Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Changing the cutoff won’t alter the number of Pokémon shifting between tiers, it will only affect the number of Pokémon in each tier. You will still see Pokémon rising, and gaps in the metagame will emerge. In fact, this might exacerbate the problem, as Pokémon density tends to increase at lower usage rates, potentially leading to more shifts. The system would remain just as chaotic as it is now, if not more so.
In the previous shift we lost a butt-ton of S/A-ranked mons (like Glowbro, Milotic, Scream Tail, etc), completely changing the meta. This could have been avoided had they not fallen in the first place. The tier is still recovering, with one suspect after the next (just banned Scyther, now there's a Meloetta suspect going on). But there's not gonna be any time to breath bcuz Gastrodon is said to rise to NU in this next shift, who is a staple for checking so many threats, meaning there will likely be even more suspects after it leaves.
You would still "lose a butt-ton of S/A- ranked mons". These S/A-ranked Pokémon leaving PU would be the ones with 3.41% usage in NU (instead of 4.52%). It's essentially the same thing.
Changing the cutoff won’t alter the number of Pokémon shifting between tiers, it will only affect the number of Pokémon in each tier. You will still see Pokémon rising, and gaps in the metagame will emerge. In fact, this might exacerbate the problem, as Pokémon density tends to increase at lower usage rates, potentially leading to more shifts. The system would remain just as chaotic as it is now, if not more so.
You would still "lose a butt-ton of S/A- ranked mons". These S/A-ranked Pokémon leaving PU would be the ones with 3.41% usage in NU (instead of 4.52%). It's essentially the same thing.
To the first part, ofc mons will rise and drop still. And while usage and viability aren't the same, a lower usage % in theory makes it less likely that a solid mon in a tier (who might be prone to picking up usage again) is less likely to drop, especially not a bunch at the same time like in the previous PU -> NU shift.
For the second part, I understand that the mons would still be leaving the tiers. Again, the idea I'm getting at is that they shouldn't have dropped in the first place, albeit this under the assumption that they had between 3.41% and 4.52% usage. While it would be a temporary mess, it would make it less likely for a similar situation to happen again.
While I understand wanting to return to a system of 3.41% usage because it's what you imprinted on, the upheaval caused by a mid-generation implementation of such a system would be devastating to all lower tiers. By OU's October tier shifts alone, Tinkaton, Blissey, Clodsire, Weavile, Ribombee, Sinistcha, Skarmory, Scizor, Torkoal, and Heatran would all be tiered as OU. Like I outlined in my post, if UU lost or lacked this many of its top tier presences, there would be a vacuum to fill with lower tier Pokemon, even before considering the tiering action that would accompany all these changes. Again, this vacuum would intensify down the tiering rung. The recoil of doing this would hardly be manageable, especially with what might be a bit less than a year left of the generation. If 3-month usage averages persisted, PU wouldn't even experience the OU-UU shockwave until 2026.
Gonna put the disclaimer that I'm bias and already not a fan of the new 4.52%, as a lower tier player who doesn't like how it furthers the power creep in lower tiers thematically (like Raikou being in PU, a tier meant for mediocre mons). Another disclaimer is that I've only skimmed the last few posts so IDK how much it's been discussed here :V
The biggest problem I'd like to address after discussing the tiering vacuum is the idea of lowering the threshold from 4.52% to 3.41%, even if you did it in a fresh generation. From my perspective, doing this would be a step backward for stabilizing tiering. Hydrametr0nice already identified this, so I'd like to bring forward some statistical evidence. Looking at OU's stats from November 2024, there are 6 Pokemon within a 1% radius of the 4.52% threshold. Compare this to the 11 Pokemon within that same radius for 3.41%. UU has 7 within the radius of 4.52% and 7 within for 3.41%, RU is 17 to 23, NU has 9 to 13, PU's 10 to 17, and ZU 18 to 24. All this evidence points to is that lowering the threshold makes the cutoff closer in proximity to a much larger range of Pokemon. This means that more Pokemon would be more likely to move across the cutoff more frequently. Also, Pokemon that are more fringe are going to be more sensitive to minor trends in usage, so this would amplify the amount of movement across the threshold, something that could be tracked between months if you took the time to do that. Not only would returning to a 3.41% cutoff mid-generation be way too much of a shock, but it would also demonstrably make tiers experience way more change from tier shift to tier shift. 4.52% is a much better threshold for usage stats than 3.41% if you want tiers to be stable.
This is part more of a quibble so I'm spoilering it so that the more important discussion on my post isn't overshadowed by how much I dislike the term "power creep".
I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain Pokemon might fit certain tiers better, something I discussed in a post on Donphan and other hazard removers stuck in higher tiers. However, the policy review post I cited in my previous post mentions that the lower tier size coincidentally matches the reduced dex size of SS and continued in SV. SS has ~664 Pokemon and SV has ~656 Pokemon, which is hardly more than the amount there was in BW. Some of that might not take into account how multiple formes of Pokemon are tiered, but XY (721 total) + SM (807 total) also had Mega Evolutions that were massively influential in higher tiers on Smogon. If anything, there may be power de-creep (power crunch?) for lower tiers.
There is not a coherent or working definition of what power creep is in the core Pokemon series, especially given how the 6v6 battling system works. Considering the ways that people apply the term power creep to Smogon's 6v6 singles, there's even less understanding of how it interacts with the tiering system. Why are Pokemon that didn't debut in OU, like Kyurem and Hatterene, OU now? If you want to describe why SS OU powerhouses like Garchomp, Weavile, Heatran, Tornadus-Therian, and Slowbro are no longer OU, it doesn't make sense to reduce the explanation to "power creep". Instead, you'd discuss aspects like Terastallization, move redistribution, and the remixed dex list that excludes presences like Melmetal, Ferrothorn, Kartana, Tapu Lele, and so on. None of that refers to numbers increasing and making old numbers irrelevant though. Toxapex seemed like it would be an immortal part of OU from its debut gen and continuing into SS, except it has suffered from the redistribution of moves, nerfs to healing moves, and Terastallization encouraging more offensive metagames. It's gone on to be usurped by Alomomola, an otherwise veteran lower tier Pokemon. Yet, despite losing Teleport, being a victim of the healing move PP nerf, and existing in a generation where any Pokemon can press a button to become a Fairy-type, Clefable has held onto relevance in OU.
If power creep were a linear and coherent concept, we wouldn't see Alomomola, Moltres, and Primarina as faces in OU. Instead, we see older gen Pokemon and Pokemon with lower base stats in higher tiers, like Clefable and several other early gen Pokemon that actually emerged in relevance in OU after their debut gens. This is putting aside other examples across tiers that contradict what's effectively the vibes-based assessment of power creep. My preference would be that we stop calling this phenomenon of changes "power creep" and instead address it as mechanical flux between gens and a general increase in the complexity of 6v6 singles. I could easily go on about this, but I'm not ready to write another essay just on something that's more of a gut feeling for most people than even a pop theory.
What I think would actually solve the current problem of vacuum decay in gen 9 would be implementing the proposal I discussed toward the end of my previous post:
This thread is probably the highest quality and most recent policy discussion of changes to tiering cutoffs. The OP suggests raising the cutoff for rises, something I personally find more reasonable than disallowing rises entirely. Lower tiers could be insulated from the most destabilizing effects of smaller trends in usage for mid-level Pokemon in a higher tier's metagame, yet the tiering system would still reflect Pokemon becoming newfound staples in higher tiers. I think this system, especially in gen 9, has a huge amount of potential for stabilizing lower tiers by letting them hold onto non-broken balanced and defensive additions
My proposal matches the one in the thread I linked: raise the threshold for rises, keep the cutoff for drops the same. My recommendation would be for the threshold for a Pokemon to rise to be at 6.70%, like in the linked thread, which is coincidentally the average amount of usage across 2 months for a Pokemon to be locked-in for a stay in its native tier or a rise to a higher tier. This would create a "buffer zone" between the rise and drop thresholds, where Pokemon that suddenly trended in usage would not be at risk of rising and upset a lower tier. However, if a Pokemon became much more established in a tier, it would still rise. This would be a compromise between the freezing of rises at the end of last generation and the intent of Smogon lower tiers as featuring Pokemon that aren't as popular in higher tiers. It would even be able to describe Pokemon that are consistently part of a tier since DLC2, even if they don't see elite levels of usage. Additionally, lower tiers would better be able to predict which Pokemon were close to rising, and rises would become much less common deeper into the generation once tiers are stable. Overall, this proposal would help the tournament scene by decreasing volatility, it would reduce the burden on leadership to manage constantly fluctuating metagames, and it would reduce the workload on resource creators to shut down workflow or constantly refresh rapidly outdated resources like sample teams and analyses.
How would this have affected the tier shifts across the DLC2 metagame, though?
Iron Crown would not have moved from UU to OU
Moltres would not have moved from RU to OU
Comfey would not have moved from RUBL to UU
Rhyperior would not have moved from NU to UU
Magnezone would not have moved from NU to RU
Noivern would not have moved from NU to RU
Reuniclus would not have moved from NU to RU
Bombirdier would not have moved from ZU to PU
Hoopa would not have moved from ZU to PU
I'm excluding SU from this tier shift, as the tierlist for June had been determined from one month of usage stats from ZU before being averaged with the June stats for the July shift. The entire July shift practically would not have happened. That said, of the rises that happened, only Clawitzer, Hitmonchan, Orthworm, Passimian, Sneasel, and Vikavolt have stayed ZU, while Clawitzer, Farigiraf, Hattrem, Shiftry, and Vulpix did not.
Cobalion still would have risen to UU, sorry RU. Krookodile and Slowbro would have still moved from NU to RU, same as Thundurus... though it went on to be banned from RU anyway. However, many tier staples would not have risen earlier this year if there had been a bumper.
Zapdos would not have moved from UU to OU
Quagsire would not have moved from NU to RU
Talonflame would not have moved from NU to RU
Umbreon would not have moved from NU to RU
Gligar would not have moved from PU to NU
Heracross would not have moved from PU to NU
Scream Tail would not have moved from PU to NU
Staraptor would not have moved from PU to NU
Articuno would not have moved from SU to ZU
Braviary would not have moved from SU to ZU
Cryogonal would not have moved from SU to ZU
Dipplin would not have moved from NFE to ZU
Dugtrio-Alola would not have moved from SU to ZU
Floatzel would not have moved from SU to ZU
Lanturn would not have moved from SU to ZU
Magneton would not have moved from SU to ZU
Muk would not have moved from SU to ZU
Rotom would not have moved from SU to ZU
Shaymin would not have moved from SU to ZU
There are still some examples of some things that would not have changed. Hoopa-Unbound and Thundurus-Therian still would have moved from RUBL to UU in October, and Okidogi would have gone from RU to UU too. Bronzong was top 6 in usage in NU in October, so it still would have risen from (sorry) PU. Kilowattrel, Milotic, Slowbro-Galar, Tauros-Paldea-Aqua, and Toxicroak all would have still risen to NU (in croak's case from SU) from PU, but it's obvious that this would have left PU with more options. Cramorant, Mismagius, Palossand, and Sableye would unfortunately still have risen from SU to ZU, but we would have held onto a lot of the staples of the developing metagame.
With that said, this would just delay some tier shifts instead of fully insulating lower tiers, which is fine. Iron Crown and Moltres would have risen to OU in October. Comfey and Rhyperior would have gone on to rise to UU in October. Magnezone and Noivern also have risen to RU in October. Bombirdier and Hoopa still would have risen to PU in October too. However, all of these Pokemon would have remained in their native tiers for 3 more months, creating fewer impacts when other Pokemon rise, and giving the metagame more time to develop before adjustment. It also cannot be ignored that the teambuilder exerts influence on what Pokemon are used in a given tier, so seeing that many of these Pokemon are labelled as being in a tier can boost their usage in said tier.
Going by my post on locked-in rises for the coming tier shift, we could even determine or project what Pokemon would or could still be slated to rise in January 2025 with the bumper system, or would or could go on to rise in the bumper system if they had not yet risen. To do this, the locked-in rise threshold would be 10.05% ( = 6.7% * 1.5), and the projected rise threshold would be 6.7%. For my own projections, I'm choosing not to assume that usage will remain the same between November and December, as this assumption can be false in cases I described in my previous post, where I used Tinkaton as an example.
Polteageist would still be guaranteed to move from RUBL to UU
Scream Tail would now be guaranteed to move from PU to NU
Staraptor would now be guaranteed to move from PU to NU
Rhydon would still be guaranteed to move from NFE to PU
Floatzel would now be guaranteed to move from SU to ZU
Porygon2 would still be guaranteed to move from NFE to ZU
Zapdos could move from UU to OU if it hadn't risen
Talonflame could move from NU to RU if it hadn't risen
Gligar could move from PU to NU if it hadn't risen
Braviary could move from SU to ZU if it hadn't risen
Lanturn could move from SU to ZU if it hadn't risen
Magneton could move from NFE to ZU if it hadn't risen
Some of the changes could not be averted by a bumper system, which can be seen in cases like Scream Tail, Staraptor, and Floatzel. However, it would have given lower tiers 3 more months of stability with them to conduct tiering action, hold less volatile tours, and create resources in the meantime without suffering huge shocks from losing metagame staples. A bumper system wouldn't even disqualify newfound metagame staples like UU Polteageist, PU Rhydon, and ZU Porygon2 from managing to establish themselves and lock themselves in for rises in the next shift. Furthermore, Quagsire, Reuniclus, Umbreon, Heracross, Articuno, Cryogonal, Dipplin, Dugtrio-Alola, Muk, Rotom, and Shaymin all would fail to meet the new thresholds for projected rises, letting lower tiers more assuredly hold onto these Pokemon if they had gotten to keep them. This demonstrates how introducing a buffer between rise and drop cutoffs would help lower tiers retain some stability without losing their identities by sharing staples with higher tiers.
While I understand wanting to return to a system of 3.41% usage because it's what you imprinted on, the upheaval caused by a mid-generation implementation of such a system would be devastating to all lower tiers. By OU's October tier shifts alone, Tinkaton, Blissey, Clodsire, Weavile, Ribombee, Sinistcha, Skarmory, Scizor, Torkoal, and Heatran would all be tiered as OU. Like I outlined in my post, if UU lost or lacked this many of its top tier presences, there would be a vacuum to fill with lower tier Pokemon, even before considering the tiering action that would accompany all these changes. Again, this vacuum would intensify down the tiering rung. The recoil of doing this would hardly be manageable, especially with what might be a bit less than a year left of the generation. If 3-month usage averages persisted, PU wouldn't even experience the OU-UU shockwave until 2026.
The biggest problem I'd like to address after discussing the tiering vacuum is the idea of lowering the threshold from 4.52% to 3.41%, even if you did it in a fresh generation. From my perspective, doing this would be a step backward for stabilizing tiering. Hydrametr0nice already identified this, so I'd like to bring forward some statistical evidence. Looking at OU's stats from November 2024, there are 6 Pokemon within a 1% radius of the 4.52% threshold. Compare this to the 11 Pokemon within that same radius for 3.41%. UU has 7 within the radius of 4.52% and 7 within for 3.41%, RU is 17 to 23, NU has 9 to 13, PU's 10 to 17, and ZU 18 to 24. All this evidence points to is that lowering the threshold makes the cutoff closer in proximity to a much larger range of Pokemon. This means that more Pokemon would be more likely to move across the cutoff more frequently. Also, Pokemon that are more fringe are going to be more sensitive to minor trends in usage, so this would amplify the amount of movement across the threshold, something that could be tracked between months if you took the time to do that. Not only would returning to a 3.41% cutoff mid-generation be way too much of a shock, but it would also demonstrably make tiers experience way more change from tier shift to tier shift. 4.52% is a much better threshold for usage stats than 3.41% if you want tiers to be stable.
This is part more of a quibble so I'm spoilering it so that the more important discussion on my post isn't overshadowed by how much I dislike the term "power creep".
I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain Pokemon might fit certain tiers better, something I discussed in a post on Donphan and other hazard removers stuck in higher tiers. However, the policy review post I cited in my previous post mentions that the lower tier size coincidentally matches the reduced dex size of SS and continued in SV. SS has ~664 Pokemon and SV has ~656 Pokemon, which is hardly more than the amount there was in BW. Some of that might not take into account how multiple formes of Pokemon are tiered, but XY (721 total) + SM (807 total) also had Mega Evolutions that were massively influential in higher tiers on Smogon. If anything, there may be power de-creep (power crunch?) for lower tiers.
There is not a coherent or working definition of what power creep is in the core Pokemon series, especially given how the 6v6 battling system works. Considering the ways that people apply the term power creep to Smogon's 6v6 singles, there's even less understanding of how it interacts with the tiering system. Why are Pokemon that didn't debut in OU, like Kyurem and Hatterene, OU now? If you want to describe why SS OU powerhouses like Garchomp, Weavile, Heatran, Tornadus-Therian, and Slowbro are no longer OU, it doesn't make sense to reduce the explanation to "power creep". Instead, you'd discuss aspects like Terastallization, move redistribution, and the remixed dex list that excludes presences like Melmetal, Ferrothorn, Kartana, Tapu Lele, and so on. None of that refers to numbers increasing and making old numbers irrelevant though. Toxapex seemed like it would be an immortal part of OU from its debut gen and continuing into SS, except it has suffered from the redistribution of moves, nerfs to healing moves, and Terastallization encouraging more offensive metagames. It's gone on to be usurped by Alomomola, an otherwise veteran lower tier Pokemon. Yet, despite losing Teleport, being a victim of the healing move PP nerf, and existing in a generation where any Pokemon can press a button to become a Fairy-type, Clefable has held onto relevance in OU.
If power creep were a linear and coherent concept, we wouldn't see Alomomola, Moltres, and Primarina as faces in OU. Instead, we see older gen Pokemon and Pokemon with lower base stats in higher tiers, like Clefable and several other early gen Pokemon that actually emerged in relevance in OU after their debut gens. This is putting aside other examples across tiers that contradict what's effectively the vibes-based assessment of power creep. My preference would be that we stop calling this phenomenon of changes "power creep" and instead address it as mechanical flux between gens and a general increase in the complexity of 6v6 singles. I could easily go on about this, but I'm not ready to write another essay just on something that's more of a gut feeling for most people than even a pop theory.
What I think would actually solve the current problem of vacuum decay in gen 9 would be implementing the proposal I discussed toward the end of my previous post:
My proposal matches the one in the thread I linked: raise the threshold for rises, keep the cutoff for drops the same. My recommendation would be for the threshold for a Pokemon to rise to be at 6.70%, like in the linked thread, which is coincidentally the average amount of usage across 2 months for a Pokemon to be locked-in for a stay in its native tier or a rise to a higher tier. This would create a "buffer zone" between the rise and drop thresholds, where Pokemon that suddenly trended in usage would not be at risk of rising and upset a lower tier. However, if a Pokemon became much more established in a tier, it would still rise. This would be a compromise between the freezing of rises at the end of last generation and the intent of Smogon lower tiers as featuring Pokemon that aren't as popular in higher tiers. It would even be able to describe Pokemon that are consistently part of a tier since DLC2, even if they don't see elite levels of usage. Additionally, lower tiers would better be able to predict which Pokemon were close to rising, and rises would become much less common deeper into the generation once tiers are stable. Overall, this proposal would help the tournament scene by decreasing volatility, it would reduce the burden on leadership to manage constantly fluctuating metagames, and it would reduce the workload on resource creators to shut down workflow or constantly refresh rapidly outdated resources like sample teams and analyses.
How would this have affected the tier shifts across the DLC2 metagame, though?
Iron Crown would not have moved from UU to OU
Moltres would not have moved from RU to OU
Comfey would not have moved from RUBL to UU
Rhyperior would not have moved from NU to UU
Magnezone would not have moved from NU to RU
Noivern would not have moved from NU to RU
Reuniclus would not have moved from NU to RU
Bombirdier would not have moved from ZU to PU
Hoopa would not have moved from ZU to PU
I'm excluding SU from this tier shift, as the tierlist for June had been determined from one month of usage stats from ZU before being averaged with the June stats for the July shift. The entire July shift practically would not have happened. That said, of the rises that happened, only Clawitzer, Hitmonchan, Orthworm, Passimian, Sneasel, and Vikavolt have stayed ZU, while Clawitzer, Farigiraf, Hattrem, Shiftry, and Vulpix did not.
Cobalion still would have risen to UU, sorry RU. Krookodile and Slowbro would have still moved from NU to RU, same as Thundurus... though it went on to be banned from RU anyway. However, many tier staples would not have risen earlier this year if there had been a bumper.
Zapdos would not have moved from UU to OU
Quagsire would not have moved from NU to RU
Talonflame would not have moved from NU to RU
Umbreon would not have moved from NU to RU
Gligar would not have moved from PU to NU
Heracross would not have moved from PU to NU
Scream Tail would not have moved from PU to NU
Staraptor would not have moved from PU to NU
Articuno would not have moved from SU to ZU
Braviary would not have moved from SU to ZU
Cryogonal would not have moved from SU to ZU
Dipplin would not have moved from NFE to ZU
Dugtrio-Alola would not have moved from SU to ZU
Floatzel would not have moved from SU to ZU
Lanturn would not have moved from SU to ZU
Magneton would not have moved from SU to ZU
Muk would not have moved from SU to ZU
Rotom would not have moved from SU to ZU
Shaymin would not have moved from SU to ZU
There are still some examples of some things that would not have changed. Hoopa-Unbound and Thundurus-Therian still would have moved from RUBL to UU in October, and Okidogi would have gone from RU to UU too. Bronzong was top 6 in usage in NU in October, so it still would have risen from (sorry) PU. Kilowattrel, Milotic, Slowbro-Galar, Tauros-Paldea-Aqua, and Toxicroak all would have still risen to NU (in croak's case from SU) from PU, but it's obvious that this would have left PU with more options. Cramorant, Mismagius, Palossand, and Sableye would unfortunately still have risen from SU to ZU, but we would have held onto a lot of the staples of the developing metagame.
With that said, this would just delay some tier shifts instead of fully insulating lower tiers, which is fine. Iron Crown and Moltres would have risen to OU in October. Comfey and Rhyperior would have gone on to rise to UU in October. Magnezone and Noivern also have risen to RU in October. Bombirdier and Hoopa still would have risen to PU in October too. However, all of these Pokemon would have remained in their native tiers for 3 more months, creating fewer impacts when other Pokemon rise, and giving the metagame more time to develop before adjustment. It also cannot be ignored that the teambuilder exerts influence on what Pokemon are used in a given tier, so seeing that many of these Pokemon are labelled as being in a tier can boost their usage in said tier.
Going by my post on locked-in rises for the coming tier shift, we could even determine or project what Pokemon would or could still be slated to rise in January 2025 with the bumper system, or would or could go on to rise in the bumper system if they had not yet risen. To do this, the locked-in rise threshold would be 10.05% ( = 6.7% * 1.5), and the projected rise threshold would be 6.7%. For my own projections, I'm choosing not to assume that usage will remain the same between November and December, as this assumption can be false in cases I described in my previous post, where I used Tinkaton as an example.
Polteageist would still be guaranteed to move from RUBL to UU
Scream Tail would now be guaranteed to move from PU to NU
Staraptor would now be guaranteed to move from PU to NU
Rhydon would still be guaranteed to move from NFE to PU
Floatzel would now be guaranteed to move from SU to ZU
Porygon2 would still be guaranteed to move from NFE to ZU
Zapdos could move from UU to OU if it hadn't risen
Talonflame could move from NU to RU if it hadn't risen
Gligar could move from PU to NU if it hadn't risen
Braviary could move from SU to ZU if it hadn't risen
Lanturn could move from SU to ZU if it hadn't risen
Magneton could move from NFE to ZU if it hadn't risen
Some of the changes could not be averted by a bumper system, which can be seen in cases like Scream Tail, Staraptor, and Floatzel. However, it would have given lower tiers 3 more months of stability with them to conduct tiering action, hold less volatile tours, and create resources in the meantime without suffering huge shocks from losing metagame staples. A bumper system wouldn't even disqualify newfound metagame staples like UU Polteageist, PU Rhydon, and ZU Porygon2 from managing to establish themselves and lock themselves in for rises in the next shift. Furthermore, Quagsire, Reuniclus, Umbreon, Heracross, Articuno, Cryogonal, Dipplin, Dugtrio-Alola, Muk, Rotom, and Shaymin all would fail to meet the new thresholds for projected rises, letting lower tiers more assuredly hold onto these Pokemon if they had gotten to keep them. This demonstrates how introducing a buffer between rise and drop cutoffs would help lower tiers retain some stability without losing their identities by sharing staples with higher tiers.
I agree with the post about increasing the rise percentage however, i do believe that it would also be nice to increase the drop percentage to a lesset extent. (To maybe around 5.3-5.5 or so). I personally believe this due to mons dropping not being too much of an issue since you can still use them in higher tiers and it would be a nice opportunity for lower tiers to get lower usage and lower ranked mons from the tier above (See Forretress in RU and hitmontop in PU), and if it is too overwhelming for the lower tier, they can also ban it. Imo, this would slow down, if not stop the vacuum decay since more mons are available in more tiers.
The first thing I wanna say here is thank you for posting this and putting so much thought and effort into it. I and a few other lower tier players I've spoken to throughout the gen of SV have been trying to quantify some of the issues we've been having and this nails on the head a bunch of the stuff we've been thinking and puts clear and concise language to it. "Vacuum Decay" or "Vacuum Effect" is definitely going to enter my vocabulary when talking about SV tiering.
One of my primary thoughts right now is that regardless of how you feel about the approaches we should take to current gen tiering, our approach in SV was particularly rigid and unresponsive to the matters at hand. There not being a broad re-examination of cutoff once we knew DLCs were no longer coming, and not a lot of (public) discussion in response to quickdrops once we understood how they were impacting lower tiers, I think speaks a little bit towards oversight when it comes to the current lower tiers.
It's not going to be possible to implement major changes to cutoff/etc this late into the gen, but it's my hope that we can re-examine our approach for future gens.
My personal feelings do lean towards a simple return to 3.41% cutoff right now, but I very much do appreciate this proposal to be more specific with the approach by targeting rises and I would also be open to the idea of looking at changing both how rises and drops work.
Current cutoff feels like it's creating issues. The main of which to me is the biggest, which is that we've been seeing too many tiers sharing the same pokemon sitting at the same mid-high to high viability and usage, mons like Gastrodon and Rotom-Heat at many points in the gen sitting around the mid A to B+ marker on viability tiers and crossing what would have been the former usage marker in all of them but not crossing the current gen high threshold for staying up. I feel that the current size of tiers is smaller than the "actual" size of mons that are truly OU, UU, NU, PU etc, and that "Untiered" is a category that is ridiculously too large, being bigger than all usage tier lists combined and rendering well over half of pokemon in the game "unplayable" within an official capacity.
I think it's quite important that each usage tier maintains its own distinct identity from each other, and that is something that is being undercut by handfuls of key defensive/utility pieces being shared across the board. This is partially why I'm also not sure about the idea of raising the cutoff for rises, but I do understand that this is an attempt to patch the other issue created by cutoff/quickdrops/etc which is our lower tiers being hard reset every few months and metagame development, resource development and general investment in the tiers all being harmed as a result. I certainly don't have a better solution in mind than the one missangelic proposed but I do have some concerns about raising the cutoff for tier rises resulting in issues with keeping lower tiers distinct and precluding the very reasons we run them.
Whatever we do here I hope we can keep this topic up, because I think it's crucial to examine the way we're currently dealing with lower tiers.
What if we use the past 6 months of usage stats to determine rises and drops in each 3 month cycle? This should make each tier (besides OU, obviously) more stable, and I think it'll work regardless of whether we use the 3.4% or 4.5% cutoff.
In this post, I will perform the forbidden art of predicting future tier shifts!
Or, at the very least, I'll outline how trends in usage stats that make it easier to tell which Pokemon are more likely to stay, rise, or drop, but that's not as dramatic of a hook.
Perfect Prediction
I've written several previous posts on how you can predict with 100% certainty which Pokemon will stay in a tier or rise to another tier based on just one or two months of usage stats. Those posts aren't necessary to understand this post, and I'll shorten everything I discussed in them here: anything that reaches a usage sum of 13.56% (= 4.52% * 3) is mathematically guaranteed to either stay in its native tier or rise to the higher tier it saw this level of usage in. The only exceptions are obvious: the Pokemon gets banned from the tier in question or a higher tier. Guaranteed rises are the case for Mew, Polteageist, and Revavroom, which are rising to UU this next tier shift. The same goes for Decidueye-Hisui, Rhydon, Tornadus, and Uxie all moving to PU. However, across any of my posts on usage, I have yet to address Pokemon that are closer to rising than others. After all, how can you tell if Tinkaton and Pecharunt are closer to rising to OU than Weavile and Heatran? Additionally, what if you want to know how much closer Deoxys-Speed is to falling to UU compared to Meowscarada? I'll be using this post to examine degrees of difference among Pokemon not guaranteed for a position, whether that's staying, rising, or dropping.
Failed Forecasts
Every month that isn't a 3-month tier shift, Marty and Dhelmise have published projections for the upcoming tier shifts. While these can be interesting and useful, they do have several flaws: 1. Projections assume a status quo
Projections assume the second month's usage is going to continue without change, something obviously contradicted by the fact that metagames are constantly changing. Compare Tinkaton's usage in OU across the latter half of 2024: July (2.88%), August (4.16%), September (6.27%), October (5.06%), and November (2.85%). you'll see that some fluctuations just seem to happen, especially when Tinkaton's OUPL usage in October + November was above 4.52%. Projections get even less reliable when you take into account bans, unbans, and quickdrops that may take place during the off-months. While it didn't happen during 3-month usage tiering, the enormous decline of Pelipper's usage in OU was pretty obviously related to Archaludon's ban. 2. Projections don't differentiate possible changes
In my posts onremainder usage, I pointed out that there's a difference between a tiering change that "could" happen and a tiering change that "will" happen (save for obvious extenuating circumstances). This is exclusive to rises, because "guaranteed drops" are effectively what quick-drops are, and "quick-rises" were retired. We can mathematically prove that Mew is going to move from NUBL to UU in the upcoming January 2025 tier shift, but we cannot do the same for whether or not Zarude will move from RUBL to UU.
I'm sorting projections into three categories 1. "True positives"
These are projections that come true. Zapdos was projected to move from UU to OU after the release of August 2024 stats in September 2024, and it went on to do that in the October 2024 tier shift. I'm excluding the "guaranteed rises" I discussed, as it's not technically a prediction if there's no mathematical uncertainty. 2. "False positives"
These are projections that do not come true. Weavile was projected to move from OU to UU for the July 2024 tier shift after the release of May 2024 stats in June 2024, but it did not do so. 3. "False negatives"
Finally, these are projections that are not made even though a Pokemon moved during a tier shift. Talonflame moved from NU to RU in the October 2024 tier shift even though it wasn't predicted to change after the publishing of July 2024 usage stats in August 2024 or the publishing of August 2024 usage stats in September 2024. I'm excluding anything that could not have been predicted in this category, such as a projection not forecasting a Pokemon dropping to a lower tier when it quickdrops to a new tier during that very tier shift. For example, Brute Bonnet was not projected to move from PU to ZU for the October 2024 tier shift because it quick-dropped in the September 2024 tier shift.
May 2024, June 2024, August 2024, and September 2024 are the only months so far for SV that have projected tier shifts which we can verify. This is a pretty small amount of data to work with, but it's all that's currently available until next month.
May 2024
June 2024
August 2024
September 2024
1-month
2-month
Overall
Success Rate
40%
51.61%
52.78%
67.86%
46.39%
59.74%
53.06%
Success Rate w/o False Negatives
66.67%
61.54%
76%
90.48%
71.33%
76.01%
73.67%
I wanted to leave this post at "well I did this for SV, so if anyone is interested in doing this for SS just reply with that" but I'm too curious so... time to delay posting this by another couple of days.
I evaluated every "complete" post-DLC2 3-month tier shift across SS for accuracy. I excluded tier shifts that took place after April 2022, as there was a tiering policy that disallowed rises after that shift. After looking at all of the February 2021, March 2021, May 2021, June 2021, August 2021, September 2021, November 2021, December 2021, February 2022, and March 2022, I found that projections accurately predicted ~63% of the tier shift they preceded on average, and their list of projections had an average success rate of 80%. These are only slightly higher than the success rates of the projections released during SV. Explanations for SV's being lower could include a smaller pool of shifts to analyze, the earlier shifts of a generation being more unstable, and SV or SS just naturally being more prone to being less or more predictable respectively.
Currently, projected changes have an overall success rate of ~53% at predicting tiering changes during 3-month tier shifts. If you're just looking at the listed projections (ones without false negatives), the success rate is still only ~74%. 2-month average projections are always better than 1-month usage projections, but the former still only have a ~60% success rate (~76% if you discount false negatives). While there's about 24 Pokemon projected to move with each shift, there's about six that are "false positives" that won't actually change, and there's about nine that are "false negatives" that weren't projected to change but still moved.
Considering all of these limitations, I'd like to reframe the way we look at usage stats, moving from projections to an analysis of the remaining usage Pokemon need to stay, rise, or drop.
The Math
Using the formula to determine remainder usage that I mentioned above, you can figure out how much usage a Pokemon needs to stay, rise, or drop. The relevant Pokemon for each tier, to me, including the following: Group 1: Pokemon in jeopardy of dropping
This includes anything that didn't make a 2-month average of 6.78% or above. Clefable technically falls into this category, though it would need less than ~0.47% usage in OU this month just to fall to UU... something that isn't especially realistic when it's got an average of ~6.54% usage across the last two months. On the other hand, you have Pokemon like Deoxys-Speed dipping below the threshold at ~4.16%, threatening to drop to UU next month if it can't get ~5.24% in December. Still, as you've seen with Tinkaton's fluctuation, it's completely possible for Deoxys-Speed to rebound. The Pokemon that are most likely to drop are the ones that tend to show up in projections, though said projections fail to highlight Pokemon that might even be 0.1% away from a drop. Group 2: Pokemon on the verge of rising
These also tend to be Pokemon that show up in projections. Pecharunt, at ~5.61% usage in OU, only needs 2.35% this month in order to rise to OU, something that seems very feasible. Blissey needs to work a little harder given its current average of ~4.35%, as it needs 4.85% to rise to OU. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but don't put it beyond a Pokemon to suddenly tank. Additionally, any Pokemon can technically rise to a higher tier in just one month: Rhydon saw enough usage last month alone just to lock-in for a rise to PU from ZU/SU/NFE. However, jumps in usage that are that dramatic tend to be pretty exceptional, as the 13.56% threshold is especially elite. I'll only highlight at anything that wasn't below the 2.28% quickdrop threshold for the last two months of usage. Keldeo might be seeing more recognition in OU, but at 1.94% it's going to need a holiday miracle to rise to OU in January.
The Breakdown
I've gone tier-by-tier and spoilered how much usage Pokemon need to rise or stay, and I've sorted them by category and tier. To see the averages I consulted for this for OU-PU, see Dhelmise's post on December usage.
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Clefable
0.47%
Rillaboom
0.77%
Garganacl
0.92%
Walking Wake
2.06%
Enamorus
2.70%
Meowscarada
2.87%
Deoxys-Speed
5.24%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Pecharunt
2.35
Blissey
4.85%
Ribombee
4.92%
Araquanid
5.00%
Torkoal
5.64%
Tinkaton
5.65%
Garchomp
6.28%
Ninetales-Alola
6.67%
Sinistcha
6.94%
Lokix
7.32%
Toxapex
7.49%
Clodsire
7.59%
Heatran
7.66%
Scizor
8.17%
Weezing-Galar
8.45%
Ursaluna
8.51%
Weavile
8.73%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Toxapex
0.01%
Ogerpon
0.38%
Tinkaton
1.12%
Azumarill
2.27%
Blissey
5.26%
Metagross
5.33%
Mamoswine
6.32%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Hawlucha
3.12%
Zarude
3.30%
Conkeldurr
5.70%
Enamorus-Therian
6.51%
Iron Jugulis
6.62%
Salamence
6.65%
Manaphy
6.81%
Indeedee
6.82%
Gardevoir
8.45%
Weezing-Galar
8.52%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Zoroark-Hisui
0.01%
Reuniclus
0.31%
Crawdaunt
0.35%
Magnezone
1.40%
Azelf
1.84%
Ribombee
1.97%
Ninetales-Alola
3.45%
Barraskewda
3.82%
Quagsire
3.90%
Umbreon
4.22%
Politoed
4.86%
Torkoal
4.93%
Amoonguss
4.98%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Suicune
3.06%
Regidrago
5.86%
Gastrodon
6.24%
Necrozma
6.29%
Cloyster
6.65%
Flygon
6.74%
Gyarados
7.00%
Lilligant-Hisui
7.03%
Lucario
7.24%
Registeel
7.29%
Diancie
7.33%
Vaporeon
7.41%
Mienshao
7.55%
Espeon
7.68%
Wo-Chien
7.93%
Indeedee
7.96%
Cresselia
8.11%
Feraligatr
8.14%
Lycanroc-Dusk
8.21%
Raikou
8.58%
Hoopa
8.76%
Muk-Alola
8.90%
Ditto
8.94%
Gallade
8.96%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Espeon
0.12%
Heracross
0.71%
Araquanid
2.68%
Inteleon
3.35%
Galvantula
3.93%
Dragalge
4.07%
Torterra
5.38%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Tornadus
0.78%
Gastrodon
0.86%
Scyther
3.74%
Meloetta
3.76%
Decidueye
4.39%
Copperajah
4.39%
Raikou
4.74%
Uxie
4.93%
Toxtricity
5.71%
Hitmontop
6.32%
Articuno-Galar
8.10%
Goodra
8.10%
Zoroark
8.24%
Scrafty
8.25%
Altaria
8.92%
Braviary
8.94%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Braviary-Hisui
1.17%
Scrafty
2.55%
Hoopa
2.71%
Minior
3.47%
Hitmontop
6.80%
Rotom-Mow
7.04%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Cramorant
0.10%
Frosmoth
1.21%
Articuno-Galar
2.39%
Lycanroc
4.38%
Froslass
5.33%
Bruxish
5.36%
Palossand
5.76%
Delphox
6.52%
Hariyama
7.14%
Avalugg-Hisui
7.31%
Porygon2
7.88%
Sandaconda
7.92%
Dudunsparce
7.93%
Qwilfish
8.04%
Electrode-Hisui
8.19%
Vikavolt
8.22%
Hattrem
8.60%
Kingdra
8.77%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Vikavolt
0.05%
Sneasel
0.65%
Shaymin
0.88%
Frosmoth
0.92%
Froslass
1.12%
Dipplin
1.51%
Glastrier
1.77%
Sandaconda
2.44%
Hitmonchan
3.01%
Orthworm
3.18%
Oricorio-Sensu
3.34%
Muk
3.74%
Rotom
4.77%
Snorlax
4.91%
Articuno
5.06%
Virizion
5.06%
Primeape
5.90%
Sableye
6.63%
Cryogonal
8.17%
Pokemon
Usage Needed
Venomoth
2.04%
Sneasel-Hisui
2.80%
Oricorio
3.07%
Komala
3.46%
Weezing
3.98%
Rhydon*
4.50%
Farigiraf
4.80%
Malamar
5.39%
Thwackey
5.88%
Medicham
6.36%
Clawitzer
6.49%
Spiritomb
6.81%
Toedscruel
6.82%
Hattrem
6.92%
Perrserker
6.94%
Poliwrath
7.06%
Honchkrow
7.11%
Exeggutor-Alola
7.12%
Morpeko
7.14%
Scovillain
7.59%
Eelektross
7.65%
Lurantis
7.81%
Dachsbun
7.83%
Shiftry
7.90%
Samurott
8.24%
Persian-Alola
8.33%
Basculin
8.37%
Arboliva
8.62%
Abomasnow
8.96%
*If Rhydon wasn't guaranteed for PU
So far, I've just made and presented an inverse formula for usage stats, although it does illuminate more of how much usage Pokemon need for a goal. Next, I'll sort Pokemon into groups based on how close they are to usage stats cutoffs. Technically, you could say that guaranteed rises count as a sort of "Category 0".
Category 1: The Almost Guaranteed Rises and Stays
Pokemon in this group merely need 1.53% usage this month or less to stay in their native tier or rise to a higher tier. Essentially, these Pokemon could fall off a cliff next month and likely still stay or rise. My choice to call them "almost guaranteed" is based on my previous language of referring to Pokemon that mathematically must remain in a tier or rise as "guaranteed". The only things that would interfere with their positions would be bans or suddenly gaining enough usage to rise to a higher tier. You won't see drops in this category or the next one because quick-drops exist.
Clefable is almost guaranteed to stay OU
Garganacl is almost guaranteed to stay OU
Rillaboom is almost guaranteed to stay OU
Ogerpon is almost guaranteed to stay UU
Tinkaton is almost guaranteed to stay UU
Toxapex is almost guaranteed to stay UU
Crawdaunt is almost guaranteed to stay RU
Magnezone is almost guaranteed to stay RU
Reuniclus is almost guranteed to stay RU
Zoroark-Hisui is almost guaranteed to stay RU
Espeon is almost guaranteed to stay NU
Heracross is almost guaranteed to stay NU
Braviary-Hisui is almost guaranteed to stay PU
Dipplin is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Froslass is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Frosmoth is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Shaymin is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Sneasel is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Vikavolt is almost guaranteed to stay ZU
Gastrodon is almost guaranteed to move from PU to NU
Tornadus is almost guaranteed to move from ZUBL to NU
Cramorant is almost guaranteed to move from ZU to PU
Frosmoth is almost guaranteed to move from ZU to PU
Category 2: Extremely Likely Rises and Stays
Pokemon in this group need 1.53%-2.28% usage this month to stay in their native tier or rise to a higher tier. Those in this group are overwhelmingly going to stay or rise unless there's some significant shifts, but they're more sensitive to that than anything in Category 1. Dividing this category from the previous one might seem like splitting hairs, but the gap is the amount of usage between a quickdrop after one month of usage and a quickdrop after two months of usage.
Walking Wake is extremely likely to stay OU
Azumarill is extremely likely to stay UU
Azelf is extremely likely to stay RU
Ribombee is extremely likely to stay RU
Glastrier is extremely likely to stay ZU
Venomoth is extremely likely to move from SUBL to ZU
Category 3: Very Likely Rises and Stays
Pokemon in this group just needs 2.28%-3.41% usage this month to stay or rise. Those here could fall off to the 2-month quickdrop cutoff and still be on track. I'm reintroducing the old 3.41% threshold as a way to group Pokemon here. My belief is that there's a difference given the amount of usage Scrafty would need to stay PU (2.55%) and the amount Lycanroc needs to move from ZU to PU (4.38%). As I higlighted with the Tinkaton example from earlier though, there's a lot of room for fluctuation.
Enamorus is very likely to stay OU
Meowscarada is very likely to stay OU
Araquanid is very likely to stay NU
Inteleon is very likely to stay NU
Hoopa is very likely to stay PU
Scrafty is very likely to stay PU
Hitmonchan is very likely to stay ZU
Oricorio-Sensu is very likely to stay ZU
Orthworm is very likely to stay ZU
Sandaconda is very likely to stay ZU
Pecharunt is very likely to move from UU to OU
Hawlucha is very likely to move from RUBL to UU
Zarude is very likely to move from RUBL to UU
Suicune is very likely to move from NUBL to RU
Articuno-Galar is very likely to move from ZUBL to PU
Oricorio is very likely to move from SUBL to ZU
Sneasel-Hisui is very likely to move from NFE to ZU
Category 4: Likely Stays and Rises
Pokemon in this group only need 3.41%-4.52% usage this month to stay or rise. These Pokemon can mail it in a bit this month by dipping below the major 4.52% threshold and still stay or rise, but they can't afford to disappear entirely.
Barraskewda is likely to stay RU
Ninetales-Alola is likely to stay RU
Quagsire is likely to stay RU
Umbreon is likely to stay RU
Dragalge is likely to stay NU
Galvantula is likely to stay NU
Minior is likely to stay PU
Muk is likely to stay ZU
Scyther is likely to move from PUBL to NU
Copperajah is likely to move from PU to NU
Decidueye is likely to move from PU to NU
Meloetta is likely to move from PU to NU
Lycanroc is likely to move from ZU to PU
Komala is likely to move from SU to ZU
Weezing is likely to move from SU to ZU
Category 5: Likely Drops and Possible Rises
Pokemon in this category need between 4.52% and 6.78% usage to rise to a higher tier or stay in their native tier. These Pokemon need to step their usage up by going above and beyond if they want to stay or rise, but they're better off than the nearly-hopeless cases in the next category.
Deoxys-Speed is likely to drop from OU to UU
Mamoswine is likely to move from UU to RU
Metagross is likely to move from UU to RU
Politoed is likely to move from RU to NUBL
Amoonguss is likely to move from RU to NU
Torkoal is likely to move from RU to NU
Torterra is likely to move from NU to PU
Articuno is likely to move from ZU to SU
Primeape is likely to move from ZU to NFE
Rotom is likely to move from ZU to SU
Sableye is likely to move from ZU to SU
Snorlax is likely to move from ZU to SU
Virizion is likely to move from ZU to SU
Garchomp could possibly move from UUBL to OU
Blissey could possibly move from UU to OU
Tinkaton could possibly move from UU to OU
Ninetales-Alola could possibly move from RU to OU
Ribombee could possibly move from RU to OU
Torkoal could possibly move from RU to OU
Araquanid could possibly move from NU to OU
Enamorus-Therian could possibly move from RUBL to UU
Iron Jugulis could possibly move from RUBL to UU
Conkeldurr could possibly move from RU to UU
Salamence could possibly from from RU to UU
Cloyster could possibly move from NUBL to RU
Necrozma could possibly move from NUBL to RU
Regidrago could possibly move from NUBL to RU
Flygon could possibly move from NU to RU
Gastrodon could possibly move from PU to RU
Raikou could possibly move from PUBL to NU
Hitmontop could possibly move from PU to NU
Toxtricity could possibly move from PU to NU
Uxie could possibly move from ZUBL to NU
Bruxish could possibly move from ZUBL to PU
Delphox could possibly move from ZUBL to PU
Froslass could possibly move from ZU to PU
Palossand could possibly move from ZU to PU
Clawitzer could possibly move from SUBL to ZU
Farigiraf could possibly move from SUBL to ZU
Malamar could possibly move from SU to ZU
Medicham could possibly move from SU to ZU
Thwackey could possibly move from NFE to ZU
Category 6: Very Likely Drops and Unlikely Rises
Pokemon in this category need between 6.78% and 9.05% usage to either stay in their native tier or rise to a higher tier. This is effectively anything that wouldn't have crashed below the 2.28% quick-drop cutoff across the 2-month average usage published at the beginning of this month. This excludes what would effectively be "improbable rises", where something would get over 9.05% usage this month after having fallen to near-obscurity. However, these Pokemon are still better off than the truly fringe stuff, such as Pelipper, Skarmory, and Ogerpon in OU, which would have to become elite out of nowhere just to rise.
Hitmontop is very likely to move from PU to ZU
Rotom-Mow is very likely to move from PU to ZU
Cryogonal is very likely to move from ZU to SU
This category includes such a large amount of Pokemon that I'm sub-spoilering everything for readability.
Ursaluna is unlikely to move from UUBL to OU
Clodsire is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Heatran is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Lokix is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Scizor is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Sinistcha is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Toxapex is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Weavile is unlikely to move from UU to OU
Weezing-Galar is unlikely to move from RU to OU
Manaphy is unlikely to move from RUBL to UU
Gardevoir is unlikely to move from RU to UU
Indeedee is unlikely to move from PUBL to UU
Weezing-Galar is unlikely to move from RU to UU
Cresselia is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Feraligatr is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Gallade is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Gyarados is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Lilligant-Hisui is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Lucario is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Lycanroc-Dusk is unlikely to move from NUBL to RU
Espeon is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Diancie is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Mienshao is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Muk-Alola is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Registeel is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Vaporeon is unlikely to move from NU to RU
Indeedee is unlikely to move from PUBL to NU
Raikou is unlikely to move from PUBL to RU
Hoopa is unlikely to move from PU to RU
Wo-Chien is unlikely to move from PU to RU
Ditto is unlikely to move from SU to RU
Altaria is unlikely to move from PU to NU
Goodra is unlikely to move from PU to NU
Scrafty is unlikely to move from PU to NU
Zoroark is unlikely to move from PU to NU
Articuno-Galar is unlikely to move from ZUBL to NU
Braviary is unlikely to move from ZU to NU
Dudunsparce is unlikely to move from ZUBL to PU
Electrode-Hisui is unlikely to move from ZUBL to PU
Hariyama is unlikely to move from ZUBL to PU
Kingdra is unlikely to move from ZUBL to PU
Avalugg-Hisui is unlikely to move from ZU to PU
Qwilfish is unlikely to move from ZU to PU
Sandaconda is unlikely to move from ZU to PU
Vikavolt is unlikely to move from ZU to PU
Hattrem is unlikely to move from NFE to PU
Porygon2 is unlikely to move from NFE to PU
Abomasnow is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Arboliva is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Basculin is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Dachsbun is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Eelektross is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Exeggutor-Alola is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Honchkrow is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Lurantis is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Morpeko is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Perrserker is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Persian-Alola is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Poliwrath is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Samurott is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Scovillain is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Shiftry is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Spiritomb is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Toedscruel is unlikely to move from SU to ZU
Hattrem is unlikely to move from NFE to ZU
Limitations 1. This isn't really "probability"
This method doesn't actually give a number to the chances of these changes. This method is just describing how easy or difficult of a time a Pokemon will have in staying part of a tier or rising to a higher tier. Saying I can describe the future is admittedly bait, but I noticed a lot of players in discussion of tiering genuinely don't know how likely upcoming changes are, mostly because they're not apparent or easily accessible. My goal with writing this isn't to say "Gastrodon is probably rising to RU in the April 2025 tier shift" but to widen the perspective on changes from just projections vs unclear noise. 2. Interfering changes
If you looked through multiple sections, you'll notice that some Pokemon actually repeat between tiers. Smogon's tiering system is actually nothing like how it's often presented and talked about: as a hierarchy. In a strictly hierarchical tiering system that's describing power level, you'd expect the most powerful Pokemon to be in OU, and then all the lower tiers are descending rungs of power... but anyone who plays knows that's now how the system works in practice. Tiers are actually ecosystems, so certain Pokemon may thrive more in a higher or lower tier because of their relationships to other Pokemon in the tier, basically the tier's internal "context". The best example is that Barraskewda has a better niche in OU than in UU because Pelipper is legal in OU. Gastrodon is nearly guaranteed to rise to NU from PU, but that doesn't exclude the small possibility that it could rise to RU. Most of these changes directly conflict with each other. A Pokemon will always rise before it falls, but sometimes it might be more likely to fall than to rise. Bans can fall under this category too, one example being that Oricorio-Pom-Pom never made enough usage to qualify as NU, yet it was still quickbanned to NUBL while in PUBL. 3. Greater context
Events like bans and unbans, quick-drops, social media or influencer spotlights, new sample teams and RMTs, ladder tournaments, and more can impact the usage of a Pokemon. Although calculating remaining usage is objective, it still cannot account for very recent occurrences or ones that have not happened at their publishing. Dudunsparce being banned from ZU going into December, Meloetta being suspect tested in PU, or OU holding a Palafin unban suspect on its ladder took place in the last month, contaminating the predictions we can make with those stats. New developments in UU and RU, which had recent ban verdicts this last month, are harder to account for until stats are published. This same limit applied to the standard projections. This kind of follows the first point, but there's more to consider with the recent phenomena of lower tiers losing more of their Pokemon to higher tiers. With that being the case, you could more easily anticipate that more Pokemon are more likely to rise to lower tiers that recently lost and/or banned many Pokemon. Rhydon is overwhelmingly going to rise from NFE to PU, as the current metagame trends and the voids left at the top of the metagame both influence its emergent success. You might even be doing this casually, describing effects like "new toy syndrome".
Ideally, this should expand on what's left unsaid when usage stats and projections are released on the off-months of the 3-month usage stat cycle. In January 2025, Revavroom is guaranteed to move from RU to UU, Gastrodon is almost guaranteed to move from ZUBL to NU, Pecharunt is very likely to move from UU to OU, Decidueye is likely to move from PU to NU, Metagross is likely to move from UU to RU, and Rotom-Mow is very likely to move from PU to ZU. There's a whole lot more to usage stats than "Decidueye-Hisui could move from ZU to PU", so hopefully this can give people interested in their favorite lower tiers some tools to work with for understanding and analyzing usage stats and upcoming tier shifts.
July through December 2024 usage stats for past gen OU tiers, averaged equally with a 2.28% "drop" cutoff, except Gen 8 which has it set at 3.41%. Rising back to OU from "OU by technicality" requires usage above the original cutoff for the respective generation (4.52% for Gen 8 and 3.41% for everything else).
