Jump to content

UU Tier Discussion Request Thread


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

In all honesty, UU is a lot of fun right now after having messed around with teammates and played in the past couple tournaments. Today I proved that offense can win matches (with a bit of luck) and that the game isn't necessarily dominated by stall. Without Scizor, there is more room for normal SPAM, which may or may not be detrimental to the game right now.

 

CB Kangaskhan and SD Sneasel have both benefited greatly without Scizor, and both are very good at limiting the tiers nastiest walls (SpDef Kangaskhan, Slowking, Exeggutor, Vileplume, Altaria, Steelix, etc). To add to this, monsters like SD Zangoose (it was waiting for you jim) and DD Altaria are seeing a bit of a rise in usage as well with the evolution of this tier without Scizor sitting on the thrown. We've also seen a drop in Slowking use since Kangaskhan has become the one true wall to rule them all with toxic stall. 

 

So in the end, Scizor should stay banned as I can now see how detrimental it was to diversity and to the fluidity of the meta. Moving forward, I would suggest keeping an eye on Kangaskhan and Swellow, but right now neither seem to be broken since people are figuring out how to beat Kangaskhan and Swellow is still limited by Steelix and Omastar teams. 

Link to comment

In all honesty, UU is a lot of fun right now after having messed around with teammates and played in the past couple tournaments. Today I proved that offense can win matches (with a bit of luck) and that the game isn't necessarily dominated by stall. Without Scizor, there is more room for normal SPAM, which may or may not be detrimental to the game right now.

 

CB Kangaskhan and SD Sneasel have both benefited greatly without Scizor, and both are very good at limiting the tiers nastiest walls (SpDef Kangaskhan, Slowking, Exeggutor, Vileplume, Altaria, Steelix, etc). To add to this, monsters like SD Zangoose (it was waiting for you jim) and DD Altaria are seeing a bit of a rise in usage as well with the evolution of this tier without Scizor sitting on the thrown. We've also seen a drop in Slowking use since Kangaskhan has become the one true wall to rule them all with toxic stall. 

 

So in the end, Scizor should stay banned as I can now see how detrimental it was to diversity and to the fluidity of the meta. Moving forward, I would suggest keeping an eye on Kangaskhan and Swellow, but right now neither seem to be broken since people are figuring out how to beat Kangaskhan and Swellow is still limited by Steelix and Omastar teams. 

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think Kanga is a problem that warrants more than just keeping an eye on it. Sneasel hardly handles Kanga since it certainly can't switch in on any of its moves, and can't even 2hko with low kick (if jolly - btw, is anyone else surprised low kick only has 80 base power against kanga?)

 

252 Atk Sneasel Low Kick (80 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Kangaskhan: 90-106 (42.4 - 50%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
 
sneasel can go for the SD I guess, but this would require a clean switch into kanga with basically no prior damage
 
0 Atk Kangaskhan Double-Edge vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Sneasel: 103-123 (78.6 - 93.8%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
 
(i dk how much attack people are running on spdef kanga now, but I just used 252 hp 252 sp def)
 
And even then...
 
+2 252 Atk Sneasel Low Kick (80 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Kangaskhan: 178-210 (83.9 - 99%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
 
I think one of the ways I saw you combating the tanky kanga set today was with...another kanga. And we know that's a problematic solution. Plus, CB kanga is a lot more free to fire off normal spam now as you mentioned, and it still has the bulk to act as a pivot if need be. This versatility combined with its firepower certainly warrants a suspect thread, IMHO
Link to comment

 

I think one of the ways I saw you combating the tanky kanga set today was with...another kanga. And we know that's a problematic solution. Plus, CB kanga is a lot more free to fire off normal spam now as you mentioned, and it still has the bulk to act as a pivot if need be. This versatility combined with its firepower certainly warrants a suspect thread, IMHO

 

 

I don't argue that SpDef Kanga is a nasty nasty pokemon, but players are learning calcs. I'm seeing a lot more players staying in on Kanga and just delivering some damage which is really paying off dividends later in the match. Today I only ran Kangaskhan once and that was the CB set against Bluejim, otherwise I was pivoting bulky Exegg off of Kanga and baiting a Toxic for a free switch to a CB user. I patched up the Toxic weakness with Heal Bell Lanturn which was a beautiful poke for me throughout the tournament. Kanga is pretty weak and only becomes weaker when players choose Return over Double-Edge (rip Zebra). 

 

But in the end, ya, SpDef Kangaskhan with Early Bird poops on so many special attackers it isn't even funny. Wish is still a possibility too just to make the stall even worse when you remove that free switch in on a Rest turn. 

Link to comment

The major problem with kanga is its high speed base I think. If you switch in bulky cb attackers, it will probably ends up by Kanga hitting twice with a super effective move on the poke and kill it before it can do anything. I've seen some CB Steelix that can punish it once or twice, but without wish support they can come in that easily on earthquake. Granbull could be a switch in thanks to bulk and intimidate, but it can't outspeed, takes good damages on double edge and it is vulnerable to toxik. Omastar is a good switch in to set up spikes but toxik really hurts him. 

There's nothing that is really capable of taking advantage of a kanga switch in. I'm in favor of a suspect thread too

Link to comment

I see Kanga as pretty predictable - if it's low on health or status'd it's going to Rest and otherwise it'll probably Double Edge/Return to try to get some chip damage. But part of the problem is just how few pokemon actually have reasonably safe switch ins against it. Altaria could run a bulky set to abuse some of its attacks but it's still pretty niche, Vileplume or Steelix could sponge an attack or two, but nothing really punishes you for running Kangaskhan, which I see as inherently problematic. There ought to be at least a couple things that make you go "oh shit, maybe X wasn't the best idea for this team" in any metagame, and I really can't think of anything that makes you say that when running Kanga except really odd things like WoW Houndoom or Misdreavus - neither of whom are ever really seen and both of whom have some serious flaws.

 

I will say that Kangaskhan as a physical attacker is a little less cancerous than the wall variant - but not by much. Since it lacks special weaknesses its still hard for even the strongest of special attackers (Doom, Manec, etc.) to put holes in it, and there are so few viable Rock/Steel types (especially ones that don't die to EQ) that Kanga can pretty much afford to cover itself by running mixed offensive/defensive set with DE/EQ and Toxic/Rest - getting all of the benefits of being a wall without the drawbacks (mainly that its coverage attacks hit softly).

 

As far as I can tell, the ban train is leaving the station, choo choo. Too many people have suspected it for too long (both in and outside of TC) for us not to take a long hard look at it. As much as I like watching UU matches right now, I think that (test) banning Kangaskhan is both inevitable and likely informative about the health of the current metagame.

 

This is all assuming Scizor is actually going to be banned (I've voted in favor of doing so).

 

Last tangent: I actually really enjoyed that this Scizor test ban has lasted as long as it has - its given players a lot of time to develop new strategies, which rewards creative players like JJ, Toast, and Des. The players I've seen prosper the most in the last month have all built and refined new comps that have let them take advantage of holes in the "safe" defensive strategies that used to define the tier. It's worth saying some of this innovation has also been finding new ways to abuse Kangaskhan's natural strength, which is part of the reason I think it's worth focusing our energy on Kanga more than other threats like Swellow. 

 

EDIT: Oh good, the ban has been made public. Thought I'd cover my ass there because it's pretty obvious I knew what was going to happen lol.

Edited by Robofiend
Link to comment

Robo is right about how there are only a few pokemon available to punish Kanga's presence. There are only a few pokemon that I can come up with that can punish Kanga and those are CB Steelix (I'd like to take credits for coming up with it, Zebra stole mines), Misd / Sableye / Rest Chesto Armaldo.

 

Unlike other ground types, Steelix has coverage to punish all the walls, meaning that things like exeggutor / gligar can't wall steelix like they do for Donphan or other ground types. And since CB Steelix is (or was) mostly a surprise, it's quite successful in taking down a pokemon or two because the two surprising factors are that it's CB, which means that the incoming Vile / Slowking take a shit ton of damage, and that Steelix is faster which prevents the two walls from healing easily (outspeeding Vile / Slowking shouldn't come off as much of a surprise to good players). 

 

Misd can set up subs easily vs Kanga since it's unable to break them and this can potentially lead to a sweep if not for Houndoom (pls ban houndoom). Cradily can also stop it.

 

Sableye helps but gets screwed by toxic (having a cleric should solve this issue). Knock Off is quite essential because it serves its purpose in defeating a certain strat, like offensive pokemon lose their power with lack of choice band (assuming someone switches in a banded user onto it) or takes off lefties from Kanga or any other tank / wall which makes it more prone to faint. Before anyone says Sableye isn't viable, I can assure you that it is. . It's a much better choice than running Omastar / Steelix to wall Swellow because of how it also takes care of CB Lee, something that the others can't do. 

 

I saw Glumac run a bulky rest chesto Armaldo and while it's quite risky to play with this, it can actually pay off because of how it has good bulk and typing to allow itself to get a few boosts. While setting up, a switch into Breloom / Lee / Tentacruel by the opponent, can nullify all the effort you put into boosting yourself which makes running it a bit shitty.

 

I find offensive Kanga to be more dangerous, because apart from Sableye / Bulky Armaldo, there really isn't anything that can wall it. Even if its bulk is lesser, it still has enough to make most special attacks 3hkos.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

So just when UU was becoming fun again, OU goes and fucks it up by letting Vaporeon drop down and reintroducing Umbreon. 

 

Umbreon was on the brink of being banned to BL1 this past Summer, but it ended up getting the boot by usage before that decision was made. It had even been banned before, at least until the decision was reversed by the fascist tier council of last Spring. So, how many tournaments are we going to sit around on this thing before we realize its ability to stall out the meta is insane? If Psychic-types weren't viable before, they certainly aren't viable now. At least they can outspeed Umbreon, unlike Houndoom. 

 

And to move onto Vaporeon. At least I can see Umbreon possibly fitting into the current rendition of UU, but Vaporeon is so good I doubt it will have less than 45% usage from the get-go. Insane physical bulk, wish passing, a cleric, and to add 130 base special attack, Vaporeon is going to shit on any bulky steel or rock that might think they can stand up to Swellow or Fearow. Imagine Cradily on every team just so you can possibly handle Vap + Swellow. I'm not enthused and I think Vaporeon should be looked at very closely in its first couple tournaments down in UU.

 

 

tl;dr Umbreon is gross in UU; Vaporeon is going to be worse

Link to comment

I think we should have gotten a discussion thread on vaporeon before it even came down. Wasn't that the protocol with previous usage drops? (the blaziken/sceptile one comes to mind, where the community/council decided against blaze but allowed scept in for testing)

 

Umbreon I'm fine with because it wasn't banned on strength it's first time around (and unlike JJ I'm not convinced it would have been). But vapo, I can't see it sticking around for long

Link to comment

I think we should have gotten a discussion thread on vaporeon before it even came down. Wasn't that the protocol with previous usage drops? (the blaziken/sceptile one comes to mind, where the community/council decided against blaze but allowed scept in for testing)

 

Umbreon I'm fine with because it wasn't banned on strength it's first time around (and unlike JJ I'm not convinced it would have been). But vapo, I can't see it sticking around for long

 

I'm just curious why they didn't consider a quick ban on Vaporeon. Its stats and move-pool alone should warrant at least discussion on that. 

Edited by DoubleJ
Link to comment

I'm just curious why they didn't consider a quick ban on Vaporeon. Its stats and move-pool alone should warrant at least discussion on that. 

We did consider a quick-ban.

The Tier Council voting was heavily in favor for the quick-ban, but I decided that it should be best to have it at least tested before quick-banning based on only theorymon.

 

A Discussion thread about Vaporeon will be up soon.

Link to comment

We did consider a quick-ban.

The Tier Council voting was heavily in favor for the quick-ban, but I decided that it should be best to have it at least tested before quick-banning based on only theorymon.

 

A Discussion thread about Vaporeon will be up soon.

 

What was the result of the vote? If it was truly "heavily in favor of a quick-ban" then the decision to introduce it really shouldn't have been yours to make. The tier council wasn't put in place for one person to say "sorry guys, you're wrong". The tier council has the right to quick-ban something if they feel it is too strong and if they had a consensus vote. If they had the majority, then that vote should have stayed imo. 

Edited by DoubleJ
Link to comment

We did consider a quick-ban.

The Tier Council voting was heavily in favor for the quick-ban, but I decided that it should be best to have it at least tested before quick-banning based on only theorymon.

 

A Discussion thread about Vaporeon will be up soon.

I think that you will find the community as a whole would have agreed with the tier council solely on theorymon. Testing it will do more harm than good, since it's less time for us to get a clear picture of umbreon's effect* on the meta

Edited by Gunthug
Link to comment

Considering this is a usage based system, it's nice that the Tier Council is following basic policy. If Umbreon or Vaporeon are too strong, obviously it will be dealt with. There is no reason to quick ban pokemon because "UU was becoming fun again."

 

What was the result of the vote? If it was truly "heavily in favor of a quick-ban" then the decision to introduce it really shouldn't have been yours to make. The tier council wasn't put in place for one person to say "sorry guys, you're wrong". The tier council has the right to quick-ban something if they feel it is too strong and if they had a consensus vote. If they had the majority, then that vote should have stayed imo. 

What probably happened was they were all against it. Then, as time went on, they realized it's pretty irrational to throw quick bans around when they should be following the basic usage system. For both of these pokemon to get moved down, obviously a majority must've agreed on it.

 

tl;dr opinions change, policies dont

Edited by DrCraig
Link to comment

I think that you will find the community as a whole would have agreed with the tier council solely on theorymon. Testing it will do more harm than good, since it's less time for us to get a clear picture of umbreon's affect on the meta

I don't really see that much harm in testing it for 1-2 UU tournaments. Scenario A: Vaporeon is pretty powerful and is highly used and it just gets banned to BL after 1 or 2 UU tournaments. Scenario B: Vaporeon begins to fit well into the UU meta and fills the role of a wish passer that fits on an offensive team. It is powerful, but not too powerful, and vaporeon sticks around for longer than a few tournaments.

 

It's not like the vaporeon vote was heavily in favor of quickbanning it either. Two or three were in favor of quickbanning, three were in favor of testing for 1 or 2 UU tournaments, after they realized there wasn't much to lose in testing it. No 7th member, rip. 

 

Quick bans are the exception, not the rule, just like Senile said. Only slaking has been quickbanned at this point in time, and is still justified imo. If quick bans are overused, then the usage based tiering system can slowly turn into a power based system again just by assuming theorymon is always correct. When UU was first formed after hoenn, people were calling for bans on many pokemon, just because they were previously OU pokemon. Same goes for the formation of the NU tier, when people began calling it the UU tier, just because it had pokemon like ampharos, blastoise, muk, and hitmontop in it. 

Link to comment

Considering this is a usage based system, it's nice that the Tier Council is following basic policy. If Umbreon or Vaporeon are too strong, obviously it will be dealt with. There is no reason to quick ban pokemon because "UU was becoming fun again."

 

What probably happened was they were all against it. Then, as time went on, they realized it's pretty irrational to throw quick bans around when they should be following the basic usage system. For both of these pokemon to get moved down, obviously a majority must've agreed on it.

 

tl;dr opinions change, policies dont

 

Except that this is a pretty clear policy change, based on the last usage drops (Blaziken, Sceptile, and 1 more that I cannot remember. Medicham?)

 

I don't really see that much harm in testing it for 1-2 UU tournaments. Scenario A: Vaporeon is pretty powerful and is highly used and it just gets banned to BL after 1 or 2 UU tournaments. Scenario B: Vaporeon begins to fit well into the UU meta and fills the role of a wish passer that fits on an offensive team. It is powerful, but not too powerful, and vaporeon sticks around for longer than a few tournaments.

 

It's not like the vaporeon vote was heavily in favor of quickbanning it either. Two or three were in favor of quickbanning, three were in favor of testing for 1 or 2 UU tournaments, after they realized there wasn't much to lose in testing it. No 7th member, rip. 

 

Quick bans are the exception, not the rule, just like Senile said. Only slaking has been quickbanned at this point in time, and is still justified imo. If quick bans are overused, then the usage based tiering system can slowly turn into a power based system again just by assuming theorymon is always correct. When UU was first formed after hoenn, people were calling for bans on many pokemon, just because they were previously OU pokemon. Same goes for the formation of the NU tier, when people began calling it the UU tier, just because it had pokemon like ampharos, blastoise, muk, and hitmontop in it. 

Here's the problem - the 1-2 UU tournaments you just described, that's at least a month with the current tournament creation policy that's going on right now. Do we really wanna waste a month on a pokemon that is likely gonna end up too powerful for the tier?

However, 3-3 isn't exactly "heavily in favor" of a quick ban so I see your point there. But to say slaking is the only quick ban isn't really true - blaziken and medicham were both "quick banned" in that they dropped below OU usage but weren't brought down to UU. Why? Because three separate discussion threads were opened for all the "drops" before they were allowed to be used, and the community pretty unanimously expressed that blaziken and medicham would be too strong.

 

I'm nto saying vaporeon is on the level of blaziken or medicham, but I'm just saying, that's how it used to work.

 

 

edit: here's the language from the old blaziken thread

 

As you might have noticed, Blaziken has dropped in usage of OU and has now dipped below the cut-off point for OU. This means we'll be looking into whether if fits in the UU Tier or whether it will be banned to BL.

The UU Council feels like Blaziken might be too strong for the UU Tier, so we'd like to quickban it to BL. This thread exists to discuss whether the community agrees with us on this one.

 

and the link to the medicham thread https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/52975-uu-discussion-medicham-banned-to-bl/?hl=medicham

Edited by Gunthug
Link to comment

I don't really see that much harm in testing it for 1-2 UU tournaments. Scenario A: Vaporeon is pretty powerful and is highly used and it just gets banned to BL after 1 or 2 UU tournaments. Scenario B: Vaporeon begins to fit well into the UU meta and fills the role of a wish passer that fits on an offensive team. It is powerful, but not too powerful, and vaporeon sticks around for longer than a few tournaments.

 

It's not like the vaporeon vote was heavily in favor of quickbanning it either. Two or three were in favor of quickbanning, three were in favor of testing for 1 or 2 UU tournaments, after they realized there wasn't much to lose in testing it. No 7th member, rip. 

 

Quick bans are the exception, not the rule, just like Senile said. Only slaking has been quickbanned at this point in time, and is still justified imo. If quick bans are overused, then the usage based tiering system can slowly turn into a power based system again just by assuming theorymon is always correct. When UU was first formed after hoenn, people were calling for bans on many pokemon, just because they were previously OU pokemon. Same goes for the formation of the NU tier, when people began calling it the UU tier, just because it had pokemon like ampharos, blastoise, muk, and hitmontop in it. 

 

I agree with your last statement about Quick Bans, this is and should be true, but what I'm miffed about in your comment is the statement that "vaporeon will be banned after 1-2 tournaments" if its proven to be "pretty powerful and highly used". When has this rendition of the tier council ever made a decision that quickly? For goodness sake you took nearly half a year to decide on Chansey when there was really no evidence to ban it whatsoever aside from a handful of players calling it cancer. 

 

And from what I was told, the quick ban was voted 5:1, with you being the only person in favor of Vaporeon in UU. 

Link to comment

I agree with your last statement about Quick Bans, this is and should be true, but what I'm miffed about in your comment is the statement that "vaporeon will be banned after 1-2 tournaments" if its proven to be "pretty powerful and highly used". When has this rendition of the tier council ever made a decision that quickly? For goodness sake you took nearly half a year to decide on Chansey when there was really no evidence to ban it whatsoever aside from a handful of players calling it cancer. 

 

And from what I was told, the quick ban was voted 5:1, with you being the only person in favor of Vaporeon in UU. 

How can we take council members seriously when they are lying to our faces and hidding everything from the community since day1. I really think the community should hold a stronger place in the deccisions since we are a small community and people need to be heard. As it is right now when someone tries to discuss something he is immidiatly shut down from a tier council member and is then not inclinned to discuss further more because they are talking with walls that have no place to talk in the first place. I think tier council members should voice their oppinions once on the matter and then let the community speak themselves without having someone intervene every post shutting down what everyone is saying. Theres no respect for the common pvp player as it is right now, and the tier council has too much power for their own sake. 

Link to comment

Except that this is a pretty clear policy change, based on the last usage drops (Blaziken, Sceptile, and 1 more that I cannot remember. Medicham?)

 

Here's the problem - the 1-2 UU tournaments you just described, that's at least a month with the current tournament creation policy that's going on right now. Do we really wanna waste a month on a pokemon that is likely gonna end up too powerful for the tier?

However, 3-3 isn't exactly "heavily in favor" of a quick ban so I see your point there. But to say slaking is the only quick ban isn't really true - blaziken and medicham were both "quick banned" in that they dropped below OU usage but weren't brought down to UU. Why? Because three separate discussion threads were opened for all the "drops" before they were allowed to be used, and the community pretty unanimously expressed that blaziken and medicham would be too strong.

 

I'm nto saying vaporeon is on the level of blaziken or medicham, but I'm just saying, that's how it used to work.

 

 

edit: here's the language from the old blaziken thread

 

 

 

 

and the link to the medicham thread https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/52975-uu-discussion-medicham-banned-to-bl/?hl=medicham

1-2 tournaments is still 1-2 tournaments, even if it is stretched out over a month. The competitive play that happens in vermilion isn't really a major concern to the current tiering method either. Even unofficials are fairly uncommon for UU, basically only one per week, which is similar to how officials are organized. I do hope that we can get two UU tournaments soon to actually test the meta, so we don't end up having something like the scizor test ban where it took 3 months to get 5 tournaments. 

 

Ah you're right, I was forgetting about medicham and blaziken. Here's the main distinction between medicham/slaking/blaziken and vaporeon. The first three could easily be identified as offensive uber, as they had huge sweeping capabilities and little to no counters. Vaporeon, however, is not clearly offensive, defensive, or support uber. It could potentially be overcentralizing or unhealthy, and therefore, it warrants a test. 

 

 

I agree with your last statement about Quick Bans, this is and should be true, but what I'm miffed about in your comment is the statement that "vaporeon will be banned after 1-2 tournaments" if its proven to be "pretty powerful and highly used". When has this rendition of the tier council ever made a decision that quickly? For goodness sake you took nearly half a year to decide on Chansey when there was really no evidence to ban it whatsoever aside from a handful of players calling it cancer. 

 

And from what I was told, the quick ban was voted 5:1, with you being the only person in favor of Vaporeon in UU. 

 

Well our main goal is for it to not end up being another case of rhydon+charizard where the UU tier council managed to delay the banning of them for 3 months. I don't think banning it in a timely manner should be an issue, if indeed it is banworthy. I'll definitely make an effort to play and watch the UU tournaments and I hope the other tier council members do the same, so we can reach a speedy decision.

 

Tier council making a final decision on not banning chansey is a lot different than deciding to ban a pokemon. Tier council not making a final decision on chansey had no impact on the meta at all, and still allowed people to freely discuss their thoughts on chansey on the forums. I also believe you were one of the people calling chansey cancer.

 

Originally the vote was 6-0 in favor of quick banning vaporeon, but I changed my vote when I realized that the ban couldn't truly be justified. Soon after, other tier council members began second guessing their vote and were somewhat in favor of a short test for vaporeon. One tier council member hasn't voiced their opinion really and one is still sticking to their original vote. A more accurate vote is 2 in favor of testing vaporeon, 2 are not really sure still but don't see too much harm in it, 1 still quick ban, 1 is relatively inactive in discussion currently. 

Link to comment

How can we take council members seriously when they are lying to our faces and hidding everything from the community since day1. I really think the community should hold a stronger place in the deccisions since we are a small community and people need to be heard. As it is right now when someone tries to discuss something he is immidiatly shut down from a tier council member and is then not inclinned to discuss further more because they are talking with walls that have no place to talk in the first place. I think tier council members should voice their oppinions once on the matter and then let the community speak themselves without having someone intervene every post shutting down what everyone is saying. Theres no respect for the common pvp player as it is right now, and the tier council has too much power for their own sake. 

If you are going to check the discussion threads and then come here and say the Tier Council members don't publicly voice their opinions, you are a liar. Most threads even quote private discussion.

Edited by DrCraig
Link to comment

1-2 tournaments is still 1-2 tournaments, even if it is stretched out over a month. The competitive play that happens in vermilion isn't really a major concern to the current tiering method either. Even unofficials are fairly uncommon for UU, basically only one per week, which is similar to how officials are organized. I do hope that we can get two UU tournaments soon to actually test the meta, so we don't end up having something like the scizor test ban where it took 3 months to get 5 tournaments. 

 

Ah you're right, I was forgetting about medicham and blaziken. Here's the main distinction between medicham/slaking/blaziken and vaporeon. The first three could easily be identified as offensive uber, as they had huge sweeping capabilities and little to no counters. Vaporeon, however, is not clearly offensive, defensive, or support uber. It could potentially be overcentralizing or unhealthy, and therefore, it warrants a test. 

 

 
 

Well our main goal is for it to not end up being another case of rhydon+charizard where the UU tier council managed to delay the banning of them for 3 months. I don't think banning it in a timely manner should be an issue, if indeed it is banworthy. I'll definitely make an effort to play and watch the UU tournaments and I hope the other tier council members do the same, so we can reach a speedy decision.

 

Tier council making a final decision on not banning chansey is a lot different than deciding to ban a pokemon. Tier council not making a final decision on chansey had no impact on the meta at all, and still allowed people to freely discuss their thoughts on chansey on the forums. I also believe you were one of the people calling chansey cancer.

 

Originally the vote was 6-0 in favor of quick banning vaporeon, but I changed my vote when I realized that the ban couldn't truly be justified. Soon after, other tier council members began second guessing their vote and were somewhat in favor of a short test for vaporeon. One tier council member hasn't voiced their opinion really and one is still sticking to their original vote. A more accurate vote is 2 in favor of testing vaporeon, 2 are not really sure still but don't see too much harm in it, 1 still quick ban, 1 is relatively inactive in discussion currently. 

 

 

I was definitely one of those people calling Chansey cancer, but you have protocol in place to assess something and that protocol should have been followed with a decision being made a long, long time ago. Nevertheless, that's not here nor there. 

 

The matter of a Vaporeon quick-ban comes down to the chronic problem of the tier council having an easier time banning offensive threats rather than defensive threats. What qualifies a defensive uber? Well something that counters or checks the majority of the tier. With its speed, access to Wish + Protect, incredible defensive bulk, and ability as a cleric, Vaporeon easily fits the defensive uber characteristic in UU. The only outright answers to Vaporeon in UU are Manectric (can't OHKO), Ampharos (gets warn down by spikes and Surf), and I guess maybe special def Vileplume since Vap's high special attack really hurts Vileplume with Ice Beam

 

0 SpA Vaporeon Ice Beam vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Vileplume: 86-102 (47.2 - 56%) -- 17.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
 

Idk, you guys can do what you want I guess. Is there even a set in stone cycle to make updates on usage in game, or did you notice that Vap and Umbreon both could get moved down at this point in time so  you said, ok lets do it now?

Link to comment

If you are going to check the discussion threads and then come here and say the Tier Council members don't publicly voice their opinions, you are a liar. Most threads even quote private discussion.

that is not what I am saying. Read or tell me what part is unclear so I can clarify it. 

 

Edit: actually ill crarify, when big moves are happening their is no input what so ever or even a hint on whats gonna happen to the community. Just take this vaporeon move down to UU, sure people may have seen the statistics, but there was no thread oppened to discus it. And since we can't post on the statistic threads nobody coulda said anything. And Its the job of the council to provide the community a place to talk, not the other way around. Also, when the big 8-9 were unbanned from OU, nobody had a clue this was happening and there again, no body got a place to talk about whats gonna happen. All im saying is, things happen in the shadow and after they happen even if 99% of the community were against it, its too late and can't be reverted. 

Edited by LionKIng
Link to comment

that is not what I am saying. Read or tell me what part is unclear so I can clarify it. 

How can we take council members seriously when they are lying to our faces and hidding everything from the community since day1. I really think the community should hold a stronger place in the deccisions since we are a small community and people need to be heard. As it is right now when someone tries to discuss something he is immidiatly shut down from a tier council member and is then not inclinned to discuss further more because they are talking with walls that have no place to talk in the first place. I think tier council members should voice their oppinions once on the matter and then let the community speak themselves without having someone intervene every post shutting down what everyone is saying. Theres no respect for the common pvp player as it is right now, and the tier council has too much power for their own sake. 

Alright, slower then. The pokemon being moved down should not be discussed, mostly because this is a usage based system. The time at which they get moved down is fucked because as all of you know there was an issue with usage. Everybody knows that, looking at you JJ. Thank god we atleast got a usage cycle done, and this is not completely the Tier Council's fault. Blame staff. The problem with the discussion threads and discussion requests is the lack of structure. There's not many clear ways to refuse a discussion request without.. discussing it. Also this isn't a place for complaining and shit posting, which it now is. :) You're right, the discussion request system lacks any structure and this is why this thread looks like it does.

Edited by DrCraig
Link to comment

Alright, slower then. The pokemon being moved down should not be discussed, mostly because this is a usage based system. The time at which they get moved down is fucked because as all of you know there was an issue with usage. Everybody knows that, looking at you JJ. Thank god we atleast got a usage cycle done, and this is not completely the Tier Council's fault. Blame staff. The problem with the discussion threads and discussion requests is the lack of structure. There's not many clear ways to refuse a discussion request without.. discussing it. Also this isn't a place for complaining and shit posting, which it now is. :) You're right, the discussion request system lacks any structure and this is why this thread looks like it does.

OK so if I get this right, the council knows whats gonna happen and they can have a vote on quick banning stuff, but the community has to be in the dark during the whole process and then when it comes to light  theres nothing we can do or say because its too late? thats your taught process? thank god you are no longer a member of the tier list council because seriosuly you have no idea of what you were doing. And in the first place you have no idea of what pokemon do either, all you ever did was take what people told you ingame and tell em on the forums. 

 

 

The big 8 comming down was a dissaster and even if the council was against it and didnt want it to happen it hapenned because a single individual made it happen. Is this democracy or fking tyrany? The tier list council is a mafia ran by 1-2 people and then theres sheep everywhere agreeing with was is said even if they are against it. This is probably why I got refused 3 times, becuase they didnt want their little mafia undiscovered. Why should 7 people , wich some of them have no idea of what they are doing or talking about should decide the faith of everything that everyone has to use, You say tiering by usage but I say it doesnt work like that. Pokes get moved up without second guessing, but when a poke gets moved down it is already 100% sure its going back up. Anyways I don't even know what else to add, im just really mad at whats been happening for the past year in this council. 80% of decisions were biased by some of the council members, and they did more harm than good. If im the only one voicing out my anger towards the decisions being made and poitong fingers so be it. I have no problem taking the blame for what I say, But I can assure you, people in the dark that are afraid to speak their voice because every time they do, their post gets removed, those people think like me. I'll be the big boy and be the voice of the community like ive been for a fair amount of time.

Link to comment

OK so if I get this right, the council knows whats gonna happen and they can have a vote on quick banning stuff, but the community has to be in the dark during the whole process and then when it comes to light  theres nothing we can do or say because its too late? thats your taught process? thank god you are no longer a member of the tier list council because seriosuly you have no idea of what you were doing. And in the first place you have no idea of what pokemon do either, all you ever did was take what people told you ingame and tell em on the forums. 

 

 

The big 8 comming down was a dissaster and even if the council was against it and didnt want it to happen it hapenned because a single individual made it happen. Is this democracy or fking tyrany? The tier list council is a mafia ran by 1-2 people and then theres sheep everywhere agreeing with was is said even if they are against it. This is probably why I got refused 3 times, becuase they didnt want their little mafia undiscovered. Why should 7 people , wich some of them have no idea of what they are doing or talking about should decide the faith of everything that everyone has to use, You say tiering by usage but I say it doesnt work like that. Pokes get moved up without second guessing, but when a poke gets moved down it is already 100% sure its going back up. Anyways I don't even know what else to add, im just really mad at whats been happening for the past year in this council. 80% of decisions were biased by some of the council members, and they did more harm than good. If im the only one voicing out my anger towards the decisions being made and poitong fingers so be it. I have no problem taking the blame for what I say, But I can assure you, people in the dark that are afraid to speak their voice because every time they do, their post gets removed, those people think like me. I'll be the big boy and be the voice of the community like ive been for a fair amount of time.

I mean, I was agreeing with you and I still am to an extent. I don't support quick bans for the reason you stated earlier. I do agree with usage based moves, but discussion threads need to be made more readily. Like potentially in UU's case right now.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.