is too low, especially if dropping mons again in the future is on the table. Being stringent and sending borderline NU mons to PU doesn't really affect NU, since they are still tournament legal even if they are in a tier below, and tend to be iffy cases anyways.

Generally agree with your post and generally agree with this statement. Having a mon too low is much preferable to having a mon too high. This is why personally I advocate for 6 drops and only one rise. However I think there should still be a level of scrutiny to drops to prevent re-rises. If we drop, for example, Lickitung to PU and it becomes a central piece of the PU meta, we’re ruining the pace of metagame development if Lickitung becomes NU-caliber again in the eyes of the playerbase and rises. That’s all. I just think we should be cautious in borderline cases and gather more data (subjective or objective). Not really for the benefit or detriment of NU, but for the benefit of PU.

 

[BigFatMantis]

I think that, generally speaking, there seems to be a near consensus (not totally unanimous but a very strong plurality) that individually dropping Farfetch’d, Azumarill, Dunsparce, Houndour, Arbok, and Raticate is generally acceptable and that those mons are strongly not considered to be NU and are better suited to be labeled PU. Regardless of what your individual science or methodology is, or your reasoning and process requirements or wishes, most everyone at the end of the day has those lemons in PU when their own internal reasoning is concluded.

I’m really not sure that we have to agree on a method or process here at all. If the end result is generally agreeable, then I see little reason to not just move forward with it. Getting bogged down in the philosophy of it (or the “oxygen” as Wanted put it) doesn’t seem to serve the purpose here. This is the first time we are really integrating some change. It’s ok to do what’s safe for now and revisit where things are next time (and honestly Ledian gets banned anyways in PU most likely, moreso than any of the other mons at least while BP is allowed).

If we wanna have a vote that’s fine I’m not gonna argue against it, but I think that most of us already see a clear result that a big majority of people will be happy with. We don’t have to codify the process. We can drop these mons and develop the tier and see where things stand next time to improve on it.

 

[BeeOrSomething]

Wanted to say my piece here since I haven't yet with regards to specific rises and drops rather than just which option I prefer.

I pretty wholeheartedly agree with the viewpoints of MrSoup and Wanted in 49 States. My takeaway from Wanted's post is less so about the "badness" of the inherent subjectivity we (including myself) claimed to try to be avoiding (not saying his post was trying to make this claim) and more just that, at this point, is it relevant at all? This is a realization I've come to. Subjectivity is not inherently a bad thing, especially when the entire point of this discussion is to try to bring some change to PU because most (though not all) of its players feel a strong need for change. The history of GSC tiering is deeply steeped in subjectivity, and for the most part, it has been extremely positive for metagame development and attracting interest. It's not like this process is the end-all-be-all either; time doesn't stop here for PU. We are doing this to prevent that, to allow the tier to continue gaining attention and play, which simultaneously facilitates our ability to enact future tiering action if it comes to be necessary.

I argue that we should accept the circumstances of the options available and move forward with a version of option 3, a proposal similar to what MrSoup presents: Rise Hitmontop and drop Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Farfetch'd, Azumarill, and Raticate while being open to the possibility of dropping things like Ledian and Lickitung in the future.

I don't think there is much of a reason to necessitate a vote. I feel like an observed consensus is a fairly reasonable decision to make at this point considering the vocal support for drops and rises based on the NU metagame by this point. It seems like an obvious majority. The exact details of who prefers what specific combination of pokemon to drop does vary, but I believe this can just be avoided by simply only selecting those which all agree on to drop and rise to make sure our choices are "surefire."

 

[BeeOrSomething]

As a side note, I feel like PUBL drops have been somewhat glossed over in this conversation. If we are committing to dropping 6 NU Pokemon, then I don't see any reason to not drop Furret, Poliwhirl, and Hitmonchan as well. The metagame will be significantly different and I don't have much reason to believe they should stay in PUBL even through the tiering changes. Worst case, they get banned again and we move on. Clearly, none of them fit the bill of being considered true NU pokemon.

A decision will be reached on drops and rises on Monday. In the meantime, anyone who has not spoken yet or wishes to speak further has the weekend to do so. Thanks.

 

[BigFatMantis]

As a side note, I feel like PUBL drops have been somewhat glossed over in this conversation.

I didn’t really discuss it because I feel it’s a completely separate issue. The drops have to do with if a mon is truly NU or not. The PUBLs is more of a PU decision on what they want to do with their metagame afterwards. I can’t really comment on what should be unbanned unless we know what the drops and rises are, but I generally think they should all be unbanned as well in the event the seemingly likely solution on drops/rises occurs.

 

[July]

I am awfully late to discussion. I think option 2 is the most ideal one to move forward. The rest drops are fine and keeping Lickitung and Ledian in NU seems fair. I think we should free the PUBL's as well as the meta is going to see a huge change and these BL mons might get a chance to be balanced in the new meta considering the mons that drop will each have thier own impact. I think if Hitmonchan gets freed it can make up for the Rise of Hitmontop as well. Hitmontop rise in also justified but I think Rhydon should not rise and should be visited later for a rise.The drops will bring a big change to the PU tier, I think we should have done an seperate tour to address the metagame before PUCL, releasing an untested metagame can be problematic. But i dont think that is on the table and bans can be visited during PUCL so not that big of a deal.

 

[torkonpeter]

See: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...d-rising-hitmontop-and-rhyhorn-to-nu.3776348/

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 to purely focus on drops from NU to PU. A separate thread is open regarding rises, so please do not discuss them here.

NU and PUBL Pokemon ranked below B on the official VR

Pokemon that could be argued as eligible for a drop from NU to PU:
- Arbok
- Azumarill
- Dragonair
- Dunsparce
- Farfetch'd
- Houndour
- Ledian
- Lickitung
- Magmar
- Raticate

Pokemon that could be argued as eligible for a drop from PUBL to PU, but only if drops from NU also occur (they were banned from PU for a reason):
- Furret
- Hitmonchan
- Poliwhirl

Many members of the GSC PU playerbase have found great dissatisfaction with the state of the metagame, even after Poliwhirl's ban (myself included). GSC PU is an extremely polarizing tier: it is often cited as being extremely slow and difficult to make progress in, with 100+ turn games being a frequent occurrence and players complaining about the tier being straight up unenjoyable due to situations where your team is completely choked out by the opposition's defense being somewhat common. Simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically, others also cite GSC PU as leading to frequent scenarios where one team completely steamrolls the other due to an extremely lopsided matchup or atrocious hax, causing completely unfair games that end in under 40 or 50 turns.

The end result is this: GSC PU's playerbase has been pretty steadily declining, many want some sort of change, and none has happened yet. The intention of this thread and the rise thread is to put in some work to provide that change and move towards a hopefully better future. So what can we do?

THE OPTIONS (not all are mutually exclusive)

1. Full Active Tiering for PU (full reset + continual maintenance) - All pokemon not currently deemed NU-caliber are dropped to PU based on the NU VR. PU is changed accordingly based on future NU VRs every first or second update (tbd).
Issues: Not consistent with other non-ZU GSC tiers, requires constant effort across years, playerbase size somewhat questionable

2. Cutoff Philosophy - NU Players collectively agree on a defined cutoff for what should and should not be "objectively" deemed NU-caliber in coordination with PU playerbase.
Issues: Inflexible unless cherrypicking is done as an alteration after the cutoff is selected, but at that point it's basically option 3

3. Subjective Selection based on NU retrospection (nuclear one-time option) - Drop all currently NU ranked Pokemon whom the NU playerbase deems not having been worthy of the NU distinction for an extended period of time (ex. we could decide Arbok should drop, but not Dragonair) and then let the tier settle.
Issues: Arguably prone to arbitrary/subjective selection, decision less directly in hands of PU playerbase

4. Subjective selection based on PU prospection (safe option) - Make eligible for drops all currently NU ranked Pokemon that are not deemed NU caliber by a cutoff and then the PU playerbase selectively determines which NU pokemon below that cutoff to allow to drop to PU.
Issues: Arguably prone to arbitrary/subjective selection, may not leave all Pokemon accurately represented by their tiering status which is somewhat counterintuitive (ex. Magmar could be dropped to PU even though its status of being perceived as not NU worthy is both a recent and non-universal sentiment)

5. Forgo drops completely, pursue suspect tests on PU Pokemon like Venomoth (conservative method)
Issues: Slow process, needs suspect tours. Venomoth especially is also the most defining pokemon in the tier and you could argue that if you make a change as drastic as banning it then it's better to go the reverse direction and do drops instead. Future bans may also be necessary

6. Do suspect drops (UU method)
Issues: Slow process, needs a lot of suspect tours at which point you could argue it's better to do something else

7. Do nothing
Issues: People are still going to be unhappy with the tier

The main objective of the thread is this:
Figure out a singular path forward on a consensus decision amongst the PU playerbase (and in cooperation with NU if necessary) and try to get the tier into a more enjoyable state again where people are excited to play. This is by no means the first step; quickbans and other future action can and will absolutely follow if necessary. The most important thing is just that we take that initial action and make a decision in the first place. The process as a whole could very well be a long effort, but the sooner we start, the less time PU will be in its current state of turmoil and the closer we are to a cleaner and more finalized version of the tier, one that we do want to play. This discussion has already been going on for months; I see no reason why it needs to drag on for even longer. We're in a new year, and GSCPL just ended, PUCL is coming very soon, and GSC Slam is in a month. It's time to finally make a decisive move forward.

Tagging PU Players to participate in the conversation:
Aurist DD Joe torkonpeter Estarossa BigFatMantis BloodAce vani LustfulLice Theycallmephil feen zben O1V7O2X9O DiannieRatson plznostep THE_CHUNGLER Lyra

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.

im still for full active tiering but am ok with every version of it so im ok with saying below this cutoff mons fall above they rise but im also ok with having c as an inbetween tier or only dropping/rising an mon if its 2/3 times in an rising/dropping tier im even ok with only dropping/rising mons if they are both above/below the cuttof in the vr and with the usage stats but im really against the idea of induvidually discussing mons we can give an cutoff to vote but i really dont like the idea of discussing induvidual mons just makes the procces unnecescarly complicated

Option 3 is the only option that follows GSC precedent for rises and drops. Only in the initial creation of tiers, such as when PU was first formed, has a cutoff philosophy been used. In every historic instance of a GSC rise or drop, option 3 has been used.

However, option 3 should be informed by objective data points, such as VRs, and subjective data points, such as metagame impact. I'm pretty much in agreement with what Bee suggested in his first post. I think BFM's approach comes from a different angle than ours, but would ultimately result in a similar outcome. That being said, I'm going to personally push for 3 in order to adhere to historical precedent.

Now for my perspective on the actual drops. Based on the current and past VRs, a cutoff between C and D1 ranks makes the most logical sense to me to base an initial list of Pokemon. That would include Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Lickitung, Ledian, Farfetch'd, Azumarill, and Raticate. I think retiering anything in the C rank would be an overstep. This tier is full of Pokemon who could be B tier on a good day. With such high fluctuations from one VR to the next, C rank shouldn't be considered.


I would have no regrets about seeing any of these Pokemon go to PU for the PU council to decide metagame impact/health. Each of these has sustained a long period of metagame decline in both perceived viability and usage. While some of these Pokemon are occasionally used by NU players looking to fulfill specific niches for preferred archetypes, none hold a candle to even the worst NU Pokemon. I am all for dropping them.


It's of my opinion that we should not in any circumstances drop a Pokemon the community believes is 1. NU-worthy or 2. on a periodic down-turn that may not accurately reflect its actual place in the meta. While I whole-heartedly agree we should reference our VRs as a data point here, I also think we need to critically think about these decisions through some sense-checking. Above all, we should be considering our decisions' long-lasting impacts and attempt at all costs to avoid situations where Pokemon are rising and falling through tiers due to poor foresight on our end. When working with data, especially low quality data from a small sample size, it's essential to add stopping mechanisms for enhanced scrutiny.

Personally, I do not believe Ledian and Lickitung meet the criteria for leaving NU. Ledian is a core Pokemon in the speed-passing archetype that has gained particularly renewed interest in the last 6 months. It's also separated by the other drop contenders on the VR, being in the D1 rank, while others are in the D2 rank and below. In the current method for creating VRs, tier name means little and is not consistent from dataset to dataset. The interpretation that 'Ledian is in D rank' is accurate, but I think a more accurate analysis is 'Ledian is a rank above all other drop considerations.' The actual name of the tier, in my opinion, should hold little weight.

As for Lickitung, I believe its current ranking is a display of a periodic downward trend that is likely to be rectified. The Pokemon in ranks ~25-40 of the GSC NU VR tend to swing drastically from year to year. For example, Tangela rose 12 places this year from 32nd to 44th, while Bayleef dropped 10 from 29th to 39th. Compared to the May 2025 VR, Lickitung dropped 6 spots from 'C2,' and is at the lowest it has ever been on a VR. I believe Lickitung has a much greater metagame impact compared to the other six suspected drops, and I would not be surprised if it jumped up a significant amount of spots next year. Just from a glance, we can see it's ranked below extremely niche Pokemon, such as Omanyte and Bayleef. I'm arguing that this is a blip, and we should heavily consider its actual place in NU.

I do agree that Ledian and Lickitung are on the lower end of the viability spectrum when it comes to NU Pokemon, but I would not feel personally comfortable deeming them PU-level. I think each has significantly more viability then Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Farfetch'd, Raticate, and Azumarill and should be considered for staying NU. We're in a position where if we drop Pokemon, PU is expected to receive many new options + the current PUBLs. I do not think it would be a good decision to be hasty here. I think a reevaluation of these two come the next VR (along with Rhyhorn rising) would be a more prudent way to ensure we avoid having to retier these two as NU in the future.

I would like to invite any other NU players to give input on these 8 Pokemon and your perceived metagame impact of each, particularly for Ledian, Lickitung, or any of the other 6 you may deem to still be NU-worthy. Tagging some people not already tagged.
Shengineer DAWNBUSTER Real FV13 Zpice JensenDale

I support mrsoup’s suggestion, especially keeping ledian in NU, but the rest have been very poor for a long time and and clearly not nu-caliber. I’m indifferent on Lickitung. Ledian dropping would be OK but feels wrong...

lickitungs dropp isnt as sudden as you make it out to be it is curently in an all time low but in all the fromer vrs it wasnt much higher it was often ranked just a tiny bit higher then dunsparce and not anywherte where it was clearly an nu mon but i really hate that ledian take leddian was ranked for the last 4 vrs always below multiple mons ranked pu and even with its current up turn its the lowest mon in the d1 tier where all other mons are pu mon and which is nearer to the d2 tier then the c tier and the c tier is alredy an tier where people are split if its nu or pu and it has an 1 % usage rate in tours till now and even if we only loock at newer tours its still around 2% usage thats not the usage of an meta staple thats an mon with an nich in the tier but not trully in it usage if it trully gets better in the future we can rise it next time but i hate the idea of not rising an mon because it curently sees experimention which gives it an uptick on the vr but not even enough to make it an clear nu mon so your arguning more for the potential of it being rasted higher in the future and if that happens we can just rise it i only would only think not letting it drop would be right if it was decided to rise all c tiers

Wanted to say my piece here since I haven't yet with regards to specific rises and drops rather than just which option I prefer.

I pretty wholeheartedly agree with the viewpoints of MrSoup and Wanted in 49 States. My takeaway from Wanted's post is less so about the "badness" of the inherent subjectivity we (including myself) claimed to try to be avoiding (not saying his post was trying to make this claim) and more just that, at this point, is it relevant at all? This is a realization I've come to. Subjectivity is not inherently a bad thing, especially when the entire point of this discussion is to try to bring some change to PU because most (though not all) of its players feel a strong need for change. The history of GSC tiering is deeply steeped in subjectivity, and for the most part, it has been extremely positive for metagame development and attracting interest. It's not like this process is the end-all-be-all either; time doesn't stop here for PU. We are doing this to prevent that, to allow the tier to continue gaining attention and play, which simultaneously facilitates our ability to enact future tiering action if it comes to be necessary.

I argue that we should accept the circumstances of the options available and move forward with a version of option 3, a proposal similar to what MrSoup presents: Rise Hitmontop and drop Arbok, Dunsparce, Houndour, Farfetch'd, Azumarill, and Raticate while being open to the possibility of dropping things like Ledian and Lickitung in the future.

I don't think there is much of a reason to necessitate a vote. I feel like an observed consensus is a fairly reasonable decision to make at this point considering the vocal support for drops and rises based on the NU metagame by this point. It seems like an obvious majority. The exact details of who prefers what specific combination of pokemon to drop does vary, but I believe this can just be avoided by simply only selecting those which all agree on to drop and rise to make sure our choices are "surefire."

i really hate the idea of not having an vote because less then half of the voters of the nu vr even disccused anything in this thread so you only heard the side of an loud minority maybe the rest is of the same opinion but it could also be the oposite

As a side note, I feel like PUBL drops have been somewhat glossed over in this conversation. If we are committing to dropping 6 NU Pokemon, then I don't see any reason to not drop Furret, Poliwhirl, and Hitmonchan as well. The metagame will be significantly different and I don't have much reason to believe they should stay in PUBL even through the tiering changes. Worst case, they get banned again and we move on. Clearly, none of them fit the bill of being considered true NU pokemon.

A decision will be reached on drops and rises on Monday. In the meantime, anyone who has not spoken yet or wishes to speak further has the weekend to do so. Thanks.

i like the idea of dropping furret and hitmonchan but with poliwhirl i would like to wait till the new meta settled a bit more as unlike the other 2 it was banned for its cheese potential not because it was to strong for the meta

 

[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. Essentially, we are going with option 3 from the OP.

The following changes will occur:

Raticate, Farfetch'd, Dunsparce, Arbok, Azumarill, and Houndour will be officially dropped from NU to PU.
Tagging dhelmise and Marty to implement.

PU council leaders may decide if they also want PUBL Pokemon to be dropped back into PU. The NU playerbase may decide in the future if Ledian and Lickitung should be dropped from NU to PU. This is not the end of the line. Remember, any of these drops are eligible for quickbans. This is a start to what is hopefully a bright new future for GSC PU.

 

[BeeOrSomething]

The PU council has made a vote on the pokemon currently listed as PUBL. As such, the following changes will occur:

Furret and Hitmonchan will be dropped from PUBL into PU. Poliwhirl remains PUBL.
Tagging dhelmise and Marty to implement.

votes

torkonpeter - unban furret, unban hitmonchan, do not unban poliwhirl
Estarossa - do not unban furret, do not unban hitmonchan, do not unban poliwhirl
BeeOrSomething - unban furret, unban hitmonchan, do not unban poliwhirl
Aurist - unban furret, unban hitmonchan, do not unban poliwhirl
DD Joe - unban furret, unban hitmonchan, do not unban poliwhirl

 

[BigFatMantis]

Not sure if there’s any QBs happening, but I just wanted to float the suggestion:

I think Poliwhirl and Farfetch’d are fine for the tier. However, I’d consider QBing both (or keeping Whirl QBd and QB Fetch’d) for PUCL just to make sure things aren’t too unstable, and can revisit both afterwards. Again, I think both are probably fine, but I can’t deny the tier is going to take some time to stabilize and better to maybe be cautious.

I’m ok if they’re not banned though either way, but just wanted to give an opinion