The proposal: usage-based rises will NOT prevent existing Pokemon of a lower tier from being used in that tier, instead being displayed as NU-G when building an NU team if it has risen to RU.
This proposal is fundamentally different from the previously suggested convoluted and arbitrary veto-based-on-viability-rankings system because there is simply no need to ever remove a Pokemon if said Pokemon is deemed a healthy and integral part of an already existing tier (by not having been banned).
Chaos has explained the purpose of the usage-based system in detail. His ideal was/is to create a tier for every Pokemon to have a chance to shine, while not being overpowered in that tier. There is no problem if a Pokemon is a healthy addition to two tiers, quite the opposite. Removing functional parts of a tier does nothing for this end.
Forming tiers around usage stats is the golden standard. It is by far the simplest and most objective way of going about it. From there on out, Pokemon should be tested if they could be good additions to a lower tier in case they fall through the cracks (usage-based drops). Rises, however, serve no competitive purpose. Their primary function is to accurately display a Pokemon's usage in the respective tier. You can do this without pointlessly removing their ability to be used in tiers they were deemed balanced in. In case a Pokemon rises from NU by it's usage in RU (think Flygon), it can be given the RU rank, but still be allowed in NU through this new clause. To display their legality, I would suggest giving them the NU-G description. We already have a functioning, better system in place that gets rid of overpowered Pokemon, namely the banlists (NUBL in this case).
There is a reason why this discussion keeps popping up. Dedicated players of lower tiers recognize this obvious flaw with the current lower tier system and wish to solve it. I think the competitive integrity granted to lower tiers by this change would be well worth the tradeoff that people need to learn what NU-G stands for.
chaos a comment on this idea would be appreciated
This proposal is fundamentally different from the previously suggested convoluted and arbitrary veto-based-on-viability-rankings system because there is simply no need to ever remove a Pokemon if said Pokemon is deemed a healthy and integral part of an already existing tier (by not having been banned).
Chaos has explained the purpose of the usage-based system in detail. His ideal was/is to create a tier for every Pokemon to have a chance to shine, while not being overpowered in that tier. There is no problem if a Pokemon is a healthy addition to two tiers, quite the opposite. Removing functional parts of a tier does nothing for this end.
Forming tiers around usage stats is the golden standard. It is by far the simplest and most objective way of going about it. From there on out, Pokemon should be tested if they could be good additions to a lower tier in case they fall through the cracks (usage-based drops). Rises, however, serve no competitive purpose. Their primary function is to accurately display a Pokemon's usage in the respective tier. You can do this without pointlessly removing their ability to be used in tiers they were deemed balanced in. In case a Pokemon rises from NU by it's usage in RU (think Flygon), it can be given the RU rank, but still be allowed in NU through this new clause. To display their legality, I would suggest giving them the NU-G description. We already have a functioning, better system in place that gets rid of overpowered Pokemon, namely the banlists (NUBL in this case).
There is a reason why this discussion keeps popping up. Dedicated players of lower tiers recognize this obvious flaw with the current lower tier system and wish to solve it. I think the competitive integrity granted to lower tiers by this change would be well worth the tradeoff that people need to learn what NU-G stands for.
chaos a comment on this idea would be appreciated
Last edited: