So I was about to write up yet another lengthy, somewhat ranty article about Qwilfish (everyone's favorite, I know), and how it should probably be moved up to B/B+ in light of the tier changes. But then something struck me.
The UU metagame is in a constant flux at the minute. With changes happening at a fairly rapid rate as well as the scale of the changes being enormous at this point (e.g. six pokes being moved out of the tier at once, etc), there's going to be a ton of shifting in viability. This is expected. As you can see over the last two pages, the vast majority of it focuses around A-ranked and S-ranked pokes and their shifting between it due to the moving of top-tier threats. This, as well, is expected, and just. It is the primary duty of the thread to show how top-tier threats react to the changes and how viable they are in the metagame.
However, the B and C ranked threats have not seen, and probably will not see, any change from the tier shifts. It's quite honestly unrealistic to go through every single B and C rank and adjust it to a + or a - based on the banning of Salamence or Klefki; we just don't have the resources in terms of manpower and sample size, and it's also rather useless, as the next shift of drops/bans will once again shift their respective viabilities.
As such, isn't it slightly misleading to have +/neutral/- delineations in B and C rank? It's sort of undeniable that those rankings are incredibly subjective, and most of them are relatively outdated on the micro scale. The recent changes alone were so incredibly polarizing themselves that most of the things in the lower B and C rankings would almost certainly shift up a rank or down a rank.
In a balanced metagame that has existed for a long time, in which suspect tests occur occasionally and only have one poke in them, it's perfectly acceptable to assume this kind of precision in viability. However, it's slightly misleading for people who read the original thread and assume that the standards of precision that we've set ourselves are constantly met. Rather than show an unrealistic ability to delineate lower-tier threats to this extent in such a rapidly changing metagame, it makes more sense to temporarily eliminate the + and - rankings from all but the A tier.
If the general consensus is against the idea expressed in this post, however, you can expect a lovely, long rant about why Qwilfish just got a whole lot better, coming soon to theatres near you.
I have to get to class, so I'll make this brief. By the way, that's one of the best posts in this thread, so give yourself a pat on the back.
While I agree with everything you said, it's equally pointless to unformat everything. In a general sense, the +- rankings are correct (albeit for like 30% due to tier shifts). The only downside, as you mentioned, would be new players being mislead by the rankings. To be perfectly honest, most people don't even use Pokemon under the A- rank, let alone B+ rank. So the actual effects of me killing the formatting are probably very slim. Even further, there's a clear difference between B+ and B rankings, so there's some evidence to support the theory that it could actually help. It's all subjective I suppose.
I liked your post though, and should be a template for what every poster in this thread should strive towards.











