There has been a lot of discussion about the metagame lately; many people have deemed the format to be less balanced than prior iterations and some have taken exception to certain presences in the metagame. I want to reserve a post to discuss the council's response to this as we do not take these concerns lightly whatsoever. Please note: This post is written from my perspective as tier leader specifically, but it represents sentiments of the collective council discussion.
---
We firmly understand your concerns and many of us inside the council agree with them, too. Survey results will come out later this week and it is no coincidence that more Pokemon than ever have achieved marks greater than 3 out of 5 from the qualified playerbase. This means that a lot more tiering action (likely in the form of suspects, but potentially other things depending on how support fluctuates) is coming in the near future.
The fact of the matter is that these choppy metagame cycles are not always going to be perfect. DLC1 was released in September and it is possible DLC2 could be released as early as November (or as late as February or March). It may not be possible for this metagame to reach an optimized point by November or December just given the number of roadblocks and the abbreviated period; it is more likely that the "best" SV OU is yet to be seen and will come as we have a longer period after DLC2 throughout the remainder of the generation.
What I can promise you as tier leader is that we are going to do everything in our power to continue to improve the current metagame. We will have surveys and suspects at a more aggressive pace than ever, we will have discussions in a more productive fashion than ever, and we will be receptive to your feedback more than ever, which I think is something we have shown throughout this generation and will continue to.
I do not care if this will lead to a reset of sorts with DLC2, making a lot of this a dead-end or moot in the long-term. I will exhaust my efforts and resources to make your experience playing the metagame better as that is my job; it is important that our playerbase understands our commitment to them!
With this in mind, the OU tiering council is more prepared than ever to address tiering concerns. Infastructure is now in place to have a more collaborative and swift tiering response than ever before.
What may this be? For starters, we have
community outreach surveys as you likely know by now. These help guide our decision making process and let our informed players help dictate the metagame they are passionate about. In addition, the council is more transparent than ever between regular posts in the
metagame discussion thread and occasional
tiering radars to keep everyone who wishes to follow informed.
The process itself has been reformed, too. We have a more clear idea of what thresholds in what contexts can lead to suspects or quickbans, which we have applied and will continue to apply. In addition to this, our physical suspects have become more flexible than ever. The Ursaluna-Bloodmoon suspect was shorter than ever before and the same goes for this Roaring Moon suspect, which allows for more potential metagame progression and tiering action to take place in less time. This was adopted in response to outcries for quicker action while respecting the public's right to decide instead of employing overly aggressive quickbans; I believe this will be a successful middleground in some cases. This is not to say quickbans will be avoided so much as we are finding our footing as to when it is appropriate and when it is not.
I hope this helps alleviate some concerns and address any questions individuals may have about our metagame or tiering process. Please shoot me a message on these forums, Discord, or Twitter with any questions and I will try to get to you when I can. Thanks and have a nice day.