The official tiers for the month of March (the cut-off between OU and UU being 4%): For OU/UU lists, see the Generation 5 Tier List. Dream World stats found here Wifi stats found here In DW, only Erufuun and Ludicolo dropped to UU and 5 became OU: Blissey, Lucario, Swampert, Togekiss and Venusaur. In Wifi, Charizard, Espeon and Ludicolo dropped to UU and nothing became OU. Nothing major happened, no important threat dropped to UU and the ones who became OU (DW) can be easily replaced. But it looks like ST Shandera 1 month ban helped Pokemon like Lucario, Swampert and Venusaur to gain usage in OU, if Shandera stays in OU we'll probably see them drop again. For LU, we're not sure about the cutoff, but currently a cutoff of 3% seems to represent UU well as well as banning enough Pokémon in order to cover efficiently the fully evolved pokemons with the future NU tier. Feel free to discuss the cutoff for LU, will be implemented in a day or two with 3% if there's no major reason not to.
I'm okay with 4% as a cut off for LU to begin with. That would make 39 UU mons in DW and 41 mons in Wifi. Fairly diverse and its as simple as lowering the cutoff if its wanted. I mainly want 4% so I can use Gallade and Tangrowth in LU though ;)
I don't feel that a 3% cut-off for LU is nessecary. If we have a large banlist, then so be it. I see no reason to make the tiering system more complicated just to meet a few presupostions of the power level of a new tier.
By power level it was meant that all the pokemon in the banlist did well in UU (well most of them), nothing was assumed on LU. But since they do well in UU, it makes sense to place them in the UU tier and so leave them out of the LU tier.
I believe a lot of the pokemon between 3% - 4% are actually quite viable in LU, so why don't we start with 4%? If it doesn't work, we may still lower it. And Nice work Bad Romance.
A huge number of things below them work well in UU as well; (these are all WiFi) Cresselia, Wobbufet, Teshiido, Celebii, Aerodactyl, Quagsire, Zoroaark, Gligar, Slowking, and I can keep going too, in many past tiers there were things in UU or NU that worked fine in the OU or UU tier anyway (in ADV and GSC these were mostly banned to BL). If the community feels that the top 15 or so are broken, then so be it; changing the cut-off to meet the pre-supposed power level is unnessecary and simply confuses newcomers even more. Pre-banning them via the use of the cut-off point is completely against the whole point of suspect tests, and really cuts the community out of many good discussions on these suspects. Also, changing the cut-off point seems to be more of an underhanded way to make a loophole past the rules of tiers; that they are based on usage, not power.
how about 2.5% cut off, that would achieve the pokemon is in one of every 40 teams, that would also remove many treaths that people is discussing are overpowered (like chansey) and allow more diversity in the metagame
Firstly I'm a bit confused with LU. Are there going to be two tiers(LU Wifi and LU DW) or just one? Personally I do not know what I would prefer, as I'm likely to play both, but considering the fact that the tiers' players will be made up mostly of UU players, dividing the player-base may prove a problem. Anyway, personally, I am in favor of a 4% cutoff point, mainly because of the pokes that 3% eliminates from LU. Pokemon which are of great utility, such as spinners(Claydol for Wifi and Blastoise for DW) are in between 3-4%. From what it looks like now, it's going to be quite easy to get hazards up in LU and not having any good spinners to get rid of them seems like it's going to be a problem. Obviously there are things in that margin that are most likely going to be banned(Staraptor), but I am not against a large banlist, even though I do not think it will be all that large compared to UU's. I believe that the choice of the cutoff point is a fairly subjective issue really. In my opinion, the ideal situation would be to take a vote on it so that as large a group of people can be pleased with the result as possible, but seeing as there's a fairly small group of players that really participate in this subforum, even a vote may not portray accurately the will of those who desire to play LU.
Allowing more diversity into the metagame is not a valid reason for anything. If it was, Shandera would have been banned by now. Also, Chansey, Azelf, etc would also have to be banned in UU.
I think UU will be too big which may lead to a bigger BL. NU looks to be really weak this gen (I don't have a problem with that).
no not espeon why espeon we already had xatu why espeon aaaaaaaaaa also thanks. also expressing my disbelief that terrakion hasn't been used enough to get out of UU. shit, p-o, get it together
Of course a good numbers of things below the 3% cutoff work in UU, if we take in consideration all the usable PoKemon in UU the cutoff will be too low. With the 3% cutoff we try to have a reasonable number of Pokemon that represent the power in UU: 70 in Wifi (Counting Charizard, Espeon and Ludicolo) and 62 in DW (Counting Ludicolo and Erufuun). Maybe 62/70 looks like it is too much, but if you take a look at the statistics carefuly you'll see all the 64/70 Pokemon are really usable in UU. Even with this "big" UU tiers LU still have a great variety of Pokemon to develop a enjoyable Metagame. We are not changing the cutoff, we are trying to find the one that fits with the current statistics, in the same way the OU cutoff was decided. There is not a "standard" cutoff. LU WIfi and LU DW will be two different tiers, in the same way UU Wifi and DW UU. LU Wifi will use UU Wifi stats and LU DW will use UU DW stats to define the Pokemon available in each tier. The cutoff won't affect the size of the BL tier. To end with this post I'm going to quote the OP
I do think a 3% cutoff could be a good idea, because UU is a highly competitive tier w/r/t usage. My main issue is that there are a LOT more powerful/overpowered pokemon in the 2-2.99% boundary than there are in the 3-3.99% boundary. I really do hope people are less stupid with usage this month.
'with regard to'. and there's little disputing that pokemon like Cresselia, Shubarugo, Aianto, Crobat, Staraptor, Shelgon, Meloetta, Machamp, Flygon, Empoleon, Toxicroak, Celebi, Snorlax, Tangrowth are big threats throughout the UU metagame. All of these pokemon have fallen under the 3% mark in the past 2 months. Many have edged very close to falling below the cutoff line when rising above it. Most if not all of this list is a significantly bigger threat than Rhyperior, Deoxys-D (to a lesser extent than the others in this list), Blastoise, Enbuoo, Kirikizan, Sceptile, Honchkrow, Venomoth, all of which were above 3% last month.
I looked at the usage. I cannot see what you're saying. The only GOOD poke i saw in the 2-2.99% margin was Celebi. Honestly, using 2% as a cutoff will defeat the purpose of making an LU tier, as UU will then have 108 pokemon in it. Please try to keep in mind that we're making a tier ABOVE NU, NU will have the weaker pokemon. EDIT: Are you talking about DW?
I hadn't checked WiFi stats, actually, perhaps I should have. I generally found that DW was a better indication of what is happening in the metagame. See my above post for all the threats I found between 2 - 2.99%.
Still, none of those are clearly broken. It's only natural that LU will have a decent power level, as UU has one as well. Shifting the cutoff so that we have 100+ pokemon in UU is not the way to go. It defeats the purpose of creating LU all together. Most of the threats you mentioned are probably going to be LU anyway, so NU will be the tier that will be rid of them.
Wow Awesome espeon and Eruffun drop to UU,Im gonna use both of these guys, :) But Suicune,Azlef/chansey stay on UU? oh well we cant have all but good work guys
Looking again i think the power level is good, a bigger ban list than UU is going to be needed because a some overpowered pokemon fo LU may drop, there are still going to be spiners in LU since there is Blastoise, donphan, hipmontop, etc..., but i gotta say that the theaths are not the biggest, and the only difference between tiers i see is terakion and venusaur, i'm gonna miss bronzong and kojondo, but is not like the top pokes in UU are being banned so i'm still thinking, What's gonna be the biggest difference between LU & UU?
maybe not clearly broken for UU, with the possible exception of Cresselia. but all of them are top threats in the UU tier even though the usage doesn't reflect it. it's either gonna be a whole other level in LU or they're gonna be unstoppable.
Well, once UU gets stable, I think the usage will affect it, so I think we're ok at 3% for now. We'll see how UU goes (due to Erufuun and Espeon's drop, Shandera coming back making Lucario etc leave)
All three of those are UU. All the viable spinners are OU or UU. LU is left with Armaldo, Furijio, hitmonchan, Torkoal, Delibird etc.
I disagree, 70 (and 62) pokemon aren't really representative of the UU tier, the 10 or so pokemon that aren't used enough to make it with 4% don't really represent the power level of UU. Pokemon like Hihidruama, Milotic, and Chansey respresent its power. Most of the pokes are either outclassed (Ryperior, Stelix), the niche they have is too small (Venomoth, Empoleon), or they are easily Walled (Raikou, Rotom, and Empoleon again). These are the same charactoristics that every UU or BL pokemon has shared since RBY. Obviously LU would have a great variety, simply due to the 300 some usable pokemon this Generation. Sorry, I assumed when we changed the OU cut-off we were doing for all the tiers (like last gen). But I simply find that having different cut-offs for each tier is unneccarily confusing. Also <3 Espeon!
If you really insist, the cutoff could be moved up to maybe 3.5 or 4%, but think about the consequences of the huge number of pokemons that wouldn't be usable in any tier if we make too small tiers. (The reason we created LU is to cover more pokemon...) So think it through if you want to make a changed to the cutoff. To be honest UU is more diversified than OU and that's why a lot more pokemon are usable in UU, and so the cutoff is lower.
I have thought it through, and I don't believe that it matters, no matter how small we make LU artificially, there will be NU pokes that won't be used. Keeping the cut-off at 4%, will add 25 Pokemon to the tier (in WiFi) to LU, I am fairly certain (I don't have any presuppositions about it, but just am educated guess) that at least 10 of those will be banned. The 15ish left would obviously raise the power level, but many may actually raise a couple into would be NUs into LU, and will probably lower another few. Overall I can't see more than 10 Pokemon (of which I see a few being baned early) falling into NU. I'm sorry to all those who want to use Butterfree, Audino, Maractus, Pigeot, Rattacate, or Watchog, but it won't come from this NU. If you want to use them, I suggest you try a more bottom's up approach (start with the worst and add upward). About your second statement. UU mostly certainly isn't (and doesn't have to be) more diverse than OU (in WiFi, in DW I'm not entirely sure as I don't play DW OU often anymore) and it doesn't have to be. That preconception is from UUs past. UU does not have to be more diverse than OU. Now, after all the suspects are banned, this may change and it probably will, but the point still stands. Also, I think you missed, or more likely I didn't emphasize, one of the larger pint as to why we shouldn't change (relocate or whatever) the cut-off is the confusion it will cause. A lot of people can barely grasp how tiers work (some can't); it would only make it more confusing to add an exception to the usual "if it doesn't hit this usage mark it is no longer in the tier" idea that most people simplify tiers as being. Now the rule would have to be "if it doesn't hit this usage mark in OU, or this usage mark in UU, or this usage mark in LU, then it is no longer in the tier". This is much more confusing. So having the extremely obvious "let's compromise at 3.5%" idea, simply won't work because having any change in the Drop-off point will simply murk up the already poor understanding of the tiering system. So this change (relocation or whatever word you'd like to use) in the tiering system is both unnecessary and confusing, I see no reason to go through with it outside of having less suspects in the tier (though theoretically these Pokemon could actually check the suspects already in the tier thus leading to less suspects)
Just want to say that this is not a preconception at all. If you look at OU's stats and UU's stats you'll see that UU is more diverse than OU, in february. And in my opinion Gen 4's UU is centralized, so I can't see how it could be a preconception at all. If you look at smogon's page it's extremely confusing in the first place. You have to have a really good understanding and math capabilities to even understand the cutoff is 3.41%, it took me time to figure it out. It's not really confusing to say that the cutoff in OU is 4% and that in UU it's 3%.
Actually, that is not true. WiFi OU has 46 pokemon above the 4% mark, while WiFi UU has 41. You may be talking about the high percentages in the top 10, but what that is not a lack of diversity, but the presence of centralization. The confusion over the cut-off point was caused by the faulty stat collecting system. If the system worked correctly (or at least in a different manner) the cut-off was a simple 1 in 20 battles or 5%. Try explaining that to a "noob" who still believes that they are based on power. It gets much more difficult.
That's not how diversity is measured. A more accurate way to measure diversity is to calculate cumulative percentage for the top X pokemon. Imagine if all pokemon had 1% or under usage. There would be 0 pokemon above the 4% mark, yet you couldn't say it would be more centralised than OU. If you look at the stats, for each rank, the UU pokemon has a lower usage than the OU pokemon. It's less centralized. If you want mathematical proof, lets get the cumulated usage of the first 40 pokemons. in Wifi OU: 337.53% (out of 600%) in Wifi UU: 266.71% (out of 600%) As you can see, UU is less centralized. I'm actually astounded that you believe that. This is just ridiculous. You've been intoxicated by smogon math or whatever, but this is pure nonsense.
I'll conside to you on this point, but please note that diversity and centralization are not quite opposites. I could have a metagame that had one pokemon at 49%, and have 70 others still in the tier and it would be both centralized and diverse. (this was NU in Dec of last year) Actually it is rather simple, apart from the need to fix the number to make for Shoody's flawed stat gathering system. They simply weighted the values, and saw which ones had a 5% rating or more, Smogon of course had to make look complicated in order to seem smart, but thats what it was. This is all of course without the flaws caused by the stat collecting.
But what flaw is there with stat collecting? Shoddy had flawed stats for a few months, when it recorded only pokemon used in battle, but later it changed to include whole teams. PO's always been fine. Also their 3.41% is '50% chance of seeing a pokemon if you play 20 battles'. It's not there to fix a flawed stat system. Anyway, back to the point... Nothing more to say? :x
Yeah this is kinda off topic, but I was fairly certain that all the stat trouble smogon had was the reason they had to divide by 176.2.... instead of 100 (to make a percentage), as that was what I was told. So, back to the actual discussion, I feel that moving the percentage from 4 to 3 doesn't add any positive effects to the game, and that it has negative effects by confusing users. Therefore, I feel that changing the cut-off point is a bad idea and that we shouldn't go through with it.
actually they're using total usage S, in which the total usage S for everything is 100%. We're using usage in which the total usage for everything is 600% (as a team carries 6 pokemons). So the formula changes miraculously to 600 ÷ 176.14073324 which equals to 3.41 %. And when displaying their stats, they also use 600% as a total, as it's more human readable. Of course they have to make it complicated ! Anyway It's not 'moving'. There was no percentage decided for LU. It's not changing anything. We never assumed we'd use 4% for LU. And it doesn't make that much sense, seeing that UU is at the same time less centralized and more diverse than OU. And for confused users, a simple topic explains everything well and most users browsing the forums understand the tiers well. If the reason is "I think the LU tier is better with 4% instead of 3% because it looks better on the stats page that way" then ok i'll change it but if it's just because of a couple of users confused then no.
Just confused for a second--are the tiers ordered like: Ubers: Everything not allowed in OU. OU: Everything above 4% that's not in Ubers. UU: 3-4% LU: Below 3% Or what? Because I'm seeing a lotta talk of 4% tied with LU and I'm not sure what it has to do with it.
Ok here's how it goes: Anything with less that 4% in usage in OU goes into UU. Anything with less than 3% usage in UU goes into LU.