In-game tier list policy discussion thread

I think it's just very strange to test things this way. All it really results in is saying "this needs more grinding than usual", and I don't think it's more complicated than that.
Exactly but we have people just criticizing Xator for testing their way. Each person is going to test in a different way from the norm and it just needs to be accepted, not going after a person who is trying to show something and get blasted for it.
 
While I do find Xator's approach to testing unconventional and it shouldn't be the standard for tests whatsoever, I think it has its value in demonstrating how big of exp sinks some mons can be. RSE Chinchou is a good example, without any special dedication Lanturn started league at around late-30s/early-40s, which is abusrd to think about. Lanturn requires at least 8 levels of dedication to even be on par with what is minimally expected for league due to its slow exp rate, and if you're not grinding those levels out on wilds (which hf with the slow exp. group), that's gonna draw a ton of exp away from teammates, overall crippling the rest of your team in terms of levels. This would likely not be as evident to people who just saw a log with Lanturn at the expected level for league, however which way the tester arrived at that level. The other mon most discussed when it came to this method was RSE Ralts, which also has a slow exp rate but comes way earlier than Chinchou does. I think the only time this really crippled Ralts' performance was at Brawly, pre-Slateport grinding; no one in their right mind would charge at Brawly's level 19 Makuhita with a level 13 Ralts. Still, he corrected this with a post-Slateport grind log and Kirlia managed to stay at appropriate level for the rest of the game as if he was using it normally (at least, from my personal experience with it). He was certainly on average for league, I can point to at least one other test with similar levels for Voir and that test concluded that it was S rank.

Ultimately tests like these aren't the norm and I don't get the impression Xator wants them to be the norm, it's just his approach to testing. Even his most egregious examples of underleveling were made up for by further testing (the above example of Ralts vs Brawly, having an extra save file where Lanturn was more on par for League) and while they aren't as useful for determining a mon's expected major battle performance they give good insight to how much time must be put into a pokemon to have it perform on par with the rest of its team. How these tests are weighted in comparison to more standard tests should be determined by the leader of whatever list they're testing for.
 
The thing with this argument about showing that Lanturn etc would be lower levels is that... not to be rude, but I could have told you this just by glancing at its encounter tables. Of course a Pokémon that comes at level 20-30 after 7 badges is going to either need a lot of grinding or be severely underlevelled, and of course when severely underlevelled it won't be capable of much. Of course a Pokémon with a slow exp group is going to require a bit more babying and potentially make the rest of the team suffer for it. This is also all accounted for and not forgotten in logs; most logs using these Pokémon that I've seen have noted the extra grinding required and have mentioned where they felt that was enough of a negative to impact them.

If you're going to use that Pokémon at the lower level you think it would be based on an arbitrary amount of total exp divided between Pokémon - an amount that would vary a lot depending on the size of your team and their exp groups - then by all means do so, but unless you're proving that they are in fact even better by virtue of still being able to succeed at that lower level, then I don't see what value it brings beyond stating the obvious.
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Y'all are insane. Actually. Chinchou arrives ready to evolve, with a perfect typing to fight every trainer on the routes it takes in which it was acquired. It catches up to the team easily, not with any kind of special treatment but with the exact effort put into it that you would put in ANY pokemon that arrived underleveled to the rest of your team. For a region harassed for having too much water do you really think its a burden to train up an electric type of all things. It catches up to your team quickly, self-sufficiently, well before Archie or Juan, by putting in the basic level of investment you would put into any Pokemon. Running it into Juan at level 32 is flat out insulting to our intelligence because it is blatantly distorting a situation so far away from reality that it loses any and all credibility. All this garbage about "oh it was only 32 because its in the slow xp group" is flat out wrong, it was at that level because he didn't fucking use the thing.


And just to be perfectly clear, its AN ELECTRIC TYPE WITH ELECTRIC STAB THAT COMES ON WATER ROUTES. There's is zero babying required. None. Special dedication my ass.
 
If Lanturn's woes were so self-evident I highly doubt it would've made B in the first place. I think there's a general trend in some lists to overrate pokemon that arrive extremely late (previous iterations of bw2 are good examples of this) or otherwise require a fair bit of resources. This is not to say that people are stupid, or I'm somehow smarter than they are, but I think sometimes people look more at where the mon is than what it took to get there, and that can overinflate a mon's placement in their eyes. Which is where I think Xator's method of testing has value.

In any case, things are tilting to be more about Chinchou than they are about the test itself, so to tl;dr while people don't need spelling out about stuff Xator's testing methods are very insightful about the resources required to make a mon work and considering he's the only person doing this rn (at least that I've seen) I don't see it as an issue whatsoever.
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I've kept quiet on this for a little bit but I'll say it now. I believe the testing methods used by Xator and others recently are misleading and misdirecting and this focus on xp groups is a completely wrong basis both for how we have been doing these lists and for how we *should* be doing these lists. The conclusions being drawn from these distorted tests are beyond the pale both in the assertions they make and in the disconnect from the grounded reality we attempt to have these tests reflect. If ordering something by equal experience grants you more insight into something than fantastic, but in no way should it be an acceptable basis for a nomination for the purposes to which these lists serve.

Disclaimer: These views are my own and are not reflective of any decision making body leading a tiering thread.
 
Like I said, it's up to the thread leader how to weigh these tests in comparison to normal ones and I trust them to do a good job. Besides, Xator more than compensates for his methods either by having alternate saves with higher levels or just by having the mon be acceptablely leveled throughout the playthrough, as I referenced in my previous post. I know his Voir was at the same levels yours was at league, and if I looked through the rest of your logs I could imagine they're at similar levels. I hardly believe his results are "distorted" when at the end of the day they seem to reach the same results as other tests, just different conclusions about where said mon should be ranked. This comes off more as fearmongering about one guy doing things differently from most. At worst, it can simply be ignored by the leader (ralts ultimately did not drop from S rank and chinchou only got a slight bump down to C, far from what Xator's conclusion about the mon was), and at best it can provide useful insight and make people think twice about a mon that might be overrated (the fact that chinchou dropped at all is proof of that). But again, I don't want to make this about the merits of these particular pokemon, they are just the two biggest examples I can think of.
 

Celever

the bear becomes the ringleader
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
I don't really understand why a policy is being made of this, but as someone who admittedly used to contribute to tier lists much more than I do these days, I think Kurona has the right idea here with a kind of "no detriment" policy. At the end of the day, Pokémon is an RPG. Grinding is a part of almost every RPG ever made. If a Pokémon requires a little bit of time into it to catch it up or whatever, then note it in the usage tips and continue with the game after catching the Pokémon up. It shouldn't affect a Pokémon's ranking negatively. However, if a Pokémon comes out of the box ready to destroy opponents (think level 31 Dugtrio in RB in Diglett's Tunnel) then it can definitely count favourably toward its rank.

Most of the problems being targeted toward exp. groups don't seem like they should be targeted toward exp. groups. Ralts is an issue of babying -- where it's so bad that you have to actually switch train it half the time when you try to use it in battle. That's not because of its exp. group, it's because Ralts is a terrible Pokémon until it evolves. The Chinchou example is also crazy for the reasons Texas stated; it's another example of being ready to use out of the box and if anything it should count positively toward it that it catches up quickly and really gets the most out of the experience available to it in the area where it's caught.

If we have any kind of policy, then it should be "play fairly naturally and report your methodology alongside your findings". Of course, what's natural isn't the same for everyone, but that's the entire reason why this should be the policy. Standardising methodology, or playing bizarrely and unnaturally such as the Chinchou example, will distort results heavily because any standardised methodology will advantage or disadvantage certain Pokémon unrealistically. The current method of aggregating each player's tests based on thread discussion is the fairest way to draw conclusions, because each player will play slightly differently so it comes to a kind of median conclusion.

And the worst suggestion yet is "well if a player tests badly, the thread leader can just disregard the test". Volunteers being barred from contributing because of an unspoken rule is elitist; we need a policy of some description even if that policy is don't overthink things and underlevel your Pokémon because of an extremely technical estimation of how exp. groups affect the game.
 
I didn't mean to come off as elitist, "ignored" was probably the wrong way to put it. Ultimately leaders are gonna have to make calls on if a test should be considered if it's significantly out there or reaches some bizarre conclusion. For example, if someone posts that rby zam sucks and is actually C rank, I wouldn't blame the leader of the rby thread for dismissing that claim outright because is so self-evidently S rank. This is what I meant by at worst, obviously not every dissenting opinion should be outright ignored. While's Xator's tests are in no way as egregious as the example I gave I think they qualify as special circumstances given how different they can be from more conventional tests, and that they've spawned this whole discussion in the first place. The leader has to make the call how to interpret these tests, and how that'll happen will vary from leader to leader. That's what I meant.
 
Y'all are insane. Actually. Chinchou arrives ready to evolve, with a perfect typing to fight every trainer on the routes it takes in which it was acquired. It catches up to the team easily, not with any kind of special treatment but with the exact effort put into it that you would put in ANY pokemon that arrived underleveled to the rest of your team. For a region harassed for having too much water do you really think its a burden to train up an electric type of all things. It catches up to your team quickly, self-sufficiently, well before Archie or Juan, by putting in the basic level of investment you would put into any Pokemon. Running it into Juan at level 32 is flat out insulting to our intelligence because it is blatantly distorting a situation so far away from reality that it loses any and all credibility. All this garbage about "oh it was only 32 because its in the slow xp group" is flat out wrong, it was at that level because he didn't fucking use the thing.


And just to be perfectly clear, its AN ELECTRIC TYPE WITH ELECTRIC STAB THAT COMES ON WATER ROUTES. There's is zero babying required. None. Special dedication my ass.
The only thing I'll disagree with is on the "Chinchou catches up quickly" part.

No, there really is a significant investment because Slow is pretty damn abysmal, but there's really no shortage of non-detour trainers anyway, so it doesn't matter. It is very possible to have it catch up to a Lv. 44ish team.

While I will say 32 is incredibly low for Juan, remember it was placed at B Tier which means that it’s low level shouldn’t have been an issue as it’s supposed battle prowess would outweigh the level disparity. Even when it was at the 46, it was still failing to do things reliably.
What.

In all seriousness, if a mon that isn't facing obvious spikes like the E4 is cleaning house at no less that FOURTEEN levels below an ace, I'd call that an S-Tier performance.

B-tiers are more like, average to above-average performance, this would be flat-out stellar.

Ralts is an issue of babying -- where it's so bad that you have to actually switch train it half the time when you try to use it in battle. That's not because of its exp. group, it's because Ralts is a terrible Pokémon until it evolves.
That is most certainly not the case. Up until evolution, Ralts only needs switch grinding through Levels 4 and 5 to learn Confusion. After that, it is perfectly self-sufficient outside of the obvious issues with Poochyena (And there aren't that many in trainer rosters at that point) until it gets literally anything that can actually damage them.

Ralts also has the niche of not relying on a contact move, making Effect Spore, Poison Point, and Static much more manageable early-game where you aren't swimming in money yet.
 

Celever

the bear becomes the ringleader
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
The only thing I'll disagree with is on the "Chinchou catches up quickly" part.

No, there really is a significant investment because Slow is pretty damn abysmal, but there's really no shortage of non-detour trainers anyway, so it doesn't matter. It is very possible to have it catch up to a Lv. 44ish team.



What.

In all seriousness, if a mon that isn't facing obvious spikes like the E4 is cleaning house at no less that FOURTEEN levels below an ace, I'd call that an S-Tier performance.

B-tiers are more like, average to above-average performance, this would be flat-out stellar.



That is most certainly not the case. Up until evolution, Ralts only needs switch grinding through Levels 4 and 5 to learn Confusion. After that, it is perfectly self-sufficient outside of the obvious issues with Poochyena (And there aren't that many in trainer rosters at that point) until it gets literally anything that can actually damage them.

Ralts also has the niche of not relying on a contact move, making Effect Spore, Poison Point, and Static much more manageable early-game where you aren't swimming in money yet.
Honestly, and please don't take this as specifically targeted at you it's just because you were the one to directly quote me, posts like this seem like the greatest cause of contention in in-game tier lists as of late. People are getting way too pent up and pedantic over tiny things that can go left unsaid and cause absolutely no harm. Not just in regards to what you said to me (which I have every reason to believe is true, my experience with Ralts is based on second hand information only) but the entire post. Picking battles wisely is a virtue.

This has nothing to do with in-game tier list policy. They're examples used to justify arguments, and nothing in this post changes the arguments made about in-game tier list policy by the people quoted. This is arguing about Pokémon's placements that are already locked in and finalised, in the wrong thread at that (presumably because the right thread was locked, and likely in part due to the extent of arguing). Right now it seems most in-game tier list contributors are looking for a fight or a one-up wherever possible in order to try and ensure that their voice is heard the loudest. The process of creating these tier lists doesn't actually require or benefit from any arguing at all; it's up to the project leaders to balance different contributors' views, the contributors themselves don't have to come to a consensus.

Not that this hasn't always been an element of these projects, and certainly is something I fell foul of when I was a young teenager myself. But at this stage most people working on these projects really need to chill out, when in the past it's been a minority of contributors. I think too many people of the same mindset just started trying to contribute at once, personalities clashed, and a feedback loop was formed.
 
Last edited:
posts like this seem like the greatest cause of contention in in-game tier lists as of late.
You do have a point.

I've been taking a step back on a lot of stuff to at least try to not escalate things and let the threads breathe because I can talk a bit too much and sound a bit too abrasive.

Just for clarification, I obviously don't have a problem with you or most people in the thread, including Xator.

Just because we're having disagreements about certain stuff, this shouldn't mean we should actually get heated over stuff.
Personally, I've agreed and disagreed with you on a lot of stuff across several threads, if I came out sounding too aggressive, sorry about that.
 

Its_A_Random

A distant memory
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Honestly, all this Chinchou / Ralts / etc talk speaks towards a more generalised question that could be considered for this thread:

How much should a Pokémon's start-up cost factor towards its tiering?

Technically, every Pokémon has a start-up cost, but there are some that are more notable than others.

To me, RSE Ralts and RSE Chinchou both have start-up costs of a different kind. Ralts has an initial start-up cost of needing one/two levels to be able to fight by itself (Roughly 3/4 trainers), and a more long-term hidden start-up cost of more levels (roughly until it gets Psychic at Lv26, or evolving to Gardevoir, basically the point where its attacks start having actual bite) until it truly goes online and reaches the S-Rank efficiency that it was ultimately decreed to have (I mean, it's not that it cannot win beforehand, but it is quite slow when it comes to picking off opponents and/or sweeping fights). Chinchou on the other hand, is a more traditional example of start-up cost, coming late-game and being underlevelled, and requiring several optional trainers before it goes online.

None of this is necessarily a bad thing per se, but remember that the goal of these lists is to describe which Pokémon are the most efficient in clearing a casual playthrough. Is a Pokémon sweeping a three Pokémon team in 15-20 turns that efficient? Is something that comes 15 levels under the level curve and wanting at least 9 levels to become good that efficient? I don't know about you, but to me, I do think it matters a little bit since I am investing quite a bit of time going out of my way to making a Pokémon improve, when I could be using it to move forward. But that comes down to how I play the game, really.

Nevertheless, it would be important to see what everyone else thinks about start-up cost and potentially lead to something.

As an aside, I do apologise to anyone who questions the efficacy of what I test, and I should justify myself a bit. So with these tests, I tend to try and do as little as I can to try and beat the game (e.g. skipping most non-gym optionals when I don't need the Experience), and that does at times, lead to a bit of underlevelling and by extension, underestimating. Point is, the idea is to test for efficiency, and I find it more fun and less exhausting that way to just zip through the game with a lot of experience left on the table (For the Emerald Test, I fought most optionals until 114/Surf, and then started skipping most as appropriate, skipping all off 105/107-109 South, 125, 129-134, and most trainers on 123-127 as well as some other places in the second half). I also look for "elite tweaks" when possible if it helps get through fights (e.g. Guard Spec. usage, Air Balloon Zoroark) as it helps open up new insights for more efficient ways (or routes to solo a given fight) to use a given Pokémon, even if a "typical" player generally won't go for these (though there's no telling what a "typical" player will do).

I feel like this is worth bringing up as an aside in case anyone wants more insights into how I conduct these things. Also levels all the way; prioritising by who has less Exp. just adds far more busywork for no potential gain 99% of the time.
 
Last edited:
How much should a Pokémon's start-up cost factor towards its tiering?
That's a very good question...

It honestly depends.
The main things I'd consider would be how big is the gap between the new mon and the rest of the team, and how self-sufficient it is during that period.

This kinda gets a bit too much of a case-by-case scenario. I'd be willing to switch grind Ralts a bit so it learns an actual offensive move, but things like Sprout Tower Gastly in GSC are just dealbreakers.
 
That's a very good question...

It honestly depends.
The main things I'd consider would be how big is the gap between the new mon and the rest of the team, and how self-sufficient it is during that period.

This kinda gets a bit too much of a case-by-case scenario. I'd be willing to switch grind Ralts a bit so it learns an actual offensive move, but things like Sprout Tower Gastly in GSC are just dealbreakers.
The game in question matters too. Both for things like Exp Share/Lucky Egg location, as well as the context of the mon. Kalos Route 13* drops a lot of ground types on you, lvl 26-28. The previous gym leader was lvl 34, the next Flare Boss is 38. So that's a hill to climb to make Trapinch etc relevant. Except that the Flare grunts coming up are heavy on fire and poison, and then it's followed by an Electric gym. The worst ground in existence could level up enough to beat Clemont in that space with minimal effort, even though you're underleveled.

Compare that to Toxel in SwSh, which comes at lvl 1, two gyms away from the point where it gets useful, and misses being useful at the ones where you'd really want it(water and grass). It's not useless, but that makes raising it harder even in a game with broken Exp All.

*Desert right before Lumoise City
 
Some things I'd love to concretely establish, and discuss:

A) At what point is a Pokemon considered ''overleveled'' compared to a boss (e.g. is fighting Bugsy's L16 Scyther with a L18 Pidgeotto overleveling)?

B) Are there any times when overleveling can be justified (e.g. to evolve or learn a move that is 1-3 levels away)?

C) Is wild grinding totally off limits or are there times they can be justified (e.g. you obtained a new Pokemon in a game, but they're underleveled compared to your team and thus you want to bring them up to speed against Heracross, Audino, Chansey, etc...)

D) Are X Items fully disallowed (e.g. using, say, a Dire Hit for Razor Leaf in GSC, to give you 50% crit rate)?

E) Are Eggs ever going to be considered (e.g. hatching a Chikorita that has Leech Seed)?

F) Is there a pecking order in which various categories of viability are ranked (e.g. availability, matchups, TM dependence, growth rate, etc)?

My personal thoughts, for those curious, are:

A/B) I believe ''overleveling'' should not be encouraged, but I'm not convinced it should always be discouraged. For instance, if an ''open world' scenario arises (e.g. you can literally do gyms 5-7 in any order in Johto), it should be allowed to a degree IMO. Pryce has a L31 Piloswine and Chuck a L30 Poliwrath, while Jasmine has a L35 Steelix....it should be okay IMHO to get your Pokemon to a maximum level of L38.

Of course, this is all provided said leveling doesn't come from favoritism (grinding one Pokemon at the cost of the others), heavy time-consuming grinding (taking an hour or close to level up all your Pokemon all things considered), or a deflated team size (having only 3 Pokemon or fewer around the 5th badge, not counting Pokemon obtained later on ofc). And there should still be limits, i.e. no L50 Pokemon before fighting Jasmine.

C) I believe grinding should be encouraged if it doesn't require a lot of time or investment (e.g. fighting Roxanne with Combusken in ORAS, not hard to do at all even if you don't have the Exp. Share on). Grinding should mainly involve trainers, though wild battles should be fair game as long as they're just enough to get you to the right level. In games like GSC, this can help you make sure your Pokemon have less time consuming grinding to do in the long run.

D) I think X-Items arguably should be banned entirely. They distort the performance of certain Pokemon to be much higher than it is, at worst. To be fair I'm not entirely certain this has to be the case, perhaps there should be a cap on the number or the items used though.

E) I think Eggs might be considered if they significantly improve the viability of a Pokemon, though the time spent preparing for the Egg (counting gender soft-resetting) should be counted against any improved viability. Of course, time is relative.

F) Personally, I think matchups are the most important currency or at least should be, followed closely by TM/HM/Move Tutor dependence, followed by growth rate, followed by availability. A Pokemon that is rare but incredibly useful or powerful (or alternatively, a Pokemon that takes time to get there but is incredibly useful or powerful once they do) should be weighed relatively highly. Ultimately, you need to beat matchups in order to beat the game, so it only makes sense they come first. TM/HM/Move Tutor dependence is the second most important detail IMO, if a Pokemon is good if they have the right move but there is a LOT of competition for that move and said Pokemon isn't that good without it, that should count against them. Growth rate comes next as it has to do with time and efficiency. Availability comes last as rare Pokemon aren't necessarily ''too rare'' (even the swarm Pokemon can literally appear on your first try to look for them).
 
Last edited:

Merritt

no comment
is a Tournament Directoris a Site Content Manageris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host
Head TD
D) Are X Items fully disallowed (e.g. using, say, a Dire Hit for Razor Leaf in GSC, to give you 50% crit rate)?
You mean 25%

I wouldn't agree with a universal ban of X items for the same reason that I wouldn't universally ban switch mode or healing items. Yes, it makes the game easier, yes it makes some Pokemon snowball more than others, but no it doesn't make a majority of Pokemon a roughly equal level of viability. We're not providing a tier list for "hard mode" but rather for an efficient playthrough - X items make that cut personally.

Healing items are slower but break battles almost as much as X items, just slightly more tiered in that Pokemon with setup moves are much better users than ones without.
 
You mean 25%
In GSC, Razor Leaf already has a 25% critical hit rate. Adding a Dire Hit gives you 50%.

I wouldn't agree with a universal ban of X items for the same reason that I wouldn't universally ban switch mode or healing items

Yes, it makes the game easier, yes it makes some Pokemon snowball more than others, but no it doesn't make a majority of Pokemon a roughly equal level of viability. We're not providing a tier list for "hard mode" but rather for an efficient playthrough - X items make that cut personally
I agree, but in that regard, should not the Exp. Share in ORAS/XY be allowed too? It makes the game far more efficient.

Healing items are slower but break battles almost as much as X items, just slightly more tiered in that Pokemon with setup moves are much better users than ones without
Fair. Is there any limit you think should be there for either though? A lot of Pokemon can get through terrible matchups if given the right quantity.
 

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Some things I'd love to concretely establish, and discuss:
I will try answer with some of my own views, but keep in mind they will be generalized and any specifics depend on the game itself. I may also try mixing in some other views that are not necessarily mine

A) At what point is a Pokemon considered ''overleveled'' compared to a boss (e.g. is fighting Bugsy's L16 Scyther with a L18 Pidgeotto overleveling)?
in BW1, we had a "two levels above the boss's ace" policy because it wasn't exactly too hard to match that level or even have a level above that. In games like USUM, Exp. Share keeps you a few levels above each boss (in most cases. Bosses like Nanu are only two levels below you in worst cases and Ultra Necrozma generally outlevels you). Personally, if you didn't go out of your way to overlevel, I think one-two levels is fine. It is also important to factor in the possibility of a viability-changing factor in some of those levels; for example, if being one level above the ace gives the Pokemon an important move or causes an evolution, I find it very reasonable to actually overlevel there, since that's what most people would do anyways.

e: just to make it clear, I am not advocating for overleveling against opponents like HGSS Lance which will be outleveling you, I think it is impossible to match his levels in HGSS, I am mostly referring to the fights that were designed properly.

B) Are there any times when overleveling can be justified (e.g. to evolve or learn a move that is 1-3 levels away)?
read the above

C) Is wild grinding totally off limits or are there times they can be justified (e.g. you obtained a new Pokemon in a game, but they're underleveled compared to your team and thus you want to bring them up to speed against Heracross, Audino, Chansey, etc...)
Grinding is generally to be avoided, but if you are transparent about it, I think you should be fine (e.g. "hey guys, I wanted to test this fifth Pokemon just to mark off all Pokemon in this area, but I had to grind it so it can catch up with my teammates". In this case, you make it clear that you grinded your Pokemon and we know if this distorted the performance in any ways). Note that grinding off exclusively Chansey or anything will result in you having EVs mostly in one stat, so that may distort the actual performance, at least partially, but this depends on the game

D) Are X Items fully disallowed (e.g. using, say, a Dire Hit for Razor Leaf in GSC, to give you 50% crit rate)?
Some lists discourage them, other ban them, each list has a way to deal with them that it thinks is the most appropriate. I think Roto Boosts and X Items should be banned in Alola (even though I technically didn't ban them, but I avoid banning stuff where possible), as +1 to all stats or +2 to any stat is certainly going to distort a large amount of Pokemon's performances. HOWEVER, I am fine with X Items (and Roto Boosts) against opponents like HGSS Lance or Ultra Necrozma, as your "natural" checks to them are at best handful only (UN without X Items / Roto Boosts is only beaten by gimmicks like Focus Sash Counter / Mirror Coat / Perish Song / Curse / etc.).

In general, though, I understand your view on X Items and wanting to ban them, I personally prefer not to use them either in most of my runs. I think there are cases where they can be justified, but mostly for insanely difficult opponents, rather than for completing the game as quickly as possible. This also comes a bit to my view as to what is "efficient". I see efficiency moreso as "get through the game with as little hassle as possible" rather than get through it as fast as possible (of course, hassle also includes slowness (I wouldn't want to spend 40 turns on a single battle), I just don't put as much emphasis on speed).

E) Are Eggs ever going to be considered (e.g. hatching a Chikorita that has Leech Seed)?
In line with my view on efficiency, eggs should definitely not be considered (at least seriously). They are a hassle to get and hatch (not to mention a time sink anyways). Furthermore, you need to keep in mind that if you hatch something late into the game, you will have to grind it. I also few like not a lot of people will go out of their way to hatch eggs just to make a Pokemon viable. So I think eggs shouldn't be considered, because they aren't efficient and aren't ultimately a good indicator of a Pokemon's performance, in my opinion.

Personally, I think matchups are the most important currency or at least should be
I agree with the general statement, but I believe that it is also important to consider how you reach that performance. If I have to hunt a 1% / 5% Pokemon with a specific ability to achieve its best performance, that should definitely knock it down in tiering. lIkewise, in RBY, if a Pokemon depends on a contested TM (like Psychic) to perform well, this should also be considered against it. Although, in the next games, I don't think TM dependancy is an exacti issue, as you generally have a good variety of Pokemon and therefore you can afford to have a team where only one Pokemon needs that TM, though if you do require multiple valuable TMs, that should still be taken into account.

(and I saw you talk about the TMs, I just wanted to add up some more details about it).

Availability comes last as rare Pokemon aren't necessarily ''too rare'' (even the swarm Pokemon can literally appear on your first try to look for them).
there's another issue with rare availability in that it's harder to find one with acceptable IVs and nature. If I get a 1% encounter Pokemon with terrible IVs, I either receive a reduced performance or I need to hunt again and the chances of me stumbling across it so soon again are not very high.

(if I didn't answer something, I agree with / have no stake on / lack the expertise to answer it, didn't see it, or any other reason)
 
Quick thoughts on how I consider in-game viability personally:
Availability: Pretty important. Generally, most S tiers will come in the first third of the game. Anything after five badges or so will almost never be high tier unless you are like Axew in Unova that stomps everything left. Also 5% or lower mons will generally knock a mon down a peg, as will evolution methods being late or obnoxious (read: HGSS stones or stuff like Larvesta in BW1).

Typing/Stats: Self-explanatory really.

Movepool: Basically: do I have to go out of my way to make this thing usable? In the first four gens, if you need 2 or more nonreusable TMs I’d generally drop a mon a tier here, though RBY is weird about this because of how TM dependent things are.


Major Battles: Obviously the biggest defining factor. Most S ranks will generally only falter in a few major battles. If a mon falters consistently in major battles (read: about half of the bosses) it probably won’t see higher than C. However, if a Pokémon dominates endgame despite late availability (read: Haxorus versus the League) that might be significantly more valuable than being around for early battles. Some battles will also weigh more than others (RBY Misty, Platinum Fantina) but not to a huge extent.

Really, what makes a mon viable for me is if it comes out of the box usable with good moves that can carry itself to evolution, or, if it doesn’t evolve, be consistently useful throughout the game (Sawk in BW1 for example). In cases like BW1/2 Drilbur I can put up with an iffy early phase if the mon gives a huge return on investment (which it does in spades with SD endgame).

Didn’t have time to make a mega post but felt like giving my perspective.
 
Just a thought that i had, in-game tier list usually don't take into account glitches, but if the glitch in question is so easy that anyone can do it, with little to no RNG, shouldn't it be part of strategy?

Im talking here about Mew in gen 1, you can get it quite early(before Misty), the glitch is not complicated, can't one make an argument that this is a legitimate strategy in-game?

Now, the glitch can give you a number of other pokemons too, but my point remain the same, if its easy to perform, should it not count?
 

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
The thing with such glitches is that they more-or-less eliminate any form of difficulty and/or balance from the games and thus somewhat negate the point of those lists. Yeah, you can get a Mew this way, but you also can get many other Pokemon (in fact, iirc you can get pmuch any of them via the glitch).

I would say that a glitch should be considered only if it has very little impact on the list (aka doesn't massively change a lot of the Pokemon's viability and similar) and wouldn't lead to any form of centralization. For example, our RBY list allowed the Pikachu happiness glitch, since its only impact is that you can get Bulbasaur immediately. We banned X Accuracy + OHKO moves, since it would certainly, to an extent, centralize the list around this strategy (though it's also rather inefficient, but that's another discussion). But yeah, I think being able to get a lot of Pokemon through that glitch is certainly impactful enough to be banned.

e: another thing is that allowing a certain glitch opens the door for other glitches that can potentially be impactful as well. If we allow Mew to be obtained this way, I don't see why you wouldn't allow to use it to obtain every Pokemon that you can get earlier than if you are encountering them otherwise.

e2: changed a word that may get my idea wrong
 
Last edited:
It removes some challenge, yes, but by how much, really? Considering by the point you can get this Mew, you will already have a nidoking, which will smash most of the game rather easily.

Considering just how good Nidoking is, i would be curious to know how much this glitch would actually affect the tier-list, if allowed.
Whats the earliest "good" pokemon this glitch can give you? You can get escape ropes in pewter city, yes?
 

Merritt

no comment
is a Tournament Directoris a Site Content Manageris a Member of Senior Staffis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host
Head TD
It removes some challenge, yes, but by how much, really? Considering by the point you can get this Mew, you will already have a nidoking, which will smash most of the game rather easily.

Considering just how good Nidoking is, i would be curious to know how much this glitch would actually affect the tier-list, if allowed.
Whats the earliest "good" pokemon this glitch can give you? You can get escape ropes in pewter city, yes?
Allowing the Mew glitch would be kind of ridiculous because there is little setup difference between encountering a level 7 Mew and a level 1 [many, many options], which is subject to the experience underflow glitch.

Allowing a glitch that is literally 6 growls away from basically giving you a Level 100 Pokemon seems incredibly silly to me.

To make it clear, the only difference between the Mew glitch as usually performed and obtaining a Level 100 Pokemon is that, in the battle where you generally set up the Mew encounter, you use a stat lowering move like growl to drop the opponent to -6 in any one stat. You then proceed as normal, obtain a level 1 Mew instead of a Level 7, and bob's your uncle.
 
Last edited:
Allowing the Mew glitch would be kind of ridiculous because there is little setup difference between encountering a level 7 Mew and a level 1 [many, many options], which is subject to the experience underflow glitch.

Allowing a glitch that is literally 6 growls away from basically giving you a Level 100 Pokemon seems incredibly silly to me.

To make it clear, the only difference between the Mew glitch as usually performed and obtaining a Level 100 Pokemon is that, in the battle where you generally set up the Mew encounter, you use a stat lowering move like growl to drop the opponent to -6 in any one stat. You then proceed as normal, obtain a level 1 Mew instead of a Level 7, and bob's your uncle.
I was aware of growl, but didn't it only lower your level to a maximum/minimum of 1? You can "reverse" back all the way to level 100?

Nevermind then, this glitch is clearly broken, regardless of the pokemon you get.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 5)

Top