• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

DP Tier Discussion - BL and UU (mark 2)

And yet we're considering allowing Pokemon that are nearly identicle to OU Pokemon?

umbarsc said:
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.

I'd just like an explanation to this. The reason the definition of "OverUsed" was created was to create tiers that could differentiate itself from standard. And now we're going to allow in Pokemon that play nearly identically to OU Pokemon, which does exactly the opposite.

I fail to see the logic here. If you can justify this, okay then, but so far both you and JabbaTheGriffin have been unable to.
 
umbarsc said:
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.

Saying "Group B" is not allowed because it makes UU similar to OU is false. "Group B" is not allowed in the UnderUsed tier because it is an OverUsed pokemon and thus will not be allowed to compete in the UnderUsed tier. I don't see whats so hard to understand about that.
 
You can ask "Why isn't Tentacruel allowed in UU", then you can say "Because it's OU." But what happens when people ask "Why aren't OU Pokemon allowed in UU?"

The answer to that is that allowing OU Pokemon in UU would defeat the purpose of UU, which would be to differentiate itself from OU.

Unless you can find a better definition, adding NFE Pokemon similar to their fully evolved OU counterparts would also break that definition.
 
You can ask "Why isn't Tentacruel allowed in UU", then you can say "Because it's OU." But what happens when people ask "Why aren't OU Pokemon allowed in UU?"

The answer to that is that allowing OU Pokemon in UU would defeat the purpose of UU, which would be to differentiate itself from OU.

Unless you can find a better definition, adding NFE Pokemon similar to their fully evolved OU counterparts would also break that definition.

The purpose of UU is not to differentiate itself from OU. The purpose of UU is to create a balanced metagame consisting of Pokemon that are rarely used in OU.
 
You can ask "Why isn't Tentacruel allowed in UU", then you can say "Because it's OU." But what happens when people ask "Why aren't OU Pokemon allowed in UU?"

The answer to that is that allowing OU Pokemon in UU would defeat the purpose of UU, which would be to differentiate itself from OU.

Unless you can find a better definition, adding NFE Pokemon similar to their fully evolved OU counterparts would also break that definition.

You still demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the tier system is. The answer to "Why aren't OU pokemon allowed in UU" is simply because they are used more often. Allowing OU pokemon in UU defeats the purpose of having an OU tier, not the other way around. You have it completely backwards and that is where your misunderstanding is coming from. Your whole logic of breaking that definition is wrong because your definition does not reflect how the tier system actually works.

The point of UU is to have a metagame where "standard" pokemon do not dominate to provide a fresh change of pace. Pupitar is by no means standard.

And even if your argument of UU existing solely to "differentiate itself from OU" were true, how would allowing NFEs to see competitive light not be doing exactly that? Making NFEs actually usable in UU would make it quite different from OU. So, even by your own logic NFEs should be allowed.
 
The purpose of UU is not to differentiate itself from OU. The purpose of UU is to create a balanced metagame consisting of Pokemon that are rarely used in OU.

Which is, more or less, the same thing. "Differentiate itself in terms of allowed Pokemon" would have been more precise, and what I was really getting at.

You still demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the tier system is. The answer to "Why aren't OU pokemon allowed in UU" is simply because they are used more often. Allowing OU pokemon in UU defeats the purpose of having an OU tier, not the other way around. You have it completely backwards and that is where your misunderstanding is coming from. Your whole logic of breaking that definition is wrong because your definition does not reflect how the tier system actually works.

The point of UU is to have a metagame where "standard" pokemon do not dominate to provide a fresh change of pace. Pupitar is by no means standard.

And even if your argument of UU existing solely to "differentiate itself from OU" were true, how would allowing NFEs to see competitive light not be doing exactly that? Making NFEs actually usable in UU would make it quite different from OU. So, even by your own logic NFEs should be allowed.

Um no, I don't believe I've demonstrated any sort of misunderstanding of how the tier works. I think you've just misinterpreted my argument.

Your last two paragraphs are why we allow "unique" NFEs. Allowing NFEs that are nearly identicle to their fully-evolved counterpart is a contradiction to the "purpose" of UU. Why play UU with MixMonferno and Gligar when you can just play OU?

Obviously that's a hyperbole, but it's the principle of the matter that counts.
 
Which is, more or less, the same thing. "Differentiate itself in terms of allowed Pokemon" would have been more precise, and what I was really getting at.

Um no, I don't believe I've demonstrated any sort of misunderstanding of how the tier works. I think you've just misinterpreted my argument.

Your last two paragraphs are why we allow "unique" NFEs. Allowing NFEs that are nearly identicle to their fully-evolved counterpart is a contradiction to the "purpose" of UU. Why play UU with MixMonferno and Gligar when you can just play OU?

Obviously that's a hyperbole, but it's the principle of the matter that counts.

No, it is you that is clearly misunderstanding this. Let me use your own words to describe where you are getting things mixed up:

"Differentiate itself in terms of allowed Pokemon" would have been more precise, and what I was really getting at.

Why play UU with MixMonferno and Gligar when you can just play OU?

MixMonferno and Gligar are different pokemon than Gliscor and Infernape by literally every possible correct definition. Playing UU with Monferno is different than playing OU with Infernape because it is a different pokemon surrounded by a drastically different environment. The pokemon that Monferno has to beat are much different than the ones Infernape has to beat in OU and they would not be played in the same manner because they would not have to face the same threats. It doesnt matter if they "play differently", they are still different pokemon with different stats, movepools, traits and typings and they are different, unique pokemon in every aspect of the game. You claim to want to differentiate OU from UU, but you don't see the difference between Gligar and Gliscor? They are different pokemon and having Gligar be common in UU would be drastically different than having Gliscor be common in OU. This fits your definition but you are still claiming that I am wrong with no actual evidence to prove me wrong.

Um no, I don't believe I've demonstrated any sort of misunderstanding of how the tier works. I think you've just misinterpreted my argument.

Your last two paragraphs are why we allow "unique" NFEs. Allowing NFEs that are nearly identicle to their fully-evolved counterpart is a contradiction to the "purpose" of UU.

You are STILL under the assumption that the purpose of UU is to be different from OU, which is still incorrect. UU is to allow pokemon that are overshadowed by OU pokemon to see competitive light. Monferno is overshadowed by Infernape and is UNDERUSED by definition of the word. There is no "purpose" to UU other than to play without the Over Used standards of competitive play. I don't know where you are getting your definition from.


If your logic were to hold true, we would have to ban Exeggutor because it is Celebi-lite. Never mind that it is a different pokemon with only minute differences, it plays similarly and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Let me refer you to a really good point brought up by Obi:
Also consider a few cases that make the "only allow unique NFEs" argument even more complicated.
...
If you reject the argument of less Speed sometimes being good (I don't see why, other than the vague "not important enough"), then consider the case of Unown. Unown has the same type and ability as Azelf. Its movepool is strictly inferior. Its stats are less in every place. If Azelf is OU, should Unown be banned from UU?

If Unown shouldn't be banned, the argument isn't "OU-lite", it's "the in-game status of evolvability should be given importance in our tier system", which is similar to "the in-game status of catchability should be given importance in our tier system" (a ban on legends).

If OU-lite is the real argument, Unown should be banned.

If we attempt to turn strategy into some structural / rule-based thing by saying "This difference between Pokemon isn't important enough", then we should consider banning Blaziken because of Infernape, Altaria because of Salamence, and Pinsir because of Heracross.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1332340&postcount=7
 
OU = the Pokemon that are used the most
BL = Pokemon too strong for UU
UU = Pokemon that are neither Uber, OU or BL

You seem to believe that UU has this inherent purpose in which it should not become "OU-lite." Yet this has nothing to do with the purpose of UU. It's for Pokemon that are UNDERUSED. Considering most NFE Pokemon are neither used enough for OU nor strong enough for BL, they fall into the UU category.

People may prefer that NFEs be banned because they fear that UU may turn into OU-lite and they don't think that metagame would be fun. But saying that they should be banned because they defeat the purpose of UU is completely and utterly 100% wrong.
 
I have to agree with umbarsc. Jrrrrrr, you said it yourself right here:

The point of UU is to have a metagame where "standard" pokemon do not dominate to provide a fresh change of pace. Pupitar is by no means standard.

Pupitar is not, but Gligar, Monferno and Machoke feel pretty damn standard to me, and anything but fresh. >>
 
I have to agree with umbarsc. Jrrrrrr, you said it yourself right here:

Pupitar is not, but Gligar, Monferno and Machoke feel pretty damn standard to me, and anything but fresh. >>

Actually that is not agreeing with umbarsc. It is agreeing with Maniaclyrasist. He (like you) wants them banned for personal preference, which is a perfectly legitimate reason. umbarsc is claiming that they should absolutely be banned because of some inherent purpose of the UU tier, which is unfounded and baseless.

I just happen to disagree that Monferno is not different than Infernape. They have different stats and different counters in their respective metagames. Monferno only has 81 base speed and that is very, very beatable in UU whereas the 108 Base Speed of Infernape is tough to beat even in OU. I'm just using Monferno as an example. I still feel that all NFEs that are proven to be unbalanced or otherwise undesired in the tier should be promoted to BL because that would solve this problem completely.
 
No, he is agreeing with me. "they feel pretty damn standard" is what I've been trying to get at.

The tiers were created for a purpose. There's a reason we have created a metagame with Pokemon not commonly seen in standards, and that is to have a metagame where non-standards thrive. To put in Pokemon that are nearly identicle to standard Pokemon seems to be a contradiction to that.

Yes, the direct definition of UU is "Pokemon not commonly seen in OU". But why was this definition created in the first place? If we didn't strive to create more than one balanced tiers, we would create the tiers solely on power. There is a reason UU was created in the first place, and I think you fail to understand that.

Also,

"but you are still claiming that I am wrong with no actual evidence to prove me wrong."

I haven't once stated that you were wrong. I only provided counter-arguments. Even if you disagree with what I have said, don't claim I didn't provide evidence.
 
No, he is agreeing with me. "they feel pretty damn standard" is what I've been trying to get at.

It is not what you said at all. "they feel standard" is a lot different than "uu was made to be different in terms of allowed pokemon". The first one is personal preference whereas the second one is completely false. The fact you continued to insist that it was the second one is where this disagreement lies.

The tiers were created for a purpose. There's a reason we have created a metagame with Pokemon not commonly seen in standards, and that is to have a metagame where non-standards thrive. To put in Pokemon that are nearly identicle to standard Pokemon seems to be a contradiction to that.

"nearly identical" is not "identical". It is not a contradiction. What is so difficult to understand about this? If this is your argument, then Unown must also be banned under the same logic. I am referring you back to Obi's post that I quoted. I have been saying that "to have a metagame where non-standards thrive" is the point of UU the whole time. Monferno is by no means standard and by your own logic it should be allowed in UU.

Yes, the direct definition of UU is "Pokemon not commonly seen in OU". But why was this definition created in the first place? If we didn't strive to create more than one balanced tiers, we would create the tiers solely on power. There is a reason UU was created in the first place, and I think you fail to understand that.

Now you are saying that I don't know why UU was created? Have you even read my posts? The reason UU was created was to provide a metagame where non-standards could see competitive light. It was not created "to be different from OU". I have said this multiple times, as have multiple other people in this thread. The only thing I don't understand is how you can possibly disagree with me since you literally just said the same thing as I have been saying this whole time. You are shifting back and forth between your opinion on the feel of uu and claiming that there is an inherent definition of uu other than "underused pokemon only" and it is getting really frustrating to explain it to you only to have you come back to my posts with a completely different mindset every time. If you don't like the similar feel of OU even though not many NFEs would even be usable in UU, that is one thing that I really can't disagree with. But don't tell me that I don't understand the point of UU when you are the one who is wrong about its purpose.
 
It is not what you said at all. "they feel standard" is a lot different than "uu was made to be different in terms of allowed pokemon". The first one is personal preference whereas the second one is completely false. The fact you continued to insist that it was the second one is where this disagreement lies.

No, the two statements are part of the same reasoning.

--UU exists for using pokemon not seen often in OU-- if it were not inherently different from OU there would be no point in having it.

-Thus when I say, "They feel pretty damn standard," I'm saying that because they feel OU, and they would make UU more like OU, including them would go against the purpose of having UU (to be a balanced tier different from OU).

This last part is where the preferences come into play, and where you and I disagree about what does/does not feel standard.

I do feel that Monferno feels just like Infernape-- which means I think including it would go against the purpose of UU because it feels standard.

You do not feel Monferno feels like infernape-- which means you think including it would not go against the purpose of UU because to you it's not standard.

Most of feel that scyther is completely different from scizor-- which means most of us think including it does not go against the purpose of UU because it is not standard.
 
They are not part of the same reasoning because "UU was made to be different" is completely wrong.

There is a difference between "feeling standard" and "being standard". umbarsc was claiming that UU was made to prevent those that feel standard from being used, which is wrong because it was made only to ban those that actually ARE standard.

I know what the argument is, I just don't buy it. Feeling standard is personal preference, and that should be taken into account...but claiming that the purpose of a tier was to eliminate things that "feel standard" is wrong and demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what the tier system is.
 
Then just let me just ask: If UU were just like OU, would there be any point to it?

What Umbarsc and I are getting at is a logical problem: "Banning the Standard Pokemon," has no inherent meaning in and of itself-- we do it for a purpose, a goal. A goal to create a different tier. Inherently, if you are going to make a different tier, its purpose in existing is to be different.

From that point it becomes an argument of what does and does not make UU just like OU.

Yes everyone knows that Monferno and Gligar would not inherently transform UU into OU, as they'd still be battling the likes of Vileplume and Omastar. But one has to admit that they do have an effect of making the two more similar, as monferno would mean "both tiers now have a fire/fighting mix-sweeper," and gligar would make "both tiers have a ground-flying support pokemon." And no matter how you look at it, because they are evolutionary lines, it can't be helped the some people will simply feel unevolved pokemon as part of evolved pokemon, in essence the same pokemon. These pokemon do have a standardizing effect on UU, and if preferences are important that's where the argument will lie-- how much are we willing to allow UU to be like OU?
 
Then just let me just ask: If UU were just like OU, would there be any point to it?

What Umbarsc and I are getting at is a logical problem: "Banning the Standard Pokemon," has no inherent meaning in and of itself-- we do it for a purpose, a goal. A goal to create a different tier. Inherently, if you are going to make a different tier, its purpose in existing is to be different.

From that point it becomes an argument of what does and does not make UU just like OU.

Again, it doesnt matter what you think OU and UU should be. OU is the pokemon that are used most often, UU is a metagame that removes them so that other pokemon can be used. It really is as simple as that.

There is no purpose to UU other than "no OverUsed pokemon allowed". This is not an arguable point since it is the definition of the tier. I don't know where you and Umbarsc are getting this "the goal of UU is to create a different tier" idea from, since that is not the goal of UU by any definition. It is not a logical problem since "banning the standard pokemon" IS the inherent meaning. You are looking WAY too far into this and it is making your otherwise sound arguments skewed with falsehoods. The purpose that you are claiming exists is to make pokemon that are less frequently used actually playable. It is not to be different than OU, that couldn't possibly be true because the OU tier changes every couple of months- what OU is changes, so how can you say what is and isnt different from it in a concrete definition? Saying "from that, it just comes down to what makes uu like ou" is completely irrelevant since OU has absolutely no bearing on UU except to serve as a ban list. What you are arguing amounts to "we need to change the what the tiers are defined as", not "we need to change the pokemon in the tiers".

Yes everyone knows that Monferno and Gligar would not inherently transform UU into OU, as they'd still be battling the likes of Vileplume and Omastar. But one has to admit that they do have an effect of making the two more similar, as monferno would mean "both tiers now have a fire/fighting mix-sweeper," and gligar would make "both tiers have a ground-flying support pokemon." And no matter how you look at it, because they are evolutionary lines, it can't be helped the some people will simply feel unevolved pokemon as part of evolved pokemon, in essence the same pokemon. These pokemon do have a standardizing effect on UU, and if preferences are important that's where the argument will lie-- how much are we willing to allow UU to be like OU?

THAT is what you should be arguing and what this thread should be discussing. I have already stated that I agree that the "OU-lite" feel is questionable for being allowed in UU, even if it does have the obvious logical flaw of the fact that other pokemon that dont share evolutionary lines can act as "in essence the same pokemon". Until you can provide a legitimate explanation as to why Unown shouldn't be banned considering that it is "in essence the same pokemon" as Azelf, you will need to find another argument other than "UU shouldnt feel like OU". Why people still insist on tiering pokemon based on evolutionary lines and how you catch them boggles my mind.

But for the 100th time, when Umbarsc says:

The answer to that is that allowing OU Pokemon in UU would defeat the purpose of UU, which would be to differentiate itself from OU.

Not only is he providing "support" that is completely, absolutely, inarguably 100% wrong, he is derailing the thread by showing a blatant ignorance of what the tier system actually is by saying what he thinks it should be. You would think that by now, the 37th page of the second uu discussion thread, people would actually know what the tier list is.
 
So wait, what happened to actually implementing the "please everyone" method ?_?

weren't we just going to keep the uu ladder as it is for now and continue adding and taking away things like we have been and then add the BL ladder with all the BL Pokemon unbanned

whyyy are we arguing when this appeases pretty much everyone ?_?
 
So wait, what happened to actually implementing the "please everyone" method ?_?

weren't we just going to keep the uu ladder as it is for now and continue adding and taking away things like we have been and then add the BL ladder with all the BL Pokemon unbanned

whyyy are we arguing when this appeases pretty much everyone ?_?

Because it is a serious issue in the UU metagame. It's pretty much impossible to please everyone in today's society anyway
 
I still want to know why we care about the whole "OU-lite" thing; like Jabba said, UU is not definitionally supposed to be "different" from OU other than the fact that OU pokemon are banned. umbarsc is giving stuff like "feels standard" and nobody really understands what that means.
 
If UU was created to use Pokemon not often seen in standard, it's backward thinking to allow Pokemon that are nearly identicle to standard Pokemon.
 
Yes but being nearly..."identicle"...is irrelevant. They're different Pokemon and should be treated as such. We're not going to ban Blaziken because it's nearly identical to Infernape. We're not going to ban Flygon because it's nearly identical to Garchomp. We're not going to ban Dodrio because it's nearly identical to Staraptor. Pokemon should be treated as individuals and comparisons to other Pokemon should hold no weight in their tier standing.
 
First of all, every example you brought up was flawed, because at least one of the Pokemon in every example was BL. A better example would be Altaria -> Dragonite, but even Altaria gets Natural Cure, which makes a big difference.

Secondly, I don't see why not. I would like to reiterate what I said about association. People don't associate Dodrio with Staraptor, despite being Normal/Flying with Brave Bird and Return. People will associate Machoke with Machamp when it starts Dynamic Punching everything in sight. I feel that that makes the difference.
 
First of all, every example you brought up was flawed, because at least one of the Pokemon in every example was BL. A better example would be Altaria -> Dragonite, but even Altaria gets Natural Cure, which makes a big difference.

It doesn't make it flawed at all. I was just pointing out that some Pokemon are nearly identical to Pokemon in a higher tier, but that doesn't mean they should be banned from the tier they're in. I didn't feel like wasting time finding the "best" examples because I figured any intelligent person could understand my point regardless.

Secondly, I don't see why not. I would like to reiterate what I said about association. People don't associate Dodrio with Staraptor, despite being Normal/Flying with Brave Bird and Return. People will associate Machoke with Machamp when it starts Dynamic Punching everything in sight. I feel that that makes the difference.

It's irrelevant what people associate with what. If there was a fully evolved Pokemon that had the same stats as Machoke, the same movepool and the same ability why should only one of them be banned from UU simply because people will associate it with an OU Pokemon?
 
Whoa, what the hell happened to this thread overnight? Yet another page wasted on arguing over a misconception of the tier system.

We have a list of Pokemon deemed too powerful for standard (Uber) and another for Pokemon that are commonly seen in standard play (OU). Any Pokemon that does not belong to either of these lists automatically fulfills the fundamental prerequisite for UU. The NFE debate is a completely separate issue from this definition and therefore the two should remain mutually exclusive.

There are several valid arguments for and against NFEs, but none of them should include the fundamental definition of UU. Why is this so difficult to understand?
 
The problem isn't that nobody understands what it means, it's that what umbarsc is arguing, "these Pokemon make UU feel like standard," means absolutely nothing. All arguments based on simple opinion have no bearing in the current tiering structure, and to say otherwise demonstrates either that you don't know what the current tiering structure is, or that you don't think that the current tiering structure is the right way to go, and that you think there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Of course, neither of these matter. The current tier structure is in place because it works, and it creates a playing environment where it is easy to figure out where the trends are going, as well as what the more powerful and influential Pokemon are.

That said, my standing on the whole NFEs in UU thing is that there are a number of criteria that set an NFE apart from its evolutions. I'll provide examples for each of the criteria.

1: Specialized Items. This is already well-defined and accepted in UU, but I figure it deserves mentioning anyway, as it falls within the bounds of acceptable NFEs in UU. Pokemon that get a boosting item that applies to it but not to its evolutions should be allowed in UU in order to utilize said item. Currently, this applies only to Clamperl (DeepSeaTooth and DeepSeaScale) and Pikachu (Light Ball), but it applies nonetheless.

2: Different Typing. This is already in play with Trapinch being allowed in UU due to being mono ground (and other things which need not be mentioned here). Pokemon with different typings have completely different sets of resistances and weaknesses, and thus, play differently than their OU counterparts. They also get different STABs, and thus may choose different moves for that reason. Scyther is an example of one that through typing fundamentally differs from its fully evolved counterpart. This could also apply to Shelgon, Seadra, Pupitar, and a couple other not really notable Pokemon (Magikarp lol).

3: Stat Spread. I really hate the whole "slower pokes can have an advantage in Trick Room" bullshit argument. So the idea would be that NFE Pokemon whose stat spreads differ heavily from the stat spreads of their fully evolved cousins can be considered different from their OU counterparts. Shelgon is a huge example of this. While Salamence has excellent attack, speed, and special attack as well as considerable bulk, Shelgon is more of a physical tank than Salamence with high physical attack and defense combined with low special defense and speed. Similarly, while Kingdra has equal offenses and defenses, Seadra has much lower HP, Attack, and Special Defense, making a special attacking set much more common (and a mixed or physical set much less common) than with Kingdra, its fully evolved counterpart.

4: Different Ability. This is the one that I think is the least important of the criteria. Some Pokemon have a completely different ability from their fully evolved form, which makes them play in a significantly different manner than said OU. This is most notable in the case of Pupitar, which carries Shed Skin instead of Sand Stream. Instead of being used as a tank to set up Sand Stream, it gets used as an offensive Pokemon that can be used to absorb status and heal it away with its ability.

These are the Pokemon that I think would see use in UU under these new rules:

Shelgon: Excellent defense with mediocre HP, but above-average attack. Its low speed might hamper it, but its high defense and useful resistances can allow it to come in and achieve a Dragon Dance and sweep. It has no real support movepool, and doesn't get reliable healing, so its tanking is pretty minimal.

Seadra: There are a number of ways that Seadra can fall. While it has a mediocre Attack stat, it does get Dragon Dance to boost it and its speed, making a physical set viable. It also has a good spread of attacks to hit with on the special side. Or it can combine the two and run something like Dragon Dance/Waterfall/Dragon Pulse/Surf or something of the like.

Pupitar: Rock-Ground has always been a great attacking combination, and few viable UU pokemon get STAB on both. Pupitar gets STAB Earthquake and Stone Edge with which to wreck face, as well as a number of other useful attacks. It can use Dragon Dance to boost its sweeping stats. It can use Curse to bulk up its defenses while using ShedRest to get a chance at an early wakeup. Shed Skin is an excellent ability that allows it to act as an impromptu sleep absorber as well as recover from a Burn inflicted on it by something like Rotom.

Feel free to provide feedback. I think this needs to get resolved ASAP so we can move on to more important stuff in the metagame.
 
Back
Top