ORAS Ubers Viability Ranking Thread (Final ORAS Update - Post #1164)

[Spyro Chris]

Wouldn't it be nice if we stopped these Golduck jokes?

 

[dice]

i kinda think darkrai and gengar should form an s- since they perform their roles so much more dangerously and consistently even if they aren't splashable like arc-water. there's some imaginary scale of potency / splashability / consistency that u base these rankings on ya know. darkrai is one of the two mons in the tier i find overpowered and it almost never fails to do its job. it not being in an s-tier of some sort seems just wrong.

 

[SparksBlade]

forgive my good friend, jj, for his hostility

I think ernesto el pato (Golduck) is a great pokemon

no

in Ubers

no

because it's a duck

no

and ducks rule

no

it can revenge kill Groudon

so can many non-duck mons, which makes them cooler

and Salamence

no

which are in almost every team

SO TRUE!

and force switches with encore.

and switch out cos it's locked. no

It's also so versatile

no

since it can be choice scarf or life orb with disable or toxic.

so can many non-duk mons, which makes them cooer

I think it deserves a place in the viability ranks

yes, the blacklist

between A+ or A Rank maybe.

read above

Why is Arceus-Bug in the rank and not this monster?

there have been some valiant efforts to get Arceus-Bug removed from ubers, down to ou, but all in vain

OMG, nos bemo.

unfortunate indeed.

edit: agree with rai to s-, dark void+np makes it very threatening to every type of team and i dont think there's much opportunity cost or support required to keep it out of s. no opinion on mgar cos dont use it much

edit2: oh we dont have an s- rank, idk anymore, depends on "viewpoints" i guess

 

[orch]

disagree w/ creating s- rank. A+ is literally what you want s- to be...

 

[dice]

no it's not. i think the top 2 in a+ are arbitrarily 'better' to require a distinct demarcation between them and arc-water / lugia. using the logic posited in your post, the list should just have no set tiers and be a top-down ordering of pokes.

 

[orch]

no it's not. i think the top 2 in a+ are arbitrarily 'better' to require a distinct demarcation between them and arc-water / lugia. using the logic posited in your post, the list should just have no set tiers and be a top-down ordering of pokes.

yes, they're 'arbitrarily better', which is why they're the top 2 mons in A+ because they're bound to A+ by definition and is the best of the bunch in A+.

how did you even get that posited logic from my post anyways?

my logic is:
i looked at the definition for A and S.

a:

This rank is reserved for Pokemon that may have great offensive or defensive capabilities. They tend to be the first to be considered for certain roles, but may need some support to function well.

s:

The best Pokemon in the tier reside here. They tend to boast incredible offensive AND defensive capabilities. There is very little opportunity cost in using these Pokemon. They have great utility or power to add to teams, while requiring little support to function.

i think we both agree that gengar and darkrai fits in A rank definitions w/ no questions so i'm not going to bother addressing their qualifications for a rank. s rank requires "incredible defensive capabilities" in addition to "incredible offensive capabilities". are you going to say that darkrai's incredible psychic immunity and being 2hkod by almost any attack from ur standard ubers teams qualifies for "incredible defensive capabilities". Please.

gengar has far better immunities and supporting characteristics compared to darkrai. now i think about it, im not opposed to bumping gengar up to s. however, if you compare gengar to current s ranks, it has a notably lower degree of defensive niche compared to others (with exception of ekiller, but i suppose that ekiller being s is in contention based on previous posts anyways).

 

[dice]

i'm not really going to reply to your post because its basis of argumentation lies in poorly outlined semantics; there is a reason that many tiers removed these definitions from the op. a word 15 sentence definition cannot encompass the gamut of possibilities for inclusion. i base my parameters far more on anecdotal observations from tournament games to get a sense of what i feel is strong or not.

as such, i feel like gengar and darkrai are 'x' (x being 'enough' for another subtier) step ahead of the competition in the current tier and should move up. it's kinda hard to articulate 'hey darkrai does x y and z so much better than arc-water lugia comparably to the distinction between latios and arc-water' or w/e'. it's more of a ~finesse~ in the ranking and i think it's pretty important for this distinction to be made.

 

[orch]

i'm not really going to reply to your post because its basis of argumentation lies in poorly outlined semantics; there is a reason that many tiers removed these definitions from the op. a word 15 sentence definition cannot encompass the gamut of possibilities for inclusion. i base my parameters far more on anecdotal observations from tournament games to get a sense of what i feel is strong or not.

as such, i feel like gengar and darkrai are 'x' (x being 'enough' for another subtier) step ahead of the competition in the current tier and should move up. it's kinda hard to articulate 'hey darkrai does x y and z so much better than arc-water lugia comparably to the distinction between latios and arc-water' or w/e'. it's more of a ~finesse~ in the ranking and i think it's pretty important for this distinction to be made.

so, you're basically saying that you're just ignoring the provided viability ranking definition just because you don't like them and then you provide no alternative/proposals to change them other than making it based on your "anecdotal observations". then, you want to move up darkrai and gengar with no supporting evidence nor context other than basically your gut feeling. =)

personally, i dont care where pokemons belong in which rank as long it fits the provided ranking system. what you're proposing is a complete departure from what we've been doing last 33 pages. but again, if you feel so strongly about the current system being flawed or w/e then make your case to improve it and make it possible for us to rank pokemon more accurately.

 

[Sweep]

The definitions allow the rankings to adequately reflect most of the tier, with the main exception being Darkrai. I don't think anyone would argue that Darkrai is one of the most ridiculous Pokemon to have to prepare for, as it can get around practically all of its "checks" with good prediction or the right moveset. Its defensive utility is both understated and largely irrelevant; on HO teams, its job is to come in and make games 5-5 after the suicide lead does its job 95% of the time. It certainly isn't a late game Pokemon in this meta. It's also not even that useless defensively, as it checks Ghostceus well (a mon can that be pretty annoying for offense to deal with otherwise) while comfortably revenging weakened Mega Kangaskhan without worrying about getting chipped by Sucker Punch. It doesn't have "incredible" defensive utility, but it's so fucking good at what it does and so miserable to prepare for that I don't think it would be out of place with an S rank.

I don't think Mega Gengar is quite S (or S-), it's hard to fit and the set that best performs against stall (wisp hex) has severe 4MSS. Mega Gengar as a whole has 4MSS because the most common set runs Protect to avoid getting overwhelmed by offense. Like Darkrai, it doesn't have amazing defensive utility, and Darkrai is simply more dangerous. With every competent team packing 2 checks to the top threats in the tier, trapping something isn't as huge as it was in XY.

Darkrai is a very big deal for me, because putting it in the same rank as Water Arceus definitely isn't right regardless of splashability. The question is, should we change the definitions (or remove them entirely) when they generally do a good job of describing this tier? I'm pretty neutral, I can certainly live with them but think this is worth further discussion.

 

[Nayrz]

I'm open to removing the almost-year-old "criteria" that is seemingly outdated, as we have mons that seem out of place to some (ekiller in s, darkrai in a+) and leave them more open to interpretation rather than looking at a mon and asking "can it do this". It would be more of a perceived threat level by the community than a ranking system purely based off pre-determined stuff.

Another idea is to add an "A++" rank but ehh... some seem to hate the idea of additional ranks that don't fit the norm of grading when you do it by letters (see any post against the idea of S- back when it was still part of the rankings). I'm aware of one game that uses a system like S+/S/A++/A+/A/B/C/D/E that could potentially work here but this is all down to community choice. I'm open to changing something if it better reflects the way the tier rankings currently are.

 

[Minority]

I feel that the new ranking system should take primarily two things into account: how many builds the Pokemon fits on and how potent the Pokemon is at its role. As Sweep already pointed out, although Darkrai doesn't fit on anything outside of offense, the fact that it is so effective and strains opposing teams so much means that it should be ranked high despite fitting on a narrower scope of builds as compared to say Arceus-Ground. The new criterion should weigh these two factors and seek to balance them somehow.

I wouldn't mind having the only S rank Pokemon be Primal Groudon, and then forming all the remaining ranks from that baseline, but that probably isn't super popular with the rest of the community. Nayrz's proposed system is what we have already, but eliminates the sub ranks for B and C. We have ranked everything within the sub-ranks so if we change the system then we should make sure we change it to whatever caters the most to such an arrangement.

 

[orch]

I think that we should move to a more empirical method of grading pokemon's viability- visible composite scoring. The current system is currently an invisible composite scoring system, since we don't actually quantify what we're saying which allows a wide range of interpretation (the reason that this thread is still going on despite of minimal meta changes!) Please note that the examples I'm providing is very rough and very arbitrary and I'm open to any suggestion to improve on this method.

I'm going to use this equation:
score = ( supporting characteristics + defensive characteristics + offensive characteristics ) - required support / 30

the max score for any of these variable is 10.

few examples:

offense + supp + def - req supp

primal groudon = 10 + 10 + 10 - 0 / 30 = 1
mega salamence = 9 + 9 + 10 - 1 /30 = .9
xerneas = 10 + 9 + 10 - 3 /30 = .87
darkrai = 10 + 10 + 2 - 0 /30 = .73
ho-oh = 10 + 10 + 10 - 10 /30 = .67
arceus-water = 0 + 10 + 10 - 3 /30= .57
gothitelle = 0 + 7 + 2 - 8 /30 = .03

As for the letter grading, you can choose some arbitrary cut offs for the ranks. There's no point in defining letter grades for this system until we agree on an equation for arbitrary number = arbitrary letter.

 

[dice]

this whole thread is based on theory and obviously my supporting evidence is from my experiences, but i'd like to think i have a discerning eye on the metagame. heuristically i've found that darkrai and gengar are powerhouses as seen by the continual use of hyper offense / darkrai + keys balance(s) and double hex / gengar + ho-oh squads and i would argue they're a step ahead of a+. hyper offense is a really weird team to prepare for in the builder b.c. it's the one style you need to have a gameplan going in vs. or you're going to lose moreso than the typical matchup which is more reliant on risk vs reward and perception of threats from team preview. darkrai is a huge part as to why this is.

kinda abstract but ho necessitates a pregame strat moreso than any other style imo.

tangent aside, numbers seem lame just b.c. it's essentially over-complicating the heuristics with an even extended subjective checklist..

and yes definitions are lame. no need to post passive aggressively and suggest otherwise.

 

[dice]

fwiw this is how i view the breakpoints in the first few tiers (rank naming removed)

groudon

--

xerneas
mence
ho-oh

--

ekiller
darkrai
gengar

--

arc-water
lugia
latios
klefki
deo-s

--

sableye
diancie
arc-ground
arc-ghost

 

[squinn]

i just want to see some arguments about this thing because av Kakuna brought it up once and its pretty reasonable imo: Latias drops within the subrank or to b+(b+ imo)
on most teams Latios is preferred and i also find myself rather rarely using Latias.
Latias is not able to pressure opposing teams enough and can't even check double dance PDdon reliably.
it has a niche by being a bit more solid of a Pogre check, being a only slightly safer defogger and having access to hwish but really, Latios helps more overall by its huge offensive presence(gets important rolls on xern ttar hooh etc.).using hwish also means you sacrifice one moveslot which really hurts Latias.
maybe Latias performs better than some b+ mons but it's viability shouldn't be that high simply due to Latios existing and performing its role better most of the time, and thats what viability rankings are all about arent they ;o;

 

[Nayrz]

Ok so while the ranking systems' baseline is ironed out, I'll do an update for what we have currently. Seems that there was no disagreeing on the removal of the criteria for the ranks, so its gone. Something may change in the future but I'll either have to discuss with the mods or see more posts here about it.

Update List:

Criteria: removed!
Darkrai: A+ >>> S
Landorus: D >>> C-
Flygon: Unranked >>> C+
Latias: A- >>> B+
Mega Gyarados: Unranked >>> C (until posts are made on it)
Golduck: Unranked >>> Blacklisted

There may be big changes next update, but we will see.

 

[Freeroamer]

I prefer the idea of two lists if possible, where one is a pure threatlist and the other is a traditional viability ranking. For me, the current thread is trying to answer two core questions(how much of a threat is this mon? And how viable is this mon to use on teams)and balance them, and balancing subjective quantities leads to confusion in what the rankings are actually trying to do. Why not have one list that says we're going to rank mons by how large they pose a threat in the Ubers metagame(this could be broken down into more factors such as diversity of sets, ability to potentially bypass would be checks, number of defensive answers, potential to sweep multiple playstyles etc.) and one that says how "viable" is this mon(what's it's opportunity cost to use, does it combine multiple valuable traits/niches, does it mandate certain support?). just my thoughts anyway.

 

[DoubleOD]

I tried Mega Lopunny once but the problem is there is too much priority in ubers and it isn't strong enough to OHKO anything. The logic behind using Mega Lopunny was that I could click HJK and hopefully just drop Mega Sableye in one hit.

 

[squidlick]

Mega Lop isn't unusable by any means. It's still the fastest Healing Wish user in the tier, has perfect coverage(with the ability to hit Ghosts with reliable priority to boot, something priority based threats like Ekiller and Mega Kanga wish they could do) and boasts being naturally faster than regular Mewtwo as well when Mega'd(few Ubers viable Megas can claim this, even Mega Gengar merely ties with it at best).

I'm not advocating a rise, just defending its present viability since as a Mega it's still rather mediocre.

 

[Krauersaut]

I disagree - the only niche Lopunny has is an otherwise inferior Kangaskhan that can beat special Ghosty, and since you'll never see special Ghosty on the kinds of teams you'll see Lopunny on, that's strike one. Even vs HO, the archetype it supposedly does well against, it gives PDon free setup, and doesn't knock Xerneas into EKiller range (not accounting for prior damage ofc).

Then again, it's what, D+ rank? (If not, it probably should be.) There's always gonna be better options, and teams that need a Mega Lopunny (since building around a paper-thin mon that can't sweep OR clean is stupid) likely need to be given a hard look at anyway.

As a note on a more relevant topic, I'd like to suggest a move for Dialga to A-. I've done extensive testing with it over the last few weeks, and it's absolutely a force to be reckoned with - aside from the staple Shuca Berry set, an offensive Life Orb set (I know, that's what I thought too, but bear with me) is actually quite phenomenal, a few notable boons being that it OHKO's Klefki, bulk-less PDon, 2HKOs Primal Kyogre, and still maintains its defensive niche thanks to its fantastic bulk and typing. Its LO set is admittedly mostly dead weight vs hyper offense outside of getting sac'd to sleep (although nothing wants to be 1v1 with it except Xern if you lack Steel coverage, which they never think you will), but it single handedly decimates any stall without a blob, and dismantles standard Waterceus balance. I'd personally move Arceus-Rock above Mewtwo, and then put Dialga above Arceus-Rock, but that could definitely just be me. Besides, at that point, we all know they're of sufficiently similar viability anyway.

 

[Fireburn]

Lopunny's big niches over Kangaskhan are that it destroys Sableye and has significantly less trouble with Darkrai and Gengar. Healing Wish is never bad either. Whether or not this makes it "good" is debatable, but it has more advantages over Kangaskhan than merely the Ghostceus matchup. And fwiw Fake Out + Return + Stealth Rock does knock Xerneas into EKiller range, though using either Lopunny or Kangaskhan with EKiller on the same team is a little icky regardless from a defensive standpoint.

Dialga's primary defensive niche is checking Salamence reliably which it needs Shuca Berry to do - without it you get punked by +1 Earthquake easily. Choosing to run Life Orb does give Dialga a lot more power but also gives it the dilemma that fellow strong Dragon nukes Palkia and Kyurem-W have - a poor hyper offense matchup, worsened in part by dropping Shuca Berry (you can't beat the most common HO Mence which is Flying STAB + EQ) and apparently Steel coverage (which makes it much easier for Xerneas to set up after a Draco Meteor).

Dialga's access to Stealth Rock and ability to reliably check all Salamence are what give it the edge over its "powerful but kinda slow Dragon" friends - without these things it would probably be stuck with Palkia and Kyurem-W in C rank somewhere. It's fine where it is imo.

 

[Peli]

Then again, it's what, D+ rank? (If not, it probably should be.) There's always gonna be better options, and teams that need a Mega Lopunny (since building around a paper-thin mon that can't sweep OR clean is stupid) likely need to be given a hard look at anyway.

C, D seems more fitting

e; im leading more towards unranked, but I don't mind if its really really low. The thing is I have yet to see one serious team with yet, will other mons like gyara in C have actually seen usage in tours; see upl.

 

[Krauersaut]

Lopunny's big niches over Kangaskhan are that it destroys Sableye and has significantly less trouble with Darkrai and Gengar. Healing Wish is never bad either. Whether or not this makes it "good" is debatable, but it has more advantages over Kangaskhan than merely the Ghostceus matchup. And fwiw Fake Out + Return + Stealth Rock does knock Xerneas into EKiller range, though using either Lopunny or Kangaskhan with EKiller on the same team is a little icky regardless from a defensive standpoint.

Dialga's primary defensive niche is checking Salamence reliably which it needs Shuca Berry to do - without it you get punked by +1 Earthquke easily. Choosing to run Life Orb does give Dialga a lot more power but also gives it the dilemma that fellow strong Dragon nukes Palkia and Kyurem-W have - a poor hyper offense matchup, worsened in part by dropping Shuca Berry (you can't beat the most common HO Mence which is Flying STAB + EQ) and apparently Steel coverage (which makes it much easier for Xerneas to set up after a Draco Meteor).

Dialga's access to Stealth Rock and ability to reliably check all Salamence are what give it the edge over its "powerful but kinda slow Dragon" friends - without these things it would probably be stuck with Palkia and Kyurem-W in C rank somewhere. It's fine where it is imo.

It's true that it destroys Sableye, but there are many other Pokemon capable of doing that that AREN'T otherwise useless, and don't take up such massive opportunity cost in that it uses your Mega-slot. To beat Darkrai and Gengar, you're running Jolly, which hits like a wet paper towel - I simply can't imagine a single team in which it will actually have a significant role in a victory.

As for the Xern calc, I meant that if Xern were to come in on Lopunny, it wouldn't be in range of priority, and since Lopunny-Mega erases the chance of having any viable priority other than Klefki, Xern essentially gets free rein. For the sake of argument, I'm fairly certain, that Jolly Lopunny doesn't even 2HKO 200 Def Xern with Return after Fake Out. Maybe after Stealth Rocks? I'm too lazy to go calc, but I still don't see a viable niche for Lopunny on any team in ORAS Ubers.

As for Dialga - I must say, its an exceedingly average Salamence check. If it's your primary switch in, one Earthquake and switch out and you've lost the game. As I touched on before, Dialga decimates balance and stall almost single-handedly when backed by the power of Life Orb, and against Hyper Offense, at least it can be your sleep fodder. Just don't stack on HO-prone mons ;x

I still feel like Dialga should definitely rise. People think its main niche is checking Salamence, but I disagree with that entirely, since it barely fulfills that role. It should be an offensive Stealth Rock setter, secondary switch in to Kyogre, and a fantastic switch in to Waterceus, Lugia, Klefki and Darkrai (especially if your set isn't revealed, you can play mindgames ;o). I can't understate how much I love Dialga in a meta overriden by bulky offense with no real switch ins for it.

 

[The Noob Killer]

I disagree about M Lop, yet again.

M Lop isn't really supposed to get any OHKOs besides Darkri, Sableye, and anything that is super effected by fighting.

However, as a late game clean up, sure! It can take an unboosted Life Orb es from ekiller and proceed to KO it with even low kick. A powerful unresisted STAB typing (due to scrappy) in Low Kick/Return/High Jump Kick/Fake out/Quick Attack gives solid 30-100% damage (without predicted switches). It is predictions galore if you have a team that can beat Ho-oh and frankly is the best (weakened) primal counters I know of, because everything else is moderately common and prepared for.

I'm not saying M Lop is the best mega ever, but I think C is harsh. B or B- in my opinion.

M Lop only works on a good team though, and because no one that I've seen has made a good team with M Lop, it is considered bad. (I took the advice from the sample team rejection and am making edits).

 

[haxiom]

Eh I've looked at Mega Lopunny before and it just seems underwhelming and difficult to justify on teams, I certainly wouldn't support a rise. It's positives (Fake Out, Scrappy, high Speed, Healing Wish) just are a bit underwhelming for taking up the Mega slot and offering very very little defensively. It's not very strong and most of what it can do is better done by other stuff. Healing Wish is a nice luxury but realistically Mega Lopunny isn't going to be worth it because it can Fake Out some stuff, maybe get a revenge kill on occasion, and sacrifice itself perhaps? It's not even really strong enough to be a dominant threat in the late game. For me, Mega Lopunny is a mediocre offensive Pokemon with a few nice utility things but it's not worth it enough to justify on many teams and certainly not to justify a rise in viability.

I'm not sure about Dialga, I'd have to think a bit more.