np: ORAS OU Suspect Process, Round 3 - Wandering Ghosts [Aegislash remains in Ubers]

[Flamer]

While I read this thread the most prevalent thing I see is compalints about matchup in our current meta. And who can blame anyone for disliking an auto loss because any one team cant even handle every common mon (note by this Im not talking about unviable mons, a team cannot handle every viable mon in the meta). With the massive power surge ORAS brought even in comparison to XY, it feels more like ORAS is a new generation rather than an extension of Gen 6. Thinking we can fix this by reintroducing Aegislash is one possible solution but we easily run the risk of over centralisation. The other alternative is banning mons that make OU so cancerous, Lando-I and friends are some such examples. The only problem with this is that we get to the point where we've gone too far and banned too many mons to the point where there are more Ubers than viable mons in OU. However, there is another solution, and while many people might not like it, it has the possibility to solve the issues we face.

The solution I am talking about is very drastic, reintroducung a whole host of banned mons and essentially reverting us back to how we would approach a new metagame. Resetting the slate would allow us to approach ORAS as a new metagame, rather than an extension of an old one. Mons that were previously broken might not be anymore, with so many new mons introduced, how can we know whether mons we decided were too much for OU are still too much? Remember in XY how people were screaming for CharX and Thundurus to be suspected? Both have taken a pretty big hit in viability, being rarely seen on teams and being very hard to put on teams. So how do we know the same does not apply to mons like Mega Sal, Gren, the deos, Gene, Mega Maw or Luke? Just because something was broken in a previous gen doesnt mean it will be in the next (examples Chomp, Lati twins, Mew, Excadrill, Salamence). It might be a mess for the first 2 months but I feel like treating ORAS as a new metagame is the only way we can truly do things right. I may not be anyone special or have the authority on here to be heard but in order for us to truly create a balanced metagame with the current mons we have, we need to tear down what was we thought was order for a previous generation. Its drastic and will take a lot of work but please take this into consideration, Thanks.

 

[MZ]

Even 252 HP/252+ Def isn't enough to have a guaranteed survival from CB Scizor BP. 24 Defence is in order to always avoid the 2HKO from LO Latios Psyshock, making Gardy a check to it.

Derp. idek why I thought it was scizor lol, edited. I know I used to know the right answer to that

 

[MANNAT]

After laddering quite a bit to 2000+ coil and 1500-1600 on several alts, I think that I have developed a decent knowledge of the meta and how Aegislash works. One reason why Aegislash is banworthy that is undervalued is its sheer unpredictability. If you send out a stallmon like unaware Clefable thinking that it is KS 3 attacks Aegislash with sacred sword, then you get destroyed by subtoxic+flash cannon, then your counter to offensive threats on the opposing team is dead. Aegislash can run several different sets that have completely different counters that include; SD 3 attacks, KS 3 attacks, AoA, and even a subtoxic set, and Aegislash can tear apart practically any playstyle with at least one of these sets. Not only that, but the use of Aegislash actually reduces the viability of a ton of threats, centralzing the metagame around only 10 mons. Like Kurona said, we should not settle for an overcentralyzed meta over the current one, we should keep suspecting broken mons until we get a healthy metagame.

 

[Martin]

While I read this thread the most prevalent thing I see is compalints about matchup in our current meta. And who can blame anyone for disliking an auto loss because any one team cant even handle every common mon (note by this Im not talking about unviable mons, a team cannot handle every viable mon in the meta). With the massive power surge ORAS brought even in comparison to XY, it feels more like ORAS is a new generation rather than an extension of Gen 6. Thinking we can fix this by reintroducing Aegislash is one possible solution but we easily run the risk of over centralisation. The other alternative is banning mons that make OU so cancerous, Lando-I and friends are some such examples. The only problem with this is that we get to the point where we've gone too far and banned too many mons to the point where there are more Ubers than viable mons in OU. However, there is another solution, and while many people might not like it, it has the possibility to solve the issues we face.

The solution I am talking about is very drastic, reintroducung a whole host of banned mons and essentially reverting us back to how we would approach a new metagame. Resetting the slate would allow us to approach ORAS as a new metagame, rather than an extension of an old one. Mons that were previously broken might not be anymore, with so many new mons introduced, how can we know whether mons we decided were too much for OU are still too much? Remember in XY how people were screaming for CharX and Thundurus to be suspected? Both have taken a pretty big hit in viability, being rarely seen on teams and being very hard to put on teams. So how do we know the same does not apply to mons like Mega Sal, Gren, the deos, Gene, Mega Maw or Luke? Just because something was broken in a previous gen doesnt mean it will be in the next (examples Chomp, Lati twins, Mew, Excadrill, Salamence). It might be a mess for the first 2 months but I feel like treating ORAS as a new metagame is the only way we can truly do things right. I may not be anyone special or have the authority on here to be heard but in order for us to truly create a balanced metagame with the current mons we have, we need to tear down what was we thought was order for a previous generation. Its drastic and will take a lot of work but please take this into consideration, Thanks.

This would be a good idea if it wasn't for one crippling flaw: all of those Pokémon that you have listed were banned due to meeting one of the 'uber characteristics,' and tbh the power creep in ORAS was far from enough to even consider comparing it to a new generation. There was a slight power creep, and a number of new pokemon/forms were introduced/modified, but the same applies to the release of Emerald, Platinum and BW2. These all led to metagame shifts due to new moves, items and forms that pushed some pokemon up in viability (and, as a result, others down), and ORAS is just a slightly exaggerated version of those three games, and the differences from XY are far from drastic enough to warrant it being treated like generation 7. The Pokémon which have been banned sinse the start of XY are not much worse than before, if at all, and unbanning them will lead to instability that, due to it returning to an earlier state, will be far harder to recover from than if it were placed during the new generation 'hype period.'

 

[Rarycaris]

Isn't the entire point of the OU format to not be overcentralised? If that weren't a criterion, more serious consideration would likely have been given to fixing the format by unbanning ubers (most of which are in a power bracket at or below the banned megas) than by trying to ban every centralising threat (the number of which has exploded this gen) until we get a desirable metagame.

 

[Flamer]

This would be a good idea if it wasn't for one crippling flaw: all of those Pokémon that you have listed were banned due to meeting one of the 'uber characteristics,' and tbh the power creep in ORAS was far from enough to even consider comparing it to a new generation. There was a slight power creep, and a number of new pokemon/forms were introduced/modified, but the same applies to the release of Emerald, Platinum and BW2. These all led to metagame shifts due to new moves, items and forms that pushed some pokemon up in viability (and, as a result, others down), and ORAS is just a slightly exaggerated version of those three games, and the differences from XY are far from drastic enough to warrant it being treated like generation 7. The Pokémon which have been banned sinse the start of XY are not much worse than before, if at all, and unbanning them will lead to instability that, due to it returning to an earlier state, will be far harder to recover from than if it were placed during the new generation 'hype period.'

Slight power creep? 15 new OU viable megas were introduced, 7 of which have been deemed highly influecial in the metagame and one of which was banned. In every other ganeration, 1-3 new mons were introduced in the transition between games, many of which were either not viable or were cover legendaries, comparing this to any other gen is very flawed. The "Uber Characteristics" you hold so dear are at this point extremely outdated, they were conceived in Gen 4, and even so, they were banned due to meeting these characteristings in the metagame they came from. Like I said, the metagame has drastically changed to the point where we dont know whether these mons will be balanced or not in a different meta. Of course it will be unstable but in order to make a better blade it must be forged first.

 

[Mencee]

If Aegislash forces 50/50's with King's Shield then we should have a ladder without it, yes, there are current sets that are KSless, but since we are laddering where KS is allowed, we have no idea if its KSless or not. If we knew Aegislash didnt have KS then it would possibly be less pressure. Just theorymonning.

I don't like the 50/50 argument myself, but lots of people have mentioned it as a pro-argument that it forces it.

 

[WebBowser]

As a side note, 232 special attack is because you need the rest in defense to live two LO draco meteors from Latios from full and max speed is 100% necessary, plus it isn't that much weaker

Uhhhhh....

Latios Draco Meteor vs. Mega Gardevoir: 0-0 (0 - 0%) -- aim for the horn next time

I think this is the one you were looking for:

252 SpA Life Orb Latios Psyshock vs. 0 HP / 24 Def Mega Gardevoir: 117-138 (42.2 - 49.8%) -- guaranteed 3HKO

That being said, ty. Apparently that same defense investment allows m-gard to live getting pursuit trapped by specially mixed aegi twice.

 

[NeilChatelain]

I like Flamer's idea. I just fear the time it will take to balance the meta after all that chaos. But I guess it is always fun, atleast for me, to be able to play with so many "new" mons.

 

[oryxslayer]

Slight power creep? 15 new OU viable megas were introduced, 7 of which have been deemed highly influecial in the metagame and one of which was banned. In every other ganeration, 1-3 new mons were introduced in the transition between games, many of which were either not viable or were cover legendaries, comparing this to any other gen is very flawed. The "Uber Characteristics" you hold so dear are at this point extremely outdated, they were conceived in Gen 4, and even so, they were banned due to meeting these characteristings in the metagame they came from. Like I said, the metagame has drastically changed to the point where we dont know whether these mons will be balanced or not in a different meta. Of course it will be unstable but in order to make a better blade it must be forged first.

The thing is, the uber characteristics still apply to many of those mons, and the thing is, most of them are far too much for OU, even if we introduced them all at once. Some of the pokes you suggested would be instantly quickbanned (megamence, mega kang), because the wallbreaking or sweeping power those pokes have is still way too much. I don't see any new hard counters to those pokes being introduced, and I don't want to have to run skarmory on every team to beat them. Others, like the Deos, make it way to easy to control the hazard game, as well as making HO too much. These guys, Deo-d, and Deo-s, would be the most likely to stay in OU because of mega sableye. Mega-maw, gene, greninja, and mega luke would almost certainly be banned again because, once again, I don't really see any new counters for either of them that would make them handleable. I just don't see the point of reintroducing like 10 broken threats and banning them all again, one at a time.

 

[MikeDawg]

This may be true, but you must remember that usage does not equal viability. To give an example, say Mega Rayquaza was to come down to OU - I know, ridiculous - and for whatever reason it only got about 20% usage. This does not mean it is not a restraint on teambuilding - it would still be, bar absolutely nothing, the biggest threat in the metagame and of course something you would have to dedicate the main teambuilding process to attempting to beat.
The same holds true for those on the pro-ban side of Aegis. If for some reason a Pokémon that good doesn't get a lot of usage, the argument still goes that it'd be the best Pokémon in the meta and something that would constrain your teambuilding because you have to dedicate a lot of your team to checking it.
It's sort of like Fire Insurance in this case. You hope to god your house won't catch on fire this year, but it's best to prepare for it just in case.

If mega rayquaza came down to ou, it would get far more than 20% usage, so your post makes no sense.

"Here's a hypothetical example that is completely false, so aegislash isn't centralizing QED"

Like bruh

 

[Ary]

There's an argument I've seen floating around saying Aegislash shouldn't be dropped because of how centralizing it can be and is. Thing is a big reason Aegislash is being retested is because it's centralizing(also the vote changing escapade). A big problem with the ORAS metagame thus far, according to a lot of people, is team match-up and how unfair it can be. What dropping Aegislash does is cut a bunch of mons out of the equation so that there really shouldn't be any one mon you just lose to. By closing off the meta almost to the effect of GSC Lax and making everything revolve around aegis means that more matches should be decided by skill-based factors and not just match-up.

 

[MikeDawg]

There's an argument I've seen floating around saying Aegislash shouldn't be dropped because of how centralizing it can be and is. Thing is a big reason Aegislash is being retested is because it's centralizing(also the vote changing escapade). A big problem with the ORAS metagame thus far, according to a lot of people, is team match-up and how unfair it can be. What dropping Aegislash does is cut a bunch of mons out of the equation so that there really shouldn't be any one mon you just lose to. By closing off the meta almost to the effect of GSC Lax and making everything revolve around aegis means that more matches should be decided by skill-based factors and not just match-up.

It's not being argued that it is centralizing (referring to relevent arguments here); it's being argued that using Aegislash as a centralizing (jesus fuck i hate that word) force to alleviate matchup is not the way to go.

 

[Martin]

There's an argument I've seen floating around saying Aegislash shouldn't be dropped because of how centralizing it can be and is. Thing is a big reason Aegislash is being retested is because it's centralizing(also the vote changing escapade). A big problem with the ORAS metagame thus far, according to a lot of people, is team match-up and how unfair it can be. What dropping Aegislash does is cut a bunch of mons out of the equation so that there really shouldn't be any one mon you just lose to. By closing off the meta almost to the effect of GSC Lax and making everything revolve around aegis means that more matches should be decided by skill-based factors and not just match-up.

I'm a little confused about the logic behind this argument tbh. It feels like you're saying get rid of team matchup by adding something which further increases the team matchup factor. If something is overcentralising to the point of putting you at a disadvantage if you are not more prepared for it than the other player, it means that it just becomes a war of who has the most Aegislash checks/counters/lures/whatever. The fact of the matter is this: no matter how much you try to remove team matchup, it will always be there (practically every game comes in part down to team matchup), and it is part of what makes Pokémon fun to play - if you are at a slight disadvantage team-wise, your playstyle changes to account for it. While this doesn't help you if your opponent's team hard counters ur own, if you reach a point where an entire team hard counters yours (assuming it isn't a load of obscure sh*t) there is a big flaw with your team, and adjusting your team to account for matchup flaws is a big part of the skill involved in the game.

 

[heritage]

If mega rayquaza came down to ou, it would get far more than 20% usage, so your post makes no sense.

"Here's a hypothetical example that is completely false, so aegislash isn't centralizing QED"

Like bruh

Talk about completely missing the point p__p

What she meant was that even if a Pokemon isn't on every team it can still be a meta-game defining threat. Take, like, Altaria for example. It's not actually that common, but every team still has to be prepared for it because, if you aren't, it will tear you apart. Ofc Rayquaza would be on every team but that literally has nothing to do with the point she was trying to make, she was just using an example.

Feel free to delete this mods i just wanted to say this lol

e @ below cause I'm not responding anymore

Is altaria meta-defining? Not really. That's why it doesn't get crazy usage. It has to compete with all of the other megas.

lol?!?! It's S rank for a reason and it's arguably the best mega in OU what even
w/e i'm out

 

[MikeDawg]

Talk about completely missing the point p__p

What she meant was that even if a Pokemon isn't on every team it can still be a meta-game defining threat. Take, like, Altaria for example. It's not actually that common, but every team still has to be prepared for it because, if you aren't, it will tear you apart. Ofc Rayquaza would be on every team but that literally has nothing to do with the point she was trying to make, she was just using an example.

Feel free to delete this mods i just wanted to say this lol

Is altaria meta-defining? Not really. That's why it doesn't get crazy usage. It has to compete with all of the other megas.

Using megamons as usage-based arguments is dumb anyway, because their usage is walled by the team limit.

Genesect in bw (dont remember xy) had like 50% usage. Aegislash had some equally ridiculous usage (especially in 1850? stats). Lando-t gets top usage. These are mons you just throw onto any team to make it better. That's why they sit at the top of the usage stats. Mega rayquaza (which is the example that she used, no way around it) would be at like 100% usage given its ubers and no rules history.

Sure, usage doesnt measure viability whatever, but it kind of does. You can't be like "lol pidgeot d-rank", but there's a reaosn that the most popular pokemon are the most popular.

U can't call mega altaria and aegislash metagame defining threats in the same sentence. There is no contest. Altaria leaves: wow cool run one less steel type maybe. Aegislash leaves: wow new meta.

Leremyju


PS "missing the point" doesn't make it any less of a 100% garbage example (one that she used as the premise of her post) lol

 

[tehy]

Talk about completely missing the point p__p

What she meant was that even if a Pokemon isn't on every team it can still be a meta-game defining threat. Take, like, Altaria for example. It's not actually that common, but every team still has to be prepared for it because, if you aren't, it will tear you apart. Ofc Rayquaza would be on every team but that literally has nothing to do with the point she was trying to make, she was just using an example.

Feel free to delete this mods i just wanted to say this lol

and the counterpoint is that such a thing is impossible, because pretty much every metagame defining threat DOES get insanely high amounts of usage

if you have any examples of ones that don't feel free to submit them, I can't recall any.

 

[Kurona]

and the counterpoint is that such a thing is impossible, because pretty much every metagame defining threat DOES get insanely high amounts of usage

if you have any examples of ones that don't feel free to submit them, I can't recall any.

| 16 | Landorus | 11.14336%
1825 usage stats of last month.
I'm not entirely sure what you count as "insanely high", but Lando-I is what many consider a ban-worthy threat, is currently S-rank in the VR and 11% is much lower comparatively than the 25% usage rate of Aegis in XY, which is 1 in 4 teams.

Now could we please stop jumping on my Mega Ray example? I mean... christ, guys, it was just an example I done in two seconds and if you're focusing on that then you're completely missing the point of my post. Everyone does these ridiculous examples to prove a point every once in a while, I really don't get why mine is so special and it just screams desperately trying to say my post was bad for a likewhore with the ulterior motive of "see, the pro-ban side says stupid stuff, clearly the anti-ban side I am on is better vote aegis for OU 2k15".
Sorry to get so aggressive but it's kind of ridiculous when I've barely posted on this thread and I didn't even make any indication of which side I was on. In a previous post I had even stated I don't have enough matches in the suspect ladder yet to have a concrete opinion; my posts here have just been about the theory and mentality and nothing more.
The point of my post was to show that usage doesn't equal viability, and that even if a meta-defining Pokémon has low usage, that doesn't make it any less meta-defining. So can we stop making up strawmans to make your side look better and focus on actual discussion now?

 

[leremyju]

MikeDawg so I guess you have a problem with the example but it doesn't change the argument. Usage doesn't equal viability and just because there is an example you don't agree with, doesn't mean it's wrong. Why don't you stop nitpicking a trivial example, and refute the argument instead?

 

[QueenOfHax]

Isn't a pivot, by definition, a blanket check? Isn't that what they're used for? Take Rotom-W, who thanks to its bulk, decent offensive presence and unique set of resistances manages to check most of the metagame. Clefable and Landorus-T are notable examples as well, as I mentioned in my previous post.
You can say that Aegislash is so good at being a pivot because it warps the metagame around itself, causing things like Mega Gardevoir to significantly drop in usage and viability, but have you considered that if the aforementioned Rotom-W didn't exist there would be a sudden increase in the viability of pokemon such as Swampert and Aerodactyl? Even if my prediction about these two pokemon is wrong, I'm sure something would benefit from its removal from the metagame. So one can say that pivots, moreso than sweepers and walls, shape the metagame thanks to their inherent ability to act as a blanket check to a large number of threats. Been said this I don't see why Aegislash is ban-worthy if the other pivots aren't.

 

[tehy]

| 16 | Landorus | 11.14336%
1825 usage stats of last month.
I'm not entirely sure what you count as "insanely high", but Lando-I is what many consider a ban-worthy threat, is currently S-rank in the VR and 11% is much lower comparatively than the 25% usage rate of Aegis in XY, which is 1 in 4 teams.

that's banworthy, but certainly not metagame-defining which is, you know, what I was talking about

Now could we please stop jumping on my Mega Ray example? I mean... christ, guys, it was just an example I done in two seconds and if you're focusing on that then you're completely missing the point of my post.

I hate people who jump on examples. I'm not interested in refuting your specific example, except in the sense that NO OTHER EXAMPLES EXIST. If there were a lot of metagame-defining threats that didn't get insanely high amounts of usage, then this would've been meaningless nitpicking and I would've condemned anyone doing it. But there aren't, so... your argument falls apart.

Everyone does these ridiculous examples to prove a point every once in a while, I really don't get why mine is so special and it just screams desperately trying to say my post was bad for a likewhore with the ulterior motive of "see, the pro-ban side says stupid stuff, clearly the anti-ban side I am on is better vote aegis for OU 2k15".
Sorry to get so aggressive but it's kind of ridiculous when I've barely posted on this thread and I didn't even make any indication of which side I was on. In a previous post I had even stated I don't have enough matches in the suspect ladder yet to have a concrete opinion; my posts here have just been about the theory and mentality and nothing more.
The point of my post was to show that usage doesn't equal viability,

Usage doesn't equal viability, but it's still important when talking about a Pokemon whose supposed greatest quality is its centralization-if I end up seeing it in 5% of matches, i'm OK with using Celebi and having it be on the back foot in those matches. If i see it in 50% of matches, well, see you in UU celebi m'boi

and that even if a meta-defining Pokémon has low usage, that doesn't make it any less meta-defining.

meta-defining is either "so good that it shatters through every reason not to use it such as : i don't like this mon,i prefer other mons, i prefer creativity, etc, which are all reasons why low-ladder players don't use a mon" or "used so much and is so good it defines the metagame". YES, technically a Pokemon can have 1% usage and be metagame-defining, but that's never going to happen because those Pokemon are so damn good

So can we stop making up strawmans to make your side look better and focus on actual discussion now?

Sure thing.

First, since no one made a strawman, that line is in fact a strawman itself-you're arguing against something easy that everyone can agree on but never actually happened.

I'd like to take a moment and say that I don't find that Aegislash turns Mew into a liability from my battles so far, and that everyone's 'GG psychics' might be overblown; no one was willing to try out those mons because of Aegis, that doesn't mean that they weren't actually good. Also, the corresponding rise in usage of Bisharp and other Darks might be what keeps/kept those psychics down (that's not a good reason to ban Aegislash though, at least in my opinion).

 

[MikeDawg]

| 16 | Landorus | 11.14336%
1825 usage stats of last month.
I'm not entirely sure what you count as "insanely high", but Lando-I is what many consider a ban-worthy threat, is currently S-rank in the VR and 11% is much lower comparatively than the 25% usage rate of Aegis in XY, which is 1 in 4 teams.

Now could we please stop jumping on my Mega Ray example? I mean... christ, guys, it was just an example I done in two seconds and if you're focusing on that then you're completely missing the point of my post. Everyone does these ridiculous examples to prove a point every once in a while, I really don't get why mine is so special and it just screams desperately trying to say my post was bad for a likewhore with the ulterior motive of "see, the pro-ban side says stupid stuff, clearly the anti-ban side I am on is better vote aegis for OU 2k15".
Sorry to get so aggressive but it's kind of ridiculous when I've barely posted on this thread and I didn't even make any indication of which side I was on. In a previous post I had even stated I don't have enough matches in the suspect ladder yet to have a concrete opinion; my posts here have just been about the theory and mentality and nothing more.
The point of my post was to show that usage doesn't equal viability, and that even if a meta-defining Pokémon has low usage, that doesn't make it any less meta-defining. So can we stop making up strawmans to make your side look better and focus on actual discussion now?

Lol I am very pro-ban. A shit argument is a shit argument, though.

And again with the examples. You can't use lando-i as an example just like you cant use megas as an example because its usage is limited by lando-t.

And your post didn't at all accomplish that point. Every example that you have given has been vacuously contrary to that point.

Usage does equal viability on the upper end of the stats. It can't be argued. Popular pokes are popular for a reason. Lower down, pokemon get more niche, but can still be viable, so the usage/viability relationship gets a bit looser, but that doesn't matter when we are talking about the difference between being #1 by 5% or being #1 by 20%. The usage =/= viability argument is used when someone is like "lol swagger is on like 2% of teams" or in over-exagerrated viability thread arguments.

and that even if a meta-defining Pokémon has low usage, that doesn't make it any less meta-defining.

You can't really define a metagame if you aren't being used. Metagross is a threat. Altaria is a threat. Mawile was a threat. Pull them out of the meta and the usage of some megas will shift, and a couple of walls may see a small change in usage as well, and these are pokemon /with/ high usage. If you don't have an answer to hawlucha, you can be swept ez, but that doesn't make it meta-defining.

Baton pass and swagplay are the only low-usage meta-defining trends that have existed, and those are playstyles, not pokemon. Even those didn't really shape the meta until they were made much more prevelant, because their usage didn't warrant any significant change in teambuilding, regardless of how actually broken they were.

Keep in mind, too, that there are multiple levels of "defining." Altaria changes the meta more than pidgeot, and pidgeot changes the meta more than hawlucha. Aegislash changes the meta way more than any of these. lando-t is also a frontrunner in this regard.

 

[AlphaGiratina]

Just wanted to point out, since this seems to be an issue people are having, uh usage doesn't mean a Pokemon is viable lol. Look at the viability threads if you want answers on viable, for example Politoed is NU by usage but he's A- viability meaning he has a very well deserved spot on n OU team if one chooses to use him. The same goes here for Aegislash, just because only 20% or whatever teams use him doesn't mean he wouldn't be an S+ tier threat if he were to arrive back in OU. As for Landorus aka more broken than the Millenium Falcon in Episode 5 he's S tier already, one of the top 4 mons usable below ubers. Just because he's 16th usage based last month does not at all imply that he's not what I previously stated, a top 4 mon. However, it does imply that players are just not choosing him the most for teams they use.
We have to consider a variety of factors for issues such as these. For example, in the lower ladder you probably won't see a lot of Lando usage because there isn't a lot of high level play down there. While Landorus has little oppurtunity cost if any, there are other team builds you may want to run. Better players would likely choose to run Landorus whenever they had such an opening because he is such a great mon in OU

Just wanted to clear some things up don't hate me

 

[p2]

This meta, simply put, is really stale and not fun to play at all. Basically, right now, it revolves around Aegislash, Bisharp, Keldeo, Landorus and Latios. Aegislash still has the extreme degree of overcentralisation it had back in XY, while still having a strong grip on the meta and making countless pokemon unviable, pretty much any Psychic type is severely worse bar the Latis. Not to mention, Aegislash is still the same extremely unpredictable powerhouse it was with its solid coverage options and amazing offenses. The offensive and defensive roles that it fulfill are just incredible. It has an amazing defensive typing with 3 immunities and 9 resists, it spinblocks AND it can't be trapped excluding Bisharp, and that's the only physical attacker that doesn't care about King's Shield. The fact that you need to run at least 2 checks for it and you can STILL struggle with it or get completely fucked over by one of its many variants show that there is a problem. Then you need to consider that it makes a massive amount of choice users simply unviable due to how much control it has over momentum with King's Shield and how easy it can take advantage of its own weaknesses.

This centralisation + extremely good traits aren't healthy for OU at all, Aegislash shouldn't come back to OU.

 

[yoloburn]

Just wanted to point out, since this seems to be an issue people are having, uh usage doesn't mean a Pokemon is viable lol. Look at the viability threads if you want answers on viable, for example Politoed is NU by usage but he's A- viability meaning he has a very well deserved spot on n OU team if one chooses to use him. The same goes here for Aegislash, just because only 20% or whatever teams use him doesn't mean he wouldn't be an S+ tier threat if he were to arrive back in OU. As for Landorus aka more broken than the Millenium Falcon in Episode 5 he's S tier already, one of the top 4 mons usable below ubers. Just because he's 16th usage based last month does not at all imply that he's not what I previously stated, a top 4 mon. However, it does imply that players are just not choosing him the most for teams they use.
We have to consider a variety of factors for issues such as these. For example, in the lower ladder you probably won't see a lot of Lando usage because there isn't a lot of high level play down there. While Landorus has little oppurtunity cost if any, there are other team builds you may want to run. Better players would likely choose to run Landorus whenever they had such an opening because he is such a great mon in OU

Just wanted to clear some things up don't hate me

You're looking at this backwards.

Not all viable pokemons have high usage, but all pokemons with high usage at top of the ladder are viable. Which is the point MikeDawg is trying to get across, there is a correlation.

I kind of agree with everything he's saying. The level at which Aegislash defines the meta is immense, and no pokemon in OU at the moment can compare. Only shit like Genesect or Greninja have had such a high impact on the metagame and they're both banned. Aegislash is no different, he doesn't belong in OU.