Project The Top 10 Titans of the Gen 8 OU Metagame

Not open for further replies.
I'm inclined to agree in general and especially so for this generation, since this is the first time we've ever had DLC. The only time I can recall in which a significant group of mons were added mid-gen was ORAS, which saw the addition of mega forms for: Swampert, Sableye, Altaria, Metagross, Lati@s, Lopunny, Diancie, etc. For god's sake Ubers didn't even have Primal Groudon for a big chunk of gen 6.

Pre-DLC: Can anyone deny that Conkeldurr was top ten? Or how deadly Hydreigon was?

DLC 1: This saw the additions of stuff like:
- Cinderace getting Libero
- Rillaboom getting Grassy Surge
- Slowbro/king and their regional variants
- Chansey and Blissey
- Scizor
- Kingdra
- Skarmory
- Magnezone
- Tangrowth
- Sus Amoonguss
- Volcarona
- both Urshifu forms

I think Melmetal became available sometime in this period too.

Lastly there were the additions of significant moves like Grassy Glide, Flip Turn, Triple Axel, Scale Shot, Meteor Beam, Poltergeist, and Dual Wingbeat.

Clearly these metas were significantly different. Comparing the two is hard.

As for DLC 2, it added:
- Nidoking
- Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, and their regional variants
- Dragonite
- Blaziken
- Lati@s
- Garchomp
- Heatran
- Victini
- Lando-T
- Volcanion
- all the Tapus
- all the Ultra Beasts

I challenge everyone to see whether their teams lack even one of these additions. The shift was major.

In summary, I think comparing these metas is very hard to do without weighing the present so heavily due to the sudden, drastic changes from the DLC. In Gen 9, assuming DLC returns in some form, I believe we should have a top ten vote for each clearly separate meta and then a final, whole-gen vote at the end. If the third version/sequal model happens then it may not be important to separate them.
Correction: The starters got there abilities slightly before DLC 1.
This is not meant as any accusation of bias or contesting the results. Just thought I'd share 2 cents I had on things.

I'm curious how much recency played into some of these impressions. Some people might have evaluated based on how impactful the mon was for the time it was permitted in the tier (something that definitely weighs heavily in favor of Banned-by-Test subjects like Kyurem), but there's another part of my head that leaned a bit towards the influence of mons that were here by the time of the DLC2 meta, maybe leaning a bit more heavily towards long-runners like Clefable in turn.

Personal perspective, for a project about big influences and titans of "The OU Metagame" in particular, something in me wasn't inclined to vote for mons who got banned from OU, in part because the idea in that case seemed to suggest as significant as their influence was, it was not something we considered welcome/ideal for OU. Some might lean the other way and say they were Titans standing that far above other influences, which makes for an interesting discussion on what different voters were considering with their nominations and votes.

Also Melmetal was robbed
I agree with the general sentiment about not voting for banned mons. In particular Magearna and CInderace. However I think Kyurem deserved to be an exception as it wasn't overwhelming for a huge part of its time in OU. This separates it from Cinderace and co who were never truly balanced (as the quickbans can attest to). Whilst Kyurem was always somewhat controversial it wasn't completely oppressive until the end of its life and the diversification of its sets. Should note my own bias though as I loved Kyurem for how neutered stall in the meta.
1. Magearna
2. Clefanle
3. Lando-T
4. Heatran
5. Cinderace
6. Kyurem
7. Urshifu-S
8. Dracovish
9. Melmetal
10. Dragapult/Garchomp/Slowbro/Pex
Just bumping as this thread should probably be locked. While I'm here though, have some small change, we don't have two cents in Australia, so have five.

I agree with JTD and Pika Pal that recency seems to have played a non-trivial part here. I don't believe this was particularly avoidable, as the DLC drops were a challenge both for tiering and for this project. I'm also not sure if I think doing it for each DLC / meta split is practical considering the amount of effort that goes into the project. I am of the belief that it would potentially detract from the quality of submissions, and the general enthusiasm that this project receives.

The voting / non-voting for banned mons point was raised in the gen 7 titans project as well if I recall correctly. You can argue this either way, and I think the voting reflects a pretty happy middle-ground. The 2 banned Pokemon were both banned by suspect (in my mind meaning they were not self-evidently broken), and each had a lasting influence on OU as a whole.
  • Kyurem through its longstanding influence over the course of each meta before it's eventual ban.
  • Urshifu both through its centralisation while unbanned, and the wider popularisation of the futureport + fighting / dark offensive threat core. As outlined in its submission post.
I understand the point of not wanting to vote for things that were in the end, decided to be not good for OU. I do think, however, that this is outweighed by the central thesis of the project. Influence on the OU tier, of which these mons had plenty to offer.

Speaking of Vish was robbed
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)