What happens to Pokemon that were OU and they're not anymore due to lack of usage?

[X-Act]

There are several options:

1. They go immediately to BL without testing.
2. They go to UU and become immediate UU suspects for BL.
3. They go to UU and don't become immediate suspects for BL (but may become so in the future).

If point 2 or point 3 is chosen, the UU metagame will always change every 3 months at least. Also, would inserting new Pokemon in the metagame mean retesting Pokemon that were voted BL in the previous metagame?

Choosing point 1 would obviously solve this problem immediately, but I wonder if it's really the right thing to do.

So, what do we do? The stats are coming out soon and I need to know exactly what to do so that the new OU list and UU list (especially the new UU list) are updated correctly, together with the BL list of course.

 

[RBG]

Unless I am mistaken, the plan was that we follow number 3. If after they became UU, they got voted BL and then became OU again, the next time they fell out of OU, they would go to BL right away.

That is what I believe we decided when starting out the UU test, but I could be wrong.

 

[X-Act]

Now that I think about it, the UU metagame may change even if we go for option 1, because there might be Pokemon in UU that become OU.

So yeah, option 1 doesn't simplify things, so we might as well go for option 2 or 3, which to me seem to be the more 'correct' options.

 

[Stallion]

Option 3 is probably the best option, "innocent until proven guilty" mentality has let viable former OU pokemon such as Milotic find a niche in UU, which they wouldn't have if we didn't give them the opportunity. 1 and 2 limit our options and our flexibility, so I say option 3 is the best.

 

[Legacy Raider]

I would agree with option #3 as well, at least initially. Pokemon that fluctuate in and out of OU, such as Yanmega and Donphan, should be given a chance to be tested in UU. So the initial time they don't make the list, they should be added directly to UU. However, I think that if after they have been added they are found to be suspect and are thereafter voted out of UU, the next time they don't make the OU list they should go into the BL tier.

 

[Caelum]

I've actually already spoke with Jump about this recently (like 1 / 2 days ago lol). #3 was the route we decided to ultimately take. It was the most sensible option.

This is somewhat related, but not exactly for X-Act's question. We also decided to take a common sense approach if something ridiculous is dropped down. Let's hypothetically say Alakazam is dropped to UU and it becomes apparent that something is "obviously broken" (I'm not saying he is "obvious broken" I'm just giving an example) rather than putting everyone through the tedious process of suspect, voting, and then inevitebly being voted BL. The Pokemon would be dropped for a few days and those who played with it over that time period (determine via Jump's Req. Formula) would sound off and remove if the obvious, overwhelming consensus is that it is BL material.

 

[X-Act]

Okay, what I'll do is this.

1. Generate the new OU list using the algorithm from the Standard ladder data.
2. Make a list of the Pokemon that are in the old OU list but are not in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'Old OU'.
3. Make another list of the Pokemon that are not in the old OU list but are in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'New OU'
4. Generate the new UU list using the algorithm from the UU ladder data.
5. Add all 'Old OU' Pokemon to the new UU list.
6. Remove any Pokemon from the BL list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon.
7. Remove any Pokemon from the new UU list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon.
8. Issue new OU list, new BL list and new UU list.

After this, I'll leave it up to you guys to put the 'obvious' Pokemon into BL from UU.

Okay, I've got another question: suppose a Pokemon that is currently BL goes to OU. Then, after 3 months, it goes off OU. Should it go to UU like all the other Pokemon, or should it go immediately to BL?

For example, suppose Abomasnow gets voted to become BL and then goes to OU by virtue of usage in July month. Then, three months after that, it isn't used that much anymore, and goes off OU. Should it go to UU, or should we immediately make it BL due to being already voted to become BL?

 

[Caelum]

For example, suppose Abomasnow gets voted to become BL and then goes to OU by virtue of usage in July month. Then, three months after that, it isn't used that much anymore, and goes off OU. Should it go to UU, or should we immediately make it BL due to being already voted to become BL?

The tier shouldn't be chaotic enough that in the time that the event you described occurred it would no longer qualify as BL. So, generally speaking, it would just go down to BL again.

If for whatever reason we suspect the metagame has changed so dramatically (I suspect this will never happen, but you never know, people could go nuts and stop using Tyranitar and have it be UU or something lol) that it might need reexamination we can do that.

So, basically, if it was decided BL prior in almost every case it'll just get put back into BL.

 

[Tleilax]

Number 3 seems to be the best way we can do it. It will be rough on UU at times, since every few months it has the potential to flux, but variety is the spice of life as they say.

I also agree with what Caelum said. If something proves broken quickly without a long suspect test, it needs to be removed quickly as well. No need the destabilize the metagame for the sake of routine if something is clearly broken in the tier.

Okay, I've got another question: suppose a Pokemon that is currently BL goes to OU. Then, after 3 months, it goes off OU. Should it go to UU like all the other Pokemon, or should it go immediately to BL?

For example, suppose Abomasnow gets voted to become BL and then goes to OU by virtue of usage in July month. Then, three months after that, it isn't used that much anymore, and goes off OU. Should it go to UU, or should we immediately make it BL due to being already voted to become BL?

Unless things have dramatically changed, there's no need to retest. They have already been decided as too powerful for the UU tier. Once they are voted BL they should stay BL unless they make OU, and should not come back down unless it is decided in the future to do a retest of BLs in UU in general.

 

[X-Act]

Okay, in that case I'll need to change my 'tiering algorithm' a bit:

1. Generate the new OU list using the algorithm from the Standard ladder data.
2. Make a list of the Pokemon that are in the old OU list but are not in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'Old OU'.
3. Make another list of the Pokemon that are not in the old OU list but are in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'New OU'
4. Generate the new UU list using the algorithm from the UU ladder data.
5. For each 'Old OU' Pokemon, if it is in the 'Previously BL' list, add it to the BL list, otherwise add it to the new UU list.
6. Remove any Pokemon from the BL list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon. Also, add such Pokemon to the 'Previously BL' tier list.
7. Remove any Pokemon from the new UU list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon.
8. Issue new OU list, new BL list and new UU list.

This means that I would also need to keep track of a 'Previously BL' tier list that will remain invisible to everyone.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

Because No.3 is obviously the only consistent and fair option, no questions asked.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Considering that we just used option #3 on every single pokemon that "was OU but now isnt anymore", I don't see how we could possibly stray from that position.

Good question, though. It's always best to figure these things out beforehand.

 

[X-Act]

Just to be absolutely clear to everyone.

The 'Previously BL' list of Pokemon comprises those Pokemon that were in the BL list but were then moved to OU from 1st April 2009 onwards. This list is currently void.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Just to wonder... Why does Previously BL matter at all?

 

[darkie]

SDS, if a Pokemon moves to OU from BL by being used more in standard, if for whatever reason everyone stops using it, it would go back to BL, not UU. "Previously BL" is not a list of what used to be BL before the UU test. That is irrelevant. This is for newly voted BLs who suddenly increase and thereafter decrease in usage (if I'm understanding this correctly).

 

[X-Act]

The 'Previously BL' list matters because a Pokemon that was already voted for to be BL needs to get back to BL, and not to UU, if at some point it becomes OU and then slips off OU.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Option 3 is the only choice that makes any logical sense. There is no reason why pokes that just "happened to be OU" at the time we did the BL drop should be treated any differently than those pokes that "happened to be in BL but not on the OU list." There is nothing, zero justification for suggesting that something like Empoleon is inherently stronger in UU than say Raikou (or any other BL who got the chance to go straight to UU intially).

Also agreeing with Caelum about how Abamasnow would be treated in that situation. We should, over time (especially for consistancy), establish a BL list that is independant of OU status.

For instance we could/would have:

-Pokemon who are both on the OU list and have BL status (say if Abamasnow was voted BL, but then became OU based on Usage). If such a pokemon were to eventually lose OU status, it would still have BL status that would keep in out of UU.

-Pokes who have BL status but no OU status (say if Raikou were not OU, but voted BL, in which case BL status would keep it out of UU).

-Pokes who have OU status but no BL status (say Tentacruel). If such a pokemon were to fall from OU, it would go immediately to UU, and stay there until it either became OU again or was voted BL.

Essentially, ALL the current pokemon on the OU list are part of category 3, since none of them have had any testing. Even if say Tyranitar were to somehow fall out of OU, it's never been tested in UU, and therefore has no BL status, meaning it should go straight to UU.

Since we dropped BL, we re-defined BL (or are in the state of redefining it). We're making a completely new BL list. Thus, there ARE not "previously BL pokes" right now. There are "previously old BL" but that doesn't matter since we are only concerned with new BL.

Until we have an official vote, there currently are no pokemon who have BL status at all. I think it best we think of BL status and OU status completely separately.

BL status is 100% dependant on whether we vote it BL or not via suspect test.

OU status is 100% dependant on whether it gets proper usage in the standard environment.

 

[X-Act]

I'll be choosing option 3 obviously. If this wasn't clear from my previous posts, I apologize, but I'm making it clearer now.

So, yeah, I don't think this thread needs to stay open, since it has served its purpose. I'll leave it open though for a few more days.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Okay, in that case I'll need to change my 'tiering algorithm' a bit:

1. Generate the new OU list using the algorithm from the Standard ladder data.
2. Make a list of the Pokemon that are in the old OU list but are not in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'Old OU'.
3. Make another list of the Pokemon that are not in the old OU list but are in the new OU list. I'll call these Pokemon 'New OU'
4. Generate the new UU list using the algorithm from the UU ladder data.
5. For each 'Old OU' Pokemon, if it is in the 'Previously BL' list, add it to the BL list, otherwise add it to the new UU list.
6. Remove any Pokemon from the BL list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon. Also, add such Pokemon to the 'Previously BL' tier list.
7. Remove any Pokemon from the new UU list that is a 'New OU' Pokemon.
8. Issue new OU list, new BL list and new UU list.

This means that I would also need to keep track of a 'Previously BL' tier list that will remain invisible to everyone.

About the bolded part X-Act, why do we need to keep it invisible? To me the process you wrote up seems to over-complicate things.

Simply put, BL and OU are completely separate categories, with OU based on your usage model and BL based on the voting. Why not just keep the two lists intact and separate? IE, it's perfectly fine if pokemon are listed on both lists (that is, they have OU status but are also BL through testing in UU). I don't see any reason why a pokemon has to be kept in only one list.

To me, I think keeping the two ideas and two lists from having any affect on each other is the best route to remove confusion that people have all too much about the purpose of the two lists. A lot of members have bitched "you can't measure power." Well, in a sense, that's not true. "Too much power" means that it was kicked out from a lower tier based on the suspect test. Period.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

Chou, I agree with you completely, but I would like to add that the acquired BL status of a Pokemon should not be 100% set in stone. By this I mean that, if in the future it turns out that the UU metagame has changed enough to possibly make a BL Pokemon not so broken, then said Pokemon should be given a second chance in a new round of suspect testing, similar to how certain Ubers are being tested in OU right now.

I'm fairly sure that you agree with this policy anyway, and it is not directly relevant to X-Act's proposed algorithm, I am just stating it in addition to your last two sentences, which could be potentially misleading if taken too literally.

 

[Veedrock]

IE, it's perfectly fine if pokemon are listed on both lists (that is, they have OU usage but are also BL through testing in UU). I don't see any reason why a pokemon has to be kept in only one list.

This I do not agree with. There are already people complaining that "if an OU pokemon doesn't break UU, let it in UU anyways." That will only serve to bolster their argument because really it's no different ("why can't they be UU and OU?"). It opens the door for "allow every pokemon in UU." Technically Infernape isn't BL, so should it be listed as UU also "because it will be allowed there"?

A pokemon is only one tier. If it's OU, it's OU; if it's BL, it's BL. Being listed on OU is enough because it is still banned from UU; whether it's listed on site as BL doesn't change this, and its removal from BL does not indicate it's allowance into UU again.


And the 'retest if the metagame is different' policy is in effect I do believe.

If for whatever reason we suspect the metagame has changed so dramatically (I suspect this will never happen, but you never know, people could go nuts and stop using Tyranitar and have it be UU or something lol) that it might need reexamination we can do that.

 

[Chou Toshio]

No offense Veedrock, but that is ridiculous. Why? Because BL is not a tier.

BL and OU status are decided on completely different basis, so one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that a pokemon is OU has no pertenance whatsoever to whether it was tested for BL or not.

OU and UU on the other hand, are both decided on usage, which is why it makes no sense to let a pokemon exist in both. UU is a tier meant to use pokemon that don't get usage in OU. If you allow pokemon like Tentacruel that gets plenty of usage in OU, that totally removes the purpose of even having two separate tiers.

On the other hand, BL has nothing at all to do with that interaction. It is simply a ban list of pokes that were deemed to strong for UU.

In any case, allowing pokes to be listed in OU and BL does not open doors for arguments about, or have any pertenance to the relationship between OU and UU.

Functionally speaking, OU has nothing to do with BL whatsoever. BL only has pertenance to UU, and thus should be treated with no regard to OU.

 

[X-Act]

I have no problem whatsoever with listing a Pokemon as both OU and BL, though I'm sure this isn't what chaos intended with the tier lists. I'm pretty sure that chaos would be adverse to the idea, so I won't even bother asking him about it - you can if you want, though.

Veedrock's point is good. The only function of the OU list is to be a banlist for UU, just like BL. Okay, it can be used to have an approximate snapshot of the Standard metagame (and actually even this is debatable) but that's it. Both OU and BL are ban lists; one bans due to usage and the other due to voting.

And the UU tier is also a ban list - for the metagame below it. If there aren't any plans for a metagame using Pokemon outside of Uber, OU, BL and UU, I wouldn't have gone in the trouble of calculating the UU list for this month.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Well, if we're talking about the strategydex (which also serves to show the teiring of the various pokemon), sure if they are OU, they should be listed as OU. However, when you look to find a list of BLs, it should all those who have gone through testing and been banned, including the ones who may have OU status at any given time. My opinion anyway, that the lists should be kept visible and public.

That way if Abomasnow were to become OU and then fall to BL again, even people who were not involved with the test would know why Abomasnow is going straight to BL.

 

[X-Act]

About the BL list of all Pokemon voted to be there should be visible to the public, I have no qualms whatsoever. This shouldn't be visible directly from the tier lists of the site, though, but in some thread (probably stickied) in Stark Mountain. I'm sure chaos wouldn't like Pokemon to be in two tiers at the same time.