Neither side is right or wrong. This is a matter of preference and we are currently following a policy the majority agreed upon at the beginning of the gen.This change comes down to preference. There is no right or wrong answer, there is only the agreed upon policy we have followed from the start of this generation. That, in my opinion, is a stronger precedent than talking about non-mega forme changes and items.
There were definitely more than two post disagreeing, but a clear majority was siding with those points.There were one or two posts disagreeing, but the vast majority in the thread seems to prefer "holding mega stone = mega" and "megas can't fall below non-mega in tiering".
There already is a "pretty huge contradiction" with the way we tier them now. If the current system doesn't consider megas and their base forme separates, why is it that we just ban the mega and not the base? Tiering megas the way we do now also unnecessarily interferes with lower tiers (during the recent tier shift, this is the second time Medicham bounced out of RU and into OU solely because of its mega, for instance). This argument was already brought up the first page. I don't know if you're currently defending the status quo because you think it's perfectly fine or you're just opposed to megas being tiered separately, but the important thing to understand is: neither system is less flawed than the other, but the "new one" actually comes with benefits by diversifying the pool of 'mons for lower tiers, hence why I think it's better in contrast to a an equally flawed system that's more disruptive. I don't disagree that Latios's Mega Stone being technically UU by usage but its base remaining OU making it impossible to use Mega Latios in UU looks kinda off, but at the same time, implying that we already tier megas and their base together when that clearly isn't the case as evidenced by Kangaskhanite and Gengarite being in Ubers while their base formes being NU and OU, respectively isn't necessarily right either. I don't find either systems to be perfect, but at least one of them has the potential to be hugely beneficial for many lower tiers, which is why I strongly support tiering megas separately.On paper, not allowing a mega to fall beneath its base form may "make sense" but in reality it creates a pretty huge contradiction.
What you've described is a flaw in the system but not really a contradiction. Banning items is something that has been done plenty of times before and it doesn't contradict anything. You are right in that it's shitty in the way it affects the lower tiers, but it's the way the system is set up. I don't disagree with changing anything either and I would not be opposed to separate tiering if or when a good way to do it comes up - I just think they way we want to proceed with it right now is very flawed and people are ignoring that fact.There already is a "pretty huge contradiction" with the way we tier them now. If the current system doesn't consider megas and their base forme separates, why is it that we just ban the mega and not the base? Tiering megas the way we do now also unnecessarily interferes with lower tiers (during the recent tier shift, this is the second time Medicham bounced out of RU and into OU solely because of its mega, for instance). This argument was already brought up the first page. I don't know if you're currently defending the status quo because you think it's perfectly fine or you're just opposed to megas being tiered separately, but the important thing to understand is: neither system is less flawed than the other, but the "new one" actually comes with benefits by diversifying the pool of 'mons for lower tiers, hence why I think it's better in contrast to a an equally flawed system that's more disruptive. I don't disagree that Latios's Mega Stone being technically UU by usage but its base remaining OU making it impossible to use Mega Latios in UU looks kinda off, but at the same time, implying that we already tier megas and their base together when that clearly isn't the case as evidenced by Kangaskhanite and Gengarite being in Ubers while their base formes being NU and OU, respectively isn't necessarily right either. I don't find either systems to be perfect, but at least one of them has the potential to be hugely beneficial for many lower tiers, which is why I strongly support tiering megas separately.
It is a contradiction. The current system's intent, for a lack of better word, is to tier megas and their base formes together, yet when a mega stone is banned, the base forme remains and gradually falls to whichever lower tier. Take Kangaskhanite as an example, if we consider Kangaskhan and its mega to be tiered together, then why is it that the Mega is only usable in Ubers, yet the base form is allowed to roam in NU? I'm really not sure how to articulate this anymore clearly.What you've described is a flaw in the system but not really a contradiction.
That's not the the point: the point is how we view the mega stone in relation to the base Pokemon. If you don't have an issue with banning a Mega Stone and not banning the base forme with it, then it doesn't really make any sense to me why you oppose allowing say Absolite in UU and regular Absol in RU when it's really no different then Absolite being BL and Absol being RU.Banning items is something that has been done plenty of times before and it doesn't contradict anything.
That just comes down to a matter of opinion; as such, I don't really know how to respond to this point objectively and I don't think there is a way to do so. I feel like the point of "can you really consider a base and a mega separate" would just go on in circles because I don't think any one opinion is more "right" than the other. What I do think is worth debating though is how the current tiering methods affect the lower tiers and choosing the one that's least harmful/more beneficial.Can we actually say Mega Stone = new pokemon? I think people are very quick to proceed with this for the benefits but the 'new' system is not as logical as the current one because we are making a HUGE jump in assumptions that to me are questionable at best.
I already explained why in my previous post, but perhaps it was too vague so let me make it more clear. Tiering megas separately makes the current tiering system less intrusive on lower tiers and significantly increases the pool of viable Pokemon in said tiers, whereas the other system, the current one, does not and is occasionally disruptive. That seems like a good reason to change it, but I digress.Which is why I ask - what is the purpose of this change besides "doing it for the sake of it"?
Because this logic doesn't work in the reverse, ie when the base Pokemon is used more with other items than the mega stone. So there is zero possibility of there being an option of Absol in UU and Absolite in RU. The option is there to just do that, but it's a nonsensical one.That's not the the point: the point is how we view the mega stone in relation to the base Pokemon. If you don't have an issue with banning a Mega Stone and not banning the base forme with it, then it doesn't really make any sense to me why you oppose allowing say Absolite in UU and regular Absol in RU when it's really no different then Absolite being BL and Absol being RU.
Except Meloetta doesn't get an extra 100 base stats, nor does it get a new ability, nor does it remain in its new forme when it switches out. Also you can click moves with mega pokemon and not mega evolve, but you cant click relic song and not change forme.Hi.
Mega Evolving is almost exactly the same as clicking Relic Song on Meloetta-A to change its forme. Do we tier Meloetta-P differently? No, because it's impossible to have Meloetta-P without having the specific move. Similarly, it is impossible to have a Mega Pokemon on its own without the base Pokemon holding a Mega Stone. The difference lies in that Meloetta does not retain its forme when it switches out, while the Mega Pokemon does; however, the fact remains that you cannot have either Meloetta-P (which is not tiered separately to Meloetta-A) or a Mega Pokemon without a specific condition that can only be activated in battle after the base Pokemon is switched in. To this end they should not be tiered separately.
No, Relic Song would be banned. End of story.Also as a side note, if Meloetta-P was good enough to be considered broken, but meloetta-a was not, the move relic song would be banned meaning that they would be tiered seperately too.
Functionally sure, if you want to view it that way.EDIT for Oglemi, banning relic song would mean Meloetta-P could only be used in UU, while Meloetta-A could be used in RU. While technically not tiering separately, I'd consider it to be functionally the same as tiering separately.
Again, our current logic of banning what's most simple and logical determined that banning Mawilite was what was the most simple and logical, rather than banning Mawile or Mawile + Mawilite, and that banning Blaziken was the most simple and logical as opposed to Blaziken + Speed Boost or just Speed Boost. Banning Mawilite had almost no repercussions outside of Mawile now being unable to use it to mega evolve, meaning it was most logical and simple to just ban Mawilite, whereas banning Speed Boost would have made it unavailable to Sharpedo/Yanmega/whatever else, meaning it was most logical and simple to just ban Blaziken.But we aren't consistant with that. Mawile was only broken with Mawilite and Blaziken was only broken with speed boost.
I mean, banning Jynx still fell in line with the logic of banning what's most simple and logical, as you banned Jynx as opposed to Jynx + Lovely Kiss or just Lovely Kiss. However, if you wanted to ban Lovely Kiss it would be on the onus of those that want to ban it to prove that it's broken/uncompetitive/whatever on all the Pokemon that received it in the tier.the same could be said of BW2 NU Jynx, which would not have been broken without Lovely Kiss despite being the only Pokemon to get the move (Smeargle notwithstanding). I understand that Lovely Kiss has many other moves comparable to it unlike Relic Song, but at the end of the day Lovely Kiss was broken in NU on all recipients of the move and Relic Song in this hypothetical would be broken on all Pokemon that get it in Hypothetical-Tier-X. I'm not trying to nag the point because I realize it's mostly semantics and we can definitely move it to a new thread, but consistency in tiering is important.
No, Pinsir got enough usage in OU to be moved into OU from NU, which can happen to any Pokemon at any time (hello Alakazam gaining Magic Guard from BW). Pinsirite is still BL (or if you want it put completely logically, it's not BL but banned from being used in UU), regardless of Pinsir's presence in the tier or not, since Mega Pinsir was determined to be broken in UU.OK but in the case of Pinsir it becomes more complicated as it (pinsirite) was banned by UU, meaning the Pinsir which went up to OU this last tier shift was completely different to the Pinsir which was allowed in NU and in no means broken, causing the fate of an NU pokemon to be dictated by the whims of the UU community/council and messing up the current tiering system as a result. Now the repercussions are that a pokemon in NU jolts up and down between ou and nu frequently despite the sets being completely different.