Announcement Tiering Policy Framework

Status
Not open for further replies.
shiloh

shiloh

is a Member of Senior Staffis a Top Tiering Contributoris a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Metagame Resource Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Tiering Lead
A) Assumptions in Tiering Policy:

I.) We play, to the best of our simulator's capabilities, with the mechanics given to us on the cartridge.
  • While we strive to maintain fidelity to in-game mechanics, rare exceptions are made when specific elements are proven to undermine competitive integrity.
  • These include long-standing clauses like Sleep Clause, Evasion Clause, and OHKO Clause, but they should not be expanded on. New clauses for current generations (SV onwards) are fully off the table.
  • Suggestions to "remove critical hits" or "make Baton Pass fail in battle" are not valid tiering proposals.
II.) We cater to both ladder players (the higher end of the ladder) and tournament players.
  • Tiering actions should not be taken based solely on one group’s experience (ladder or tournament) unless the issue is egregious and clear-cut.
  • Stats for both will be highly emphasized, but not a sole determining factor.
III.) The onus of providing justification is on the side of changing the status quo.
  • The status quo can be changed in certain cases, such as new game releases.
  • If a proposal is made to ban or unban a Pokemon, ability, item, or move, the side suggesting this must demonstrate why this is necessary and how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, as well as provide evidence for both.
  • The argument that removing an element of play does not have a downside is not enough; we need good reasons to take action, not reasons not to do so.
IV.) Probability management is a part of the game.
  • This means we have to accept that moves have secondary effects, that moves can miss, that moves can critical hit, and that managing all these potential probability points is a part of skill.
  • This does NOT mean that we will accept every probability factor introduced to the game. Evasion, OHKO moves, and Moody all affected the outcome "too much", and we removed them.
  • "Too much" is if a particular factor has the more skilled player at a disadvantage a considerable amount of the time against a less skilled player, regardless of what they do.
V.) Team matchup management is a part of the game.
  • This means we have to accept that it's possible we will be at an advantage or disadvantage from the very beginning.
  • With optimal team building skills, the pool of options (Pokemon, moves, items) present in the tier should allow you to build teams addressing the different team archetypes at least decently and offer a solution in-battle to a large majority of the principal threats of the metagame.
VI.) Even though some of these assumptions limit us, we will, within those limitations, work to maximize the concept of "player skill" determining the result of a match the majority of the time.
  • The majority of our potential suspect discussion will center around the defined versions of uncompetitive, broken, and unhealthy, and how a particular suspect element lowers some component of player skill within those three constructs.
  • Any of the subsections in skill can be emphasized for a potential suspect.
    • If Shadow Tag reduces the battling skill component too much via removing smart switching and reducing the ability to assess risk, these should be mentioned when stating Shadow Tag is uncompetitive, broken, or unhealthy.
    • If Kingambit is uncompetitive, broken, or unhealthy, point out how it reduces player skill from being the major determining factor in a match, and which component of skill it drastically takes away from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B) Definitions for Tiering Policy:

I.) Skill - While inherently subjective, is understood by us as a practical framework for evaluating player effectiveness in both teambuilding and battle execution.
  • Team Building Skill - the part of skill that is involved in the preparation for a battle
    • Assessing and Dealing with Threats
    • Building Towards a Strategy (or Strategies)
    • Creativity
    • Catering to Metagame / Opponents
  • Battling Skill - the part of skill involved in actually battling
    • Picking the Right Lead
    • Recognizing the Win Condition
    • Picking the Right Move
    • Smart Switching
    • Gathering Information and Making Assumptions
    • Long-term vs. Short-term Goals
    • Assessing Risk
    • Probability Management
    • Prediction
II.) Uncompetitive - elements that reduce the effect of player choice/interaction on the end result to an extreme degree, such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant.
  • This can be matchup related; think the determination that Baton Pass took the battling skill aspect out of the player's hands and made it overwhelmingly a team matchup issue, where even the best moves made each time by a standard team often were not enough.
  • This can be external factors; think Endless Battle Clause, where the determining factor became internet connection over playing skill.
  • This can be probability management issues; think OHKOs, evasion, or Moody, all of which turned the battle from emphasizing battling skill to emphasizing the result of the RNG more often than not.
III.) Broken - elements that are too good relative to the rest of the metagame, such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant.
  • These aren't necessarily completely uncompetitive because they don't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use these elements, and both probably have a fair chance to win. They are broken because they almost dictate/require usage, and a standard team without one of them facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage.
  • These also include elements whose only counters or checks are extraordinarily niche Pokemon that would put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere.
  • Uncompetitive and Broken are defined like this tend to be mutually exclusive in practice, but they aren't necessarily entirely so.
    • Baton Pass was deemed uncompetitive because of how drastically it removed battling skill's effects and brought the battle down to matchup, but it could also be deemed broken because of the unique ways in which you had to deal with it.
    • While this isn't always the case, an uncompetitive thing probably isn't broken, but a broken thing is more likely to be uncompetitive simply due to the unique counter/check component. For example, Mega Kangaskhan was deemed broken because it was simply too good relative to the rest of the metagame and caused the tier to centralize around it, but it could also be labeled as uncompetitive because of the severe team matchup restriction it caused by punishing players if they did not pack one of the few obscure counters or checks for it.
IV.) Unhealthy - elements that are neither uncompetitive nor broken, yet are deemed undesirable for the metagame, such that they inhibit "skillful play" to a large extent.
  • These are elements that may not limit either team building or battling skill enough individually, but combine to cause an effect that is undesirable for the metagame.
  • This can also be a state of the metagame. If the metagame has too much diversity wherein team building ability is greatly hampered and battling skill is drastically reduced, we may seek to reduce the number of good-to-great threats. This can also work in reverse; if the metagame is too centralized around a particular set of Pokemon, none of which are broken on their own, we may seek to add Pokemon to increase diversity.
  • This is the most controversial and subjective one and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The Tiering Councils will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.
  • When trying to argue a particular element's suspect status, please avoid this category unless absolutely necessary. This is a last-ditch, subjective catch-all, and tiering arguments should focus on uncompetitive or broken first. We are coming to a point in the generations where the number of threats is close to overwhelming, so we may touch upon this more often, but please try to focus on uncompetitive and broken first.
These terms are tools, not rigid boxes; the primary goal is to identify elements that degrade skill-based play.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C) Why Pokemon are the Primary Target of Tiering Action

I.) Simplicity, Consistency, and Minimizing Complexity
  • Pokemon bans provide a clear, holistic solution to competitive balance issues, aligning with Smogon’s long-standing approach to tiering.
  • By removing entire Pokemon when they are deemed broken, we keep the ruleset more intuitive and consistent for the community.
  • Banning non-Pokemon elements (e.g., moves/abilities) creates additional layers of rules and exceptions, which can be confusing for players, particularly newer participants.
  • Pokemon bans keep the metagame structure straightforward, reducing enforcement and communication challenges.
II.) Preservation of Identity
  • Moves, abilities, and items are intrinsic parts of a Pokemon's design. Banning these components in isolation can fundamentally alter the Pokemon, diminishing its identity and intended role; we do not tier to minimize collateral damage.
  • Example: A Pokemon like Palafin without Jet Punch is no longer operating as the Pokemon originally designed by Game Freak.
  • Example: Terapagos-Stellar is a form that results from Terapagos terastalizing. Since terastalization is the only method to obtain Terapagos-Stellar, banning Terapgos instead of clausing the game to remove the option of terastalizing Terapgos is the desired option.
III.) Ensuring Tiering Integrity Through Ban Transitivity
  • The principle of ban transitivity means that when something is banned from a higher tier, it is also banned in all lower tiers.
  • By banning a Pokemon, we ensure consistent tier application and avoid the need to track multiple partial bans or conditional rules across tiers.
IV.) Avoiding Precedent Issues
  • Frequent bans of specific moves, abilities, or items risk setting a precedent in which metagame balance is pursued by repeatedly carving out individual elements.
  • Evaluating Pokemon as unified entities reinforces the foundational tiering philosophy, preventing fragmentation of the metagame.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D) Exceptional Elements: When Non-Pokemon Bans May Be Considered
Disclaimer: This does not apply to generational elements (Tera / Dynamax / Z Moves, etc)

While Pokemon bans are the default, there may be rare instances where a non-Pokemon element is deemed so inherently broken that banning specific Pokemon cannot solve the core problem. These are Exceptional Elements, and they must meet all the criteria below to warrant a ban at the element level.

I.) Inherently Broken Nature
  • The element is so powerful or disruptive that it creates a significant imbalance in the metagame, regardless of which Pokemon employs it.
  • There is no reasonable context or distribution that would render the element balanced by ordinary means.
II.) Universal Applicability Across Eligible Users
  • The element is not just situationally powerful on one or two Pokemon; it is universally problematic across all or most potential users.
  • Example: If a move is only broken due to unique synergy with one or two specific Pokemon, then we default to banning those Pokemon rather than the move itself.
III.) No Plausible Scenario for Balance
  • There is no current situation in which the element would be balanced on Pokemon that currently have it.
  • If giving the element to weaker or niche Pokemon that are still recognisably viable within the tier could be balanced, then the element is not considered universally broken.
For an element to be considered exceptional and warrant direct banning, it should ideally meet all criteria above. In edge cases where the element demonstrates overwhelming disruptive potential even if one criteria is unmet, councils may still consider action if supported by evidence and community consensus. This ensures that only truly disruptive and unresolvable elements are removed at the source, preserving the integrity of tiering decisions and avoiding unnecessary bans.

---

Process for Evaluating Exceptional Elements

I.) Initial Identification
  • A potentially exceptional element is flagged by the tiering council or community, with evidence presented that it meets the criteria.
II.) Community Feedback
  • The broader community is consulted through discussions in PR threads and surveys, ensuring transparency and diverse perspectives.
  • PR threads are specifically preferred in larger-scale cases, as handling some of the moves in flagship tiers based solely on an OU thread or survey may not be sufficient.
III.) Decision-Making
  • If the element is found to fulfill all criteria, the council may vote to ban it.
  • A clear policy announcement follows, explaining the decision and any implications for other tiers and formats.
  • Not every single topic is ever appropriate for a public suspect test; getting reqs in a public suspect test only qualifies people for a simple "broken vs not broken" decision. The council members and users engaging in PR discussions are better suited to deal with deep policy decisions.
IV.) Review Mechanism
  • Over time, the metagame evolves. Exceptional element bans should be revisited if new mechanics, distributions, or shifts suggest the element may no longer be universally broken.
---

Examples of Application

I.) Commander (Exceptional)
  • Universally broken in Doubles due to its inherent design (merging Tatsugiri and Dondozo, granting Dondozo +2 in every stat).
  • No distribution scenario would make Commander fair, so banning the ability is fine as well as banning Tatsugiri itself.
II.) Shed Tail (Borderline)
  • Broken on Cyclizar and Orthworm specifically due to their combination of speed, bulk, and abilities. While probably not broken on Sceptile, the different ways Cyclizar and Orthworm utilized Shed Tail demonstrate the move's exceptional broken nature, showing minor optimisation was all that was needed to make the move broken. As such, it was banned.
  • This is an example where either Shed Tail or both Cyclizar and Orthworm could have been suspected, and comes down to the case-by-case judgment of tier leaders and tiering admins as to which is appropriate. Exceptional Elements being suspected should not be considered blanket precedent to do the same, which is why a Policy Review thread should be posted in any similar circumstance.
III.) Last Respects (Borderline)
  • Overpowered on all fully evolved Pokemon with access to the move, including some that would otherwise be completely unviable.
  • Initially Houndstone was banned to stay in line with identity preservation. However, once the move was distributed to multiple Pokémon and remained unbalanced, a move ban became the more consistent option.
IV.) Rage Fist (Not Exceptional)
  • Rage Fist makes Annihilape broken in an OU context; however, it fails to make any other Pokemon broken. Annihilape was also designed in tandem with Rage Fist such that the extra tools Annihilape has enable Rage Fist to be as broken as it is. While Annihilape without Rage Fist is probably not broken, this ties in heavily with the Preservation of Identity mentioned above, where Annihilape without Rage Fist is essentially a completely different Pokemon.
V.) Terapagos-Stellar (Not Exceptional)
  • Terapagos-Stellar is a form that results in Terapagos terastalizing. Since terastalization is the only method to use Terapagos-Stellar, banning Terapagos instead of clausing the game to remove the option of terastalizing it is the preferred option.
VI.) Weather Setters vs Ability vs Item (eg: Pelipper vs Drizzle vs Damp Rock)
  • If the weather setter is the only viable setter and alternative weather setters balances the archetype, the weather setting Pokemon should be banned.
  • If there are multiple weather setters and all of them render the archetype broken, banning the Ability is preferred.
  • If there are no weather setting abilities in the tier and there are multiple abusers of the archetype, banning the item is preferred over banning multiple abusers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Goal and Purpose of Tiering Policy:

I.) To create a metagame that is conducive to the more "skilled" player winning over the less "skilled" player a majority of the time.
II.) To ensure that both our ladder and tournament crowds are catered to regarding I.)
III.) To ensure that actions are taken with appropriate and complete justification.
IV.) To preserve the spirit of the design of Pokemon, both individually and as a generation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top