Separate Tiering of Mega Pokemon

[Aldaron]

I'm A

but did we settle on Antar's original concerns in the OP?

I might have missed it but we still need the definitive answer to his second concern (how are we counting it; intent is king or not) and his third concern (non mega usage higher than mega)

 

[Zarel]

but did we settle on Antar's original concerns in the OP?

I might have missed it but we still need the definitive answer to his second concern (how are we counting it; intent is king or not) and his third concern (non mega usage higher than mega)

There were one or two posts disagreeing, but the vast majority in the thread seems to prefer "holding mega stone = mega" and "megas can't fall below non-mega in tiering".

I guess if you have a strong opinion otherwise, we can talk about it, but since there's a clear majority in the that direction, it might be hard to push through anything else.

 

[atomicllamas]

To clarify my vote, as I just voted D before.

prefer A, fine with B if we think November is too soon

but also D

Is how I feel.

 

[Aldaron]

There were one or two posts disagreeing, but the vast majority in the thread seems to prefer "holding mega stone = mega" and "megas can't fall below non-mega in tiering".

I guess if you have a strong opinion otherwise, we can talk about it, but since there's a clear majority in the that direction, it might be hard to push through anything else.

I'm good with that.

 

[Antar]

Yeah, I felt satisfied by those two answers.

 

[Sam]

Since we are doing "mega=pokemon with mega stone", there's something I'd like to bring up. Since Megas are constricted to one per team, I don't think it's ideal to hold megas to the same tiering standards as non-mega Pokemon. Whether it is tiering Megas by total % of all Megas or just holding them to a lower cutoff percentage, I don't think Megas should use 3.41% as a cutoff.

 

[atomicllamas]

Since we are doing "mega=pokemon with mega stone", there's something I'd like to bring up. Since Megas are constricted to one per team, I don't think it's ideal to hold megas to the same tiering standards as non-mega Pokemon. Whether it is tiering Megas by total % of all Megas or just holding them to a lower cutoff percentage, I don't think Megas should use 3.41% as a cutoff.

What does us tiering them seperately have to do with the usage cut off though? The tiers are "threat lists" where a threat is defined as something you have a 50% chance to see if you play 20 games (iirc, Antar can correct me if I'm wrong), this doesn't change whether or not something is a mega. We also don't have a seperate cutoff for Rotom formes even though I can only put one of 6 on my team.

Also from a pure numbers stand point you can put over 2% of all megas on any given team (1/48) where as you can only put 0.8% of non-megas on your team (6/721). Which would imply the cut off for megas should be higher in spite of the fact they are on average better than a normal Pokemon. And yes I realize that not all Pokemon are OU viable (neither are all megas, and a disproportionate amount of megas are in ubers), but it doesn't make sense to require a mega to be more or less of a "threat" (as defined by usage) than any other Pokemon to be in a given tier.

Edit: also doing total % of all megas would inflate mega usage by not counting teams that have no mega.

 

[Antar]

Sam, I realize not everyone necessarily agrees with this interpretation, but...

What does OU mean?
One of the grandest and most controversial questions we have in this community is what our tier list represents. Is an OU Pokemon more powerful than one in a lower tier? Is Gastrodon a "better" Pokemon than Victini or Zapdos?

My personal answer to this question is no: our tiers do not do a good job of ranking a Pokemon's "power." So if a UU Pokemon isn't inherently better than one in RU, what's the point of tiers?

Again, this is a controversial subject, but my answer is that OU means what it stands for, that these Pokemon are simply "overused," and that the primary function of tiers is as threat lists. To elaborate, I'm going to point you folks to the original defining of our current OU-UU cutoff: in short, a Pokemon is OU if, in playing 20 battles, there's at least a 50% chance of you encountering that Pokemon at least once. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are 649 Pokemon out there--if you're designing a team of six Pokemon, it's unlikely that you're going to be able to make sure that your team has a way of dealing with each and every Pokemon out there. But if you're making an OU team, you probably will never have to worry if your team gets completely wrecked by Leavanny, since it doesn't even appear on one team in a thousand. What the OU/UU cutoff literally says is: "if said Pokemon is UU or below, you still have a good shot of going 20-0 even if your team is super weak to that Pokemon."

So teambuilding rules are irrelevant--the only thing that matters is: are you likely to see that Pokemon in 20 battles?

 

[Sam]

Antar, are we not already breaking this by forbidding Megas to be in a lower tier than their base forms? Where will those Megas be tiered?

 

[atomicllamas]

Antar, are we not already breaking this by forbidding Megas to be in a lower tier than their base forms? Where will those Megas be tiered?

I don't think we are doing that? That's why Zarel is putting in the "OU by technicality" section on the team builder, to indicate a Pokemon should be in UU, but is unable to due to the mechanics of mega evolution (ie mega slowbro, because slowbro is OU). When this change is actually implemented this section would only include megas, and would be seperate from BL if I understand correctly.

 

[Sam]

I don't think we are doing that? That's why Zarel is putting in the "OU by technicality" section on the team builder, to indicate a Pokemon should be in UU, but is unable to due to the mechanics of mega evolution (ie mega slowbro, because slowbro is OU). When this change is actually implemented this section would only include megas, and would be seperate from BL if I understand correctly.

This isn't actually the case, though. It's unable to be used in UU because of a choice that was made that a Mega Pokemon cannot be tiered lower than it's base form. However, we also defined that a base form + Mega Stone is an entirely different Pokemon. So, if we are going to impose the second condition, the first condition is contradictory. I know they both independently "make sense", but together they don't work and they are both vital to the proper execution of this new tiering system.

I probably should have spoken up about this sooner, but I really don't think that we discussed the 'how' enough. Personally, I believe that counting base form + Mega Stone as an entirely different Pokemon is a flawed concept. There are different situations in which a Mega Pokemon will stay in it's base form for multiple turns before Mega Evolving:

Mega Charizard-X, Mega Gyarados, Mega Altaria: Can stay in their base form in order to utilize the base form's resistances

Mega Alakazam, Mega Gardevoir Mega Gyarados, Mega Heracross, Mega Pinsir, Mega Manectric, Mega Altaria, Mega Sableye, Mega Slowbro, Mega Sharpedo: Can stay in their base form in order to utilize the base form's ability

Mega Garchomp, Mega Diancie: Can stay in base form to utilize base form's stats (higher Speed for Garchomp, higher defenses for Diancie)

That's just a list of all of the OU-relevant Pokemon, too. I don't see how it can be said with confidence and sincerity that "base form + Mega Stone=New Pokemon" when the base form plays such an important role for many of the Mega Pokemon. The very fact that we cannot consistently apply this rule to the proposed system shows the inherent flaws.

 

[atomicllamas]

This isn't actually the case, though. It's unable to be used in UU because of a choice that was made that a Mega Pokemon cannot be tiered lower than it's base form. However, we also defined that a base form + Mega Stone is an entirely different Pokemon. So, if we are going to impose the second condition, the first condition is contradictory. I know they both independently "make sense", but together they don't work and they are both vital to the proper execution of this new tiering system.

I probably should have spoken up about this sooner, but I really don't think that we discussed the 'how' enough. Personally, I believe that counting base form + Mega Stone as an entirely different Pokemon is a flawed concept. There are different situations in which a Mega Pokemon will stay in it's base form for multiple turns before Mega Evolving:

Mega Charizard-X, Mega Gyarados, Mega Altaria: Can stay in their base form in order to utilize the base form's resistances

Mega Alakazam, Mega Gardevoir Mega Gyarados, Mega Heracross, Mega Pinsir, Mega Manectric, Mega Altaria, Mega Sableye, Mega Slowbro, Mega Sharpedo: Can stay in their base form in order to utilize the base form's ability

Mega Garchomp, Mega Diancie: Can stay in base form to utilize base form's stats (higher Speed for Garchomp, higher defenses for Diancie)

That's just a list of all of the OU-relevant Pokemon, too. I don't see how it can be said with confidence and sincerity that "base form + Mega Stone=New Pokemon" when the base form plays such an important role for many of the Mega Pokemon. The very fact that we cannot consistently apply this rule to the proposed system shows the inherent flaws.

That's a good point, I guess I initially assumed it would work by tiering the mega stone as if it were a Pokemon. So, for example, Garchompite would be UU by usage, but mega Garchomp will not be usable as Garchomp is OU. Which would address the issue of "what tier are the megas in if below the base form", and also renders the "OU by technicality" section in the team builder unnecessary (which is why waiting for this idea to be more thoroughly panned out before changing it would have been better, but I digress). As for the fact that Pokemon can abuse their base forms seperate typing, the thought was that the mega stone showed clear intent to become the mega. Sure, Charizard can remain in its normal form to get up a DD against EQ locked Lando-t, but it is more than likely going to mega evolve at some point. Basing usage based on turn percentage doesn't really work out for reasons like sacking, where a "mega" ( and the base) spend a total of 0 turns on the field (other mobs w/ 0 turns still get counted in stats), so intent is really the only good thing to go off of. And like 90% of the time you will mega Evo turn 1 anyways.

 

[Sam]

Yes, I get the intent. I'm not debating that though. What I'm saying is: the entire idea of tiering Megas separately is predicated on the fact that Megas can be viewed separately from their base form. By counting a Mega Pokemon differently then its base form (by holding a Mega Stone), we are choosing to negate any turns a Mega Pokemon spends in its base form (and any advantages/disadvantages from that). I don't think that is a proper choice to make. I do not think there is enough differentiation between a Pokemon and a Pokemon holding a Mega Stone to be able to do this.

 

[Zarel]

Which would address the issue of "what tier are the megas in if below the base form", and also renders the "OU by technicality" section in the team builder unnecessary (which is why waiting for this idea to be more thoroughly panned out before changing it would have been better, but I digress).

We just had multiple pages of a thread explaining what that section is for...... I thought you understood...

One last time: That section is to convey the idea that while Mega Garchomp might be OU, you do not have over 50% chance of encountering it every 20 OU battles.

That's why waiting to make the change makes no sense, because the change is to improve the teambuilder for the current state of tiering, not for the proposed changes. "Non-Mega Charizard is OU but should not be used in OU" describes how tiering currently works, not how we plan to change it.

In any case, your proposal would still need a section for Mega Garchomp, because it would still be uncommon in OU but unusable in UU.

 

[blarajan]

If we go with option A and wait for new games / Pokemon, assuming it's a new generation...what do we do with ORAS?

 

[Slimmer]

We just had multiple pages of a thread explaining what that section is for...... I thought you
One last time: That section is to convey the idea that while Mega Garchomp might be OU, you do not have over 50% chance of encountering it every 20 OU battles.

The point is I have over 50% chance of encounter Garchomp every 20 OU battles regardless if he's holding a Mega Stone, a Life Orb, a Rocky Helmet. Why should I consider Mega Garchomp as a totally different pokémon, while the Mega Evolution is just a temporary "mutation" and its form, even though it has different stats, ability and even types, it's just the consequence of a Garchomp (holding a mega stone) whose trainer decided to megaevolve? A pokémon holding a mega stone can stay in its normal form for the entire match. How can I count it, as regular or mega? In certain case (Charizard, Mewtwo) I can't even guess if it's X or Y.
The idea isn't that bad, and it would be helpful to try to put some freshness in lower tiers who can expect stuff like regular Charizard, Altaria, Lopunny.. but this concept seems not as solid as you think (that's my personal opinion though, just this) for the reason abovementioned (also Sam said stuff I agree with).
Well I'm fine whatever will happen but I think we are fine as we are, I'd prefer testing this thing when the next gen comes up, respectfully.

 

[Zarel]

The idea isn't that bad, and it would be helpful to try to put some freshness in lower tiers who can expect stuff like regular Charizard, Altaria, Lopunny..

Regular Charizard, Altaria, and Lopunny are still OU, and the teambuilder still says they're OU. Are you misinterpreting something, or am I?

 

[Clone]

Regular Charizard, Altaria, and Lopunny are still OU, and the teambuilder still says they're OU. Are you misinterpreting something, or am I?

I believe he's talking about when (if) the change happens, not now.

 

[Zarel]

I believe he's talking about when (if) the change happens, not now.

I guess that's possible, but it's confusing because he's replying to a comment about a past teambuilder UI change.

 

[Slimmer]

I was talking about the whole idea yeah sorry for being unclear
The teambuilder UI change doesn't really affect tiering with parenthesis applied, but it might be a pointless change in the case this proposal won't be applied and everything remains unchanged

 

[Zarel]

I was talking about the whole idea yeah sorry for being unclear
The teambuilder UI change doesn't really affect tiering with parenthesis applied, but it might be a pointless change in the case this proposal won't be applied and everything remains unchanged

...but the post you replied to explained why it wasn't. Is it still unclear?

I give up. Plenty of people find it really useful right now, and has nothing to do with any planned changes to tiering. Just trust me that it's useful, okay?

 

[Slimmer]

...but the post you replied to explained why it wasn't. Is it still unclear?

I give up. Plenty of people find it really useful right now, and has nothing to do with any planned changes to tiering. Just trust me that it's useful, okay?

You weren't unclear man, I just disagree..is that hard accepting that many users can think differently? I just prefer things in the current state (or better, before the change). Obviously if majority of people like this (or just find it useful at least), who am I to say anything? I just said my opinion, I'm fine as I said in my first post here.
I'm not requiring to do things in the way I like, I just told what I prefer (I even like your idea too... I just prefer tiering mega and regular pokemon together, with everything that goes with it)

 

[Sam]

So I see a lot of people saying separate tiering of Megas is going to come with the next game but a decision was never actually reached. I'd like to see this discussion continued to avoid future confusion.

 

[phantom]

Any chance this could happen next month? I know I'm not the only one looking forward to this because each time I bring up this topic with someone else who plays lower tiers, they also seem very eager for many of these possible drops coming into the tier they main. By December, Grand Slam should be in its final stages at that point and Week 1 of SPL shouldn't be later than the beginning of January (assuming it starts around the same time it did the year before), so it should give the lower tiers a decent amount of time to settle while not disrupting any official tours they're in.

 

[Sam]

Well I think before we even begin to talk about when it's going to be done we need to iron out the specifics of it. When this was discussed before, I don't think the concerns Antar raised on the OP were satisfied, and that is why this ultimately died down. Some of the issues I raised at that time are on this page.