Hello, gamers. Following the recent ZU BreadWinners cash tournament, BW ZU council sent out a survey to gauge public opinion on the metagame and potentially problematic elements within it. This 512-person tour yielded an unprecedented level of metagame development for an old gen low-tier, and there was consequently a changing of the guard in terms of what the format's top threats are.
Without turning this into a dissertation on the recent history of the tier, Pokémon like Slaking, Articuno, and, to a lesser extent, Simisear were beneficiaries of hazard-related tiering actions that took place prior to BreadWinners. For example: Slaking was previously ranked low on the viability list because 1) the metagame was considerably fatter, and 2) the pervasiveness of hazards cut into its longevity because of how often Truant makes it switch. Articuno's surge in usage can be directly traced to the decrease in usage of Frillish and Munchlax, which meant that Stealth Rock became more removable and one of its counters became less common, respectively. Simisear also enjoyed these threats being gone, but not as much as it reveled in the quickbanning of Dragonair following the first round of the tournament. These Pokemon all saw considerable usage and proved to be highly effective options week in and week out, as did Grumpig, who we also fielded opinions on.
Before we get into the collective sentiment about hypothetical tiering action against any of these Pokémon, it's clear that something has to give. We polled respondents on their enjoyment of both playing and building the metagame, as well as their perception of how balanced it was, asking them to rate it on a scale of 1-to-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest:
52% of respondents supported tiering action against Simisear
43% of respondents supported tiering action against Articuno
40% of respondents supported tiering action against Slaking
10% of respondents supported tiering action against Grumpig
As you can see, there's no smoking gun here. If we were to go off of raw numbers, Simisear would be addressed first, but 52% is functionally split opinion, especially when you consider that a 60%+ majority is needed for a ban in old gens tiers. It's also interesting that the three semifinalists who responded - Garay oak, Bouff, and TheFranklin - all indicated that they thought Simisear was balanced whereas Articuno was unbalanced/broken. That said, everyone's opinion counts and the meta should not, and will not, be catered exclusively to tournament players.
BW ZU Council wants to take some sort of tiering action prior to the start of BW Cup - which begins on the 25th of this month - in the form of a suspect vote, with qualified voters being the top 16 players from ZU BreadWinners + BW ZU council. We are leaning towards suspecting either Simisear or Articuno, but aren't sure which direction to take, and we would appreciate further discussion on these Pokémon.
Tagged users who do not have posting permissions in the Policy Review subforum may submit their discussion post using this link.
Without turning this into a dissertation on the recent history of the tier, Pokémon like Slaking, Articuno, and, to a lesser extent, Simisear were beneficiaries of hazard-related tiering actions that took place prior to BreadWinners. For example: Slaking was previously ranked low on the viability list because 1) the metagame was considerably fatter, and 2) the pervasiveness of hazards cut into its longevity because of how often Truant makes it switch. Articuno's surge in usage can be directly traced to the decrease in usage of Frillish and Munchlax, which meant that Stealth Rock became more removable and one of its counters became less common, respectively. Simisear also enjoyed these threats being gone, but not as much as it reveled in the quickbanning of Dragonair following the first round of the tournament. These Pokemon all saw considerable usage and proved to be highly effective options week in and week out, as did Grumpig, who we also fielded opinions on.
Before we get into the collective sentiment about hypothetical tiering action against any of these Pokémon, it's clear that something has to give. We polled respondents on their enjoyment of both playing and building the metagame, as well as their perception of how balanced it was, asking them to rate it on a scale of 1-to-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest:
- Only 52% of respondents indicated they enjoyed playing the BW ZU metagame (i.e. rated it an 8 or higher)
- Only 62% of respondents indicated they found the BW ZU metagame to be balanced (i.e. rated it an 8 or higher)
- Only 38% of respondents indicated they enjoyed building BW ZU teams (i.e. rated it an 8 or higher)
52% of respondents supported tiering action against Simisear 43% of respondents supported tiering action against Articuno 40% of respondents supported tiering action against Slaking 10% of respondents supported tiering action against GrumpigAs you can see, there's no smoking gun here. If we were to go off of raw numbers, Simisear would be addressed first, but 52% is functionally split opinion, especially when you consider that a 60%+ majority is needed for a ban in old gens tiers. It's also interesting that the three semifinalists who responded - Garay oak, Bouff, and TheFranklin - all indicated that they thought Simisear was balanced whereas Articuno was unbalanced/broken. That said, everyone's opinion counts and the meta should not, and will not, be catered exclusively to tournament players.
BW ZU Council wants to take some sort of tiering action prior to the start of BW Cup - which begins on the 25th of this month - in the form of a suspect vote, with qualified voters being the top 16 players from ZU BreadWinners + BW ZU council. We are leaning towards suspecting either Simisear or Articuno, but aren't sure which direction to take, and we would appreciate further discussion on these Pokémon.
Tagged users who do not have posting permissions in the Policy Review subforum may submit their discussion post using this link.
Last edited:
