That is the reason why I mentioned the power scaling aspect. Weavile fell off because it lost some incredibly important tools, and so did Tyranitar so yeah, tough luck. Though Toxapex and Lando did as well, they lost tools most other Pokémon have also lost, so much so that they stayed OU. IF they get buffed and cross the line, well, I'm Gliscor hater #1 and the answer is simple: send them to Ubers. I'm not suggesting a full-stop on meta development, I'm suggesting a baseline to streamline suspect-testing and expectations when developing a meta.that can't be the way it works, because how do we decide what is and isn't the "identity of ou"? snorlax ran the meta in gen 1 (alongside chansey and tauros) and was the meta in gen 2, but it's steadily fallen off since then. should we tier based on it being an ou staple? what about magnezone, ou for 5 generations straight until this one? should we unban last respects and sand veil so tyranitar can be ou again? what generation are we using to "define" ou? gen 8, because it was the most recent? gen 7, the last gen before dexit and therefore the most diverse? gen 6, arguably the most well-balanced gen? gen 5, the last gen without introducing a new wacky generational mechanic (gems don't count, i'm talking "click a button and your pokemon emits light and does a zany thing")? gen 4, the first gen where the concept of "competitive pokemon" took off? why is any one of these better for shaping all other metas around specifically? and what happens if one of these "identity" mons is nerfed? for example, if heatran loses toxic, or lando-t loses defog and knock off, or weavile loses knock off and triple axel, or toxapex loses scald, all of which happened this gen? hell, what happens if one is buffed? like, say, if volcarona gains some sort of usable ground coverage, or gliscor gets spikes? should we refrain from banning them even if they're broken because they're long-time ou staples?
Heatran is a much better example - the dude has ended in OU in every generation since its release. Heatran has been OU since I started playing this game, and the only reason it briefly fell off this gen was due to obscenely overpowered stuff that have been banned due to quick tiering action, so there is precedent to taking action when it becomes power crept to hell and beyond. That is seventeen years in OU. That is closing on two decades. It is a decent starting point to define what is the power level within OU standards.
Oh yeah, I mostly agree with you on meta changes. There must be decisions on what is "OU" for every gen. Tusk would certainly be part of this one. The thing is there must be a starting point for the "what is OU" debate to at least solidify it in thought when balancing the game. The other option is to just wrestle endless power creep from an endlessly updating videogame. I intentionally chose Pokémon I have seen in OU ever since I started playing this game in gen 5 (and Toxapex because I think it fits the bill nicely enough). Most of those have been OU for thirteen years man. Heatran specifically has been OU for 17 years as I have mentioned above. That is seventeen years being meta-relevant enough to consistently hit more than 50% chance to be seen at least once in 20 battles on the ladder. (sic). With this in mind, the Fire/Steel frog is a great indicator of OU power levels over the decades. Plus, I'm a Heatran hater (excess RNG) and I won't elaborate further on this because the post is getting too long already.I'm ngl having OU defined by more or less artificial and biased tiering practices to keep the famous and beloved mons in OU is kind of asinine. The point of metas is that they change, each gen is a snapshot of that. Sure it's unfortunate that a lot of mons began to fall off, but could you imagine gen III OU being balanced around the idea that mons from tbe gen prior like Snorlax, Cloyster, Raikou, Nidoking and Golem, mons that have begun to fall off or have fallen off completely, being what tiering action is focused on, to maintain the pedigree and power these mons have? We all get attached to long-time competitive favorites, and seeing them fall off is unfortunate, but that's just how it is sometimes. Not to say that we should let a bunch of broken stuff roam around but I think having OU being defined by certain mons overall is just, questionable.
Now, if things fall due to meta conditions, they fall. Tyranitar fell because it lost some of its most important tools, as well as important teammates. Weavile fell because it lost a shitton of moves. Lando-T was about to fall because Gliscor (another decade-long OU staple) went over the curve of power creep and invalidated its presence.
--
All of that being said, I'm not gonna die on this specific hill lol - The hill I will defend is: there is a dire need to ponder and define what is OU - whatever the method (as long as it is efficient of course). Doing so will streamline suspect processes, define clear goals and expectations when making tiering decisions, and diminish the whiplash of the power creep clusterfuck we experience every time a DLC drops.