DP Tier Discussion - BL and UU (mark 2)

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

I don't think banning all NFE is a good idea, as that would mean we would have to ban Pikachu, Trapinch, Scyther, Vigoroth, and Clamperl for no real res=ason.

I was of the belief that for the purposes of this discussion the term 'NFE' means any Pokemon whose fully evolved form is BL or above. With this definition, adopting the 'none at all' policy would mean that every Pokemon would belong in the same tier as the fully evolved Pokemon in the evolution chain, meaning that Pikachu and Clamperl would be fine regardless.

Also in addition to the criteria you posted maybe something along the lines of movepool differences allowing for a different play style (an example of that would be Togetic).

I'd tread carefully with that proposition, as there is a fine line between 'allowed' and 'forced'. By this I mean, in the example you've given, there is nothing Togetic can do movepool-wise that Togekiss cannot do should the player desire. This means that using Togetic doesn't 'allow' the user any additional options over Togekiss.

On the other hand, we see that Togekiss has moves like Air Slash and Aura Sphere that Togetic cannot learn. These are moves that Togekiss commonly relies on in standard play, therefore you could say that Togetic is 'forced' to adopt a different style of play to Togekiss' common paraflinch strategy. The problem with that is the enormous subjectivity involved. Do we allow the likes of Wartortle and Ivysaur who cannot learn Earthquake? What about Diglett who doesn't learn Stone Edge? You could adopt the 'common moveset' argument, but again how you define common is incredibly subjective and will lead to disagreements.

 

[evolutia]

The sheer amount of subjectivity and complexity that goes along with determining what is and what is not distinct is a real headache. The latter proposal of just allowing everything and going from there feels like it is the easier choice.

Rules must be easy to understand. Creating such subjective rules and regulations for NFE's is not optimal for easy understanding.

 

[Garganator]

I had strong apprehension about allowing NFE's (Non distinct) in the beginning but I came to the realization that one cannot just downgrade there OU team by one evolution and expect it to preform well. I just have my doubts about it turning into an OU mini; the pokemon currently in UU are not pushovers. The majority of NFE's will be hard pressed to compete with them. If a NFE is proven to be to strong then it should be banned.

No exceptions(Hi Gilgar). Either distinct NFE's or none at all.

But I think some of NFE's are really unique enough to be considered (Shelgon, Pupitar, Larvitar), which in my opinion are that different, that for example forcing them to be in the same tier as for example as Tyranitar looks strange for me. But if they're just like fully evolutions (Sneasel = Weavile, Chansey = Blissey) and if they would in future just copy tactics of OU cousins, then I don't see any sense in allowing them in UU. So I disagree with statement "we allow all of them or none". But why ? I would love to test things like Shelgon or Pupitar and I can't imagine them playing in similar way like Salamence or Tyranitar. Or if they're traits are that different, that they can't copy the most POPULAR tactic of their OU cousins (Yeah, Seadra, I look at you) then I don't see any problem at all. About exception - I would allowed them if only most of players would agree, that they would help in balancing some tier. I think that Gliscor is good example here as being helpfull with stopping in some point some fighting-type pokemon. I don't think it's that bad at all, even for cost of questions why we don't allow some NFE's if they're similar to OU ones.

The sheer amount of subjectivity and complexity that goes along with determining what is and what is not distinct is a real headache. The latter proposal of just allowing everything and going from there feels like it is the easier choice.

Rules must be easy to understand. Creating such subjective rules and regulations for NFE's is not optimal for easy understanding.

I agree with that. I think we should start from points which I hope are obvious for all of us:

Different typing than fully evolved form
Different ability

Ok, I think that's clear enough. So we go further.

Also in addition to the criteria you posted maybe something along the lines of movepool differences allowing for a different play style (an example of that would be Togetic).

Maybe if pokemon lacks for example 4 moves (more or less, it's just an example) from standard sets to copy them, then it can be used. But to tell the truth it's a problem to make it clear enough. For this moment I don't have any really good idea.

Cheers.

 

[evolutia]

About exception - I would allowed them if only most of players would agree, that they would help in balancing some tier. I think that Gliscor is good example here as being helpfull with stopping in some point some fighting-type pokemon. I don't think it's that bad at all, even for cost of questions why we don't allow some NFE's if they're similar to OU ones.

It's not fair. I'm sure many people could come up with arguments for several non distinct NFE's that would help the metagame. "Helping" is very subjective. How can you explain that one NFE's contribution is worth more than another contribution for inclusion?

It's entirely too confusing and subjective,with the unique properties that each pokemon brings to the table. The latter idea is effortless and increases the overall variety of the UU metagame(moreso than just a handful of NFE's)

I've gave the unique nfe's serious thought and I don't feel it's worth the effort to go through with picking and choosing; let them all in.

 

[Chou Toshio]

or try parasect, absorbs the water for heal and as most rain dancers are deul type with rock, use a grass move, also means HP electric and grass wont ruin it.
The main problem with rain dance I have noticed is the way it is set up.. electrode, quick taunt and rain then explodes, you cant set up speed, sleep or basically prepare because of that taunt, switch and your poke gets blown up.

I have yet to meet the swift-swim sweeper without ice beam.

 

[Cynthia]

The criteria could definitely be an either/or thing. So have different typing, ability, or higher base stat to be considered.

Having a different movepool isn't a good one IMO since evolved Pokemon will always have the movepools of their pre-evos, just with some additions.

 

[beefdreams]

I have a problem with Pokemon that were at one time fully evolved and members of UU (gligar, sneasel...) being banned just because they gained an evolution.

 

[Garganator]

It's not fair. I'm sure many people could come up with arguments for several non distinct NFE's that would help the metagame. "Helping" is very subjective. How can you explain that one NFE's contribution is worth more than another contribution for inclusion?

It's not worth more the other, but I think it would help here, with that one problem. If someone will present any idea for interesting NFE, which would help with it, I don't see any problem, I won't force this idea. We can also add 20 new NFE's with Gligar if people think that they would help with balancing. I'm just thinking that Gliscor is good enough choice to be considered as one of those 'exceptions'. Maybe I'm wrong, but for this moment I don't see any other poke which would help here, without making UU tier unbalanced in countering fighting pokemon. I don't force anyone to just accept my point of view. In other words I just think if most people would accept one of those 'exceptions', I don't see any problem with just adding any pokemon to UU ladder, even if we think about this pokemon as "OU clone".

I've gave the unique nfe's serious thought and I don't feel it's worth the effort to go through with picking and choosing; let them all in.

But I don't think throwing them all at once for me is that great idea. But if it would help, we can try anyway. I'm not saying no before seeing how it could work. I'm just sceptical for now about this, but maybe I'm wrong that it would change the ladder on "little OU". I'm not optimistic about this, but I say yes for now, because I think too many people (and me) just have too different opinions about adding some pokes, to just accept one choice more then other one and it stops us to find ideal option and start with some ideas.

Having a different movepool isn't a good one IMO since evolved Pokemon will always have the movepools of their pre-evos, just with some additions.

Yep, I know. But I don't have any idea except those points, which you showed us. I don't think that idea of higher stats is ideal, I would prefer to stay with different typing and/or ability. Maybe this two points are enough ? Dunno.

 

[Slobroking]

I have a problem with Pokemon that were at one time fully evolved and members of UU (gligar, sneasel...) being banned just because they gained an evolution.

I really, really agree with this post. Why not just uatleast unban those pokemon (Piloswine, Gligar, Sneasel, Yanma, Togetic etc) and leave the other (not unique) NFEs banned? (unless they're broken in UU and were banned in Advance as well, like Dusclops, Rhydon etc)

 

[obi]

Why should previous generation's tiering have anything to do with DP tiering?

And I challenge you to name one non-distinct NFE version of an OU Pokemon.

Shelgon has superior physical defensiveness.

Eevee gets Adaptability, letting its Normal moves have more power than if they were used by even its OU evolutions, even after you take stats into account.

Pupitar has immunity to Electric moves, and has the most powerful Dragon Dance + Earthquake combination in the game (roughly tied with Rayquaza, just barely edging it out in some calculations)! Let's go a step down and look at Larvitar; Larvitar gets Guts, meaning that it can absorb Will-O-Wisp and actually benefit from it instead of being weakened by it.

How about Magikarp? It has Swift Swim! Same with Feebas.

Please, name me one non-distinct NFE form of an OU Pokemon.

 

[Slobroking]

Its impossible to argue if you think shelgon is distinct because I simply think it is not (intimidate + higher defenses cancels out the higher defense anyway).

When I'm talking about distinct pre evos im talking about those that bring something new to the table compared to their evos like pikachu, vigoroth, clamperl, scyther, not something like shelgon and gabite that plays the same way as its evo but worse.

I also think that regular metagames should be for fully evolved pokemon and distinct pre evos only and that little cup is for pre evos but I dont know what ''smogons philosphy'' is on this.

Also on the ''Please, name me one non-distinct NFE form of an OU Pokemon.'' Ivysaur and Gabite are 2 examples that are totally non distinct and bring nothing new.

''Why should previous generation's tiering have anything to do with DP tiering?'' I was just saying that because Dusclops and Rhydon are obviously way too broken for uu but that other pokemon who were uu that were fully evolved at one point should still be allowed in uu.

 

[Forsety]

Also Forsety not to nitpick but doesn't Vileplume learn leech seed through an event (like Wish Blissey)?

It does but I try ignore event moves for obvious reasons.

 

[phalanx]

I think we should leave NFE as it is for now, and only bring up pokemon with distinct differences from the full evos, magikarp for example, the differance is huge, pikachu has its light ball, clamperl has deepseatooth/scale.

 

[Evil Hamster]

The main issue I have here with only allowing 'distinct' NFE's is that pretty much any Pokemon can have a feature that makes it more suitable than it's FE form in a certain role. Where do you draw the line? As has already been mentioned, any NFE with a lower base speed has an advantage in Trick Room. Lower Defense makes certain NFE's more suitable for a Counter-based set. Lots have different traits, typing, or even legal move combinations. For example, it is legal to have a Fire Punch/Ice Punch/Thunderpunch/Pursuit Aipom, however, the same combination of moves is illegal as an Ambipom (Requires Double Hit to evolve, can only evolve in D/P, cannot relearn any moves)

For this reason, I believe that it would be logical just to allow all NFE's into UU play (Bar those that are too powerful, obviously)

 

[umbarsc]

I think we should just use the definition "different enough" and subjectively define "enough" on a case-by-case basis. Even though Monferno has some slight advantages over Infernape, a Nasty Plotting MixFerno plays identically to its fully-evolved counterpart. Does it matter that it is faster in Trick Room if no one will use it in Trick Room, or if Gyro Ball is weaker against it when it's resisted anyways?

 

[evolutia]

I think we should just use the definition "different enough" and subjectively define "enough" on a case-by-case basis. Even though Monferno has some slight advantages over Infernape, a Nasty Plotting MixFerno plays identically to its fully-evolved counterpart. Does it matter that it is faster in Trick Room if no one will use it in Trick Room, or if Gyro Ball is weaker against it when it's resisted anyways?

You are aware how complicated something like that is right? Say X NFE pokemon is found to be "different enough" but later on someone makes a case for it not being "different enough" that pokemon is now banned if person makes a great enough case for it. Also due to the fact the each pokemon is unique(in someway no matter how small) I think people could go back and forth on that issue taking up valuable time and exerting a constant effort with the topic of NFE's.

 

[beefdreams]

Why not test the NFEs? We already have plenty of testing to do, I think we should go ahead and handle it now. Though some play like mini OU, it is often the case that they don't have the stats to do the same job as their fully evolved form. If we test something and it is too strong than it is gone. If it is weak, it just won't get used. What is the problem with that?

 

[Bourbon]

A lot of these "unique" NFE things aren't really backed by terribly viable arguments. I agree with umbarsc, you could say Monferno is unique because it is slower, so it'd go first in trick room. However, you could also say that something like Kadabra is a unique NFE because it's heavier than Alakazam and has lower defense so it can use Counter effectively.

If we can't come up with better cases for these pokemon to be allowed, then maybe they shouldn't be. Stick with the obvious ones like Electabuzz, Pupitar, etc, but all these really "out there" and dumb ones like "faster in trick room", "takes less from gyro ball" and "counters better" are just stupid, and should be ignored. Of course NFEs have (for the most part) lower stats than their evolution. Stop trying to make it sound like an advantage or a way of making them unique.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Why not test the NFEs? We already have plenty of testing to do, I think we should go ahead and handle it now. Though some play like mini OU, it is often the case that they don't have the stats to do the same job as their fully evolved form. If we test something and it is too strong than it is gone. If it is weak, it just won't get used. What is the problem with that?

Exactly.

Can you please just clarify to me why it even matters that a pre-evo may not be "unique"?

I have yet to see anyone who has defined the argument against allowing pre-evolutions other than an incoherent mantra of "OU-lite".

What does that mean? Has anyone defined what "OU-lite" would mean? Has anyone defined why this is a bad thing?

We're sitting here wrangling over what NFEs are "unique" compared with their evolutions and "not unique" compared with their evolutions, and I have yet to see why the "non-unique" evolutions, irrespective of their actual stats or playability in battle, somehow harm the UU metagame!

Seriously.

If it's broken, then test it, then ban it, instead of wringing our hands over "uniqueness".

 

[Slickee]

I thought OU lite only referred to letting the auto-weather pokes in (which I am firmly against). That's my only real beef with NFE's. As long as we ban the ones that are too strong I don't see what the problem is, since they are, in most cases, completely inferior to the UU options.

Monferno's stats: 64/78/52/78/52/81
Primeape's stats: 65/105/60/60/70/95

 

[umbarsc]

If we allow NFEs similar to their fully-evolved OU counterparts, it's only natural that we also allow Tentacruel and other OUs that can compete in UU.

 

[obi]

It's also possible to ban Pokemon that end up truly being "OU-lite" to BL. However, you'd have to be willing to apply this same argument to non-NFEs like Blaziken, Blastoise, and such.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

If we allow NFEs similar to their fully-evolved OU counterparts, it's only natural that we also allow Tentacruel and other OUs that can compete in UU.

What? No. Do you even understand how the tier system works? What a horrible attempt at an argument.

 

[umbarsc]

It's also possible to ban Pokemon that end up truly being "OU-lite" to BL. However, you'd have to be willing to apply this same argument to non-NFEs like Blaziken, Blastoise, and such.

Which is essentially what we've been saying all along?

I'd also like to reiterate what I said in a previous thread about "association".

What? No. Do you even understand how the tier system works? What a horrible attempt at an argument.

If we're willing to allow in NFE Pokemon despite the fact that they are very similar to their OU counterparts, there's no reason not to bring in Pokemon like Tentacruel into UU. If we're not afraid at making UU similar to OU by bringing in Pokemon that play almost identically to OU Pokemon, why should we then try to avoid that by banning OU Pokemon that do not overpower UU?

Basically,

Group A is being allowed, despite the fact that it makes UU similar to OU.
Group B is not allowed, because it makes UU similar to OU.

Sure makes a lot of sense to me!

 

[gengod]

If we're willing to allow in NFE Pokemon despite the fact that they are very similar to their OU counterparts, there's no reason not to bring in Pokemon like Tentacruel into UU. If we're not afraid at making UU similar to OU by bringing in Pokemon that play almost identically to OU Pokemon, why should we then try to avoid that by banning OU Pokemon that do not overpower UU?

Basically,

Group A is being allowed, despite the fact that it makes UU similar to OU.
Group B is not allowed, because it makes UU similar to OU.

Sure makes a lot of sense to me!

This may make sense to you but thats about as far as its going. As Jabba said, this and your previous post seem like you don't understand how the tier system even works. Even if an OU pokemon wouldn't overpower UU, it will still never be UU by the strictest definition of what the term OU actually stands for. OverUsed pokemon reside in that tier for the sheer fact that they are OverUsed and will never become UnderUsed unless people stop using them as often.