Can we talk about Stealth Rock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#51
I think it is safe to say that with smogons' timer and banning funbro strategies that all matches will always end with a victor, with or without SR.

Again, the pro ban SR view is not against hazards, healthy pressure or competitive aggressiveness, it is against A hazard called SR arguing it is unhealthy, non-competitive and its damages (have your pick of any pro ban argument here) outweight any possible benefits (removing burden of checking/counter select pokemon, ending matches "faster").

As pointed out by both sides, we needs stats to advance many arguments here and data mining. If we are going to have a SR suspect test, instead of setting an SR-less ladder at the beginning of the test, we should have a ladder from the beginning of Gen 7, through the initial first month of allowing banned OU mons to be played again along side the new entries and after auto banning the obviously broken stuff. That is when you have your test.

So that questions like "do matches end faster, how much damage SR rack compared to other moves/pokemon and how many people want to test this or are pro ban" can be answered objectively.
 
#52
It baffles me that people actually want to suspect Stealth Rock when most stall-vs-stall match-ups in ORAS are already microcosms of an SR-less metagame due to Defog. These games tend to last hundreds of turns, and I wouldn't exactly call that healthy for the metagame. And no, banning MSableye doesn't resolve this issue at all; this phenomenon isn't exclusive to MSableye stall or ORAS OU or even ORAS.

bab's post is solid reasoning, but the crux of his argument is more switching = more options = more chances for a skilled player to win the game. I agree with all of this, but at the same time, more switching = more turns = longer games. This is a self-admitted flaw ("i've seen what sort of games certain oras match-ups can produce when there's a lack of entry hazards present") and a downside to all metagames where switching is less punishable. This can be clearly observed in the current ORAS metagame, but it's also no coincidence that the other metagames he references, RBY/GSC, which allow for extended strings of outmaneuvers, commonly feature long, drawn out matches at the highest level. I think it's self-evident why extremely long games are bad, but if I have to further qualify this statement, it means fatigue becomes a greater factor.

I am adamantly against suspecting Stealth Rock; bab's argument aside, I'm wholly unconvinced it would improve the game at all with respect to the criteria outlined in our current tiering framework.
 
#53
Benefits of an SR-less ladder: people can actually test and play for themselves instead of guess-estimating how an SR-less meta would look like, pro ban and anti ban people can gather and discuss facts on equal grounds, worries and concerns can be weighed to see if they have any merit, etc.

Since we are being allowed to to refer to past gens and quote other people, here is a small sample I've selected from the time we actually had an SR-less ladder, feel free to look up pro vs. anti discussions or trying to find a user complaining about battle lengths:


http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/stealth-rock-less-ladder.3488323/
"I have to say, I was totally against the banning of Stealth Rock, but this metagame is much more diverse than any BW OU meta I've ever seen. I mean, things like Weavile, Yanmega, Moltres, Tornadus, Darmanitan, Victini, Togekiss, Sun, Hail, stall, and many many other things are so much more viable right now. I'm not going to lie and say that Dragonite isn't annoying, but it is not impossible to beat. Neither is Volcarona (in fact, Dragonite makes an excellent Volcarona counter). I've only played a few matches so far, but it's been unbelievably fun and diverse. I'm going to have trouble going back.

======

"Spikes still exists, but is less useful to offensive teams for several reasons. Far fewer Pokemon learn it, and the ones that do tend to be more defensive, requiring a noticeable sacrifice in immediate power to run; it also takes multiple turns to maximize its effect, requiring a slow down in the pace of battle as well. Even with all 3 layers down, far many more Pokemon are immune to it, so the benefit of those 3 turns spent is often more ambiguous. My problem with SR is not so much that it's "broken" as it is too much benefit for too little effort, both in building the team and playing it."

=====

"I like this metagame a lot so far. Stall feels a lot more viable without SR being everywhere. I've been using a rain stall team with sub roost Moltres and it's worked really well. Though it's become more difficult to deal with dragonite, I feel like, as a whole, the balance between the viability of defensive and offensive playstyles is a lot closer to equilibrium than standard OU. I find it a little absurd that there are a few people who are staunchly against a stealth rock-less metagame based on their day 1 impressions. We have no idea how this metagame is going to develop. In the end, it may turn out that this metagame is worse and that team building is even more pigeon-holed than in standard. On the other hand, it may turn out to be a much more balanced metagame where there's a reason to run something other than Rain offense and Sand balance."

======

"I don't understand how a single person could find this ladder boring in the slightest

If only because it is different than the current standard

But even aside from its novelty, I find the meta itself to be far better. I love how things don't just /die/ because <insert calc with "after stealth rocks" in it here>. Different playstyles and pokes have the ability to shine without the threat of rocks. We can switch whenever we want without worrying about hazards for the most part. Stall is doing better than ever (except against me... +2/+2/+2 kyu-b 1hkos the entire game). Dnite isn't really all that problematic.

I mean, my god, the meta is, imo, swell, and that is without a single banning. If it were regulated I feel that a stealth rock-less meta would be far superior to the standard"

=======

qways:

Before i argue about Sr being uncompetetive or not i want to make sure that everyone is aware that a hazard move can be uncompetetive/ too strong. Just imagine a new move called super Sr which is exactly like Sr, except it deals 4 times as much damage. I think everyone agrees this move would be too strong/broken, no matter how many defog or magic bounce users are there and it would even be banned if it was the only hazard move in the game - because if in theory gf only gives us hazards that are broken, we would have to ban them all and hope that gf introduces competetive hazard moves if we want to use such moves.

In the current game we have another entry hazard called "Spikes" - which is definitely not broken - in addition to Sr.

Now imagine a graph about strength of hazard moves where left is Spikes and rigth is Super Stealth rocks. It is clear that everything equal and weaker in strength to spikes is competetive, while everything as strong and stronger than super Stealth rocks is too strong/broken. Somewhere between those moves there is a point where a hazard move gets too strong/ uncompetetive, we do however not know where this point is. Lets call this point UNC (short for uncompetetive). The normal Sr now lies somewhere between Super Sr and Spikes and - according to the pro ban people - on the rigth side of point UNC, whereas the against ban people thing that Sr lies on the left side of point UNC.


Tldr Some people including me believe that the damage sr deals is too much compared to the metagame. While it migth be difficult to determine if a entry hazard does to much damage, i think it can be done by looking at the usage of said entry hazard.


Now is Sr ban/suspectworthy or not?

So i look at the Tiering policy and there is 1 point that make me believe that Stealth rocks is atleast suspect worthy.

3.b. Brokeness - elements that are too good relative to the rest of the metagame. [...]These elements are broken because they almost dictate/require usage

To see if Sr dictates usage to be competetive, i decided to watch the replays of the Top 30 players of the oras ou ladder. There i found that 26 of the 30 players had Sr in one of there Moveslots. 3 Players had an insufficient amount of replays to determine if they have it or not in there latest team, while 1 player seems to not use it. This high usage is admittely skewed a bit by the fact that there are only 2 damage dealing hazards moves out there and Sr is not only stronger but also better distributed than spikes. Still seeing it on almost any team is too much imo and it has centralizing effects similar to f.e. aegislash.

Therefor i support a suspect test of it.
 
Last edited:
#54
I find pretty silly that many pro SR ban players say that they're not against hazard stacking as whole but just Stealth Rock, while we have Defog which will likely mean "no hazards" in a no-SR metagame (you won't ever get punished by putting your defogger later than the turn SR are set) since majority of Defog users are Flying/Levitate. In that way only Defiant and similar stuff could block hazard stack so Defog stalls, which currently already give some matchup troubles thanks to MegaSableye presence, will be even more powerful since you can't neither "outplay" or punish the obvious switch-in thanks to ultra annoying traits as regenerator, unaware, etc which make switching too much advantageous over any other option since you don't lose too much even in turns where you do a bad move or a too obvious one.
 
#55
you won't ever get punished by putting your defogger later than the turn SR are set since majority of Defog users are Flying/Levitate
This is actually an argument for testing Stealth Rock. If your Defogger can't switch directly into the opponent's Stealth Rock setter, then it's often too easy for the opponent to pressure you while you desperately try to get your Defogger into play. It puts the onus on the Defog user to outplay the opponent, while they're taking significant amounts of damage on each switch - which only gets exacerbated by the prevalence of VoltTurn. It gets progressively harder to remove Stealth Rock the longer it stays up. Like I said earlier itt, I almost never use Stealth Rock-weak mons on balanced teams because of this.

On the other hand if we're dealing with Spikes instead and the Defogger is, presumably, immune, it's much healthier - the onus is on the player with Spikes down to take advantage of them with aggressive switches.

most stall-vs-stall match-ups in ORAS are already microcosms of an SR-less metagame due to Defog. These games tend to last hundreds of turns, and I wouldn't exactly call that healthy for the metagame. And no, banning MSableye doesn't resolve this issue at all; this phenomenon isn't exclusive to MSableye stall or ORAS OU or even ORAS.
The issue for me isn't that battles in ORAS can last hundreds of turns, it's that there's very little going on in most of these turns. In previous generations, outplaying your opponent over a series of moves can usually net an advantage; often now this isn't the case, and it just becomes a game of attrition. M-Sableye is one of the primary culprits here (the other imo is that the increasing number of threats means fewer stalls can afford to incorporate something to pressure other stall. Again, removing Stealth Rock may mitigate this issue).
 
#56
This is actually an argument for testing Stealth Rock. If your Defogger can't switch directly into the opponent's Stealth Rock setter, then it's often too easy for the opponent to pressure you while you desperately try to get your Defogger into play. It puts the onus on the Defog user to outplay the opponent, while they're taking significant amounts of damage on each switch - which only gets exacerbated by the prevalence of VoltTurn. It gets progressively harder to remove Stealth Rock the longer it stays up. Like I said earlier itt, I almost never use Stealth Rock-weak mons on balanced teams because of this.

On the other hand if we're dealing with Spikes instead and the Defogger is, presumably, immune, it's much healthier - the onus is on the player with Spikes down to take advantage of them with aggressive switches.



The issue for me isn't that battles in ORAS can last hundreds of turns, it's that there's very little going on in most of these turns. In previous generations, outplaying your opponent over a series of moves can usually net an advantage; often now this isn't the case, and it just becomes a game of attrition. M-Sableye is one of the primary culprits here (the other imo is that the increasing number of threats means fewer stalls can afford to incorporate something to pressure other stall. Again, removing Stealth Rock may mitigate this issue).
Not every Defog user is Flying, and Levitate users usually take regular damage. Also many hazard remover can enter on regular SR on the hazard setting turn without getting severe risks, think about Zapdos for Clefable, Skarmory for Excadrill and most common Garchomp/Lando-T SR sets, the same Excadrill for Clefable and Azelf, Togekiss for Garchomp and so on. This post can make u a better idea of how hazard removal can properly work, even though that post was just talkin about defensive threats. The point is still the same: it's your fault if you let your team getting too pressured by Stealth Rock, there are many choices in terms of play and teambuilding choices to not suffer Stealth Rock too much, like: using reliable hazard removal or using Pokémon that don't suffer Stealth Rock, or that can take momentum during hazard setting (like Substitute Swords Dance Landorus-T works pretty well vs Tankchomp and opposing non-HP Ice Lando-T, just to make a stupid example, or you can just slap a Keldeo/other powerful thing on the field, etc.).

If your Defogger can't switch directly into the opponent's Stealth Rock setter, then it's often too easy for the opponent to pressure you while you desperately try to get your Defogger into play.
Wrong: as I said above, your defogger can switch directly on opponent Stealth Rock setter, it just can't do that while Stealth Rock is already up, and that's a good thing since otherwise it'd be TOO easy for defogger (or better: you would have a too wide variety of viable defoggers) to do its job; while it's currently easy for Stealth Rock setter put that hazard on field, there are plenty of reliable hazards remover that can istantly take it off.

The only "issue" I see in Stealth Rock is that it forces the viability of certain Pokémon, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in a generation like ORAS in which there are too many threats to already consider so Stealth Rock are somehow balancing the whole thing. I mean, Gamefreak even gifted us a new Defog mechanic, at least theres not the need anymore of relying solely on Starmie/antispinners/Xatu and all pursuitweak stuff like it was for Gen 5 non-rain teams.
 
#57
Oh come on, the argument "the hazard remover can switch directly against the Stealth Rock user" clearly isn't a good one. Sometimes they can, more often they can't. This also worsens the luck-based match-up problem (very significantly in some cases), which I know is omnipresent but which we still need to be trying to lessen where possible.

The post by boudouche you mentioned isn't really applicable - it just demonstrates how a combination of mons used on stall can successfully block Stealth Rock from nearly all setters. Not only is this only relevant to stall, but these kinds of anti-hazards teams are also extremely match-up based and disliked.

Building a team which isn't too pressured by Stealth Rock, on the other hand, is perfectly possible, but it also imposes another very limiting and centralising criteria.
 
#58
Oh come on, the argument "the hazard remover can switch directly against the Stealth Rock user" clearly isn't a good one.
Why wouldn't it be a good argument while all your arguments are actually lacking facts? All you did for the whole thread is doing theorymon (fire hazards) or saying things like "sometimes", "personally", "enjoyable".. try to bring facts when you talk.

Sometimes they can, more often they can't.
Like? Maybe some examples are appreciated.
Obviously not every Defog user can switch in on every single Stealth Rock user, otherwise we would have a problem in the relation between these two moves, with Defog being the problematic one.

This also worsens the luck-based match-up problem (very significantly in some cases), which I know is omnipresent but which we still need to be trying to lessen where possible.
Pokémon is all about matchup, and while we have to reduce issues coming from this, in terms of "not autolosing from something because I had to cover from the other 12 most viable threats + those 2 cancer playstyles my opponent likes to use", the matchup problem will be, as you said, omnipresent. Removing Stealth Rock will take off a move (not whole threats), opening cans of possibilities like more SD/Toxic/FireBlast/Substitute for Garchomp, Taunt/Counter/BBird/IHead for Skarmory, HP Fire/Surf/Calm Mind/Trick for Latwins and so on. Did you solve the matchup issue? You actually didn't!
I really didn't want to mention the fact that a SR-less metagame will open doors for many more threats, as someone surely had said in this thread, since many fire/ice/flying/bug types will be viable, other than Focus Sash and Sturdy being 99% effective on flying mons (Skarmory). Surely we could ban the most problematic ones (as hypothetically Dragonite/Volcarona/Charizard/Pinsir could be), but you'll surely have further threats to think about during your teambuilding. Here we are again with that """matchup issue""" you brought in as your pro ban argument...

The post by boudouche you mentioned isn't really applicable - it just demonstrates how a combination of mons used on stall can successfully block Stealth Rock from nearly all setters. Not only is this only relevant to stall, but these kinds of anti-hazards teams are also extremely match-up based and disliked.
Well, I've never said you had to bring the whole combinations to stop Stealth Rock, I just used his post to mention how many defog/rapid spin users have good matchup vs a very good part of the stealth rock users, since you said defog users get too much pressure, while it should be..normal(?) getting pressured in "countering" something. I mean, majority of hazard removers have recoveries, it's not like they can't do this job, the whole thing is balanced. Not every team can fit a good hazard remover in, maybe this is a bit more problematic, but hey, you don't necessarily have to bring a spinner/defogger in your team! Also, since this topic seems to be made to set something for gen 7, this one gave us new fresh spin users (maybe viable, as Dhelmise could be, or Pheromosa if it won't get banned?), other than buffing some defog users (as Mantine). We should wait gen 7 to talk about this though.

Building a team which isn't too pressured by Stealth Rock, on the other hand, is perfectly possible, but it also imposes another very limiting and centralising criteria.
What limiting and centralising criteria are you talking about?
I don't see problems in Stealth Rock being somehow centralizing as long as they prevents the incoming of huge plethoras of likely viable mons, especially if this move doesn't break the game and got some good answers to being removed. Currently, especially due to Sableye stalls, it's more likely to never keep hazards on rather than never take them off, while there should be some balance in this relation. Hazards were implemented in the game to punish switching which is almost always the best play otherwise, in order to add some risk in doing that, other than preventing some "too long games" and add a way to get advantage vs defensive teams, which can just only switch to the counter forcing a series of doubles switches that won't lead to anything other than making mistakes on the long road. I don't see any advantage in taking Stealth Rock off, rather more disadvantages.
 
#59
Not every Defog user is Flying, and Levitate users usually take regular damage. Also many hazard remover can enter on regular SR on the hazard setting turn without getting severe risks, think about Zapdos for Clefable, Skarmory for Excadrill and most common Garchomp/Lando-T SR sets, the same Excadrill for Clefable and Azelf, Togekiss for Garchomp and so on. This post can make u a better idea of how hazard removal can properly work, even though that post was just talkin about defensive threats.
Let's take this bit by bit and take OU for example:

Number of viable SR mons in OU (realistically having the move in their set/top percentage of sets):

S Rank: Clefable, Landrous-T
A+ Rank: Heatran, Tyranitar
A: Ferrothorn, Garchomp, Jirachi
A-: Gliscor, Skarmory, Terrakion
B+: Chansey, Hippowdon, Mew
B: n/a
B-: Celebi, Dugtrio, Mamoswine

Total: 16

Chances of Failure: Magic Bounce (Sable being tested), Taunt (Terrakion, Thundrus, Mew) and Spore (Breloom, Amoongus)
Risks of use: Magic bounce (1 user)
Benefits: Single Turn Set up, Damage per switch: (50% to x4 weak, 25% to x2 weak, 12.5% to neutral, 6.25% to x0.5 weak), discourages use of x2 and x4 weak pokemon in team building, punishes switching and in particular stall, volt turning, etc.

================

Number of viable defoggers/Rapid Spinners in OU (realistically having the move in their set/top percentage of sets):

S Rank: n/a
A+ Rank: Latios, M.Scizor
A: Excadrill
A-: Skarmory, Starmie
B+: Latias, Mew
B: Zapdos
B-: n/a

Total: 8

Chances of Failure: Ghosts when using rapid spin (Gengar, Sableye)
Risks of use: Ghosts (free turn, Gengar, Sableye), Defiant users (Bisharp,Thundrus), Pursuit users (Weavile, Tyranitar, Bisharp), Paralysis (Clefable, Chansey, Ferrothorn), Rocky helmet SR setters (Ferrothorn, Garchomp), defogging/spinning infront of switched in set up users, Weakness to SR (Zapdos) and 12.5% per switch (Latios, M.Scizor, Skarmory, Latias, Mew, Starmie)
Benefits: Opponent does not get benefits of SR setter mentioned above with the exception of "discourages use of x2 and x4 weak pokemon in team building"

The point is still the same: it's your fault if you let your team getting too pressured by Stealth Rock
I am at fault for not preparing for SR, but "too pressured" by it? No, it's just the odds/probability stacked against you. Again, the pro SR ban is willing to put the money where the mouth is and test their arguments in a real ladder where everyone can play and judge by themselves.
 
Last edited:
#60
Why wouldn't it be a good argument while all your arguments are actually lacking facts? All you did for the whole thread is doing theorymon (fire hazards) or saying things like "sometimes", "personally", "enjoyable".. try to bring facts when you talk.
Jesus Christ. The whole point of wanting to have a test is to get facts. There are no other facts available besides the BW no-SR ladder. All the rhetoric I and others have used has been aimed at achieving exactly this.

How many knots do we have to twist ourselves in to think that if a majority of the seasoned and skilled battlers want to test something like stealth rock or scald out we should just say no and ignore it? If you could prove "objectively" that something was bad in a post there would be no such thing as a suspect test.
 
#61
It baffles me that people actually want to suspect Stealth Rock when most stall-vs-stall match-ups in ORAS are already microcosms of an SR-less metagame due to Defog. These games tend to last hundreds of turns, and I wouldn't exactly call that healthy for the metagame. And no, banning MSableye doesn't resolve this issue at all; this phenomenon isn't exclusive to MSableye stall or ORAS OU or even ORAS.
This has been an issue between stall teams since before Defog's hazard clearing mechanic was even introduced. I wouldn't go so far at all as to state this as to be microcosms of any kind of SR-less metagame as it's literally only depicting one type of team against itself.

In addition, unfortunately I wasn't able to find too much with regard to data referring specifically to Stealth Rock. I spoke with Antar as well and detailed statistics with regards to the relevant information I was asking about in an earlier post won't be available to us for sometime so we're just going to have to move on for now.

Just as a quick reminder those questions were as follows.

• How much damage on average does Stealth Rock accumulate per battle?
• How long does Stealth Rock generally stay down after initially placed?
• How often is it used per battle in comparison to it's specific counter moves in Rapid Spin and Defog?


Despite not having concrete statistics for these questions I think they would be a good points to still discuss with regards to the topic and if we can get them at some point over the course of this discussion then even better.

With that said what else can be done to move on from this point? There has obviously been enough support behind doing at least something with regards to Stealth Rock, whether it be a test of some kind or an actual maintained ladder being introduced. No other topic gets brought up this often and is so blatantly ignored.
 

Karxrida

Travels at the speed of DARKNESS
is a Community Contributor
#62
I personally think this entire thing is ludicrous, and to illustrate my stance I'm going to make some comparisons with Team Fortress 2. They're not going to be 1:1 comparisons since it's not the same game as Pokémon and I haven't played it in over a year and I'll probably ramble a bit, so bear with me.

So in TF2 there's this class called the Medic. The Medic's main thing is obviously healing his teammates, but he also has this thing called the Ubercharge that lets him make himself and one target invincible for 8 seconds (which he gets by filling a meter, which itself is done by healing people). Naturally in competitive this makes the Medic effectively mandatory because it's so goddamn useful and the fact you have to plan around it is what we could consider centralizing, and in a vacuum this look broken because there's extremely limited counterplay. To stop the Uber, you need to:
  • Kill the Medic before he gets/uses it. This can be hard because at least half of the team is always protecting his ass.
  • If the above fails, force the Medic to use the Uber to save his own hide at an inopportune moment. Also hard; see above.
  • Use a Pyro (widely regarded as a shitty class last I checked because he lacks any good range or DPS) to use his airblast to distrupt the Uber since invincible =/= immune to knockback. The 6v6 comp format usually doesn't have this luxury because the meta is 2 Scouts + 2 Soldiers + 1 Demo + 1 Medic, plus the Pyro can potentially die in the attempt to disrupt the Uber.
So like I said this looks broken in a vacuum, right? Wrong. While centralizing, this creates a pretty stable and healthy meta involving trying to remove the Medic ASAP by exerting offensive pressure. You want to win, so you try to remove the opposing Medic from the equation as much as possible while protecting your own. This enhances the competitive aspect of the game.

Like I said this is not a totally 1:1 comparison, but there are still similarities to SR. SR is usually "set and forget" but you're still trying to keep it up while preventing the opponent from getting theirs up. It's definitely centralizing and very powerful, but this is not a bad thing because it ultimately makes the game more strategic with this dynamic of "try to keep yours up and theirs down".



Something else I'd like to talk about is the notion that SR is limiting certain mons from being viable. My counterpoint is: Does it really make good Pokemon bad, or already bad Pokemon worse?

Many unviable SR-weak mons tend to have issues not related to the hazard that limit their usability. Bug/Flying-types have low BSTs, less than stellar defensive typings, and the Quiver Dancers are largely outclassed by Volcarona (who's also super SR weak btw yet remains OU viable). Many Ice-types are slow and are designed like tanks when that conflicts with the typing's strength as offensive forces, plus they also have pretty shitty defensive typings (one resist and four weaknesses does not make for a good wall). I believe somebody mentioned Articuno before, but will it really be good when all it's got going for it defensively besides the Special bulk is like 1 resist? Don't bring up Chansey because it has stupidly high bulk that nothing can match.

Something also to consider is that we continue to have SR-weak mons that are still totally viable or even broken. Ho-Oh is a premier Uber, Talonflame had a legitimate defensive set and a powerful offensive one in Gen 6 despite most of its stats not breaking 100, Zard X is a deadly sweeper, etc.

We also have to consider that we continue to get new tools to deal with SR. Defog got buffed last Gen with a number non-gimmicky users, we have two really good Magic Bouncers, and Gen VII has granted us more potentially useful spinners and Defoggers. If Gens IV and V could deal with SR being around when they had a much harder time getting rid of it, why are we complaining about it now when it's easier to remove than ever?

Don't do anything, the move is fine. Sorry if I rambled a bit or didn't make complete sense, I just wanted to state my peace.
 
Last edited:
#63
Posting for Hot dog pizza

The thread is NOT the suspect thread. The argument here is to reach a conclusion on whether SR should be suspected. To do that we need objective evidence and data on how SR affects the meta in a controlled manner. To do that we would need a SR-less ladder or a ban of SR early on in gen7 OU.

The effects of SR on the existing meta are very clear; we have had 10 years centered solely around the move. It's presence on every team and impact in the viability of fire/ice/flying/bug types is indisputable .

What we are not able to answer, without testing, is the effect its removal would have. Importantly, the introduction of overpowered threats, such as volcarona or charizard Y, is NOT a reason to not test SR. The result in that scenario is a subsequent testing of those broken elements.

The "anti-ban" side should not even exist at this point in time. There should only be an "anti-testing" argument being considered, and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests that we should reject a means to gather more info on SR (a la a SR-less ladder.)


=====

Personally I'm now in favour of a no-Stealth Rock ladder being set up once the metagame has settled somewhat.
 
#65
I'd be looking at things like:
  • Does the increased number of viable threats strain defensive play? Or are defensive teams conversely too effective when they can't be pressured by Stealth Rock?
  • Does the match-up issue worsen or improve?
  • Do matches tend to drag on significantly longer?
  • What happens to the early game? Stealth Rock eases the prediction involved at preview; without it, does this become a problem?
  • Is strategic play enriched or diminished?
as well as any other observations that arise and subjective judgements on personal enjoyment (I'm Rick Astley's recent post in the Tiering Policy thread articulates quite nicely why "the meta I like better" is still relevant).
 
Last edited:
#66
Based on past posts by both pro SR and anti SR arguers, I believe this is a fair path to take towards the subject while both catering to both sides and making sure everyone comes out of this test satisfied and content with its conclusion and keeping the good face of Smogon:

====================

1) We set up a SR-less ladder once the quickbans are over, usually we spend a month testing but for this we can last 3 or as needed

2) Data is collected during that period that answers these critical questions poised by both sides:

A) How much damage on average does Stealth Rock accumulate per battle vs. Damage done by pokemon (SR Ladder)

B) How many turns do battles last on average between various playstyles eg. stall vs stall (SR and SR-less Ladders)

C) Top percentile pokemon being used in sr ladder vs sr less ladder (types included)

D) What becomes broken in a ladder without SR (looking for one playstyle becoming dominant, a group of elevated threats without SR, etc.), if any

E) In the same manner, what fall outs from usage, which playstyles disappear, do other hazards pick up pace/usage or is hazard play abandoned all together?

F) How often is it used per battle in comparison to it's specific counter moves in Rapid Spin and Defog, or how often is SR removed successfully

3) We gather again to evaluate results based on these criteria, and then either test SR or conclude that a meta without SR is not desirable as a mainstream and official format

====================

As for "the meta I like better", why can't we just keep the SR-less ladder a thing? We got ladders for OMs that contain far more complicated adjustments and they even have suspect tests of their own and independent tournaments, what's one more?
 

Steven Snype

Kunclord Supreme
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#67
Mithril asked me to post this for him in here:

Smogon is a competive battling site where we attempt to to ensure that the most skilled player wins. I am struggling to understand how any of the above bullets lead to the conclusion that needs to be banned based on Aldaron's tiering framework. Is Stealth Rock a fantastic move? Yes. But in no way is it uncompetitive, broken, or unhealthy based on the definitions clearly laid out in the framework. The existence of stealth rock does not make the more skillful play irrelevant, it simply alters the framework in which those decisions have to be made.

Uncompetitive - The player choice is still paramount to his victory, it just has to be made with the knowledge that Stealth Rock is up (or not for that matter) and is a part of what must be considered for the decision.

Broken - We can concede that stealth rock racks up a lot of damage throughout the battle (more or less depending on the inclusion of SR weak Pokemon). But this damage does not render the more skillful play irrelevant, if anything it makes the more skillful play even more impactful. Agressively doubling into an advantageous matchup can force the opponent to switch, punishing them for getting out-predicted.

Unhealthy - This one is a little more controversial as SR is clearly mentioned in the comment. But I think more important is the comment at the end of this point where he states that "This is the most controversial and subjective one, and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The OU Council will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player." Unless you can honestly argue that you feel that SR results in the less skilled player winning when they shouldn't the point is moot in my opinion.

Stealth Rock restricts team building to some extent, but no more than considerations like status absorbers, the necessity to be able to break stall, or the ability to deal with individual threats. SR just feels like the scapegoat people are pointing at for why certain Pokemon aren't viable when, as Karxrida pointed out. there are plenty of SR weak Pokemon that are thriving. And to be honest, I personally don't think it should matter even if it is. There are going to be good and bad Pokemon regardless of the existence of Stealth Rock. Unless you honestly believe that taking Stealth Rock out of the game will make the game more skill dependent, this discussion isn't worth having. And if you do think Stealth Rock takes away from the skill of the game and makes skillfull plays irrelevent, then that's what you have to argue and at least personally, I just don't see a case for anything close to that being made.
 

Steven Snype

Kunclord Supreme
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#68
Salem1 asked me to post this on behalf of him responding to Mithril's post.

Mithril asked me to post this for him in here:

Uncompetitive - The player choice is still paramount to his victory, it just has to be made with the knowledge that Stealth Rock is up (or not for that matter) and is a part of what must be considered for the decision.
This is in effect an argument for a broken thing being balanced because you can centralize around it. Why ban anything at all from a tier then? why havetiers? If your paragraph is reworded to include Ubers instead of SR, the same logic works. So there must be something incomplete about either the logic or the tiering system, let's see if we find it in the next points you made.

Furthermore, under the uncompetitive critera themselves, SR ticks matchup.

Matchup:"This can be match up related; think the determination that BP took the battling skill aspect out of the player's hands and made it overwhelmingly a team match up issue, where even with the best moves made each time by a standard team often were not enough." SR is one of the most matchup-defining things in the game, punishing certain types more than others for the rest of the game in a single turn, making it more punishing to use switch-ins against certain attacking types and most significantly promoting the use of types that resist it. SR-resistance is the defining centralizing factor, not that mons are weak to it - that is also bad, but it's additional in the sense you can take that away and it's still a matchup issue affecting more than those 4 types. Only because the metagame is already warped by generations of SR could this criteria be considered not true, as SR will punish a player's attempts to use skill in switching significantly more or less simply by matchup.

Broken - We can concede that stealth rock racks up a lot of damage throughout the battle (more or less depending on the inclusion of SR weak Pokemon). But this damage does not render the more skillful play irrelevant, if anything it makes the more skillful play even more impactful. Agressively doubling into an advantageous matchup can force the opponent to switch, punishing them for getting out-predicted.
That is one selective example, which makes for a poor argument. You could just as easily argue that it punishes switching into SR-weak pokemon, taking away player skill by restricting his switches into them despite knowing that an aggressive double-switch would otherwise be advantageous. This again feeds into the match-up issue, as a player will be far more punished for wrong switches if his pokemon are not resistant to SR than if they are, beyond the effect it has of punishing defensive switches by 4 types in the game which the player's skill cannot affect. SR thus has an effect on every type in the game, and not just on the types that are weak to it. The fact that you yourself add a disclaimer that SR is more or less effective based on matchup is further evidence of that, but you aren't being completely truthful, because you discount that SR-resistance is the defining factor and not merely weakness to it.

Here are the criteria for broken:

B.) Examples are mostly Pokemon and include strong Ubers like Kyogre, Groudon, and Arceus. These aren't necessarily completely uncompetitive because they don't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use these Pokemon and both probably have a fair chance to win. They are broken because they almost dictate / require usage, and a standard team facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage. These examples limit team building skill.
C.) Examples also include ones whose only counters or checks are extraordinarily gimmicky Pokemon that would put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere. These examples also limit team building skill.
D.) Uncompetitive and Broken defined like this tend to be mutually exclusive in practice, but aren't necessarily entirely so.


SR doesn't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use SR and both probably have a fair chance to win (using teams centralized around the move). SR is broken because it almost dictates / requires usage, and a team which is made without stealth rock in mind (no setter, no spinner, no in- or exclusion of SR-resistant/weak mons respectively) facing one that is would be at a drastic disadvantage.

Including rapid spin or defog on your team is not only in itself practically useless except for the purpose of removing SR, it also forces you to use the few pokemon that can learn those moves and use sets on them that would otherwise be sub-optimal. You cannot count that SR-removers can themselves be setters and thus "equalize" the move slot sacrifice for spin/defog, as this goes against point B that was just made above, which specifically states that just because both teams can use something it is not balanced/desirable.

Under point D, SR breaks both the Uncompetitive and Broken rules, as defined above.

Unhealthy - This one is a little more controversial as SR is clearly mentioned in the comment. But I think more important is the comment at the end of this point where he states that "This is the most controversial and subjective one, and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The OU Council will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player." Unless you can honestly argue that you feel that SR results in the less skilled player winning when they shouldn't the point is moot in my opinion.
The fact that SR is mentioned as the first point with an open conclusion shows that the controversy is taken seriously, otherwise it would be used as an example that was discounted for not being unhealthy. In fact, the wording of the first point ends in "the conversation to be had". I would like to ask how a conversation can be had, which seems to be a stated goal, if an attempt at suspect testing SR is shot down in conception.

No one would need to argue anything here as this point is stated in the policy to be both subjective and secondary to the prior two, both of which I have addressed.


Stealth Rock restricts team building to some extent, but no more than considerations like status absorbers, the necessity to be able to break stall, or the ability to deal with individual threats. SR just feels like the scapegoat people are pointing at for why certain Pokemon aren't viable when, as Karxrida pointed out. there are plenty of SR weak Pokemon that are thriving. And to be honest, I personally don't think it should matter even if it is. There are going to be good and bad Pokemon regardless of the existence of Stealth Rock. Unless you honestly believe that taking Stealth Rock out of the game will make the game more skill dependent, this discussion isn't worth having. And if you do think Stealth Rock takes away from the skill of the game and makes skillfull plays irrelevent, then that's what you have to argue and at least personally, I just don't see a case for anything close to that being made.
1) Status has nowhere near the same effect as SR, so the comparison is fallacious to begin with. Status doesn't affect every mon that switches in for the rest of the game, has counter-options that punish mons for relying on it which SR doesn't to the same extent (guts, facade, resttalk, poison heal, lightningrod, magic bounce, type immunities for free turns off the top of my head - SR has just magic bounce), and is more easily predicted and played around because the average status user can't simply spam it to affect multiple mons. Rather it will most commonly be used as coverage against switch-ins that it loses to or by walls that would get set up on otherwise. This argument is a straw man as well, as theoretically anything could be argued to need preparation for.

2) Stall is a playstyle, not a move. Straw man argument.

3) Again, "necessity to deal with individual threats" is a straw man argument.

4) Mons being SR-weak is not the extent of the move's centralization, and mons thriving that are SR-weak does not disprove any of the aforementioned criteria for Uncompetitive and Broken. Straw man argument again.

5) I'm getting tired and bored of pointing out straw men, so I'll just address the last point now. You may not see the case for it being made, but factual interpretation of the tiering policy makes it clear that SR is valid for a suspect test, while the policy writing itself mentions that SR "is a conversation to be had" and that proof for a ban is on the side that advocates doing so. Disallowing a suspect test would prevent those who wish to make a case from presenting one in the first place. How can you prove something that you are not allowed to examine?
 
#69
I'd like to propose a moratorium on all posts, especially those made by proxy, that make in some form the following claim: "We need the data from a suspect ladder to make any definite conclusions." If your argument for change is not already strong enough to stand on its own, then it does not warrant a suspect test. I can say this because it is clearly stated in policy framework:
III.) Providing justification is the onus of the side changing the status quo.
A.) It is important to note that the status quo can be changed in the case of releases. This is the situation with Hoopa-Unbound, where it started directly in OU unlike other 680 BST legendaries which start as Ubers and then potentially get suspected to drop to OU.
B.) If a proposal is made to ban a Pokemon, Ability, Item, or Move, the side suggesting this ban must demonstrate all of why this is necessary, how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, and provide evidence for both.
C.) If a proposal is made to unban a Pokemon, Ability, Item, or Move, the side suggesting this unban must demonstrate all of why this is necessary, how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, and provide evidence for both.
D.) Complex bans proposals must provide additional information into why the simpler bans are not sufficient.
A sufficient argument is prerequisite for the establishment of a suspect ladder. Why is this a rule? Because "Nothing is conclusive without data" can be used to justify even the most ridiculous of proposals. I could call for a suspect test on literally anything and shoot down any counterarguments by saying we lack sufficient data to make such conclusions. If those in favor of a Stealth Rock ban feel pressed to resort to this argument, then the need for further discussion is clearly over.

The reason I'd like for this line of argumentation to be banned completely is not only because it reflects a fundamental incomprehension of Smogon's tiering framework, but also because it stifles legitimate discussion and attempts to strong-arm one view of thinking without need for any further argumentation.

The "anti-ban" side should not even exist at this point in time. There should only be an "anti-testing" argument being considered, and thus far, I've seen nothing that suggests that we should reject a means to gather more info on SR (a la a SR-less ladder.)
This is a pointless way to reframe the discussion. Any pro-ban argument can be translated to a pro-suspect argument, and the same goes for anti-ban/anti-suspect arguments. Any argument that does not fall into the aforementioned two categories, such as "We need the objective evidence and data to make conclusions on the suspect" is an argument in favor of maintaining the status quo. It is not the responsibility of those against a ban to argue against a suspect test; it is the responsibility of those for a ban to prove why one is needed. Again, this is laid out in the portion of the tiering framework I quoted.

As for "the meta I like better", why can't we just keep the SR-less ladder a thing? We got ladders for OMs that contain far more complicated adjustments and they even have suspect tests of their own and independent tournaments, what's one more?
There is a difference between creating a fun ladder for your own custom metagame and creating a suspect ladder to try and impose your views on tiering on the default metagame. If your intent is the former, then take it up with the parties responsible for deciding what ladders are implemented on the sim. Such a discussion need not take place in Policy Review.

---

Now, I will address responses made to my earlier post.

The issue for me isn't that battles in ORAS can last hundreds of turns, it's that there's very little going on in most of these turns. In previous generations, outplaying your opponent over a series of moves can usually net an advantage; often now this isn't the case, and it just becomes a game of attrition. M-Sableye is one of the primary culprits here (the other imo is that the increasing number of threats means fewer stalls can afford to incorporate something to pressure other stall. Again, removing Stealth Rock may mitigate this issue).
I don't completely agree with your first remark, but I don't feel the need to go in depth to explain why unless it's particularly relevant. My point was that those types of long games are bad. You seemed to agree, maybe for different reasons.

M-Sableye's effect on the metagame is overstated. To prove my point, I ran stats on the recently concluded OLT, which I think is a fair dataset since it strives to cater to the top echelons of both the tournament and ladder playerbases. Of the 230 games played, Sableye was used 6 times, won a whopping 0 games, and resulted in turn counts of [48, 18, 15, 69, 58, 40]. The average turn count for ORAS games was 42, including the 1287-turn ABR vs. Tele fiesta. Without that obvious outlier, the average turncount was 36. Of the games with turncounts above the average, Sableye was involved in only 4/89 (4.5%). Granted, I don't know how many turns constitutes a "long game" to most, but even if we increase it, it's not helping much (i.e. TC = 50, Sableye in 2/43 or 4.6%; TC = 69, Sableye in 1/16 or 6.25%).

Your second point I do not accept on face value. You made the claim that stall cannot afford to incorporate stallbreakers as often due to the increasing number of threats, presumably referring to the influx of new Pokemon between generations. You speculate that the removal of Stealth Rock will enable stall to incorporate more means to pressure other stall. But removing Stealth Rock will also create a smaller influx of new metagame threats—why would stall teams not respond in the same manner as they do when confronted with larger intergenerational influxes of Pokemon? In all actuality, I believe this would be the case: speaking as a (primarily) stall player, there is always the option to outplay other stall teams; defensive coverage is a far more important objective for resource allocation.

This has been an issue between stall teams since before Defog's hazard clearing mechanic was even introduced. I wouldn't go so far at all as to state this as to be microcosms of any kind of SR-less metagame as it's literally only depicting one type of team against itself.
Certainly not to the degree present in ORAS. The turn counts are higher and the games stretch out longer far more frequently than in DPP and BW. The aforementioned 1287 turn game isn't indicative of the norm, but it is also not unprecedented. It might not be a perfect microcosm, but given how successful stall already is in ORAS, I believe we'd be prone to seeing far more of those match-ups with a Stealth Rock ban.
 
Last edited:
#70
The arguments for suspecting SR have literally lasted generations, being compared to every criteria of "brokeness" of our current tiering policy and previous suspects tests, lengthy posts from tournament players, ladder veterans, admins, people who care enough detailing how utterly centralizing it is, difference between it and other hazards, the damage it racks per battle, team building constraints, the odds against removing it once on field, how we shouldn't accept this "necassary evil", etc. We went through all the hoops and flames being demanded for a test, including a BW SR less ladder and answering specific questionnaires. And what are we met with?

"It's too late to consider testing it", "a necessary evil", "u ppl no gud get back to school", "I don't see any no arguments being made", "match ups will last too long based on an outlier but I don't know what is too long example x and y show that without sr battles will last too long while ignoring that x and y will be too long anyway with sr", "Theorymoning is not acceptable but nevertheless we theorize without sr... but I believe we'd be prone to seeing far more of those match-ups with a Stealth Rock ban", etc.

The demand for facts obtained by an SR-less ladder pertaining to damage SR racks per battle and average number of turns was not a request made only by anti SR people but pro SR users who have reached a reasonable conclusion that a few key facts are needed to settle this debate.

The question is, will this thread get the same treatment of the past 2 generations?
 
Last edited:
#71
The arguments for suspecting SR have literally lasted generations, being compared to every criteria of "brokeness" of our current tiering policy and previous suspects tests, lengthy posts from tournament players, ladder veterans, admins, people who care enough detailing how utterly centralizing it is, difference between it and other hazards, the damage it racks per battle, team building constraints, the odds against removing it once on field, how we shouldn't accept this "necassary evil", etc. We went through all the hoops and flames being demanded for a test, including a BW SR less ladder and answering specific questionnaires. And what are we met with?

"It's too late to consider test it", "a necessary evil", "u no gud", "I don't see any arguments being made", "match ups will last too long based on an outlier but I don't know what is too long", "Theorymoning is not acceptable but I believe we'd be prone to seeing far more of those match-ups with a Stealth Rock ban", etc.

The demand for facts obtained by an SR-less ladder pertaining to damage SR racks per battle and average number of turns was not a request made only by anti SR people but pro SR users who have reached a reasonable conclusion that a few key facts are needed to settle this debate.

The question is, will this thread get the same treatment of the past 2 generations?
Please keep your victim complexes outside of this thread. I don't care for how long this purported intergenerational anti-Stealth Rock coalition has existed; why is this relevant at all?

Anyway, there was no reason to believe the results of the Stealth Rock-less ladder were bound to lead to a suspect test when the contrary is clearly stated in the OP of the ladder thread:
-Firstly, this is an entirely unofficial ladder. There is no plan to suspect test Stealth Rock in this generation. The ladder is just to get an idea of what the metagame without Stealth Rock would look like, during the downtime between suspect testing periods.
Nonetheless, why would the arguments from the previous generations apply to this one, especially when the introduction of Defog has changed the impact of Stealth Rock due to making hazard removal more accessible and easier?

As for this part:
"It's too late to consider test it", "a necessary evil", "u no gud", "I don't see any arguments being made", "match ups will last too long based on an outlier but I don't know what is too long", "Theorymoning is not acceptable but I believe we'd be prone to seeing far more of those match-ups with a Stealth Rock ban", etc.
If you want more radio silence, this is a great way to discourage people from posting. I'll thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth and reducing my arguments to strawmen without actually providing a sufficient response to them.

In response to the portions obviously directed at me:
"match ups will last too long based on an outlier but I don't know what is too long"
I eliminated the outlier from the data set, and "long" is to a degree subjective, so I refrained from phrasing it in definite terms because it was unnecessary for the sake of the point I wanted to make. That does not mean I don't have a general impression of what constitutes a long match.
"Theorymoning is not acceptable but I believe we'd be prone to seeing far more of those match-ups with a Stealth Rock ban"
I never said theorymoning was unacceptable, and I was responding to a post that was theorymoning the effects of a Stealth Rock ban.

In conclusion, "I don't see any arguments being made" in your post; all I see is an insipid emotional appeal coupled with a series of petty, reductionist insults. Please cut it out.
 
#72
In conclusion, "I don't see any arguments being made" in your post
My post was a quick summary of what's been happening in smogon since gen 5 (gen 4 if you really insist but BW is where this took steam, everything is documented after all) so I don't know why you are looking at this single post for arguments when there is hundreds of them across generations and tens of arguments posted in this thread alone.

all I see is an insipid emotional appeal coupled with a series of petty, reductionist insults.
When a community is accused people of trying to strong arm another into something they don't want, when it is said their are no any arguments being made despite there being several, when a side is being potrayed by emotional, when the grand majority of what they are saying is ignored and instead people are resorting to unaceptable asinine excuses as a call for inaction I call that pretty damn insulting.

Please cut it out.
Sure, I'll just strike it out (don't want people to read my post edited and think I'm actually insulting anyone) and put a general description that can be applied to most posts here. This is not about you and it's not a fight, I'm posting here with the idea we are all colleagues looking to improve our community with proper respect being maintained at all times.

Anyway, there was no reason to believe the results of the Stealth Rock-less ladder were bound to lead to a suspect test when the contrary is clearly stated in the OP of the ladder thread:
The SR less ladder was put up because of previous arguments and calls for suspect testing it in BW which led to this intresting compromise, a ladder where data can be gathered, meta game can be discussed, arguments can be made for both sides of the debate as you can see in all 11 pages of the thread. Unfortunately when she said "this generation" no one had any idea this would become an official policy of smogon and no actual data mining has been made in that ladder or afterwards.

Nonetheless, why would the arguments from the previous generations apply to this one, especially when the introduction of Defog has changed the impact of Stealth Rock due to making hazard removal more accessible and easier?
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/can-we-talk-about-stealth-rock.3585730/page-3#post-7088182

If you want more radio silence, this is a great way to discourage people from posting,
Your side discourages people from posting by using these flimsy excuses to not act on a subject of general intrest to the communuity, stop making excuses and stop repeating those words, its embarassing. Radio silence is nothing new or unique regarding this subject as has been pointed out by PDC, Iron Kenyan and several others, it's now official policy. I'm more concerned of why posts are suddenly disappearing, its clear to me the discouragment of posting arguments aren't done in the open..

That does not mean I don't have a general impression of what constitutes a long match.
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-305002749

That is a 1000+ turn stall vs. stall battle with SR being used by both sides, there isn't anything called ABRvTele kinda match, it's just stall vs stall in all cases. And just like that the biggest excuse to keep this "necassary evil" has been blown out water.

Any definition of what might constitute as too long with the absense of statistics is gonna be painted as subjective. The SR less ladder is a must.

=======

Edit: As you can all see we have reached the point where a decision of whether or not there will be a suspect test or at least an SR-less ladder to discuss and come back to this debate armed with facts for both sides has arrived, I will be waiting along side others for an official response from tier councils as there really isn't much more to be said atm.
 
Last edited:
#73
Stealth Rock is the definition of a broken element.

When defining broken elements, the policy framework states that a broken Pokemon doesn't necessarily affect battling skill, since both players are free to use it, but should be banned for inhibiting teambuilding skill.

The entire concept of teambuilding skill is frankly suspect. It assumes that the stronger teambuilder should come into battle with an advantage, and that a broken element which almost dictates its own usage reduces choice in teambuilding and therefore reduces this advantage. Since players commonly use teams others have built, there is virtually no skill-based argument for a broken Pokemon to be banned.

However, even if we accept this logic, then Stealth Rock must also be broken. Like a broken Pokemon, it does not inhibit in-battle skill (since both players can use it), but it is compulsory to use and similarly reduces teambuilding skill.
 
#74
My post was a quick summary of what's been happening in smogon since gen 5 (gen 4 if you really insist but BW is where this took steam, everything is documented after all) so I don't know why you are looking at this single post for arguments when there is hundreds of them across generations and tens of arguments posted in this thread alone.

When a community is accused people of trying to strong arm another into something they don't want, when it is said their are no any arguments being made despite there being several, when a side is being potrayed by emotional, when the grand majority of what they are saying is ignored and instead people are resorting to unaceptable asinine excuses as a call for inaction I call that pretty damn insulting.

Sure, I'll just strike it out (don't want people to read my post edited and think I'm actually insulting anyone) and put a general description that can be applied to most posts here. This is not a fight, I'm posting here with the idea we are all colleagues looking to improve our community with proper respect being maintained at all times.
"People don't take my arguments seriously, so here you have some strawman and a whacky pro-SR conspiracy"

That's probably contributing to your problem!!!

The SR less ladder was put up because of previous arguments and calls for suspect testing it in BW which led to this intresting compromise, a ladder where data can be gathered, meta game can be discussed, arguments can be made for both sides of the debate as you can see in all 11 pages of the thread. Unfortunately when she said "this generation" no one had any idea this would become an official policy of smogon and no actual data mining has been made in that ladder or afterwards.
Did you actually read that thread? Because I did. The first 3 pages were decent, after that it turns into tons of "Sash spam is obnoxious", "Hurricane spam is too good", "Hail and Sun are better than Rain" (6__6), "apparently Kyurem-B, Volcarona and Dragonite are really strong without rocks in the field" and "this beat me on the ladder, so it's really good". There are 5 pages arguing about Moltres vs Articuno. Last two pages are about Ninjask BPing to Kyurem and Jirachi, and the last few posts were people complaining about bad players spamming Charizard on the ladder.

Someone got #1, #2 and #3 on the ladder with a standard-looking rain team, that is weak as shit to common OU Pokemon like Kyurem-B, Terrakion, Keldeo, Jellicent (quite literally 6-0d by this, unless Hurricane hax), etc. It says a lot about the ladder when one person manages to get the top 3 spots, and it is much worse when they do it with such a mediocre team.

There is a handful of decent posts, but it's nothing to write home about. Personally, I wouldn't use that thread or ladder to support any argument.

?

That's post can be summarized in one line "There are more SR users than Spin and Defog users. Also, Rapid Spin can fail vs ghosts". Things that post conveniently ignore:

- Every single one of the Pokemon mentioned does more than just Defog or Spin. In fact, some of them don't even need to run those moves
- They all have reliable recovery, bar Excadrill which is always used as a "strong physical attacker with the ability to spin" and not just as a spinner
- Defog or Spin isn't a must in every team. Playing around SR isn't gamebreaking if your team is decent
- Risks of use (Stealth Rocks): Getting attacked and worn down, getting trapped and killed, giving your opponent an opportunity to setup, getting statused

Shit isn't as simple as "1 players users SR for free and the other tries to remove them"

Making biased arguments to support your side is silly.

Radio silence is nothing new or unique regarding this subject as has been pointed out by PDC, Iron Kenyan and several others, it's now official policy. I'm more concerned of why posts are suddenly disappearing, its clear to me the discouragment of posting arguments aren't done in the open..
Love these weird ass conspiracies that can be shut down in 10 sec

Does this thread exist?
Are you allowed to post in this thread?
Are there no pro-ban posts in this thread?
Have any of your post relevant to the discussion been deleted?
Has anyone told you to stop posting or threatened you to discourage you from posting?
Do you realize that the staff could have deleted / locked this thread as soon as it was posted and nobody would have cared about it for more than 2 days?

Now answer these questions and please explain tell me exactly why are you "concerned about posts suddenly disappearing". The staff could delete the thread itself if they wished to, and they could have done it before it got any traction, but those "posts suddenly disappearing" (which coincidentally don't include the post complaining about that) is surely the best way of censoring this discussion.

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-305002749
That is a 1000+ turn stall vs. stall battle with SR being used by both sides, there isn't anything called ABRvTele kinda match, it's just stall vs stall in all cases. And just like that the biggest excuse to keep this "necassary evil" has been blown out water.
Did you actually see the replay you linked?

Nothing is being blown out of the water by two obviously mediocre players using mediocre teams. Rest Cobalion and Florges (in OU) vs the "I hope my opponent isn't using a single wallbreaker" stall. If you actually check that replay, you'll realize they don't know how to pressure each other teams at all and it's basically switching around with no actual purpose. I mean, one of the dudes took 80 turns to realize Jirachi could setup SR whenever it wanted and that Defog Skarm was just going to get pp stalled, and that was after PP stalling his own Sableye, which should had won that game in less than 200 turns.

?___?


Stealth Rock is the definition of a broken element.

When defining broken elements, the policy framework states that a broken Pokemon doesn't necessarily affect battling skill, since both players are free to use it, but should be banned for inhibiting teambuilding skill.

The entire concept of teambuilding skill is frankly suspect. It assumes that the stronger teambuilder should come into battle with an advantage, and that a broken element which almost dictates its own usage reduces choice in teambuilding and therefore reduces this advantage. Since players commonly use teams others have built, there is virtually no skill-based argument for a broken Pokemon to be banned.

However, even if we accept this logic, then Stealth Rock must also be broken. Like a broken Pokemon, it does not inhibit in-battle skill (since both players can use it), but it is compulsory to use and similarly reduces teambuilding skill.
I honestly don't understand this post at all.

How does SR being compulsory reduce teambuilding skills exactly? it's quite easy making a bold statement like that with absolute nothing to back it up

What's even the point of mentioning "players commonly use teams other built"?
 
#75
A broken Pokemon, according to the policy framework, reduces teambuilding skill because it reduces teambuilding choice. So far as I can tell, this is the only justification given for banning a broken Pokemon.

Stealth Rock also reduces teambuilding choice via extreme centralisation and has every other characteristic of a broken Pokemon.

Personally I think the policy framework is erroneous, and that there is no acceptable skill-based justification for banning a broken element, but if you disagree then I'd like to hear how Stealth Rock isn't broken when it clearly meets the characteristics given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.