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.
Lower Tier Committee
This is a centralized thread for the newly created GSC Lower Tier Committee!
What is the purpose for the committee?
The committee will be tasked with engaging the GSC low tiers community. The primary task of the group will be to gauge community opinion on these metagames and help provide routes for tiering action if necessary. To this end, the committee will help the community by summarizing topics for GSC leadership, maintaining this thread to centralize discussion, summarizing Discord discussion, and creating expedited Policy Review threads. As such, the committee will act as a way to amplify community opinions as opposed to being an internal tiering mechanism.
What is not in scope of the committee?
The committee will not have power to directly enforce tiering decisions through means such as quick bans, drops, and suspect tests. These actions will have to go through the typical processes of Policy Review. The committee, however, is designed to help create these threads, gather voting lists, and succinctly present issues.
The committee is further not a vehicle to pursue active tiering. Simply, GSC does not have the playerbase to support active tiering. Case-by-case discussions are welcome, but a complete overhaul to tiering will not be used.
GSC ZU has its own tiering council. As such, they will be solely in charge of tiering for ZU. However, ZU discussion is welcome here as both can work together to communicate community sentiment.
The committee has absolutely no power in GSC low tier tiering that any other Smogon user would have. They are simply discussion facilitators/volunteers.
Tiering philosophy
GSC tiering should be minimally invasive to the identity of the tiers as they currently are. Broad, sweeping changes should be sparingly used and must require high scrutiny and support. As an old generation with a limited playerbase, one of the committee's primary responsibilities will be to assess tiering actions that can help maintain tier identities while still listening to community concerns.
What should this thread be used for?
For the committee, this thread will be used for summarizing forum/Discord tiering discussions, providing possible avenues for actions, and responding to suggestions. Because a lot of discussion occurs on Discord, committee members will seek to move large concerns to this thread.
For community members, this thread will be the place to discuss tiering concerns and offer tiering suggestions. It will also be a place for members to voice opinions on committee suggestions. Conversation can be casual, but please be thoughtful and consider the aim of the thread as a whole when posting.
Hey all, I hate to be a bummer about community initiatives, but I do take issue with this particular one. Will sum up my thoughts with a discussion I was having on Discord about this:
Hey all, I hate to be a bummer about community initiatives, but I do take issue with this particular one. Will sum up my thoughts with a discussion I was having on Discord about this:
The goal is for tiering discussions to occur much, much faster than in policy reviews and allow everyone to speak on the issue (PR threads are locked to badged users and post requests often take a long time), while keeping everything on forums so that people can actively keep up with the discussions unlike in the GSC discord. Something that needs to be emphasized is that this council holds no real power. We aim to involve the community as much as possible, and this thread is the vehicle and the most important part. The council will largely just serve as the middleman when it comes to if things are possible, and if something is being discussed on discord but not posted about, then we are simply giving ourselves the responsibility to make a post in this thread to encourage more people to post about it, and of course council members will be posting their own opinions also.
The council may not be needed, but it should serve as a boon for tiering discussions and community involvement not isolated to random days in the GSC discord, hopefully providing for a centralized platform for discussion. Multiple users in the GSC discord have expressed the desire for a tiering council to make matters such as PU tiering changes swifter and clearer as to the actual plan. For instance, if there was a matter of tiering discussion in the PU discussion thread or the PU discussion channel, such a topic would likely bounce around for a few weeks until someone inevitably makes another PR thread that takes an additional week or two.
Hey all, I hate to be a bummer about community initiatives, but I do take issue with this particular one. Will sum up my thoughts with a discussion I was having on Discord about this:
I agree the council is a 100% not needed and if anyone wants to put up a PR topic that relates to GSC lower tiers there is nothing stopping them either. That being said, having a council can’t hurt imo, and even though they are basically totally powerless in doing anything without going through PR and the playerbase anyways it can still help move some tiering things a bit faster
Currently, the council intends on guaging community opinion for future PU tiering changes, with vocal support from some players like Aurist and MrSoup. I would like to ask for other's opinions on this plan.
Some of us, like me, MrSoup, and Aurist, feel there are some issues with PU currently. Some of these issues include:
- difficulty in punishing rests
- trap pass
- it's not uncommon to have teams where most Pokemon avoid 3HKOs from crucial threats on the other side, i.e. seadra avoiding a 3HKO from top and noctowl avoiding a 3HKO from venomoth, which can lead to hax fishing to break through (ties back to point 1)
- some pokemon like Elekid and Seadra are extremely difficult to answer and force linear building/lines that go against making progress
- Spikes is not a consistent/guaranteed catch-all solution because Delibird is not a very good pokemon and does not fit on a lot of teams
Another point of discussion are the pokemon tiered NU that are currently sitting near the bottom of the NU VR, namely Arbok and Azumarill, which are placed 51 and 44 respectively. This lands them in the E tiers. There has been discussion around dropping these 2 to PU and potentially more NU pokemon rated below C tier, though they will be treated as suspects and not guaranteed drops. It's important to keep in mind that if we decide they and any other pokemon that may be tested are unhealthy or overpowered additions, players can hold a vote and reject the drop, sending the pokemon to PUBL.
MrSoup, Aurist, and I created a plan in the PU discussion channel to introduce new changes to PU.
The handy dandy four step plan includes:
1. Ban Trap Pass (currently in progress)
2. Drop Azumarill and Arbok to PU and test them out.
3. Reassess Seadra and potentially hold a suspect if needed. Will likely involve a survey of some sort.
4. Consider D tiers in NU for Drops. Currently the only pokemon with more "immediate" attention are Arbok and Azumarill, which are rated at E. D rated NU pokemon currently are Exeggcute, Ledian, Houndour, and Farfetch'd. These will also be subjected to being treated as suspects.
Alternatively: I have also stated several times that it could be worth exploring more bans from PU rather than drops. I want to emphasize this as presenting this plan as the only option is not the main goal here. Personally, I am supportive of either plan.
I request other PU players give their opinions on this and whether we should go for drops, bans, or nothing at all. A tiering process for this would certainly take some time, but I believe it could benefit the tier. I would also like to emphasize that any tiering changes would require large, clear support. We are also not setting a definitive policy of "E tier NU pokemon will get tested in PU."
All PU needs is a trap pass ban, the rest of the tier is great and I don’t think there’s any reason to touch it until we play a trap-pass-less tier for a bit.
Alternatively, if the tier is dictated by NU VRs, then it should change according to what those are in an organized, consistent matter, regardless of how we feel about the tier. Cherry picking things to drop for any other reasons is a terrible idea and an awful way to tier generally.
First I'd like to say I can definitely understand the position that trap pass ban is all that is needed, as GSC PU feels pretty close to balanced.
I do think that while fairly balanced GSC PU can use some Quality of Life changes, namely in game length and in teambuilder strain. GSC PU games are almost all running quite long right now, with 100+ turn games being semi frequent and 60-90 turn games being some of the most common. These long running games are coming down mostly to Rest Talk loops being difficult to break, often resulting in a lot of crit or full para fishing turns in order to determine who actually breaks through these loops. I find this to be an unhealthy situation for PU and I also believe it to be off-putting to those people playing and spectating games who are new to the tier. The teambuilder strain is slightly baked in to this, as we see in common offensive mons with limited answers like Seadra and Elekid running Rest Talk sets to take advantage of their limited checks being passive or relying on status to win matchups.
I believe in the "four step plan" in Bee's post as an approach to take these issues on for a few reasons. My first is that the creation of a "gameplan" for an old gen lower tier is a great idea as seen in Akir's approach to BW PU tiering, allowing for a multi-step and flexible approach to getting the ideal tier that we want. I'll outline why I support the points specifically below:
Trap Pass ban
To me this is a no brainer, the only absolutely broken thing in the tier with so far nonexistent opposition to banning.
Test "E" tier Pokemon from the NU VR (Arbok and Azumarill)
Arbok and Azumarill have the fortuitous position of being both the only 2 mons currently NU tiered that are in the lowest tier of NU viability, while also presenting potentially useful tools to address some of the issues I talked about above.
Arbok brings with it a greater level of breaking power than we see in most mons in PU, while also not being among the fastest mons in the tier nor among the bulkiest offensive mons in the tier. Things like actually 2hkoing Elekid with Sludge Bomb (which Venomoth does not) or Earthquake, recovering while attacking Seadra with Giga Drain, adding some diversity to the small list of mons that are robust checks to non-curse Hitmontop while likely losing to curse Hitmontop with most sets, and having its general breaking power/coverage while still packing losing or volatile/trading matchups with the likes of Venomoth, Cubone, Golbat, Seaking, Abra, etc. are all qualities which make Arbok an interesting idea for PU, with still the potential to be broken but this is why I like the proposed suspect approach.
Azumarill is a simpler proposition than Arbok, it would simply be one of the bulkiest mons in the tier and something that would actually be a hard check for Seadra. It's quite lacking in power but as a wall I believe it would also force some of our offensive mons in the tier to consider options like Thief, dis-incentivising the running of Rest Talk sets on them in favour of more progress oriented sets.
Reassessing Seadra
Regardless of where we would end up with the consideration of Arbok and Azumarill, I think Seadra bears examination as something of a borderline mon. There are different perspectives on how balanced Seadra is in PU. I don't want to get into examining it now as I don't want to derail the topic at hand, but with things like a decision on whether Azumarill is in the tier, I think after that would be a perfect time to consider a suspect for Seadra if the community deems it necessary.
Consider testing "D" tier Pokemon from the NU VR (Exeggcute, Ledian, Houndour, Farfetch'd)
A more theoretical step here at the 4th stage, assuming there are still concerns over quality of life in the tier we can always consider the next step up from the "E" tier. An alternative path to this could be a suspect on something like Elekid. This point 4 is more of a nebulous "we take further action if we feel we need it" step, but I think is necessary to outline anyway.
I'd also like to highlight something MrSoup said in discord last night during a discussion about this.
I wasn't awake for this discussion so I had no part in this but I very much appreciate this approach to drops as part of making the "four step plan" from Bee's post into something with a consistent methodology so that we don't get caught up in, as BFM said, cherry picking. I believe that utilising a suspect-based approach to tiering GSC PU has a very high potential of improving Quality of Life while maintaining the strong identity of the tier.
Hey all, I hate to be a bummer about community initiatives, but I do take issue with this particular one. Will sum up my thoughts with a discussion I was having on Discord about this:
Chiming in with my support to cel's points here. It's worth noting that the last time the concept of tiering councils for gsc lower tiers came up the idea mostly got negative support and shelved in general, and I haven't really seen any push for it in general since (other than maybe for PU stuff that bee has mentioned?), so I'm really not sure why its suddenly been made without community consultation or support since when the idea was negatively received the first time?
The concept of having a council for gsc lower tiers has multiple issues to me, just a couple of examples are,
In general unlike with more modern gens where you've got a lot more newer users playing, most people in conversation are of a high enough skill level to deserve equal voice, especially when it comes to voters who are qualified tour players. There shouldn't be people whose voice matters more than others because of this so a council goes completely against this and the potential of creating echo chambers with said people or reduced transparency, which is something that smogon tiering has had a big push on increasing lately in general, but this policy instead reverses.
Further onto the above point, this is a generic council across lower tiers and means you aren't necessarily getting true experts from each tier present in the conversations too, because we're expected to also be involved in stuff we play less / have less experience in.
We simply don't need something like a council to make sure policy review threads etc are going up quicker, anyone has the capability to make one whenver they wish as long as they are badged, and there can be tiering discussion threads etc made for tiers if necessary for non badged users too, alongside there being a request form to post as a non badgeholder anyway. A council in this situation should also not be making decisions on whether things are worth threads or not because it would link back into my point 1 again too, and if they merely serve to act as a middle man and post everything anyway then well that can be done as we've been doing already without one.
On top of point 2 there is also issues such as ZU already having a separate council to consider too which means its not even considered under this in general, on top of UU being an official UU tier and therefore having tiering control (at least partially) under UU leadership and therefore a lower tier council should probably not have any real reach here either.
In general in this circumstance either the council is powerless and therefore quite pointless and totally unecessary other than to create an air of decreased transparency and concerns of unequal voice, or actually has unequal voice through having actual power that makes the council have a use case which goes completely contrary to the points discussed above and some of the concerns that originally got the idea shut down before. I would highly recommend revisiting the decision to make this council personally, if there is a desire for one to be made for gsc pu then the idea of exploring a gsc pu specific council could be fine i guess though.
(For transparencies sake on why I joined the council despite feeling like this, I did share a similar viewpoint the first time these discussions came up and were shot down that while I dont' support the creation of one I would nonetheless try to bring what I do have to the table if it was created as a very involved player in the lower tiers and to make sure like transparency is upheld etc)
Chiming in with my support to cel's points here. It's worth noting that the last time the concept of tiering councils for gsc lower tiers came up the idea mostly got negative support and shelved in general, and I haven't really seen any push for it in general since (other than maybe for PU stuff that bee has mentioned?), so I'm really not sure why its suddenly been made without community consultation or support since when the idea was negatively received the first time?
The concept of having a council for gsc lower tiers has multiple issues to me, just a couple of examples are,
In general unlike with more modern gens where you've got a lot more newer users playing, most people in conversation are of a high enough skill level to deserve equal voice, especially when it comes to voters who are qualified tour players. There shouldn't be people whose voice matters more than others because of this so a council goes completely against this and the potential of creating echo chambers with said people or reduced transparency, which is something that smogon tiering has had a big push on increasing lately in general, but this policy instead reverses.
Further onto the above point, this is a generic council across lower tiers and means you aren't necessarily getting true experts from each tier present in the conversations too, because we're expected to also be involved in stuff we play less / have less experience in.
We simply don't need something like a council to make sure policy review threads etc are going up quicker, anyone has the capability to make one whenver they wish as long as they are badged, and there can be tiering discussion threads etc made for tiers if necessary for non badged users too, alongside there being a request form to post as a non badgeholder anyway. A council in this situation should also not be making decisions on whether things are worth threads or not because it would link back into my point 1 again too, and if they merely serve to act as a middle man and post everything anyway then well that can be done as we've been doing already without one.
On top of point 2 there is also issues such as ZU already having a separate council to consider too which means its not even considered under this in general, on top of UU being an official UU tier and therefore having tiering control (at least partially) under UU leadership and therefore a lower tier council should probably not have any real reach here either.
In general in this circumstance either the council is powerless and therefore quite pointless and totally unecessary other than to create an air of decreased transparency and concerns of unequal voice, or actually has unequal voice through having actual power that makes the council have a use case which goes completely contrary to the points discussed above and some of the concerns that originally got the idea shut down before. I would highly recommend revisiting the decision to make this council personally, if there is a desire for one to be made for gsc pu then the idea of exploring a gsc pu specific council could be fine i guess though.
(For transparencies sake on why I joined the council despite feeling like this, I did share a similar viewpoint the first time these discussions came up and were shot down that while I dont' support the creation of one I would nonetheless try to bring what I do have to the table if it was created as a very involved player in the lower tiers and to make sure like transparency is upheld etc)
I don’t think the council has any actual power whatsoever. To me, it’s just kind of a group of people talking unofficially on how to plan stuff, which happens anyways.
If I’m wrong though and the council is anything more than just an unofficial group of people talking about stuff and organizing thoughts (I.e. if they have any actual kind of decision power more so than anyone else), then I agree it shouldn’t exist at all.
I don’t think the council has any actual power whatsoever. To me, it’s just kind of a group of people talking unofficially on how to plan stuff, which happens anyways.
If I’m wrong though and the council is anything more than just an unofficial group of people talking about stuff and organizing thoughts (I.e. if they have any actual kind of decision power more so than anyone else), then I agree it shouldn’t exist at all.
They don't have any power no, I was just quoting some issues I would have if they hypothetically did since I was discussing why I feel its kind of pointless when they don't have any power currently as well.
They don't have any power no, I was just quoting some issues I would have if they hypothetically did since I was discussing why I feel its kind of pointless when they don't have any power currently as well.
Im not sure it’s pointless - any kind of discussion helps push forward ideas. However it’s also not really needed. My position is that it’s not needed at all and doesn’t need to exist, but also can’t hurt so no big deal (unless they get any power then disband immediately.)
Curious though after reading your post, how the council came to be formed, what criteria were presented in choosing the members, and who it was discussed with to determine its creation. If I’m being perfectly honest it just seems like a PU council lol I can’t see any real movement happening in any other tiers given the circumstances.
To this end, the council will help the community by summarizing topics for GSC leadership, maintaining this thread to centralize discussion, and creating expedited Policy Review threads. As such, the council will mostly act as a way to amplify community opinions as opposed to being an internal tiering mechanism.
This is the main point of having a council, I cannot stress it enough. The council has absolutely no power that any other Smogon user wouldn't normally have. Hypotheticals about the council having any sort of power are simply that -- hypotheticals. I see now that my OP failed to really drive this point home.
They don't have any power no, I was just quoting some issues I would have if they hypothetically did since I was discussing why I feel its kind of pointless when they don't have any power currently as well.
This is the next point I'd like to address. Many view the council as pointless. As Bee mentioned before, this exists simply as a group of volunteers to give some accountability and responsibility to actually moving this thread and Discord discussions along. It's been quite a long trend that tiering discussions get lost in the thousands of messages on Discord. The idea of the council was to simply keep some accountability on this front.
To this end, I would like to propose the question if 'council' is the right word. It is my belief that seeing this word in the OP charged negative feelings when the word is not being used as assumed. Should it be 'volunteers?' How do you assign responsibility to community members without seeming like they are gaining power?
To touch on some further points (I know these are hypotheticals, but it seems important to address how each do not apply):
In general unlike with more modern gens where you've got a lot more newer users playing, most people in conversation are of a high enough skill level to deserve equal voice, especially when it comes to voters who are qualified tour players. There shouldn't be people whose voice matters more than others because of this so a council goes completely against this and the potential of creating echo chambers with said people or reduced transparency, which is something that smogon tiering has had a big push on increasing lately in general, but this policy instead reverses.
Everyone does have equal voice. Council members don't have any more of a say.
On the note of transparency, I think it is quite clear from this thread that there is almost nothing going behind the scenes of council members, which is how it should be. Moreover, I am unsure what there is to be transparent about. We are not making any decisions.
Further onto the above point, this is a generic council across lower tiers and means you aren't necessarily getting true experts from each tier present in the conversations too, because we're expected to also be involved in stuff we play less / have less experience in.
There is no need for the council to be experts. We're just supposed to give a platform for discussion with the low tier community. Moreover, I do not think it is a stretch to say that the council is familiar to a high degree with the GSC low tiers.
We simply don't need something like a council to make sure policy review threads etc are going up quicker, anyone has the capability to make one whenver they wish as long as they are badged, and there can be tiering discussion threads etc made for tiers if necessary for non badged users too, alongside there being a request form to post as a non badgeholder anyway. A council in this situation should also not be making decisions on whether things are worth threads or not because it would link back into my point 1 again too, and if they merely serve to act as a middle man and post everything anyway then well that can be done as we've been doing already without one.
A council will not be making decisions on whether things are worth threads. The council, with community support, can have the responsibility of putting up a thread if desired. Otherwise, anyone is obviously free to put them up. It was simply our goal to put up this thread for people to succinctly discuss their tiering opinions and get feedback.
On top of point 2 there is also issues such as ZU already having a separate council to consider too which means its not even considered under this in general, on top of UU being an official UU tier and therefore having tiering control (at least partially) under UU leadership and therefore a lower tier council should probably not have any real reach here either.
Again, there is no power here so we would not interfere in any ways with these metas or any metas. This thread is just a place one has the option to discuss them.
(For transparencies sake on why I joined the council despite feeling like this, I did share a similar viewpoint the first time these discussions came up and were shot down that while I dont' support the creation of one I would nonetheless try to bring what I do have to the table if it was created as a very involved player in the lower tiers and to make sure like transparency is upheld etc)
It would have been very much appreciated for you to voice these opinions before deciding to take this on, as these concerns are things I was not privy to. The idea of a council was something that has been floated for over a year or so. I haven't ever heard anything negative about it. If I knew there were concerns about use of power or transparency, I would've made this abundantly clear in the OP. Because I didn't know this (which I would expect you to tell me), I incorrectly assumed that it was obvious that the council is practically a group of volunteers to summarize thoughts.
Curious though after reading your post, how the council came to be formed, what criteria were presented in choosing the members, and who it was discussed with to determine its creation. If I’m being perfectly honest it just seems like a PU council lol I can’t see any real movement happening in any other tiers given the circumstances.
Quite obviously, it was not an elaborate process to choose members. This is because ultimately, being a council member didn't come with any power, just more forum responsibilities. Members are simply people who engage in the breadth of lower tiers and would put in the work to maintain this thread. Also, the reason it seems like a PU council is just because that is the most pertinent topic right now. A lack of central place to move along tiering action in PU was the catalyst for this thread's creation, but any low tier can be discussed here.
It is now apparent to me that the OP should have been framed differently. However, given the clarifications on what the council is actually responsible for, what are community sentiments on the council? Is the name misleading? Is there an issue with having a group of people summarize thoughts on this thread and push discussion along?
It is now apparent to me that the OP should have been framed differently. However, given the clarifications on what the council is actually responsible for, what are community sentiments on the council? Is the name misleading? Is there an issue with having a group of people summarize thoughts on this thread and push discussion along?
Honestly just make the “council” chat public, the name doesn’t matter, but the only conceivable issue I can see people having with a group of people in an unofficial organized group discussing changes is that it’s done in a private chat when it doesn’t need to be. There’s already actual council chats in some tiers that make it public.
To respond to the concerns brought up by Soup, I do think that if the council does end up persisting, council is not the best choice of words for it. Perhaps something more along the line of "Tiering Promotion/Support Team" would be more appropriate.
That said, I want to reiterate that I really do not think such a thing is needed. I think this is further illustrated by the fact that following the creation of this thread, there was a much more substantial discussion (hundreds of lines of it) around the topics of the council, tiering in general, and adjustments to GSC PU within the #pu-discussion channel on Discord. The fact is that if you want to keep up with this topic you do need to read through all of the discussion on it on Discord, since it is just a much more accessible vehicle for discussion nowadays. Any discussion summary will also involve someone summarizing many lines of text which can and often does miss out on important details/nuance.
The crux of the discussion I would argue is that for people that truly care about tiering, they will involve themselves actively in discussion, will read through any relevant discussion, and when the time is right, will post a Policy Review thread when needed. If people cannot be bothered to even do that, I think that is their own issue, and does not necessitate the existence of a council to perform this function instead.
The group name has been changed and the OP now reflects that. The word council is very loaded on Smogon and did not reflect the voluntary and powerless nature of the positions.
Moreover, the Discord chat for the committee is now public.
The posts above by Aurist and BeeOrSomething do a good job explaining what some view as issues in the PU metagame. To remain brief, the primary issues of note for PU include:
Rest looping being common place due to a lack of consistent 3 hit-KOs
A lack of strong breakers to punish rest loops
Reliance on critical hits or full paralysis to break a core
Offensive threats packing rest because it is currently optimal to do so (e.g. Elekid, Seadra, Cubone) instead of coverage
Building constraints caused by Seadra and Elekid
A lack of Spikes abusers and strong Spikes builds
It is for these reasons that several tiering options for moving forward post-trap-pass ban have been floated. This is a good summary of the currently proposed option:
1. Ban Trap Pass
2. Drop 'E' ranked NU Pokemon and vote on their inclusion (Azumarill and Arbok)
3. Reassess Seadra and potentially hold a suspect if needed. Will likely involve a survey of some sort.
4. Consider D tiers in NU for Drops. Currently the only pokemon with more "immediate" attention are Arbok and Azumarill, which are rated at E. D rated NU pokemon currently are Exeggcute, Ledian, Houndour, and Farfetch'd.
As it stands, Discord discussion has reached an impasse on the next course of action. There are three main options that can be taken in any order, and I will try to summarize various users' opinions on them:
1. Test Arbok and Azumarill
This has been the most widely discussed option. Azumarill and Arbok are the only two 'E' rank Pokemon in NU's current VR that are still considered not PU. This is well below the viability level of all other NU Pokemon. Community members have weighed different opinions on the effects these two Pokemon may have. It is clear there is no current consensus; both have community members which believe they will be positive or negative presences in the metagame.
Arbok appears to be the more interesting and polarizing option. It's offensive prowess, STAB Sludge Bomb, great physical coverage, and utility options like Glare and Haze make it an attractive option for breaking cores after a single Curse boost. It is also a Pokemon that is unlikely to run rest due to its fantastic moveset options. However, Arbok may also be too strong, especially as a Hitmontop check and paralysis spreader against Pokemon like Venomoth.
Opinions on Azumarill are less polarizing. It is likely a great Seadra check with HP Electric or Light Screen. It also may provide breaking power with Belly Drum sets. However, Azumarill also may be able to utilize sets that can grow problematic, such as Whirlpool Perish Song or another mono-normal Curse set. As such, some community members believe it may add bulk to an already bulky tier and make issues worse. Others argue it would be a passive piece that makes breaking easier.
If testing these Pokemon is the direction the community decides to take, there has also been heavy discussion about the process for doing so. There is no clear consensus here, as there are many options for moving forward. Questions that would need to be answered here are, but are not limited to:
Would both be tested at the same time?
Would both drop directly from NU into PU and then be voted on banning to PUBL or not? Or would they drop to PUBL and be voted into PU?
How many tournaments would be necessary to test them?
Would the influence of Arbok's presence in the tier affect the healthiness of Azumarill and vice versa?
If we go down this route, it would be important to solidly establish a clear game plan on this front. However, I want to stress that it is more important to decide which option the community wants to take before arguing about a game plan. The community may decide that options 2 or 3 are better routes for the health of PU.
2. Suspect Seadra and/or Elekid
Seadra has an amazing combination of immaculate power and coverage combined with high speed and good enough bulk to dodge 3HKOes from crucial targets like Hitmontop and Non-Giga Drain Venomoth. Seadra can sit on the field and fire off attacks without being significantly threatened out by most things due to RestTalk, or it can serve as a wall to opposing progress makers like Seaking and Noctowl with Haze while also expanding its by forgoing RestTalk. It can be argued that Seadra has no actual answers and is too strong and too difficult to kill. However, it can also be argued that while Seadra is strong, it’s not quite strong enough to be deemed broken, and aggressive teams stacking threats like Elekid and their own Seadra can limit its entry and switch around its coverage. Some also find Seadra difficult to fit on a team, as with Haze, it has limited longevity, and with RestTalk, it has limited coverage and cannot Haze.
Elekid meanwhile is pure speed and offense, often barely having enough bulk to survive a 2HKO from most things if it even can at all. Elekid makes up for this by being the second fastest common Pokemon behind Voltorb and the fastest Pokemon that shows up at least every couple games. Elekid can 3HKO a variety of Pokemon with Thunder and Psychic, and it can use Ice Punch to lay more hurt on Grass and Ground types and even potentially freeze them. Elekid is often sighted with Thief too, enabling it and its team’s offenses. Elekid can also instead use its barely-good-enough bulk to run RestTalk, providing a decent secondary switch-in/pivot to Venomoth, Seadra, and more. RestTalk also lets it wall Gastly, and perhaps even more importantly, itself (and Flaaffy). Elekid’s switch-ins are quite limited, with some being less common choices and others being openly flawed in some way. And since every team might not be able to fit one of these, Elekid quite often ends up dueling with itself or Flaaffy in atrocious RestTalk mirrors fishing for crits or Psychic drops. Some argue this pushes Elekid over the line into being at the very least unhealthy for the tier and arguably broken, while others would say Elekid is too fragile and many teams can fit an answer or combination of checks to it.
Both of these Pokemon, but moreso Seadra, have gained traction as ban candidates. Suspecting Elekid and/or Seadra before or after options 1 or 3 is a route some players believe is best for the tier.
3. Do Nothing
It is also an option to do nothing, see how the recent trap pass ban affects things, and move forward from there. Players like BigFatMantis believe that the tier is currently fine as it is and does not require further attention. Others point to the fact that the tier could use quality of life improvements, but further change may disrupt the tier in a big way. This option does not mean that options 1 or 2 are not possible, but that we can wait things out.
Opinions on further options not mentioned here are also welcome. While we cannot test things out of order, some have touted the potential benefits of 'D' tier NU drops like Exeggcute as well. Others have floated the idea of banning Baton Pass outright. Please provide opinions and thoughts on which (if any) of these options you believe is best.
Please don’t do anything further, I think the tier is in a great spot at the moment. Trap bass was fairly universally accepted as a major issue but now that we don’t have to account for that at all anymore, we should see how the tier settles a bit. I don’t really see there being any “Seadra problem”, the only mon I can kinda understand is Elekid, but if you got rid of it then you do have more of a Seadra problem.
We should really just wait and play the tier now. I think GSC PU is one of the funnest tiers at the moment. We don’t need drops and we don’t need bans. I can accept the drops if they’re based on the fact that we are tiering per VRs and it’s natural to drop them, but I don’t really accept the drops because the tier needs them in any way whatsoever.
My number one hope right now is for Seadra to go. I just think that it is overall just way too strong, fast, and bulky for the tier to handle. It also isn't unique as a powerful offensive water; I think Hydro Pump Mantine would be quite a fine Pokemon without Seadra, but right now it's practically useless.
BeeOrSomething said:
Seadra is the strongest offensive threat in the tier and has no true answers. STAB Hydro Pump at worst 3HKOes and often 2HKOes every neutral target besides Noctowl, even the monstrously bulky Hitmontop. Ice Beam gives Seadra immaculate coverage, smacking Sunflora for upwards of 50%, easily 2HKOing Tangela, and usually 3HKOing Noctowl. Seadra isn’t easy to take down either. It has respectable physical bulk that lets it dodge a 3HKO Hitmontop High Jump Kick, and while its special bulk is not amazing, it’s enough to dodge a 3HKO from Venomoth’s Psychic, essentially only taking damage that can meaningfully hurt it from super effective hits, Cubone, and attacks boosted multiple times. Even Sunflora, the most splashable Seadra “check,” asides from being nearly 2HKOed by Ice Beam, is slower and can only do about 60 with non-crit Razor Leaf. Seadra is also fast, as Sneasel, Voltorb, Elekid, Abra, Murkrow, and Venomoth are the only common Pokemon that are faster. Of these, Sneasel with its Moonlight is really the only Pokemon that comfortably switches in, as the rest take a ton from Hydro Pump and RestTalk Seadra is even a decent answer to Murkrow and most Venomoth sets. Seadra can mix and match moves to great effect. RestTalk Ice Beam has no answers besides Seaking and kind of other Seadra (still takes nearly 40 from Hydro Pump). 3 attacks +1 has no switch-ins and can be a stonewalling defensive piece with Haze for Seaking and Noctowl . Lastly, while RestTalk Electric is generally the worst set, it still has Hydro Pump and RestTalk, and Electric can be useful against Seaking and other Seadra. It simply has no consistent counterplay, with most teams packing at least a couple slower pokemon that are vital for their own defensive reasons and that Seadra can prey upon. This isn’t even to mention what Spikes can do.
I also think Elekid is frankly quite toxic from a lot of games I have watched recently in GSC PU Open II, Slam Playoffs, and the GSC PU Tournament ongoing. I don't really understand how the tier would be "ruined" if it went, especially if Seadra also goes. I don't mind it as much as Seadra though. I know some people like Amity definitely completely despise Elekid though and I absolutely get it.
I am also supportive of the plan to drop Azumarill and Arbok. I think they are worth trying out and will most likely be an overall positive addition. Arbok is a frail offensive threat that's difficult to stop but still much easier to handle than something like Seadra, especially with all its 4mss (wants all of Rock Slide, Glare, Giga Drain, even Screech or Haze for Noctowl). Azumarill is also a fat mon that can do team support to facilitate offense or just like click Belly Drum and potentially kill something. It is definitely at the very least worth looking into and conducting a tour or two for. I don't have a preference as to if this should happen before or after a suspect on Seadra and/or Elekid.
I am also ok with proceeding now for another tournament or two to see more play, but it is my least preferred option. I feel like we also have enough of what is technically "trap pass-less" since it really only started getting use in Open II and the current GSC PU tournament, and of course I think the tier still has issues and needs more help anyways. That is all.
I feel like we also have enough of what is technically "trap pass-less" since it really only started getting use in Open II and the current GSC PU tournament, and of course I think the tier still has issues and needs more help anyways. That is all.
I just want to note that I feel like I’ve been playing trap pass for over a year across several tours, and the meta has significantly changed since ALT PL imo, so I’m not really sure we have played much of a trap pass less meta since the changes in how the tier is played (when I say changes I don’t mean actual tiering changes, I mean changes in what people see as viable, sets, etc. basically, the teams being used are much different than in the past).
I also don’t see what the rush is - maybe I’m in the minority by enjoying this tier as it is. If everyone else hates it though then sure I guess change it - personally I don’t see any reason to do so.
Nah but I do think Elekid is the main thing I can point to regarding negative tier health. As someone who has been in this situation before where the tier can experience shifts, first and foremost you look at the banworthy stuff first and suspect that before doing something like adding Arbok and Azu. I think Elekid is negatively impacting the tier in some of the main points of the tier's bad identity, such as Rest cycles being hard to punish, tier having a slow pace, and the lack of good breakers. It all points to the Kid. Elekid nerfs offense because of its fast Speed tier giving it the jump on so many of the tier staples and dancing around breaking opportunities with RestTalk. It essentially forces passive counterplay like Sunflora or a Ground-type like Cubone or Rhyhorn, which, either you get Thunder Para'd or you get Psychic SpDef dropped. This makes it to where one of the only reliable answers to RestTalk Kid is your own RestTalk Kid until one of you either Psychic SpDef drops (which can be switched out of) or gets an Ice Punch freeze (another way Kid can ruin any of its switchins).
I think Seadra isn't particularly as broken as Elekid, I think a lot of sets you run on it make good tradeoffs, if it were able to run Hydro IB HP Elec Haze RestTalk all at once it'd be a different story, especially with the high amount of RestTalk Kid nerfing it as I kinda alluded to. I do think it shares similar attributes in nerfing offense but Kid really exemplifies "forcing a passive metagame" imo. You can make the argument that Kid being banned would make Seadra very broken but I think this is worth it, if there becomes concrete proof of it then sure both can be banned. Test the Kidless meta first though is my input. That's p much all I got.
First I'd like to say I can definitely understand the position that trap pass ban is all that is needed, as GSC PU feels pretty close to balanced.
I do think that while fairly balanced GSC PU can use some Quality of Life changes, namely in game length and in teambuilder strain. GSC PU games are almost all running quite long right now, with 100+ turn games being semi frequent and 60-90 turn games being some of the most common. These long running games are coming down mostly to Rest Talk loops being difficult to break, often resulting in a lot of crit or full para fishing turns in order to determine who actually breaks through these loops. I find this to be an unhealthy situation for PU and I also believe it to be off-putting to those people playing and spectating games who are new to the tier. The teambuilder strain is slightly baked in to this, as we see in common offensive mons with limited answers like Seadra and Elekid running Rest Talk sets to take advantage of their limited checks being passive or relying on status to win matchups.
I believe in the "four step plan" in Bee's post as an approach to take these issues on for a few reasons. My first is that the creation of a "gameplan" for an old gen lower tier is a great idea as seen in Akir's approach to BW PU tiering, allowing for a multi-step and flexible approach to getting the ideal tier that we want. I'll outline why I support the points specifically below:
Trap Pass ban
To me this is a no brainer, the only absolutely broken thing in the tier with so far nonexistent opposition to banning.
Test "E" tier Pokemon from the NU VR (Arbok and Azumarill)
Arbok and Azumarill have the fortuitous position of being both the only 2 mons currently NU tiered that are in the lowest tier of NU viability, while also presenting potentially useful tools to address some of the issues I talked about above.
Arbok brings with it a greater level of breaking power than we see in most mons in PU, while also not being among the fastest mons in the tier nor among the bulkiest offensive mons in the tier. Things like actually 2hkoing Elekid with Sludge Bomb (which Venomoth does not) or Earthquake, recovering while attacking Seadra with Giga Drain, adding some diversity to the small list of mons that are robust checks to non-curse Hitmontop while likely losing to curse Hitmontop with most sets, and having its general breaking power/coverage while still packing losing or volatile/trading matchups with the likes of Venomoth, Cubone, Golbat, Seaking, Abra, etc. are all qualities which make Arbok an interesting idea for PU, with still the potential to be broken but this is why I like the proposed suspect approach.
Azumarill is a simpler proposition than Arbok, it would simply be one of the bulkiest mons in the tier and something that would actually be a hard check for Seadra. It's quite lacking in power but as a wall I believe it would also force some of our offensive mons in the tier to consider options like Thief, dis-incentivising the running of Rest Talk sets on them in favour of more progress oriented sets.
Reassessing Seadra
Regardless of where we would end up with the consideration of Arbok and Azumarill, I think Seadra bears examination as something of a borderline mon. There are different perspectives on how balanced Seadra is in PU. I don't want to get into examining it now as I don't want to derail the topic at hand, but with things like a decision on whether Azumarill is in the tier, I think after that would be a perfect time to consider a suspect for Seadra if the community deems it necessary.
Consider testing "D" tier Pokemon from the NU VR (Exeggcute, Ledian, Houndour, Farfetch'd)
A more theoretical step here at the 4th stage, assuming there are still concerns over quality of life in the tier we can always consider the next step up from the "E" tier. An alternative path to this could be a suspect on something like Elekid. This point 4 is more of a nebulous "we take further action if we feel we need it" step, but I think is necessary to outline anyway.
I'd also like to highlight something MrSoup said in discord last night during a discussion about this.
I wasn't awake for this discussion so I had no part in this but I very much appreciate this approach to drops as part of making the "four step plan" from Bee's post into something with a consistent methodology so that we don't get caught up in, as BFM said, cherry picking. I believe that utilising a suspect-based approach to tiering GSC PU has a very high potential of improving Quality of Life while maintaining the strong identity of the tier.
Partially rebooting my post now PU chat is back on. I believe in attempting some changes to improve PU's quality of life and first and foremost in dropping and testing Arbok and Azumarill who have a shot of addressing some of the issues/improving the tier overall.
For a tl;dr I think our checks to some of the best offensive mons in the tier like Seadra and Elekid are too low dmg resulting in them taking advantage of them with rest talk, and there is too limited a capacity for checking them offensively as matchups are tight and their offensive checks aren't safe enough. With the addition of both a super hard hitter (Arbok) that actually 2hkos some of our top threats and a super bulky mon (Azumarill) that requires a more thorough gameplan than Sleep Talk Until You Get a Crit (Seadra literally needs 2 crits to break Azu lol) we have a good shot at reducing some of the issues to an acceptable level, especially when introducing them both at the same time which I think is the right move.
I then feel that if Arbok and Azumarill don't address things enough, we should look at suspecting mons. My only concern here is I don't want to nerf the power I actually want to increase it in crucial areas, and I'm worried that action on either Seadra or Elekid would slow down PU to an unacceptable level. Nonetheless, if Seadra really manages to be nuts with Azumarill in the tier then frankly get that spiky mf out of here. I don't believe in suspecting Elekid as I believe its issues are purely with Rest Talk reflecting a meta which can be improved without sacrificing an important damage and speed check on the tier which I believe to be an overall healthy influence and one with easy to fit checks.
Everything after those 2 notional stages (Free Arbok/Azumarill, look at suspects) is theoretical so I won't dip into that for this post. I am also personally feeling that Baton Pass in general will only reveal itself to be more and more unhealthy as time goes on, I think that freeing the tier from BP will lessen the pressure on teambuilding in general, but just saying it now so it can come up later lol.
Haven't played the tier since PUBD but following it through more recent replays. Despite agreeing that Elekid has contributed the tier to develop in a more toxic manner mainly after the popularization of the RestTalk set and also agreeing that Seadra is a very restricting mon that can ofc get past its checks due to being bulky and fast I'm with BFM on giving time to the tier to be played as is, there is no need to rush anything or be desperate about.
I'd rather see tours being tested (still not officially banned) in the tier without Elekid and Seadra than already shoot for Azu and Arbok to try balancing things out as that can just backfire creating even more problems. Azu has incredible bulk that seem to check like everything that can't really hit it SE or bulky boosters like Noctowl, the problem with it is that BDrum with Agilipass is a genuine thing to worry about, it may seem like its like Poliwhirl but the bulk diff is big.
Sunflora Razor Leaf vs. Azumarill: 144-170 (35.7 - 42.1%) -- 91.8% chance to 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
Sunflora Razor Leaf vs. Poliwhirl: 188-222 (56.4 - 66.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
So introducing Azu would very likely demand an AgilityPass ban or a statpass as a whole.
As for Arbok I just think it screws way too much of the meta and is not gonna solve anything at all, in fact it would force the tier to be as stale and passive as it is rn. It sports good enough bulk for the tier standards and its movepool is WAY too good, running Sludge Eq Rock Slide Giga Drain/HP Grass p much hits the entire tier for good damage and even the few defensive checks like Noctowl and Cubone has to manage their HP well enough, not even mentioning other options like a potential RestTalk set (good bulk and walls Top), Glare, Subs, Thief, Curse.
Tldr: keep the tier as is for a bit, TEST the tier without Kid and Seadra and then come up with a solution between banning them or introducing the mons you want as an attempt to help the meta.
I'd rather see tours being tested (still not officially banned) in the tier without Elekid and Seadra than already shoot for Azu and Arbok to try balancing things out as that can just backfire creating even more problems. Azu has incredible bulk that seem to check like everything that can't really hit it SE or bulky boosters like Noctowl, the problem with it is that BDrum with Agilipass is a genuine thing to worry about, it may seem like its like Poliwhirl but the bulk diff is big.
Sunflora Razor Leaf vs. Azumarill: 144-170 (35.7 - 42.1%) -- 91.8% chance to 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
Sunflora Razor Leaf vs. Poliwhirl: 188-222 (56.4 - 66.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
So introducing Azu would very likely demand an AgilityPass ban or a statpass as a whole.
As for Arbok I just think it screws way too much of the meta and is not gonna solve anything at all, in fact it would force the tier to be as stale and passive as it is rn. It sports good enough bulk for the tier standards and its movepool is WAY too good, running Sludge Eq Rock Slide Giga Drain/HP Grass p much hits the entire tier for good damage and even the few defensive checks like Noctowl and Cubone has to manage their HP well enough, not even mentioning other options like a potential RestTalk set (good bulk and walls Top), Glare, Subs, Thief, Curse.
I personally feel that there's nothing to be lost in the case of a "backfire" in dropping Azu and Arbok, they simply can be banned if we feel they're too much for the tier. I agree Arbok has strong potential to be too much, but that's what a drop and suspect process is meant to examine anyway.
As for the AgiliPass to Azu, I think that's a function of Agili Pass/Baton Pass/Stat Pass being broken/unhealthy anyway. I don't see a negative to Azu making a BP examination happen sooner than before if that's the case.
I think at some point soon, it is worth testing out changes in single elimination individual tournaments. The process will take time but it should give us a full view of what different possible metagames look like.
Currently we have the GSC PU Single Elimination held by Aurist currently ongoing, and ideally it will be in GSCPL in 2 months and then PUBD at the beginning of next year. Aurist's tour is regular GSC PU and GSCPL would be too, and and PUBD will likely be regular too since the process may not have finished by then. This should give us ample view of an unchanged post-trap pass metagame. As an aside, ALTPL will most likely not include GSC PU.
Running on the side or between/after these tours we can conduct test tours. 1 tour for no Seadra, 1 for no Elekid, 1 for no Seadra or Elekid, and 1 for Azumarill and Arbok test. Ideally each of these tournaments takes 4-5 weeks and by the time PUBD is over we can start another discussion and hopefully a voting process. Having PUBD include a suspect is also not a bad idea, but GSCPL should definitely be regular metagame as the first team tour post-ban. We would ask for player input/conduct surveys after each of these tournaments.
I will fully admit that this is a lot of GSC PU to be playing and could cause some burnout or non-participation. This is my preferred plan to not have to take a year holding suspects (roughly 8 months instead), but there's nothing stopping taking more time for more breathing room and consideration. Exact dates/details can be figured out at a later time. We can also do less tours if people want.
One tournament should be held soon though if people are up for it. Aurist's tour will likely end in 3 weeks or so, and that leaves about a month before GSCPL week 1. GSC PU is also not guaranteed in GSCPL and even unlikely to be included. Do post thoughts below please.
I posted a PR thread about BP in GSC UU. I believe it to be a matchup fish that can totally dominate games and counterplay is rare and not always effective. I encourage users with a badge to post in the PR thread and users without a badge to make a post here or use the PR post request form https://www.smogon.com/forums/policy-review-access-request/ to make one in the thread.
Lower Tier Committee 
