Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v2 [Update on Post #5186]

[Floatstonemafia]

It's' not really about anger vs calm. It's about the sense of urgency required. The response to the survey generally seemed to be way closer to 'wait and see, let us think about it' than 'somethings gotta change, we just got to decide what'. It's not normally an issue, most of the time slow rolling changes is a good thing, but my personal opinion is that we're well past the point of 'wait and see'. The urgency comes from just a pure excess of things that need to be at least suspected. At least since I've played this game (gen 4-5), I don't remember any time were it feels like there are this many things wrong with an OU meta and action was being carefully considered.

This is my issue with the current timeframe - most suspect tests take 2-4 weeks, have at least a 2 week cooldown between them, whole cycle is a month to a month and a half. We've got maybe 4-5 months before the next set of DLC bombs go off and undoubtedly mess things up again. There are more than 4-5 things that should be considered for tier action right now, pre-DLC. One of those problems if banned is going to change the meta so thoroughly that it's going to require additional suspect or suspect re-tests afterwards.A tera suspect alone is probably going to be multistage, month plus prospect. The timeframe doesn't work at that point. My fear is that so much time is spend considering and reacting to things that obviously should not be legal (when the DLC drops) that no time is left to address things that probably should not be legal until a year+ down the line when we're already starting to look forward to Gen 10.

A lot of this in my head is legacy from Gen 5 - when problems lasted the entire generation because the council was too gunshy to address problems, and as a result real issues made it to the generation off ramp. It just generally feels like that's the direction we're heading at this point.

 

[MrE]

It's' not really about anger vs calm. It's about the sense of urgency required. The response to the survey generally seemed to be way closer to 'wait and see, let us think about it' than 'somethings gotta change, we just got to decide what'. It's not normally an issue, most of the time slow rolling changes is a good thing, but my personal opinion is that we're well past the point of 'wait and see'. The urgency comes from just a pure excess of things that need to be at least suspected. At least since I've played this game (gen 4-5), I don't remember any time were it feels like there are this many things wrong with an OU meta and action was being carefully considered.

This is my issue with the current timeframe - most suspect tests take 2-4 weeks, have at least a 2 week cooldown between them, whole cycle is a month to a month and a half. We've got maybe 4-5 months before the next set of DLC bombs go off and undoubtedly mess things up again. There are more than 4-5 things that should be considered for tier action right now, pre-DLC. One of those problems if banned is going to change the meta so thoroughly that it's going to require additional suspect or suspect re-tests afterwards.A tera suspect alone is probably going to be multistage, month plus prospect. The timeframe doesn't work at that point. My fear is that so much time is spend considering and reacting to things that obviously should not be legal (when the DLC drops) that no time is left to address things that probably should not be legal until a year+ down the line when we're already starting to look forward to Gen 10.

A lot of this in my head is legacy from Gen 5 - when problems lasted the entire generation because the council was too gunshy to address problems, and as a result real issues made it to the generation off ramp. It just generally feels like that's the direction we're heading at this point.

You say all of this but the council has literally done more this gen than any gen before and I think, even though I agree that in some ways they've taken a bit too long to yoink things into the shadow realm, shed tail being the primary one, you're being a bit too unkind here when they're working faster than any gen before. This gen is just super busted with loads of broken shit in it.

 

[WildWave]

Me patiently waiting for the names of the motherfuckers who voted no action on QC so I can confiscate their kneecaps:

Oops:

 

[SnackWasTaken]

Hello all!
I will now be posting monthly updates on what happened in the OverUsed tier that month, for multiple reasons.
One: To inform people on the state of the metagame, people who may have gone on a long trip or had a lot of school work or something. To help people keep up.
Two: As a time capsule of the SV OU metagame for people to look back on in a few years. It keeps good track of all data.
Three: It will keep people engaged with the metagame. People tend to lose interest in playing when there’s nothing to talk about.
If any council member wishes to use this idea, I’m willing to allow them so long as they message me before hand and give me the credit for the idea. Soon I will be posting one for the month of June. One will come for each month following.
Also for anyone wondering, I’m brewing an alternative set for Glowking to run. Pay attention because it will come soon!

 

[DoofV3]

Something I've realized is that people don't really know how to post things on the internet without resorting to hyperbole. There's no need to say stuff like "This is the worst thing in the history of competitive Pokemon" or something along those lines when talking about tiering decisions/survey results all the time, guys. (and yes, I am aware that sentence end bit was also hyperbolic haha)

With regards to the survey results, my views really align with the results of the survey surprisingly enough. I personally would place Terastalizing action higher on the priority bracket since I believe action on it would probably take care of the Gambit problem.

 

[Alternator]

Preview doesn't change the fact that mons can just pick counters regardless of knowledge foretold

Take, for example, flying gambit versus a team with ice spinner tusk. Instead of it being a clear eq or cc, it's a dangerous 50/50 for the tusk player because click eq into the new airplane gambit and you lose, and click spinner into a still steel gambit and it just resets itself.

This is the fundamental problem.

That scenario is the result of poor decision making by the Great Tusk player, who should have preserved something else to deal with tera flying Kingambit.

If you didn't have anything better, that's a team building issue. If your opponent chipped down all your better options, you were outplayed. In either case, being at a disadvantage is completely fair.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Tusk is one of the handful of viable resists to Gambit. At the point where this scenario occurs, Gambit would most likely have acquired Overlord boosts and become exponentially more difficult for mons other than Tusk to handle.


+2 252+ Atk Supreme Overlord 5 allies fainted Tera Flying Kingambit Kowtow Cleave vs. 252 HP/252+ Def Zapdos: 373–441 (97.1–114.8%) --81.3% chance to OHKO


Max-Max zap dies 81 percent of the time and doesn't KO with any move. At what point is it not a matter of preserving mons for endgames and not the fact you loaded a necessary counter and lost to Tera even with the knowledge it was Tera Fly?

 

[KamenOH]

Tusk is one of the handful of viable resists to Gambit. At the point where this scenario occurs, Gambit would most likely have acquired Overlord boosts and become exponentially more difficult for mons other than Tusk to handle.


+2 252+ Atk Supreme Overlord 5 allies fainted Tera Flying Kingambit Kowtow Cleave vs. 252 HP/252+ Def Zapdos: 373–441 (97.1–114.8%) --81.3% chance to OHKO


Max-Max zap dies 81 percent of the time and doesn't KO with any move. At what point is it not a matter of preserving mons for endgames and not the fact you loaded a necessary counter and lost to Tera even with the knowledge it was Tera Fly?

Well it wasnt a counter if it dies a good 81% of the time.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Alternator talked about poor decision-making and the preservation of checks for Gambit; Zapdos is one of those checks, and especially so in the vulnerable state Gambit puts itself in when terastalizing. And yet Zapdos dies, Gambit lives, and gets to blow up the rest of your team.

 

[LoseToRU?]

Interesting survey results

Comp scores at a 5, "room for improvement" seems like an understatement king.

Almost 1000 players want some action on tera.
Looks like we aren't a vocal minority after all.

However, Tera isn't going anywhere. It's too late. It's been too long.
And we all know "restrictions" aren't going to do anything to address the core downsides of allowing this gimmick into our tier.

Tera will always be in gen 9, and comp scores will always be low, and fun scores will always be mid.

 

[Roller K]

All luck-based items should be banned

Obviously, Quick Claw has been in great discussion since the rise of mono claw teams on the ladder. Screens get set up and 5 strong, bulky, slow Pokémon holding Quick Claw hope each turn that they get the 20% chance to move before their opponent and potentially knock them out, thus turning the tide of the game.

These teams are seen as very gimmicky and unreliable on the surface, but considering how many opportunities you may get to attack, the odds of activating Quick Claw a few turns aren’t too absurd. However, the item itself is completely RNG- and luck-based rather than a strategic pick on a team. For this reason, even if it’s not an overpowered or broken strategy, I’m for banning the item for the sake of prioritizing competitiveness over hoping for a lucky activation every turn.

This precedent has already been established with the bans on Bright Powder and King’s Rock. Bright Powder falls under Evasion Clause as well, but in the case King’s Rock, some Pokémon who use multi-hit moves like Cloyster are pushed over the edge with a high chance to win a game off of a flinch (on a side note, imagine the nightmare that could’ve been Maushold with King’s Rock ). It was definitely more overwhelming than Quick Claw has ever been, and its reliance on luck as well as its universal access is what made it banworthy.

One other item that has not been discussed but falls under this category is Starf Berry. For those who don’t know, it is a pinch berry that activates when the Pokémon is at 25% or lower health. It raises either Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, or Speed by 2 stages. Much like Quick Claw, it has a 20% chance to boost a specific stat, and depending on what is boosted, it could completely turn the tide of the game, something that a normal pinch berry might not be able to achieve with the guaranteed 1-stage boost in a specific stat. There is too much variability with it, and even though virtually nobody is using it right now and it is generally a subpar item, I believe it should be banned along with Quick Claw since they are items reliant on luck.

Since I can see these being mentioned, I do not feel the same way about the lens items (Scope Lens, Wide Lens, Zoom Lens) as they are not varying the game in the same way. Critical hits and accuracy are already a part of the game; the items are just increasing the respective chances. The items I’m against create scenarios that would never happen otherwise without luck. Bright Powder makes moves miss that normally never would and goes against Evasion Clause; King’s Rock makes moves flinch the opponent that should never have a chance to flinch otherwise; Quick Claw allows Pokémon to outspeed other Pokémon that they may never be able to outspeed otherwise; and Starf Berry may boost a stat that the Pokémon may not otherwise be able to boost and thus put them in a strong position.

If I forgot any items in this category, let me know and I can add them. I’d like to hear your thoughts!

Edit: Another item under this category is Focus Band. You have a 10% chance to live a hit on 1 HP. Unlike Focus Sash, you do not need to be at full health, and it can proc multiple times, which could lead to a Pokémon being invincible with enough fortune and under the right conditions (e.g. no damaging status and no Sandstorm active).

 

[Finchinator]

Interesting survey results

Comp scores at a 5, "room for improvement" seems like an understatement king.

Almost 1000 players want some action on tera.
Looks like we aren't a vocal minority after all.

However, Tera isn't going anywhere. It's too late. It's been too long.
And we all know "restrictions" aren't going to do anything to address the core downsides of allowing this gimmick into our tier.

Tera will always be in gen 9, and comp scores will always be low, and fun scores will always be mid.

How the hell is this your takeaway from a post saying we are likely to open a discussion on Tera, which could lead to a suspect? Why is it always gloom-and-doom with you?

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Hold on why is it likely that we are going to have a thread on Tera, It's literally one of if not the biggest points of discussion in the current meta?

 

[DoofV3]

How the hell is this your takeaway from a post saying we are likely to open a discussion on Tera, which could lead to a suspect? Why is it always gloom-and-doom with you?

I think he's convinced that the outcome for the action against Tera won't be the one he wants, which is an outright ban, and it will instead just be a Tera restriction (either Open sheets or any other proposal).

I also... don't think it will be banned cuz a lot of people apparently like it in the upper levels of play, right? But I'm open to surprises :o

But yeah, I think its obvious by now that something will happen to Tera, its just a matter of what. The survey results speak for themselves.

 

[DiscoDucky]

All luck-based items should be banned

Obviously, Quick Claw has been in great discussion since the rise of mono claw teams on the ladder. Screens get set up and 5 strong, bulky, slow Pokémon holding Quick Claw hope each turn that they get the 20% chance to move before their opponent and potentially knock them out, thus turning the tide of the game.

These teams are seen as very gimmicky and unreliable on the surface, but considering how many opportunities you may get to attack, the odds of activating Quick Claw a few turns aren’t too absurd. However, the item itself is completely RNG- and luck-based rather than a strategic pick on a team. For this reason, even if it’s not an overpowered or broken strategy, I’m for banning the item for the sake of prioritizing competitiveness over hoping for a lucky activation every turn.

This precedent has already been established with the bans on Bright Powder and King’s Rock. Bright Powder falls under Evasion Clause as well, but in the case King’s Rock, some Pokémon who use multi-hit moves like Cloyster are pushed over the edge with a high chance to win a game off of a flinch (on a side note, imagine the nightmare that could’ve been Maushold with King’s Rock ). It was definitely more overwhelming than Quick Claw has ever been, and its reliance on luck as well as its universal access is what made it banworthy.

One other item that has not been discussed but falls under this category is Starf Berry. For those who don’t know, it is a pinch berry that activates when the Pokémon is at 25% or lower health. It raises either Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, or Speed by 2 stages. Much like Quick Claw, it has a 20% chance to boost a specific stat, and depending on what is boosted, it could completely turn the tide of the game, something that a normal pinch berry might not be able to achieve with the guaranteed 1-stage boost in a specific stat. There is too much variability with it, and even though virtually nobody is using it right now and it is generally a subpar item, I believe it should be banned along with Quick Claw since they are items reliant on luck.

Since I can see these being mentioned, I do not feel the same way about the lens items (Scope Lens, Wide Lens, Zoom Lens) as they are not varying the game in the same way. Critical hits and accuracy are already a part of the game; the items are just increasing the respective chances. The items I’m against create scenarios that would never happen otherwise without luck. Bright Powder makes moves miss that normally never would and goes against Evasion Clause; King’s Rock makes moves flinch the opponent that should never have a chance to flinch otherwise; Quick Claw allows Pokémon to outspeed other Pokémon that they may never be able to outspeed otherwise; and Starf Berry may boost a stat that the Pokémon may not otherwise be able to boost and thus put them in a strong position.

If I forgot any items in this category, let me know and I can add them. I’d like to hear your thoughts!

I think Quick Claw does warrant a discussion since it's now an actual issue on all levels of ladder (both low and high), but I think banning all luck-based elements of the metagame is just over-legislation, especially on the items front. A lot of items sound broken on paper, but it's also based on whether it's effective in practice.

For the longest time, a lot of people have written off Quick Claw because its 20% chance to move first doesn't nearly return the same benefit as, say, a Life Orb, HDB, or Leftovers. Furthermore (and I may be talking out of my ass here), previous generations had more viable strong priority users that would nullify the Quick Claw boost. The relative scarcity of priority options and use of Screens on already bulky Pokemon (Enam-T, Ursa, Gambit) helped the consistency of Quick Claw as an item itself.

The reason banning luck items like Starf Berry is that they're inconsistent in practice. Pinch Berry strats (at least the ones that require 25% HP to proc) have been an exceptionally rare strat in modern competitive Pokemon due to its consistency of execution. In addition, the luck-based nature of getting that +2 is usually stacked against you (20-40% in a relevant stat, 60-80% otherwise). Another luck-based item in the same vein as Quick Claw would be Focus Band, an item that has a 10% of keeping a Pokemon alive at 1 HP from any HP. Hypothetically, this item could be broken in the same way as Quick Claw since surviving a hit you're supposed to die to can swing the momentum in your favor, especially for frailer Pokemon. Why is this item not seen at the same level as Quick Claw? A strat centered around taking advantage of Focus Band would not have nearly the same level of consistency, even under screens (at least IMO).

Pokemon is a game with a bunch of luck and chance modifiers. There could be a likelihood that any given luck-based mechanic could swing a game in someone's favor (AncientPower, Acupressure, etc.). In my opinion, it requires a level of consistency, including ladder/tour performance wins that illustrated extremely limited counterplay, for a luck-based element to truly be labeled as un-competitive and disruptive to metagame health. Losing to a +1/+1/+1/+1/+1 AncientPower Zapdos does feel bad, but remember that it's most likely a one-off instance that you'll never see again in the next 60-70 games on the ladder.

Philosophically, I'm of the opinion that we should keep as many elements available to players for experimentation and creativity. Taking the "guilty until proven innocent" approach to regulating a metagame restricts avenues to explore new strategies (regardless if they're healthy or not). The Screens + QC strategy is a great example. The team comp itself is fairly degenerate, but its success could spur other players to experiment with unconventional strategies (could be in the same vein as QC, could be not). Litigation of a possible uncompetitive strategy should only happen when there's significant evidence to make a case against it.

TL;DR: A luck-based item/move/etc. becomes un-competitive if the strategy it's being used on achieves consistency with little counterplay.

 

[Alternator]

Tusk is one of the handful of viable resists to Gambit. At the point where this scenario occurs, Gambit would most likely have acquired Overlord boosts and become exponentially more difficult for mons other than Tusk to handle.


+2 252+ Atk Supreme Overlord 5 allies fainted Tera Flying Kingambit Kowtow Cleave vs. 252 HP/252+ Def Zapdos: 373–441 (97.1–114.8%) --81.3% chance to OHKO


Max-Max zap dies 81 percent of the time and doesn't KO with any move. At what point is it not a matter of preserving mons for endgames and not the fact you loaded a necessary counter and lost to Tera even with the knowledge it was Tera Fly?

Are you trying to establish terastalization as a problem, or Kingambit as a problem? This is a reasonably solid argument for the latter, but "Mon that can't take a +2 Sucker fails to beat endgame Kingambit" is not a tera-specific issue.

 

[Fenghuang]

Does anyone know of where the original evasion clause thread is? I keep finding later gen rehashes of evasion clause but never the original. I ask because it feels to me that if e.g. sand veil chomp was too strong in modern Smogon the tiering philosophy would be to ban chomp, I wonder if I'm wrong about this or if tiering philosophy has actually changed.

 

[Solar Power]

I pretty firmly believe that Kingambit is a 5/5 broken mon that has only stuck around so long due to (1) new toy syndrome and (2) lack of consistent Ghost checks.

I think Supreme Overlord is the root of the problem - not Tera, not its movepool, typing, or stats. I really wish Bisharp had gotten that ability too, since I think the best path forward for the tier would be to ban Supreme Overlord but keep Kingambit (a la Last Respects). I agree with the argument that its typing and bulk are beneficial for the tier and prevent other mons from becoming more problematic. However, I think its offensive presence distorts the tier and forces too many games into identical conclusions. Be honest, we're all bored to tears of Gambit SD Sucker Punch endgames aren't we?

Given the established tiering policy, the question becomes more difficult because I'm assuming the council wouldn't entertain banning Supreme Overlord since no one else gets it. Which means the question for tiering action becomes: Is Gambit's utility at checking offensive Ghost types worth the cost of its overwhelming offensive presence in the tier? I think this is a much less straightforward question. However, I would say that mons like Gholdengo and Dragapult have become less overbearing and have more checks in the post-home meta, and thus Gambit has less valuable defensive utility for the tier than it did a few months ago.

I'd love to see a suspect on Gambit and I think it would shake up the meta more than the removal of just about any other mon we currently have.

 

[Fenghuang]

I pretty firmly believe that Kingambit is a 5/5 broken mon that has only stuck around so long due to (1) new toy syndrome and (2) lack of consistent Ghost checks.

I think Supreme Overlord is the root of the problem - not Tera, not its movepool, typing, or stats. I really wish Bisharp had gotten that ability too, since I think the best path forward for the tier would be to ban Supreme Overlord but keep Kingambit (a la Last Respects). I agree with the argument that its typing and bulk are beneficial for the tier and prevent other mons from becoming more problematic. However, I think its offensive presence distorts the tier and forces too many games into identical conclusions. Be honest, we're all bored to tears of Gambit SD Sucker Punch endgames aren't we?

Given the established tiering policy, the question becomes more difficult because I'm assuming the council wouldn't entertain banning Supreme Overlord since no one else gets it. Which means the question for tiering action becomes: Is Gambit's utility at checking offensive Ghost types worth the cost of its overwhelming offensive presence in the tier? I think this is a much less straightforward question. However, I would say that mons like Gholdengo and Dragapult have become less overbearing and have more checks in the post-home meta, and thus Gambit has less valuable defensive utility for the tier than it did a few months ago.

I'd love to see a suspect on Gambit and I think it would shake up the meta more than the removal of just about any other mon we currently have.

I question if a supreme overlord bisharp would be as strong as gambit is. It's possible, but I doubt it.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Are you trying to establish terastalization as a problem, or Kingambit as a problem? This is a reasonably solid argument for the latter, but "Mon that can't take a +2 Sucker fails to beat endgame Kingambit" is not a tera-specific issue.

Blend of both TBH tusk not being able to check it reliably and its oppressive chokehold on the metagame

 

[ant4456]

The only arguments to not ban Kingambit are:

1. "Ban Tera first!"

or

2. broke checks broken

"How will we deal with Gholdengo and Pult?!?!"

idk but I want ghold banned anyways so yawn

 

[Fenghuang]

The only arguments to not ban Kingambit are:

1. "Ban Tera first!"

or

2. broke checks broken

"How will we deal with Gholdengo and Pult?!?!"

idk but I want ghold banned anyways so yawn

Ban Gambit, and then unban urshifu-S to check pult.

 

[Rootb]

Tusk is one of the handful of viable resists to Gambit. At the point where this scenario occurs, Gambit would most likely have acquired Overlord boosts and become exponentially more difficult for mons other than Tusk to handle.


+2 252+ Atk Supreme Overlord 5 allies fainted Tera Flying Kingambit Kowtow Cleave vs. 252 HP/252+ Def Zapdos: 373–441 (97.1–114.8%) --81.3% chance to OHKO


Max-Max zap dies 81 percent of the time and doesn't KO with any move. At what point is it not a matter of preserving mons for endgames and not the fact you loaded a necessary counter and lost to Tera even with the knowledge it was Tera Fly?

I question if a supreme overlord bisharp would be as strong as gambit is. It's possible, but I doubt it.

Calcs posts are the devil, but for once, the calculator actually offers a pretty good point of comparison:

+2 252+ Atk Supreme Overlord 5 allies fainted Bisharp Night Slash vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Zapdos: 294-346 (76.5 - 90.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

It's not the same level of oppressive, but, frankly? It would still hit really goddamn hard.

 

[Nish the Great]

I don’t know why this has been such a thing for people lately between this survey and the Volc ban, but tiering surveys are not suspect tests. One thing getting higher scores then another, especially when the difference is like a 0.5 difference in averages, is not an automatic reason to ban one thing instead of the other. Tiering surveys, while very useful for a quick glance at what the player base wants, are always going to be imperfect because of how easy it is to manipulate results (for example I’ve known people to put a 5 on everything they mildly dislike so it brings up the overall average).

Acting like the council is being unfair to the playerbase or stopping democracy because they didn’t follow the survey to a T doesn’t make sense.

 

[SpritePony]

I'm going to open this post saying that I am formally apologizing for the people I blew up on some weeks back, including Finch and... I actually forget the other person's name. X-something... I actually forget. As you can probably tell, I'm a very unstable person which is a huge personal fault. It's a small portion of why I prefer to stay away from communal things, so that I don't cause problems for others.

That being said, I've been lurking and keeping an eye on things here. Tier shifts, the debate over QC, Evasion, and Hax-like things, bans, and now the tiering survey. I'll just weigh in a little bit on some stuff.

Tier Shifts: Kind of sad that my boi Dirge slipped down to UU. But I'm not surprised with showboat Lando over here being a thing and Volc getting booted to Dinosaur Heaven. I'm glad Volc's gone, but I'm not entirely sold on Dirge being UU. I still find it to be plenty good and a staple on most of my teams.

QC, Evasion, and co.: This one is a bit of a sour spot for me, personally. I've always agreed with the Evasion Clause, as it is fundamentally uncompetitive to rely on Evasion and Accuracy Drops (even though ADs can be mitigated by switching out.)
As a PokeTuber I used to watch once said; "It's a 2v1 fight. It's a fight against RNG first, and your opponent second.", "Of all of the flavors in the world after a game you're gonna have with your opponent, and you're gonna salt as the desired outcome for all of these? I really hope you brought enough water, 'cause you are flinging yourself head first into a salt mine by going that route."
It's bad enough we already have to deal with RNG on things like Thunder, Fire Blast, Focus Miss, etc. To have to deal with the opponent deliberately being a dirt bag and throwing sand into your eyes, spitting in your drink, and then laughing about it just makes things worse. We've all gotten frustrated over major move misses. I did a few days ago, missing two Play Roughs in a row. Just imagine that, but on a more consistent basis if we allowed garbage like Bright Powder, Double Team, and Evasion Abilities back into the fold. No thank you, I'd rather play by House Rules at that point. Allowing Evasion is basically saying that you don't care about healthy, fair competition and want to make your opponents suffer all for a simple lolfest. Evasion boosting/accuracy dropping as a primary strat (Muddy Water excluded) is wholly uncompetitive and unhealthy.

That being said, on the topic of QC, I personally voted to have action against it. The only Pokemon it really ""fits"" with is Glowbro and Quick Draw. It's a gimmick in and of itself, and it doesn't really belong with anything else. A 1/5 chance to ignore speed tiers and have a free priority move is dumb af and can steal games. I do not like QC from a "healthy competition" standpoint. I've seen these debates run endlessly in circles and I'm not really going to be debating these two topics, just putting my two cents out there as an unqualified pleb.

Tiering Survey: Was an interesting read. A lot of middle ground things going on. However, I feel like if Kingambit ends up getting axed, Dragapult should get axed as well. This is an exceptionally hot take from me, but hear me out.
Pult is the single most unpredictable Pokemon in the game right now. It has like... Seven different sets it can be running at any one given time, and without something like Imposter Ditto, it's impossible to scout which set it is without Pult causing problems and/or screwing up your team. Sub DD, Band, Specs, Sash DD, LO DD, LO Mix, Sash Mix, Screens, Wisp Hex... The only actual ""check"" I've really seen to Pult is AV Kingambit. Gambit has the perfect base typing to resist both of Pult's STABs.
I've seen what Gambit can do, on a receiving end, a giving end, and a spectating end. It's one scary Pokemon with Supreme Overlord and Sucker Punch. It can be a one-mon wrecking crew if piloted correctly, but this may end up being a case of Broken Checks Broken. But being able to actually check Pult is probably going to be the most important thing about it that very few other Pokemon can do.
For reference on these calcs, this is the Gambit set I've been using:

@ Assault Vest
Adamant Nature | Tera Flying
Supreme Overlord
124 HP / 252 Atk / 132 Speed
Kowtow Cleave
Iron Head
Low Kick
Sucker Punch

The reason I use this kind of spread is similar to my AV Azu; 132 Adamant Speed allows you to beat uninvested Skeledirge tier Pokemon and below. 124 HP compliments your base 120 Defense, and boosted 85 Special Defense. Not only do you hit hard, you also take hits really well too.
Now for the Pult calcs:

Pult vs Gambit Calcs

Specs:
252 SpA Choice Specs Dragapult Draco Meteor vs. 124 HP / 0 SpD Assault Vest Kingambit: 102-120 (27.4 - 32.2%) -- guaranteed 4HKO
252 SpA Choice Specs Dragapult Shadow Ball vs. 124 HP / 0 SpD Assault Vest Kingambit: 63-74 (16.9 - 19.8%) -- guaranteed 6HKO
252 SpA Choice Specs Dragapult Flamethrower vs. 124 HP / 0 SpD Assault Vest Kingambit: 188-222 (50.5 - 59.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO

Band:
252+ Atk Choice Band Dragapult Dragon Darts (2 hits) vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 108-128 (29 - 34.4%) -- approx. 1.7% chance to 3HKO
252+ Atk Choice Band Dragapult Phantom Force vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 97-115 (26 - 30.9%) -- guaranteed 4HKO
252+ Atk Choice Band Dragapult U-turn vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 102-120 (27.4 - 32.2%) -- guaranteed 4HKO

Screens:
4 Atk Dragapult Dragon Darts (2 hits) vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 54-66 (14.5 - 17.7%) -- approx. possible 6HKO

Sub DD:
+1 252+ Atk Dragapult Dragon Darts (2 hits) vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 108-128 (29 - 34.4%) -- approx. 1.7% chance to 3HKO
+1 252+ Atk Dragapult Phantom Force vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 97-115 (26 - 30.9%) -- guaranteed 4HKO

Wisp Hex:
180 SpA Dragapult Hex (130 BP) vs. 124 HP / 0 SpD Assault Vest Kingambit: 63-75 (16.9 - 20.1%) -- guaranteed 5HKO after burn damage
180 SpA Dragapult Hex (65 BP) vs. 124 HP / 0 SpD Assault Vest Kingambit: 32-38 (8.6 - 10.2%) -- possibly the worst move ever
76 Atk Dragapult Dragon Darts (2 hits) vs. 124 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 58-68 (15.5 - 18.2%) -- approx. possible 6HKO

Not many other Pokemon can really say that they can switch in on ANY given Pult set and threaten to drop it like a bad habit. Pult's always been a plague for me, as trying to scout it is always a nightmare unless it comes in on something and it makes the obvious play. If Gambit goes, then I'd like to see Pult be talked about and maybe addressed. Not going to hold my breath, though.