You still forgot Ferroseed which would move from PU to NU.Edited
You still forgot Ferroseed which would move from PU to NU.Edited
I don't know if LC Pokémon count. I'd need a confirmation on thatYou still forgot Ferroseed which would move from PU to NU.
LC acts outside the usage based tiers - it is not the "lowest" tier. A pokemon can simultaneously be LC and NU for example, so if that LC Pokemon got 3.41% usage in RU it would no longer be allowed in NU or below, but would still be allowed in LC.I don't know if LC Pokémon count. I'd need a confirmation on that
It'd make for a bunch of slippery slope and inconsistencies between tiers, which would make it hard for new people to understand the basics of smogon.Aight, time for serious talk.
Getting rid of quick-rises in favor of maintaining stability for the lower tiers is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I'm willing to go a step further, and say that tiering rises as a whole should be abolished entirely.
To see what I mean, let's take a look at MaahirMomtaz's tier shift post. If we assume these trends stay the about the same, the following things will happen.
-UU is staring down the possibility of losing its best glue mon for balance and stall, Gliscor. If you are a remotely competent UU player, you know just how much influence Gliscor exerts in the tier. While I'm not saying that the tier will fall into chaos without its presence, it'll definitely force people to completely revamp their teams to account for its loss, and it'll be a huge hit to bulky playstyles, especially stall.
-PU losing Gastrodon and Ferroseed is also bigger than you may think. The tier has recently been having troubles with strong attackers and wallbreakers, and losing more answers to said attackers is never good. While PU will get back some old walls like Qwilfish and Altaria, losing its best defensive mon along with another pretty good one makes the issue of wallbreakers even more apparent.
-It's not just walls that are gone. The tiers lose some fun attackers too, with Stoutland rising to NU and Moltres rising to UU.
I could go on, but simply put, I don't think it's fair to the lower tiers that they have to constantly worry over meta-defining threats and mons they like being stolen, while still having to deal with all the new drops with a reduced line-up (uu mega diancie hahahahaha kill me please) to fight back with. Again, abolishing quick-rises is a step in the right direction, but these massive shifts every 3 months where meta-defining mons that keep the meta healthy can sometimes be lost is still not cool at all.
I've already presented this idea before, but is there any chance we could let tier leadership choose if they want certain Pokemon to rise? Like, if Gliscor still has the usage to rise next month, the UU council would first have to say "OK, yeah, sure, Gliscor may rise." If no, usage is ignored and Gliscor stays in UU. I don't see what problems this could lead to.
Losing decidedly fun attackers or mainstays of a meta isn't really enough of a reason to get rid of rises. It just isn't how tiering works. Any tier that has a mon leave, regardless of its relevance in the tier, will adapt. This may result in other mons needing suspecting (see: current day breloom/azu shortly ago, as amoonguss left), though this usually doesn't mean the tier is ruined. Having to endure change overtime is just a part of usage-based lower tiers in general. Also, having tier leadership/a council around to vote for various tier changes is good, though ignoring the usage stats and to a further extent the public isn't really ideal in any circumstance.Aight, time for serious talk.
Getting rid of quick-rises in favor of maintaining stability for the lower tiers is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I'm willing to go a step further, and say that tiering rises as a whole should be abolished entirely.
To see what I mean, let's take a look at MaahirMomtaz's tier shift post. If we assume these trends stay the about the same, the following things will happen.
-UU is staring down the possibility of losing its best glue mon for balance and stall, Gliscor. If you are a remotely competent UU player, you know just how much influence Gliscor exerts in the tier. While I'm not saying that the tier will fall into chaos without its presence, it'll definitely force people to completely revamp their teams to account for its loss, and it'll be a huge hit to bulky playstyles, especially stall.
-PU losing Gastrodon and Ferroseed is also bigger than you may think. The tier has recently been having troubles with strong attackers and wallbreakers, and losing more answers to said attackers is never good. While PU will get back some old walls like Qwilfish and Altaria, losing its best defensive mon along with another pretty good one makes the issue of wallbreakers even more apparent.
-It's not just walls that are gone. The tiers lose some fun attackers too, with Stoutland rising to NU and Moltres rising to UU.
I could go on, but simply put, I don't think it's fair to the lower tiers that they have to constantly worry over meta-defining threats and mons they like being stolen, while still having to deal with all the new drops with a reduced line-up (uu mega diancie hahahahaha kill me please) to fight back with. Again, abolishing quick-rises is a step in the right direction, but these massive shifts every 3 months where meta-defining mons that keep the meta healthy can sometimes be lost is still not cool at all.
I've already presented this idea before, but is there any chance we could let tier leadership choose if they want certain Pokemon to rise? Like, if Gliscor still has the usage to rise next month, the UU council would first have to say "OK, yeah, sure, Gliscor may rise." If no, usage is ignored and Gliscor stays in UU. I don't see what problems this could lead to.
Ah yes, I was expecting a response like this. This logic is flawed, here's why.Losing decidedly fun attackers or mainstays of a meta isn't really enough of a reason to get rid of rises. It just isn't how tiering works. Any tier that has a mon leave, regardless of its relevance in the tier, will adapt. This may result in other mons needing suspecting (see: current day breloom/azu shortly ago, as amoonguss left), though this usually doesn't mean the tier is ruined. Having to endure change overtime is just a part of usage-based lower tiers in general. Also, having tier leadership/a council around to vote for various tier changes is good, though ignoring the usage stats and to a further extent the public isn't really ideal in any circumstance.
The worst suggestion I have heard so far. Tier changes are the most interesting part of the meta, if things leave lower tiers or drop down, it makes other pokemon better or worse, brings new playstyles etc. If we abandon tier rises, have fun in garbage stale tiers with the same dominant mons over and over again.Aight, time for serious talk.
Getting rid of quick-rises in favor of maintaining stability for the lower tiers is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I'm willing to go a step further, and say that tiering rises as a whole should be abolished entirely.
To see what I mean, let's take a look at MaahirMomtaz's tier shift post. If we assume these trends stay the about the same, the following things will happen.
-UU is staring down the possibility of losing its best glue mon for balance and stall, Gliscor. If you are a remotely competent UU player, you know just how much influence Gliscor exerts in the tier. While I'm not saying that the tier will fall into chaos without its presence, it'll definitely force people to completely revamp their teams to account for its loss, and it'll be a huge hit to bulky playstyles, especially stall.
-PU losing Gastrodon and Ferroseed is also bigger than you may think. The tier has recently been having troubles with strong attackers and wallbreakers, and losing more answers to said attackers is never good. While PU will get back some old walls like Qwilfish and Altaria, losing its best defensive mon along with another pretty good one makes the issue of wallbreakers even more apparent.
-It's not just walls that are gone. The tiers lose some fun attackers too, with Stoutland rising to NU and Moltres rising to UU.
I could go on, but simply put, I don't think it's fair to the lower tiers that they have to constantly worry over meta-defining threats and mons they like being stolen, while still having to deal with all the new drops with a reduced line-up (uu mega diancie hahahahaha kill me please) to fight back with. Again, abolishing quick-rises is a step in the right direction, but these massive shifts every 3 months where meta-defining mons that keep the meta healthy can sometimes be lost is still not cool at all.
I've already presented this idea before, but is there any chance we could let tier leadership choose if they want certain Pokemon to rise? Like, if Gliscor still has the usage to rise next month, the UU council would first have to say "OK, yeah, sure, Gliscor may rise." If no, usage is ignored and Gliscor stays in UU. I don't see what problems this could lead to.
No comment on your post, but I would like to hear clarification on what exactly you mean by "slippery slope" in this case.It'd make for a bunch of slippery slope and inconsistencies between tiers, which would make it hard for new people to understand the basics of smogon.
1. People found that Drapion is more than a shitmon and is actually doing decent in RU? Good to hear. Does that mean it should've been viciously yanked out of NU against that tier's playerbase's will? Hell no.The worst suggestion I have heard so far. Tier changes are the most interesting part of the meta, if things leave lower tiers or drop down, it makes other pokemon better or worse, brings new playstyles etc. If we abandon tier rises, have fun in garbage stale tiers with the same dominant mons over and over again.
Also, why should higher tiers let viable pokemon drop just because they would be very good pokemon in a lower tier? Drapion is in it's best spot in RU since the start of the generation, so why would people stop using it?
Taking away one of the most fun aspects of tiers is bullshit, rises allow the metagame to change the same way as drops do. If you can't accept that, just make up your own tiers that don't get determined by usage at all.
Nothing changed as quickrises have been abolished, wait till next month.So, did anything actually change or no? I'm confused since someone said there are no quick drops or quick rises this month yet folks are saying Gastrodon shot up to OU this month or Stoutland to NU.
Viciously yanked?? LOL Drapion got usage in RU, so it moved up. It's not like what Joey did with Ambipom and Mamoswine where he exploited the ladder and they got a lot of usageNo comment on your post, but I would like to hear clarification on what exactly you mean by "slippery slope" in this case.
1. People found that Drapion is more than a shitmon and is actually doing decent in RU? Good to hear. Does that mean it should've been viciously yanked out of NU against that tier's playerbase's will? Hell no.
2. Again, go back to Maahir's post and take a look at the amount of rises compared to drops. I can assure you that even without rises, there would still be plenty of variation and metagame-altering shifts for each and every tier via the drops alone, unless you're willing to argue that Mega Diancie in UU and Hoopa in NU will do little to change the supposed "stale garbage tiers" that would come as a result of this change.
I think it's all fine to hypothesize and try to revolutionize the tiering process. After all, it is your opinion and you are free to voice that opinion. However, I take your hypothetical and raise you a hypothetical situation: what would you propose doing in subsequent generations when new pokemon are introduced. For example, let's say in Gen 8, a final stage pokemon is created with stats of 70/65/60/105/75/110 (random numbers). Who would get to decide what tier this poke is placed in if it's not decided by usage? You could end up with multiple tiers fighting for the right to have this particular pokemon (and of course if it ends up in a higher tier like UU, it would be unable to be used in RU and below). Now take this situation and multiply it by however many new pokemon are created, with each one having its own set of unique variables (from typing to abilities), determining its viability and complicating its tier position.Aight, time for serious talk.
Getting rid of quick-rises in favor of maintaining stability for the lower tiers is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I'm willing to go a step further, and say that tiering rises as a whole should be abolished entirely.
To see what I mean, let's take a look at MaahirMomtaz's tier shift post. If we assume these trends stay the about the same, the following things will happen.
-UU is staring down the possibility of losing its best glue mon for balance and stall, Gliscor. If you are a remotely competent UU player, you know just how much influence Gliscor exerts in the tier. While I'm not saying that the tier will fall into chaos without its presence, it'll definitely force people to completely revamp their teams to account for its loss, and it'll be a huge hit to bulky playstyles, especially stall.
-PU losing Gastrodon and Ferroseed is also bigger than you may think. The tier has recently been having troubles with strong attackers and wallbreakers, and losing more answers to said attackers is never good. While PU will get back some old walls like Qwilfish and Altaria, losing its best defensive mon along with another pretty good one makes the issue of wallbreakers even more apparent.
-It's not just walls that are gone. The tiers lose some fun attackers too, with Stoutland rising to NU and Moltres rising to UU.
I could go on, but simply put, I don't think it's fair to the lower tiers that they have to constantly worry over meta-defining threats and mons they like being stolen, while still having to deal with all the new drops with a reduced line-up (uu mega diancie hahahahaha kill me please) to fight back with. Again, abolishing quick-rises is a step in the right direction, but these massive shifts every 3 months where meta-defining mons that keep the meta healthy can sometimes be lost is still not cool at all.
I've already presented this idea before, but is there any chance we could let tier leadership choose if they want certain Pokemon to rise? Like, if Gliscor still has the usage to rise next month, the UU council would first have to say "OK, yeah, sure, Gliscor may rise." If no, usage is ignored and Gliscor stays in UU. I don't see what problems this could lead to.
I think people are getting the wrong idea from my post tbh. I am absolutely not advocating to get rid of usage based tiering or anything like that. What I am advocating for is to abolish or further restrict rises, not drops. Not gonna delve into specific reasoning, my previous posts do that good enough. This hypothetical situation here, for instance, would not be changed at all. Pokemon would just settle into tiers like they normally would at the start of a new generation, since they are dropping during the early stages, with rises being uncommon in this timeframe.I think it's all fine to hypothesize and try to revolutionize the tiering process. After all, it is your opinion and you are free to voice that opinion. However, I take your hypothetical and raise you a hypothetical situation: what would you propose doing in subsequent generations when new pokemon are introduced. For example, let's say in Gen 8, a final stage pokemon is created with stats of 70/65/60/105/75/110 (random numbers). Who would get to decide what tier this poke is placed in if it's not decided by usage? You could end up with multiple tiers fighting for the right to have this particular pokemon (and of course if it ends up in a higher tier like UU, it would be unable to be used in RU and below). Now take this situation and multiply it by however many new pokemon are created, with each one having its own set of unique variables (from typing to abilities), determining its viability and complicating its tier position.
This is why I don't see your radical overhaul as plausible quite yet. Now, I could see (and would even likely be in favor of) a new tiering philosophy that keeps the usage-based tier structure, while allowing for each tier itself to "override" or force drop (but not force raise) a bad pokemon being in a tier (i.e. Jolteon in RU being forced down into NU, etc.). But even something like that is unlikely to happen
Importantish question - what earthly benefit does any tier have to ever let a Pokémon rise? If it’s broken then they can just have it sit in XUBL, not potentially lose any chance of testing it in the future.I think people are getting the wrong idea from my post tbh. I am absolutely not advocating to get rid of usage based tiering or anything like that. What I am advocating for is to abolish or further restrict rises, not drops. Not gonna delve into specific reasoning, my previous posts do that good enough. This hypothetical situation here, for instance, would not be changed at all. Pokemon would just settle into tiers like they normally would at the start of a new generation, since they are dropping during the early stages, with rises being uncommon in this timeframe.
I do like your force drop idea though, and it's another thing I've considered and discussed with people in the past.
Hm. I see what you're trying to get at. Ok, how about getting rid of rises, BUT still allowing rises from a BL tier to a main tier? In those cases, something rising from BL doesn't affect the tier below it, while also preventing this BL bottleneck scenario you've presented.Importantish question - what earthly benefit does any tier have to ever let a Pokémon rise? If it’s broken then they can just have it sit in XUBL, not potentially lose any chance of testing it in the future.
Let’s make an assumption that OU eventually ends up with a balanced set of Pokémon. This means that if all or a majority of Pokémon in OU fail to get enough usage to stay there even once, UUBL will eventually have enough Pokémon to essentially become OU-lite, with a few of the omnipresent mons who would never get little enough usage to drop like Lando not there. Basically you’re looking at the potential for ‘clone’ tiers, and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
Do I think this is particularly likely to happen between OU and UU if this method was adopted? No, not really. However, I could see it happening between NU and PU or RU and UU perhaps.
I think any method that discourages a tier from developing its own unique identity with different Pokémon is fundamentally flawed, and I think one of the biggest and definitely most inherent issue with your proposal is the lack of any reason to ever let anything rise.
The BL bottleneck scenario would still happen even if the BL mon rises to the higher tier; even though the 'BL to OU' Pokemon in question won't show up in '/ds UUBL', it's still part of UUBL and has to be recorded, should the mon ever fall in usage again.Hm. I see what you're trying to get at. Ok, how about getting rid of rises, BUT still allowing rises from a BL tier to a main tier? In those cases, something rising from BL doesn't affect the tier below it, while also preventing this BL bottleneck scenario you've presented.
UU is far from being in shambles.| 56 | Amoonguss | 3.290%
>when UU is in shambles because Amoonguss rose but it's about to drop again
LOL yep, people think that Smogon can end tier rises all together. What insanitySo it looks like we have some rebellious people and controversy? This is why I made an account on the forums lmao. This is so much fun.