(Putting this here, since people pointed out that it makes more sense than in the metagame thread)
There has been some discussion recently (mostly on Discord) regarding the Viability Ranking, which I'd like to share my opinion on.
Point #1 was that the lower ranks - mostly C-, partly C and C+ - list Pokemon that are not actually viable enough to deserve to be on the VR. #2 was that some of the Pokemon in higher ranks - mostly around B - are too closely clustered and not distinquished enough in terms of viability. The points are related and a consequence of us following a predetermined number of ranks.
When I make my personal VR for teambuilding, I usually sort all Pokemon I consider viable enough to use in order of viability - without grouping them in categories / ranks. There are two reasons I can think of why this can't be done with an official VR: 1) It is really hard to objectively order every Pokemon by viability, because some differences are just too small to matter. 2) A list like that has no indicator for when you start to venture into more niche territory. On my own VR I intuitively know, where there are certain gaps in viability. In that sense my list, too, has ranks, even if they aren't explicit.
Now it is important to realize that you don't find these ranks by cutting the viability list into even pieces, but by looking for gaps in viability - as a consequence there's no guarantee that all ranks will be equally big. When ordering Pokemon into the official VR, we have category descriptions as guidelines.
As an example, look at the descriptions of B and C:
B: Reserved for Pokemon that work well in the meta or can provide valuable niches, but otherwise have large competition or flaws that make them not as viable as A-Rank Pokemon.
C: Reserved for Pokemon that have a notable niche, but are generally outclassed or have major flaws that hold them back.
These descriptions might have been made with the intention of more objective placings, but they are quite subjective, and there's a reason why a lot of tiers have given up on them. What is a 'valuable' niche, and what a 'notable' niche. What is a 'major' flaw compared to just a flaw? And do these qualities actually capture viability enough to a point where following these descriptions leads to a ranking where Pokemon in one rank are close in overall viability, better than those in the category below, and worse than those in the category above? Not necessarily in my opinion.
Overall I think the current issues we have, gradually came into existence over time by trying to balance the two approaches.
But enough on how I think it came to this. I have been advocating for an overhaul of the low ranks when I joined. I would never ever touch C- (or the majority of C, and a part of C+ for that matter) when building a serious team. Is there a difference between trying to make Loudred work and trying to make Metapod work? Sure. Does it really matter in competitive play? No. For stuff to be on a healthy VR, it's not enough that you can make it work. It has to be the best alternative in a certain situation. For a C- Pokemon, that situation doesn't have to be common, but it has to exist. Removing the lower portion of the VR, and stretching the higher categories down would bring us closer to that. To clarify: I don't mean deleting the C- Rank. I mean removing (most of) the Pokemon currently in there, and subsequently moving Pokemon from the higher categories down.
Anyway, this is just my opinion on the matter. I - and others - would really appreciate it if people shared their opinion on this. Discord discussions can be fruitful, but this is just the best place to discuss something like this, and have others be able to follow it. Lastly I also want to reiterate that this post is my opinion on the matter - it has nothing to do with council.
There has been some discussion recently (mostly on Discord) regarding the Viability Ranking, which I'd like to share my opinion on.
Point #1 was that the lower ranks - mostly C-, partly C and C+ - list Pokemon that are not actually viable enough to deserve to be on the VR. #2 was that some of the Pokemon in higher ranks - mostly around B - are too closely clustered and not distinquished enough in terms of viability. The points are related and a consequence of us following a predetermined number of ranks.
When I make my personal VR for teambuilding, I usually sort all Pokemon I consider viable enough to use in order of viability - without grouping them in categories / ranks. There are two reasons I can think of why this can't be done with an official VR: 1) It is really hard to objectively order every Pokemon by viability, because some differences are just too small to matter. 2) A list like that has no indicator for when you start to venture into more niche territory. On my own VR I intuitively know, where there are certain gaps in viability. In that sense my list, too, has ranks, even if they aren't explicit.
Now it is important to realize that you don't find these ranks by cutting the viability list into even pieces, but by looking for gaps in viability - as a consequence there's no guarantee that all ranks will be equally big. When ordering Pokemon into the official VR, we have category descriptions as guidelines.
As an example, look at the descriptions of B and C:
B: Reserved for Pokemon that work well in the meta or can provide valuable niches, but otherwise have large competition or flaws that make them not as viable as A-Rank Pokemon.
C: Reserved for Pokemon that have a notable niche, but are generally outclassed or have major flaws that hold them back.
These descriptions might have been made with the intention of more objective placings, but they are quite subjective, and there's a reason why a lot of tiers have given up on them. What is a 'valuable' niche, and what a 'notable' niche. What is a 'major' flaw compared to just a flaw? And do these qualities actually capture viability enough to a point where following these descriptions leads to a ranking where Pokemon in one rank are close in overall viability, better than those in the category below, and worse than those in the category above? Not necessarily in my opinion.
Overall I think the current issues we have, gradually came into existence over time by trying to balance the two approaches.
But enough on how I think it came to this. I have been advocating for an overhaul of the low ranks when I joined. I would never ever touch C- (or the majority of C, and a part of C+ for that matter) when building a serious team. Is there a difference between trying to make Loudred work and trying to make Metapod work? Sure. Does it really matter in competitive play? No. For stuff to be on a healthy VR, it's not enough that you can make it work. It has to be the best alternative in a certain situation. For a C- Pokemon, that situation doesn't have to be common, but it has to exist. Removing the lower portion of the VR, and stretching the higher categories down would bring us closer to that. To clarify: I don't mean deleting the C- Rank. I mean removing (most of) the Pokemon currently in there, and subsequently moving Pokemon from the higher categories down.
Anyway, this is just my opinion on the matter. I - and others - would really appreciate it if people shared their opinion on this. Discord discussions can be fruitful, but this is just the best place to discuss something like this, and have others be able to follow it. Lastly I also want to reiterate that this post is my opinion on the matter - it has nothing to do with council.