Tierlist Changes by Usage (October)

[gbwead]

The last Tierlist Update was on August 7. That was 2 months ago which means the next update should happen as soon as possible.
 
Link to all the changes:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hrvoVbnfqofzG-bqD_FUjpO60QURSKgG_zm3DqFPdGE/edit?usp=sharing
 
Moved Up: These Pokemon had usage which was above the 4.36% cutoff point. They will be moved up from their corresponding tiers. Each Pokemon's usage percentage for this cycle will be listed next to the Pokemon's name.
 
Moved from UU to OU:
Dusclops (8.04%)
 
Moved from NU to UU:
Misdreavus (4.92%)
Crobat (4.92%)
Ampharos (4.92%)
Blastoise (5.74%)
Gligar (6.56%)
 
 
Moved Down: These Pokemon had usage which was below the 4.36% cutoff point. They will be moved down from their corresponding tiers. Each Pokemon's usage percentage for this cycle will be listed next to the Pokemon's name.
 
Moved from UU to NU
Hypno (0.00%)
Claydol (3.28%)
Absol (4.10%)
 
[hr]
With 460 OU teams recorded, I have no problem with Dusclops getting moved back to OU with its 8.04% usage.
 
However, with only 122 UU teams recorded, I feel it would be wrong to make so many changes in NU: Misdreavus, Crobat, Ampharos, Blastoise, Gligar, Hypno, Claydol and Absol. Furthermore, those 122 UU teams were recorded when Rhydon was still in the tier with 24.59% usage and I am pretty sure we all agree that the tier has changed since then.
 
For this reason, I think we should gather more UU data - without Rhydon and Dusclops in the tier - before making any other changes. Rome wasn't build in one day, let's make this right XD

Edited October 9, 2015 by lamerb

[Noad]

I dont want these changes to happen before the end of this month, especially any changes to UU/NU with such shallow usage. There are a ton of UU tournaments coming out, also an OU plus the usage from Autumn League.

[DoubleJ]

Well technically we are going against protocol by not implementing these changes, and I would have to disagree. I think moving forward we need to implement something to ensure this doesn't happen again. Request a specific number of standards every 2 months would probably be the best bet. 

 

But I think we need to move forward with the changes. 

[gbwead]

Well technically we are going against protocol by not implementing these changes, and I would have to disagree. I think moving forward we need to implement something to ensure this doesn't happen again. Request a specific number of standards every 2 months would probably be the best bet. 

 

But I think we need to move forward with the changes. 

Beside Dusclops going to OU, I don't think we can really justify any of the other changes. Tier updates should somehow reflect reality. With Rhydon in UU with 24.59% usage, we don't have a good representation of the UU tier (or at least not an up-to-date representation).

Edited October 9, 2015 by lamerb

[DoubleJ]

But it's the policy we have in place to make this change.

[Robofiend]

Well technically we are going against protocol by not implementing these changes, and I would have to disagree. I think moving forward we need to implement something to ensure this doesn't happen again. Request a specific number of standards every 2 months would probably be the best bet. 

 

But I think we need to move forward with the changes. 

 

/agree

 

We did set up the rules like this, now it's time to follow em

 

I dont want these changes to happen before the end of this month, especially any changes to UU/NU with such shallow usage. There are a ton of UU tournaments coming out, also an OU plus the usage from Autumn League.

 

I think the changes in NU are good, seeing as the old NU council really didn't make any progress on tiering in the last two months. These changes (removal of Blasty/Amphy) are long overdue, and it's becoming more apparent to me that the lack of bans in NU hasn't really made for a more competitive tier. If all of these now UU pokemon were meant to be in NU then we'll see them back in the tier come December, altho I suspect Ampharos will continue to see more use in UU.

[OrangeManiac]

Yeah I agree that if rules are set those must be followed, however for future reference it would be cool to have some clause about such a low amount of usage gathered. Like 2 months is fine but unless there's less than x amount of tournaments played it will extend one more month. The only problem if something gets banned and usage resets.


Robo that comment of lack of competitiveness in current NU is not only unneeded but also untrue. You're allowed to think whatever you want about Ampha and Blastoise not eventually getting the boot but if you only because of that claim it's a not competitive tier then I have no idea what have you been playing/watching. I'm even inclined to go with Kaynine and buddies (I think it was) saying that there are other reasons of Ampha being used other than it destroys the meta and my personal experiences are closer to this now. The whole Ampharos thread was basically me asking if it is unhealthy and people are like "I mean, it's a great mon but doesn't seem all banworthy to me" and then Robo and Zebra comes in to tell "Yes it is".

But I digress.

Yeah make these changes because it's a rule and then instantly fix this policy.

Edited October 9, 2015 by OrangeManiac

[BurntZebra]

Yeah make these changes because it's a rule and then instantly fix this policy.

or just fix the policy first

[OrangeManiac]

or just fix the policy first

 

 

The problem with this is that we're giving ourselves an excuse to possibly "not follow the policies because we're not liking what we're seeing" (not what we're doing but anyways). However, I do like the fact there's not much movement from OU to UU and vice versa which means we wouldn't be waiting all tiering just because UU doesn't have many usage tournaments.

Edit: But I guess I'm all for stating that we'll extend the changes by usage because we're in so low of tournaments in UU and this month is full of those. I'd say we should wait until these UU tournaments are done and then fix the changes by usage and fix the policy regarding to this meanwhile.

I personally like 2 months but like I said, some clause of how many tournaments need to be included must be there.

Edited October 9, 2015 by OrangeManiac

[gbwead]

I think the changes in NU are good, seeing as the old NU council really didn't make any progress on tiering in the last two months. These changes (removal of Blasty/Amphy) are long overdue, and it's becoming more apparent to me that the lack of bans in NU hasn't really made for a more competitive tier. If all of these now UU pokemon were meant to be in NU then we'll see them back in the tier come December, altho I suspect Ampharos will continue to see more use in UU.

I would honnestly rather have Ampharos and Blastoise banned to BL2 instead of having them going back and forth (from UU to NU and then NU to UU).

 

[hr]

 

Following the policy blindly, even though we know there is a problem, does not make any sense to me. 

Edit: We would basically be saying: "Three weeks ago (September 20 i think), there was a UU tournament in which Rhydon was in 24.59% of teams and where Misdreavus was in 4.92% of teams. Since 4.92% is above 4.36%, Misdreavus will get ban."

 

Usage tiering is based on 2 factors:

1. The time between updates in order to let each tier evolve and adapt (we chose 2 months in the Meta-Tiering Discussion).
2. The data we collected. Usage tiering without any usage stats is not possible. (We did not consider this aspect when we did the policy).

Therefore, I really think it would be a mistake to go through with the changes in NU because we don't have any relevant data. Rhydon in UU is not a realistic representation of how the tier evolved and adapted over the past 2 months. 

 

The tierlist updates should happen every 2 months unless there is a lack of relevant data. If there is a lack in data, we simply wait until we get (let's say) 200 teams recorded.

Edited October 9, 2015 by lamerb

[Robofiend]

Yeah I agree that if rules are set those must be followed, however for future reference it would be cool to have some clause about such a low amount of usage gathered. Like 2 months is fine but unless there's less than x amount of tournaments played it will extend one more month. The only problem if something gets banned and usage resets.


Robo that comment of lack of competitiveness in current NU is not only unneeded but also untrue. You're allowed to think whatever you want about Ampha and Blastoise not eventually getting the boot but if you only because of that claim it's a not competitive tier then I have no idea what have you been playing/watching. I'm even inclined to go with Kaynine and buddies (I think it was) saying that there are other reasons of Ampha being used other than it destroys the meta and my personal experiences are closer to this now. The whole Ampharos thread was basically me asking if it is unhealthy and people are like "I mean, it's a great mon but doesn't seem all banworthy to me" and then Robo and Zebra comes in to tell "Yes it is".

But I digress.

Yeah make these changes because it's a rule and then instantly fix this policy.

 

Well I'm not saying it's exclusively Ampharos's fault, there's also the problems of Xatu, Haunter, Grumpig, and so on. I just feel like these four force the player's hand a lot, and that's not as competitive/healthy as having checks that actually dissuade you from running them (e.g. Absol). It's not like NU is anywhere near as bad as OU was/is :) Not meant to be a potshot at you guys necessarily, but it did seem that the "let it be and hope the meta evolves" mentality didn't really follow up on the second part of that promise. I'd rather just agree to disagree here, it's a moot point.

 

At the very least, I agree that we should consider fixing this rule. The only imminent problem I'm seeing is that if we do a "4 tourneys and then update" rule or something, we're eventually going to end up with changes happening all willy nilly, which isn't necessarily horrible, but Noad might not be down. 

[Artemiseta]

maybe adding to the rule that there neds to be at least 4 tourneys with the current meta... idk. this was a weird case that after Rhydon went there was nothing that I'm aware of, so we are running off of old usage data that may or may not reflect what the tier actually is

if we do move based on usage I would suggest putting it off until Monday or late Sunday night as 2 days notice with a  big NU going on is not fair to the players that they have to chance perhaps whole strategies

[DoubleJ]

How about we write in that a ban resets the usage period? For instance once the Rhydon ban was implemented, we'd start the usage period (2 months) from that day forward. I think we discussed this in comp alley like 3-4 months ago, but nothing ever happened.

 

Still though, I think we need to make this change but still implement the changes we have posted. This isn't because of the health of either OU, UU, or NU, but because it is our policy to do so.  

[Robofiend]

How about we write in that a ban resets the usage period? For instance once the Rhydon ban was implemented, we'd start the usage period (2 months) from that day forward. I think we discussed this in comp alley like 3-4 months ago, but nothing ever happened.

 

Still though, I think we need to make this change but still implement the changes we have posted. This isn't because of the health of either OU, UU, or NU, but because it is our policy to do so.  

 

Remember when we had that poll of "how long to wait" "when to reset usage" etc. ?

 

Yeah we already addressed that. The only difference is that the 2 month thingy can get messed up.

[BurntZebra]

We could also change the tier update to be every 3 months, although it's still possible to have a similar problem of usage, but less likely, and it might look kind of bad that we're changing our mind again on this.

In addition to this, we could have the quick drops that smogon has in their usage tier changes, where if a Pokemon is under a certain percentage (well below the cut off rate) , then it can get moved down at the two month mark (ie something like hypno that got 0 usage).

[gbwead]

I can't wait to look at the usage that was gathered recently.XD

I saw a few Zangoose and I wonder if he might go above the cutoff point.

I don't remember any Hypno, Claydol or Absol, so I guess they will most likely go down as expected.