Entry Hazards - Are They Broken?

[MMII]

A free turn is a massive disincentive. The fact that you have to take an attack when you switch in is what creates the distinction between checks and counters. You don't think that the game would be vastly different if you could had no penalty for switching and could instantly attack?

A dead turn is definitionally the penalty for switching and you don't need anything else to penalize it. Switching is not "lazy play". Utilizing a counter is not "lazy play". There is not a larger margin for error without chip damage on switches - incorporating Stealth Rock gives a larger margin for error for offensive pokemon because they don't have to do damage equal to the remainder of a pokemon's HP, they have to do damage equal to the remainder of a pokemon's HP - 12.5%.


The existence of pokemon who are weak to Stealth Rock but still are viable does not disprove that Stealth Rock makes pokemon unviable. It only shows that Stealth Rock does not make every pokemon unviable. That is an unreasonable burden of proof and unnecessary to show that Stealth Rock should not be in the metagame. Just because a state of affairs is not "as bad as it could be" does not mean it is not bad.

You also said that the onus is on pro-banners to provide an argument and we don't need a reason for Stealth Rock to exist. Fair, but we have provided several. Namely - it's no-risk and no-opportunity cost and high returns, and these types of plays should be discouraged in the metagame - it makes a wide spread of pokemon unviable due to large amounts of up-front damage. Without a single reason to keep Stealth Rocks around (and I haven't heard one other than inertia), these arguments are sufficient to ban.

I never said I thought being to switch and attack wouldn't vastly change the game, just that the free turn isn't significant enough a disadvantage because its in exchange for a stronger matchup.

Sorry, I didn't really explain well what I meant by lazy play. What I mean by lazy play is that without the presence of SR a player on the defensive can directly switch their counter in without as much fear of a double switch as they can switch to the guy that counters the new one without being punished for the bad switching. The attacker is also given far more wiggle room when it comes to predicting the opposing switch in and choosing the wrong attack and being forced out by the threat of a KO isn't going to be punished by the wear of SR. This is why Tornadus T was banned, the ability Regenerator meant that it was essentially immune to SR. This when combined with Hurricane's high power and confusion rate along with tools such as Taunt, Substitute and U-Turn meant that Torny T could easily push past its counters throughout the course of the game since it outlasted them. (even hard counters like Jirachi couldn't help getting beaten down by confusion hax and constant switching depriving it of either healing or ever attacking back)

I'm not arguing that SR doesn't hurt the viability of Pokemon, I'm saying that it doesn't hurt enough of them. In other words there are still a large amount of Pokemon that weak to SR that are OU viable regardless of SR being an assumed constant. It's not an unreasonable burden of proof because we don't look at how many Pokemon are not viable or could be viable but at how much currently are. There are well over 700 Pokemon, OU will always be an exclusive list. In fact, BW OU is the larger than any other generation before it. This means that any complaints about the lack of certain Pokemon in OU is completely valueless. We could have even more Pokemon that are ruined by SR and still be considered a balanced metagame as previous generations have clearly shown.

Before getting into this bit I just want to point out that it isn't upfront damage. The effects of SR are spread out over the course of the match with the exception of SR weak Pokemon. (I may have misunderstood what you meant by upfront but if I didn't I wanted to get that out of the way first)
Anyways, I feel that the problem is that the returns aren't high enough. To put it simply, I'm not throwing up SR turn one and proceeding to mow down mindlessly the opposing team much like I can will things like Excadrill, SS Kingdra and even (arguably) Rain boosted attacks. I still have to play a good game and bring a real team if I want to beat somebody of comparable skill, it is by no means a walk in the park just because I have SR up. With something as underwhelming as this (from the viewpoint of suspecting/banning) the fact that it is easy to pull off doesn't mean much at all as that aspect isn't inherently negative. (it is only so when combined with an overwhelming power that thus heavily reduces the need for skill in matches)

 

[jpw234]

Sorry, I didn't really explain well what I meant by lazy play. What I mean by lazy play is that without the presence of SR a player on the defensive can directly switch their counter in without as much fear of a double switch as they can switch to the guy that counters the new one without being punished for the bad switching. The attacker is also given far more wiggle room when it comes to predicting the opposing switch in and choosing the wrong attack and being forced out by the threat of a KO isn't going to be punished by the wear of SR. This is why Tornadus T was banned, the ability Regenerator meant that it was essentially immune to SR. This when combined with Hurricane's high power and confusion rate along with tools such as Taunt, Substitute and U-Turn meant that Torny T could easily push past its counters throughout the course of the game since it outlasted them. (even hard counters like Jirachi couldn't help getting beaten down by confusion hax and constant switching depriving it of either healing or ever attacking back)

I think I understand your argument a little bit better now and it seems stronger. Allow me to think about that for a little while.

I'm not arguing that SR doesn't hurt the viability of Pokemon, I'm saying that it doesn't hurt enough of them. In other words there are still a large amount of Pokemon that weak to SR that are OU viable regardless of SR being an assumed constant. It's not an unreasonable burden of proof because we don't look at how many Pokemon are not viable or could be viable but at how much currently are. There are well over 700 Pokemon, OU will always be an exclusive list. In fact, BW OU is the larger than any other generation before it. This means that any complaints about the lack of certain Pokemon in OU is completely valueless. We could have even more Pokemon that are ruined by SR and still be considered a balanced metagame as previous generations have clearly shown.

There is not a line for "enough of them" so arguing specific numbers is useless. The question is, is it on principle desirable to have a something which undeniably limits the number of viable pokemon in the metagame? Again, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, just because there will always be unviable pokemon doesn't mean we shouldn't remove barriers that make pokemon unviable. Some pokemon will be unviable based on their statistics and matchups - that's inevitable and fine. Stealth Rock's existence as an assumed condition of battle is distinct from a function of the pokemon's statistics/movepool - it is not a necessity and if we determine that the metagame with it is not as diverse or plentiful as a metagame without it, then that is a good reason it should be banned or suspected.

Before getting into this bit I just want to point out that it isn't upfront damage. The effects of SR are spread out over the course of the match with the exception of SR weak Pokemon. (I may have misunderstood what you meant by upfront but if I didn't I wanted to get that out of the way first)

By "upfront damage" I meant damage taken as soon as your pokemon is switched in. I don't think this slight misunderstanding really changes any of our arguments though.

Anyways, I feel that the problem is that the returns aren't high enough. To put it simply, I'm not throwing up SR turn one and proceeding to mow down mindlessly the opposing team much like I can will things like Excadrill, SS Kingdra and even (arguably) Rain boosted attacks. I still have to play a good game and bring a real team if I want to beat somebody of comparable skill, it is by no means a walk in the park just because I have SR up. With something as underwhelming as this (from the viewpoint of suspecting/banning) the fact that it is easy to pull off doesn't mean much at all as that aspect isn't inherently negative. (it is only so when combined with an overwhelming power that thus heavily reduces the need for skill in matches)

The distinction is that of opportunity cost. It was determined that Excadrill provided an overwhelming advantage when set up, but it was not accepted as given that whenever Excadrill was on somebody's team that an Excadrill sweep was inevitable. We had a metagame based on Excadrill for some time, and while it was overcentralized and unhealthy, there was a give and take. Even if the advantage that Stealth Rock gives is not as overwhelming as the advantage Excadrill gave, the difficulty involved in setting up Stealth Rock is equivalently less than the difficulty involved in setting up Stealth Rock. Stealth Rock's existence as a fundamentally background, accepted condition in any given game changes the entire fabric of the game. With Excadrill you can plan, you can have counters, you can have strategies. With Stealth Rock, even if you have a plan to remove it, you must build your team under the assumption that it exists. This was part of the reason that I used that Togekiss/SF Landorus example. Togekiss is a counter to SF Landorus, but not if SR is up. If I was building a team with Togekiss as my only counter, you might say, "Togekiss isn't a counter when SR is up, your team is Landorus weak". If I said, "Don't worry, I have Starmie, I won't let SR get up", would you say, "Okay, your Landorus troubles are solved!" No, you'd say, "If the opponent has CB or CS Tyranitar, or Jellicent, or even just doesn't let you spin before Landorus gets in, you're fucked. You have to build your team under the assumption that SR is up, so Togekiss is not a viable Landorus counter". This is an example of what I mean.

Edit: I would also like to state that I'm not decided on this issue, I'm just arguing for the benefit of debate!

 

[doughboy]

*so afraid I lost this post. warning big post

The way I see broken: when you incorporate multiple checks or a consistent counter to the threat in question, the incorporation of those checks or counters limits the ability to execute a wide-range of strategies. Sure, there are huge amount of SR setters out there, but there are plenty of (viable) options out there that can consistently prevent it.

1. Use Rapid Spin (5 OU Pokemon)
2. Use Magic Bounce (1 OU Pokemon ; 1 UU Pokemon {but actually in viable OU})
3. Use Taunt on two or more Pokemon (17 OU Pokemon; 13/17 OU pokes can use it) {smogon doesn't list tornadus or thundurus-t}
4. Apply offensive pressure to the opponent
5. Have moves that hit most hazard setters super-effectively on the majority of your Pokemon
6. Avert from using grounded neutral + SR weak Pokemon (the most extreme and unnecessary option)

So out of the box you have 5+2+13 = 20 realistic options to deal with hazards directly. This isn't counting the ability to take advantage of the free turn SR provides by setting up yourself. The SR setter assumes the risk of setting up the hazard, and if the opponent provides himself the opportunity to set it up (just like any boosting sweeper could that pwn like terrak/dnite/scizor), that's on you. As opposed to having to carry those direct measures, you can chose to prevent the opponent from having the opportunity to set up with super-effective moves against hazard setters or having your own offensive presence to sweep the opponent. If you are not satisfied with those 20 options and more, you are being unaccommodating to counter the threat. Stop treating Stealth Rock as if its options for preventing its use were extremely limited and are confined to limited playstyles. All playstyles have measures that can deal with SR that otherwise do not severely limit their strategy to have the ability to win. Offense with pressure+set up oppurtunities, stall with Rapid Spin+Taunt, and Balance with a little bit of both (this can be extended to the weathers with rain/sun - spin+offense and sand with taunt/spin/offense).

The second issue to address after the supposed "inability to counteract SR/ease to set up" issue is SR's "discrimination" against certain types.

On the discrimination of certain types: If you are using the discrimination of certain types as the basis of your argument, I personally think you do not have a complete understanding of how Pokemon works. Discrimination of certain types goes right into the central mechanics of the game with the type chart. Allow me to introduce you to this bad boy you probably have not seen in a long time:

Marked-Up Type Chart

The central mechanic of the game itself discriminates against types. Look at Fighting and Ice for example. Fighting is an arguably a much better type than Ice since it hits 5 types super effectively to 4 and carries 3 resists compared to Ice's measly 1. How about Poison and Dragon? Dragon receives awesome offensive neutrality AND 4 handy resists while Poison receives the same amount of resists (which are less noteworthy) but with lousy offensive potential. Multiple resists to its offenses for Poison but supereffective against 1 type, but dragon gets 1 super-effective type too.

The point is "unfair" type discrimination lies in the very central mechanic of the game: the type chart itself. It's an unavoidable characteristic and if type discrimination is grounds for banning SR, then we might as well take further steps to limit other type discrimination that is not limited to those in the typing chart. The most akin I see to the way SR "discriminates" against types is the move Pursuit. The most widely distributed trapping (hazard) move in the game severely affects the viability of Ghost and Psychic (Fire, Bug, Ice, Flying) types discriminately. It has prevented a lot Pokemon like Azelf, Mismagius, and Frosslass (Yanmega, Moltres) from (potentially) going OU since they would be near useless by getting trapped a lot {putting the yourself in a 5-6 position} with the large presence of Pursuit in the meta.

And to get any future points our of the way, I will address that having an SR weakness is perhaps an inherit disadvantage a type has to take. Such as Pokemon who are not Poison or Steel type receive the weakness to Toxic. Pokemon who are not fire receive a weakness to burn. Pokemon who are not Rock, Steel, or Ground receive a weakness to Sand. Pokemon who are not Ice are weak to Hail damage. Pokemon who are not Flying receive a weakness to Spikes. Pokemon who are Dark and Psychic are weak to Pursuit. And Pokemon who are Fire, Ice, Bug, or Flying are weak to SR....

 

[jpw234]

If I send out Taunt/SR Terrakion on turn one, then your only viable option becomes Rapid Spinning or Sableye, as it outspeeds all other common taunters and beats both Magic Bouncers. Realistically Taunt is so little-used on offensive teams that it is not a viable or common option to stop SR from going up, and "offensive pressure" is irrelevant when any offensive team is more than willing to carry one of several dedicated lead pokemon specifically to set up Stealth Rock. Your list is now five pokemon long (Cloyster does not count as a viable Rapid Spinner).

Arguing that "we can stop SR from getting up" is a dead end from the beginning. It is accepted within high-level OU battling (I am not attempting to place myself within this group, simply observing a fact) that Stealth Rock should be treated as a more-or-less inevitable battle condition. As I have stated several times - much of the damage is done before the battle begins, in the teambuilding phase. Regardless of whether or not Stealth Rock actually is able to get up in a majority of my battles (which it is), if I am forced to teambuild as though it will be, all of the relevant pokemon we are discussing will not be viable options in the first place.

 

[Kidogo]

Pillsbury, the central thing here is that you are treating SR as an unchangeable game mechanic. And because it is so ubiquitous, it is almost as if it were in practice...but that doesn't mean it should be. Yes, the game discriminates against certain types. I (and everyone else, I hope) am willing to accept this level of unfairness. It is part of the basic premise of the game. Things like unequal BSTs, movepools, and abilities are also like this. It is what gives us the foundation of the game. However, just because something appears to be an inherent part of the game doesn't mean it should be. We can't change mechanics, so we can't change the type chart. As I said, yes, this is unbalanced, but that's OK--this level of unbalance is tolerable and is part of what gives us different tiers. However, that's no reason for us to choose to exacerbate this by creating something that enormously punishes certain types. I'm finding your argument a bit like the claim that volc being OU means that we automatically assume moltres wouldn't be OU without SR. Just because some types are "inherently" (and I do agree with you on the usage of this word--but only do to the fact that the type chart is not changeable) worse than others (just as moltres is worse than volc) doesn't mean that we can't remove an obstacle that basically invalidates those types (making moltres in-viable in OU). The critical point here is that there is nothing wrong with not having everything be perfectly equal--but just because a degree of inequality is inherent in the game's functioning doesn't mean we should support its extreme.

Also, as jpw mentioned, your list there is kinda inaccurate. First of all, simply listing the number of ways you can do something without talking about their ease doesn't get us very far. For example, there are dozens of OU mons that can take a hit from SF landy and KO back--does this mean it is checked by many OU mons? No, because you have to account for the actual battle circumstances that you'll face, which require to you let those mons take hits and check other things. In the same way, just stating that there are a multitude of ways of "countering" SR doesn't mean much unless you've proved they're reliable...which I've explained repeatedly they're not, and jpw just said again.

As we said, of the OU spinners, only two have any hope of getting past the premier spinblockers. These two are highly vulnerable to being trapped and have nothing with which to prevent their trappers from just coming in after they've taken down the spinblocker.
Magic bounce is highly unreliable, and made more so by stuff like SR terrakion, SR + thunder jirachi, SR ttar, and the like. The distribution of SR means that you can rarely say for sure which of your opp's mons will have it, and the magic bounce mons are frail enough that you can't afford mistakes. Meanwhile, this is essentially a wasted teamslot, as xatu and espeon really don't do a whole lot outside of blocking hazards (assuming, of course, perfect prediction to even get that much).
Taunt requires that you have the taunt user out when the opp brings in their SRer...hardly reliable...especially given that you'd have to send it out turn 1 if the opp has a SR lead, and because taunt is so much rarer than SR, the opp has a good shot at guessing what you're about to do, and can just attack.
Offensive pressure argument doesn't make sense if the opp uses a SR lead, because they are willing to sac it to get rocks up. This is actually a great reason for why RSing is so hard, since by definition this must occur later in the game!
Again, hitting hazard-setters SE is not relevant in the case of a suicide lead, rocks are still going up and they may even do a chunk of damage in the process.
Yep, the only reliable way to minimize the effects of SR is to build a team that is resistant to it (and even so, it can still do a huge amount of damage--close to the health of a whole mon based on my estimation). This is a perfect example of over-centralizing.

@MM: I understand the point you're making about SR punishing switching, and that part of the strategy can be to lure in your counters to wear them down. However, I feel that the issue here is the ease of use and sheer damage of SR. Notice virtually no one is accussing spikes of being broken, although they create the same "punishing switching" concept as SR. The issue is that SR is simply too easy to set up, too hard to get rid of, and too powerful of a disincentive. I actually see spikes as being perfect for what you're describing--once up, they allow you to wear down the opp's mons by skillful switching. However, it actually requires skill to get up spikes. Because there's actually an exclusive list of spikers, their quality is in general lower. Meaning that they have less advantageous match-ups, and thus have a harder time coming in and setting up. Spikes takes 3 turns to set up, so you basically have to maneuver into this situation three times before you get the full benefits. Additionally, most spikes are defensive mons, and thus are less fit to be used as suicide hazard-setters (although sets like custap skarm and forry are a rejection of this idea), meaning that in general it is much less conducive to hit spikes, survive with a sash, and then get another layer or hurt smth before going down--most things outspeed you, and you cant do much damage in one hit anyway. So I guess what I'm saying is this: sure, you can tax switching, but there had better be some cost to doing that. No reason for there to automatically be this tax, when switching is the most skillful part of battle. Instead, you can work to gain the advantages of entry hazards.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

As we said, of the OU spinners, only two have any hope of getting past the premier spinblockers. These two are highly vulnerable to being trapped and have nothing with which to prevent their trappers from just coming in after they've taken down the spinblocker.

A few problems I see here.

First of all, you're making it sound like Jellicent and Gengar spell the end of Rapid Spinning by their very existence. They don't. Even assuming they are never used on the same team together, their combined usage doesn't even scratch 18%. The vast majority of the time, you don't even have to worry about a spinblocker whatsoever.

Secondly, you make it seem as though Starmie and Tentacruel have little chance of getting past spinblockers. That's not necessarily true either. LO Starmie with the combination of Psyshock and Thunderbolt beats pretty much anything it needs to as far as spinblockers go. Thunderbolt 2HKOs physically defensive Jellicent and Psyshock 2HKOs specially defensive Jellicent most of the time after Stealth Rock. In fact, if someone runs the 252 HP / 4 Def / 252 SpD spread that Showdown! recommends, then Psyshock is a guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock while 2HKOing about 15% of the time even without. As for Gengar, Starmie outspeeds and easily OHKOs with Psyshock. Bulkier variants have trouble with Jellicent, but there's more than one way to get rid of that (but I'll get to that in a second). As for Tentacruel, I'm sure you're aware how effective the SubToxic set is at defeating Jellicent. Gengar is a tougher nut to crack, specifically the SubDisable variants, but Gengar still isn't getting a free pass when Scald almost always 2HKOs in Rain.

Third, you mention that Starmie and Tentacruel are vulnerable to trappers, but Gengar and Jellicent are spinblockers (i.e. Ghost-type Pokemon). By definition, they're vulnerable to Pursuit trapping as well. So why can't the pro-SR people just turn that around and say that spinblockers are vulnerable to trappers and thus spinning is perfectly reliable? If you're going to disqualify Rapid Spin on the basis of trappers, then I can certainly disqualify spinblockers on the basis of trappers as well.

 

[Kidogo]

Ah, I had addressed this issue on the previous page, so I glossed over it here for the sake of brevity. Here's the explanation I gave:

I'm not leaving out the facts that don't favor my argument. Yes, ghost-types are vulnerable to trapping as well as spinners. However, jellicent beats ttar and scizor easily 1-on-1, and gengar OHKOs ttar and scizor with the appropriate moves. But even mroe basically than that, who cares?! The point of the spinblocker is to come on in the RS, die or w/e, and then let the spinner get trapped by the next mon. I will gladly sac my spinblocker to kill your spinner--it's done its job! Sure, you can double-switch and try to predict (yay switching--the most essential, strategic part of the game), but you're taking hazards damage on both trapper and spinner, the ghosts can beat many common pursuiters as just mentioned, and it's nowhere near guaranteed--SR is so so easy to set up that I don't even have to bother blocking it the first time, I can just go to something that threatens your starmie out while scouting for a trapper switch. And i can afford to do this strategic switching, because you don't have hazards up! Spikes does not even come near this because so many mons are immune to it, it takes much longer to set up, and its users have so much fewer opportunities to do so because they are in general worse mons, since the distribution is so different! Lastly, I'm not assuming every team runs a trapper or a spinblocker--all I'm saying is that, if I want to keep SR up on your side of the field and you want to keep it off, it is so so much easier for me to guarantee this will happen than for you to.

Tl;dr: I'm not claiming every team has a ghost and/or trapper--I'm just saying that, if they choose to do so, getting off a successful RS is very very hard to guarantee because of the following:
Basically everything but LOstarmie with the right one of thunder and psyshock and subtoxic tenta is walled by jelli, gengar beats basically all tenta (via sub, disable, pain split, thunder, and destiny bond). Running the right sets obviously have downsides, but that's ok. Because even if you do beat them, you lose your spinner if they have a trapper, meaning you don't get the spin off. At this point I don't care in the slightest if you trap my spinblocker, it's done it's job. I went in to this more in-depth in the text I quoted as well.

 

[Aldaron]

The issue with these types of questions is always the assumptions you base your points off of.

I voted they are broken because I assumed broken was referring to a skillful metagame, and I have my own particular definition of skillful.

My definition of a skillful metagame is one that maximizes switching skill, and therefore anything that limits that too much, such as entry hazards and trapping abilities, or anything that makes switching too easy, such as baton pass, u-turn, and volt switch, is broken.

Necessary disclaimer: I don't apply personal definitions / beliefs to tiering, so don't worry about that :P

 

[The Grand Babido]

entry hazards are probably the worst thing to happen to competitive pokemon and it annoys me how spikes-orientated the three tour tiers currently are. i guess this also extends to most of the other bw tiers as well especially since spinning is almost impossible in uber, uu, and nu.

it is my opinion that a good team wielded by a good player should always have a shot at winning if their side is clear of entry hazards regardless of the match-up. obviously this does become unrealistically possible as the game nears its conclusion, but without entry hazards that conclusion would take much longer to reach than with hazards stacked on either or both sides.

looking at dpp, i would say i find it somewhat difficult to make a team without starmie, and i think this is a pretty common trait amongst most of the top players. tv-rocka is probably the best dpp player currently, and if you pay attention to his teams you will see how often he uses starmie. what starmie offers is a chance to play without being punished for switching and a chance to play your way out of almost any situation. this is not as important for adv and bw since hazards are less common in the former while hazards are at times impossible to remove in the latter (so you sometimes just have to put up with them and try your best). starmie and entry hazards are 2/3rds of the most annoying 50/50 ever. the classic scarftar pursuit or crunch and the truth is that this guessing game wouldn't exist without spikes.

second worst; forgot about scald

 

[jpw234]

Kidogo has provided a good response to what Agent Gibbs is saying. But something that I don't believe anybody on the pro-SR side has responded to is the argument about SR being a limiting force on teambuilding before a battle occurs. As I brought up in my original post and several times since then, even if I go through twenty battles and manage to spin away SR every single time, it is an accepted enough field condition and enough of a risk to vulnerable pokemon that I have to teambuild as though Stealth Rock were up. Yanmega/Moltres/etc. are not just used until they get hit by Stealth Rock and then discarded, they are never used in the first place because Stealth Rock is such an omnipresent threat to their existence. That means that regardless of any discussion about the effectiveness of spinning, Magic Bouncing, Taunting, or whatever, the adverse effects of Stealth Rock on the diversity of the metagame are going to exist as long as there exists this community consensus that Stealth Rock is basically an inevitability that we include in all of our calculations when teambuilding.

 

[Laga]

I don't personally find entry hazards broken, probably because I always carry a spinner on a team with a rock weakness. Stealth Rock has almost become a necessity, and I also often carry a rock setter. This said, I do think that Stealth Rock affect this metagame a lot, almost choosing pokemon's viability through how they deal with stealth rock; Pokemon that can use rapid spin or are resistant to Stealth Rock are highly viable, and so are the pokemon setting them up. I would enjoy a metagame without rocks, considering how many threats would pop up *cough* Volcarona ban *cough*. The main thing with rocks is, it prevents a lot of fire types and bug types to be used in OU. Pokemon that would be big threats in OU without Stealth Rock fall down to UU, pokemon like Darmanitan, Victini, Yanmega, Chandelure all are fantastic sweepers / wallbreakers, and the fact that this one move can throw them an entire tier down just because it damages them more than others upon switching in is very surprising to me, in fact it's almost sad, as they don't get to show their full potential.

Though all in all, Stealth Rock in competetive pokemon has become like guns in America. Everyone loves them even though they tip over the balance of power. (in pokemon, the power of each typing balance, in America the "I could kill you right now" power balance) I personally don't think that we should ban entry hazards, but I do think it is a fantastic discussion. Props for starting the thread :]

 

[Cinaclov]

I think they just need to have more moves that get rid of them, ideally with a variety of types behind them. Maybe give Gust a secondary effect so it becomes a flying type 'rapid spin'?

 

[youngjake93]

Though all in all, Stealth Rock in competetive pokemon has become like guns in America. Everyone loves them even though they tip over the balance of power. (in pokemon, the power of each typing balance, in America the "I could kill you right now" power balance) I personally don't think that we should ban entry hazards, but I do think it is a fantastic discussion. Props for starting the thread :]

Just a note. You're analogy is pretty misinformed. Americans usually like guns for protection and sport. Not because they're "cool cuz they can kill people"
Meh, I don't like the stereotype that Americans love guns for no reason.
But this isn't the place for that sort of debate.

On the topic of the thread. Everyone uses Moltres and Volcarona in their argumets. What about Kyurem-B? It's whole choice band set is almost invalidated due to SR, when it would most likely be top 5-10 otherwise and its sub sets would have many more opportunities to set up. What about choiced victini, darmanitan, chandelure, yanmega etc? You basically can't use a choice set in OU that is rock weak unless you plan to clean up late-game with a scarf set.

 

[Bigblue]

I don't believe stealth rocks are broken but I do believe that they are negative to the meta by making some pokemon completely useless because of a 4x weakness to them. Pokemon like moltres, articuno and yanmega never get to show their full potential because of stealth rocks, not to mention that pokemon that resist stealth rocks are a lot more prevalent EG. Steel and Rock types. With stealth rocks gone it would allow for more pokemon to be viable and the meta not so centered around teams full of steel, fighting and ground types because they work the best with rocks and weather. And of course butterfree would go OU because butterfree is awesome.

 

[Turnerrr]

I don't think Stealth Rock is broken merely for rendering a massive amount of Pokemon unviable. From a purely competitive standpoint, unviability is what allows you to see what really works and what really doesn't. On paper, a lot of things "should" be amazing, but factors already present in the metagame render this theoretical amazingness useless.

For example, Weavile. On paper, an amazing Pokemon: outspeeds most of the Pokemon it intends to revenge kill/trap, with priority for the situations it doesn't, and a solid coverage option in Low Kick. However, Weavile runs up against being completely countered by the most popular Pokemon in the metagame, Scizor. Weavile being unviable doesn't necessarily mean Scizor is broken, it just means that elements already in the metagame are hostile to the point of impairing the risk/reward factors of including Weavile on the team.

Similarly, Stealth Rock seems to be broken as it holds "powerhouses" such as Moltres and Yanmega back. But analyze the metagame further: who does Moltres counter? Heatran? And what is your reward for countering Heatran? Stall it out? Sure, you can switch Moltres into any Scizor, but if Scizor is being used by any competent team builder, he'll be paired with the Toed, or the Tyrant, both of which seriously nerf Moltres. If a Pokemon would be good without Stealth Rock, a player has 5 other Team Slots to minimize the effects of Stealth Rock so that the Pokemon is good. For example, no Volcarona is run without at the very least a spinner, let alone a Magic Bounce user or someone to set up on all common spinners, like Calm Mind + Sub Latias or something. And Volcarona is 4x weak to Stealth Rock.

It's not so much about SR being broken, it's about the fundamental nature of teambuilding revolving around Pokemon supporting each other. How much support does this Poke need, and is it justified in the current meta?

 

[jynx KB]

I just with they'd invent a few equivalents of Stealth Rock with different types so the game wouldn't pivot on a Rock weakness. Though God forbid those type of hazards be stackable.

 

[MMII]

Real quick, I wanted to reword my claim concerning the fundamental benefit of SR to Pokemon. I feel that my claim that SR benefits the metagame because it punishes switching failed to properly express what I meant behind it when summed up as I just did. I'd like to revise it to: Stealth Rock provides a tool to players to punish bad switching and/or take advantage of one's own proper switching in a way that is beneficial to the metagame. I'm not changing any of my previous arguments, I just felt that the way I was wording my thoughts (at least the summary) wasn't properly conveying the ideas I wanted to. (it was kinda too vague, IMO)

jpw

There is not a line for "enough of them" so arguing specific numbers is useless. The question is, is it on principle desirable to have a something which undeniably limits the number of viable pokemon in the metagame? Again, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, just because there will always be unviable pokemon doesn't mean we shouldn't remove barriers that make pokemon unviable. Some pokemon will be unviable based on their statistics and matchups - that's inevitable and fine. Stealth Rock's existence as an assumed condition of battle is distinct from a function of the pokemon's statistics/movepool - it is not a necessity and if we determine that the metagame with it is not as diverse or plentiful as a metagame without it, then that is a good reason it should be banned or suspected.


By "upfront damage" I meant damage taken as soon as your pokemon is switched in. I don't think this slight misunderstanding really changes any of our arguments though.


The distinction is that of opportunity cost. It was determined that Excadrill provided an overwhelming advantage when set up, but it was not accepted as given that whenever Excadrill was on somebody's team that an Excadrill sweep was inevitable. We had a metagame based on Excadrill for some time, and while it was overcentralized and unhealthy, there was a give and take. Even if the advantage that Stealth Rock gives is not as overwhelming as the advantage Excadrill gave, the difficulty involved in setting up Stealth Rock is equivalently less than the difficulty involved in setting up Stealth Rock. Stealth Rock's existence as a fundamentally background, accepted condition in any given game changes the entire fabric of the game. With Excadrill you can plan, you can have counters, you can have strategies. With Stealth Rock, even if you have a plan to remove it, you must build your team under the assumption that it exists. This was part of the reason that I used that Togekiss/SF Landorus example. Togekiss is a counter to SF Landorus, but not if SR is up. If I was building a team with Togekiss as my only counter, you might say, "Togekiss isn't a counter when SR is up, your team is Landorus weak". If I said, "Don't worry, I have Starmie, I won't let SR get up", would you say, "Okay, your Landorus troubles are solved!" No, you'd say, "If the opponent has CB or CS Tyranitar, or Jellicent, or even just doesn't let you spin before Landorus gets in, you're fucked. You have to build your team under the assumption that SR is up, so Togekiss is not a viable Landorus counter". This is an example of what I mean.

Kidogo has provided a good response to what Agent Gibbs is saying. But something that I don't believe anybody on the pro-SR side has responded to is the argument about SR being a limiting force on teambuilding before a battle occurs. As I brought up in my original post and several times since then, even if I go through twenty battles and manage to spin away SR every single time, it is an accepted enough field condition and enough of a risk to vulnerable pokemon that I have to teambuild as though Stealth Rock were up. Yanmega/Moltres/etc. are not just used until they get hit by Stealth Rock and then discarded, they are never used in the first place because Stealth Rock is such an omnipresent threat to their existence. That means that regardless of any discussion about the effectiveness of spinning, Magic Bouncing, Taunting, or whatever, the adverse effects of Stealth Rock on the diversity of the metagame are going to exist as long as there exists this community consensus that Stealth Rock is basically an inevitability that we include in all of our calculations when teambuilding.

I wasn't trying to argue that there is a specific number. The point I was trying to make is that whatever is the accepted amount of OU viable Pokemon, it is clearly we have largely met the requirements as BW OU is the biggest one to date. This means that there isn't a call for increasing that amount so there it isn't sufficient justification. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the possibility of removing/adding to the pool of viable Pokemon isn't even worth discussing as either way we have more or less an acceptable amount regardless of whether we decide to ban or not. (unless it was REALLY dramatic and that probably wouldn't be a good thing no matter the direction the change was in)

Actually, the Excadrill example isn't true. (correct me if my memory is lying but) Excadrill was suspected many many times. It wasn't until the common Excadrill set shifted from Jolly Air Balloon to Adamant LO that it was actually banned. One of the big changes and major advantages to the Adamant LO set was that it didn't need SD to start hitting hard like Jolly Air Balloon. In fact, if I remember correctly it was with this set that it became popular to drop SD in favor of Rapid Spin. Now the details of my memory may be smudged but I'm fairly certain that your claim that Excadrill needed setup is false. In any case, specifically choosing one specific example to compare SR to isn't a good idea. The point I was trying to make in listing a group of previous suspects is to show the clear lack of unbalancing power behind SR. Back in their respective metagames, you very much did run a high risk of getting swept by these banned mons even if you prepared for them. (shrang made some excellent posts in the Lando I discussion about the ability of previous suspects to bypass their own counters) SR very sorely falls short of such an unbalancing power that it reduces skill in battles. (again, I feel it actually promotes skill)

I don't see the point in the Togekiss vs Lando argument. Either Landorus already has a sufficient amount of counters to/means to deal with it in which case making such a drastic metagame change is pointless. Or Landorus lacks sufficent means/counters in which case we just ban Landorus and not shift the metagame to make sure it fits in. (that's one of the major points against "unbanning broken things to check broken things")

Overall, the flaw I feel that is in your argument is that you assume that having to build your team with the assumed presence of SR is a bad thing. I build my teams with the assumed presence of Scizor and nearly every other Pokemon in OU and even some UU. That's just smart teambuilding and I believe that SR has in no way shown to be too taxing upon it so far. (if it was, we would have banned a lot more things before starting to ask if SR is at fault like many are now saying has been done in regards to Rain)

Additionally, in your example it is not SR that "fucks you over" it's the Landorus that is tearing your team to shreds. (at least that is the assumed conclusion you provide in your example) The only role that SR assumes in this example is as one of the many deciding factors between getting "fucked" by Landorus and not getting "fucked". Speaking of which, the lack of detail concerning the actual team (yes, I understand you were trying to isolate SR to make your point) makes it impossible for me to accurately say "If...Landorus gets in, you're fucked". Namely, what Landorus set are we talking about? How many (if any) Pokemon can it safely setup on? How many (if any) Pokemon can it take a reasonable risk to setup on? How many (if any) Pokemon can it significantly threaten without setup? How many (if any) Pokemon can check it after setup? Do you even have a good team that knows how to advance towards its own win condition or is it just going to respond to the opponent and try to not get swept by things like Landorus? (this is relevant as it asks if your team is capable of playing around Landorus) I'll need all these questions, and maybe more, before I can tell you if your Togekiss isn't enough to not leave your team Landorus weak.

As for your second quote, I already addressed it somewhat with the points
1. Having to assume Stealth Rock when teambuilding isn't negative
2. There are already a sufficient amount of viable Pokemon in teambuilding to need to justify more

but I would also like to use it to present a third point: Having more diversity/variety doesn't always equal a better metagame and/or reduce the strain on teambuilding. The inclusion of new threats in teambuilding can be looked at from both ways. I can either use the new threats as an additional viable team formula or I have to change previous teams to adapt to the new threats which may involve reducing certain advantages it used to have. It is not guaranteed that adding Moltres/Yanmega/whatever to the metagame (assuming the removal of SR makes them legitimately OU viable) will reduce strain on team building.

Kidogo

@MM: I understand the point you're making about SR punishing switching, and that part of the strategy can be to lure in your counters to wear them down. However, I feel that the issue here is the ease of use and sheer damage of SR. Notice virtually no one is accussing spikes of being broken, although they create the same "punishing switching" concept as SR. The issue is that SR is simply too easy to set up, too hard to get rid of, and too powerful of a disincentive. I actually see spikes as being perfect for what you're describing--once up, they allow you to wear down the opp's mons by skillful switching. However, it actually requires skill to get up spikes. Because there's actually an exclusive list of spikers, their quality is in general lower. Meaning that they have less advantageous match-ups, and thus have a harder time coming in and setting up. Spikes takes 3 turns to set up, so you basically have to maneuver into this situation three times before you get the full benefits. Additionally, most spikes are defensive mons, and thus are less fit to be used as suicide hazard-setters (although sets like custap skarm and forry are a rejection of this idea), meaning that in general it is much less conducive to hit spikes, survive with a sash, and then get another layer or hurt smth before going down--most things outspeed you, and you cant do much damage in one hit anyway. So I guess what I'm saying is this: sure, you can tax switching, but there had better be some cost to doing that. No reason for there to automatically be this tax, when switching is the most skillful part of battle. Instead, you can work to gain the advantages of entry hazards.

There's two things that I disagree with. The first is comparing Spikes to Stealth Rock. As I have said before, Spikes is not a sufficient drawback to switching to be used as a tool by better players to punish poor switches. It is effective when used in addition to Stealth Rock, however Spikes alone fail to do any sort of damage to far too many Pokemon for it to properly serve the role that is played by SR. Stealth Rock is universal (with the exception of odd Magic Bouncers) while Spikes are not. Additionally, as you said yourself, Spikes are not as easy to fit on teams and setup as SR which means it can not be used as an assumed constant. It would require teambuilders to invest precious slots for a tool that requires additional work to setup and fails to ensure that they would serve their intended role due to the large amount of Pokemon who are completely unaffected by it.

Secondly, I disagree with the assumption that Stealth Rocks deals an overbearing amount of sheer damage. (ease of use we agree on) As I have mentioned before, (earlier in this post even) Stealth Rock is not an unbalancing force in battle. There have been multiple high level battles where the better player still won despite not having SR up. (A recent one that I have off the top of my head is Kokoloko vs Foster in the UPL for DPP Ubers) Many Pokemon that suffer from what is widely accepted as a large amount of damage (in other words being "SR weak") are still being used in the OU environment including one of that takes the worst SR can give. (on top of that they are more than just being used, many are some of OU's biggest threats) Teams that suffer from a SR weakness have shown to that they can still compete at a competitive level such as Trickroom's Birds in Ubers and Novaray's Focus Sash spamming team. (IIRC Donkey used a variant of Birds in an SPL match and won) I would love to provide more examples of Pokemon/Teams/Players successfully defying SR but I'm afraid that I'm simply not active enough in OU nor do I save enough logs to do so. (and in Ubers, we rarely get a good RMT and I still don't have a habit of saving logs) On the otherhand, I've yet to see examples/references showing the iron fist of SR besides some lower tier mons not being used in OU.

As for your final point, I can agree that there isn't a requirement for something like SR to have a balanced metagame. (or at least I can do so assuming the reports concerning GSC/ADV to be true, I've honestly never played them so it isn't a conclusion based upon my own experiences) However, there is equally no requirement for the removal of SR to have a balanced metagame. (as is the reported case of DPP and something I can personally vouch for with my experiences in BW Ubers) These two different metagames are not inherently superior to one another. BW is a metagame with SR and we can definitely balance without removing SR (I honestly feel things would lead to more productive results if we go in a different direction than questioning SR in a suspect test) like "we" (I wasn't there) did with DPP OU just as we can balance a metagame without SR like "we" did in ADV OU. I don't feel there is sufficient reason to remove SR so there isn't much point in saying that we can live without it, we can live with it too.

Aldaron

The issue with these types of questions is always the assumptions you base your points off of.

I voted they are broken because I assumed broken was referring to a skillful metagame, and I have my own particular definition of skillful.

My definition of a skillful metagame is one that maximizes switching skill, and therefore anything that limits that too much, such as entry hazards and trapping abilities, or anything that makes switching too easy, such as baton pass, u-turn, and volt switch, is broken.

Necessary disclaimer: I don't apply personal definitions / beliefs to tiering, so don't worry about that :P

I feel that your assumption that entry hazards limit switching skill is false. In fact, I think entry hazards encourage switching skill in that they can be used to punish poor switches. For example, if a HP Fire Latios manages to crit the check/counter I have on my team I can still use a superior switching skill to remove it as a threat by (somehow) double switching into something like Gengar every time it comes in. I may no longer have a direct switchin to Latios but through repeated smart double switches I can wear it down with SR to the point that it can no longer switch in itself. Without the presence of entry hazards, this wouldn't be possible. The only benefit I could use from such double switches would be to take momentum and apply pressure on the other team with Gengar. However, this doesn't allow me to deal with Latios (who gets away scot-free) just potentially play around it by wearing down its team members. However, as long as my opponent maintains their Gengar check/counter it is very unlikely that I will be able to successfully do so especially with the threatening presence of the haxy Latios.

Heist

entry hazards are probably the worst thing to happen to competitive pokemon and it annoys me how spikes-orientated the three tour tiers currently are. i guess this also extends to most of the other bw tiers as well especially since spinning is almost impossible in uber, uu, and nu.

it is my opinion that a good team wielded by a good player should always have a shot at winning if their side is clear of entry hazards regardless of the match-up. obviously this does become unrealistically possible as the game nears its conclusion, but without entry hazards that conclusion would take much longer to reach than with hazards stacked on either or both sides.

looking at dpp, i would say i find it somewhat difficult to make a team without starmie, and i think this is a pretty common trait amongst most of the top players. tv-rocka is probably the best dpp player currently, and if you pay attention to his teams you will see how often he uses starmie. what starmie offers is a chance to play without being punished for switching and a chance to play your way out of almost any situation. this is not as important for adv and bw since hazards are less common in the former while hazards are at times impossible to remove in the latter (so you sometimes just have to put up with them and try your best). starmie and entry hazards are 2/3rds of the most annoying 50/50 ever. the classic scarftar pursuit or crunch and the truth is that this guessing game wouldn't exist without spikes.

second worst; forgot about scald

Yes, any bad matchup can be won. However, like I explained in the above example, it becomes much more difficult to remove the threat(s) responsible for the bad matchup regardless of one's switching skill. (assuming the opposing player has a minimum level of competence that ensures they don't take unnecessary risks with their strongest win condition)

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I just wish that Defog became "Haze for entry hazards," instead of "screw yourself over."

Gen 6, get it together.

 

[Nathaniel Br]

The problem with Stealth Rock is that it hinders so many pokemon, so many bug, fire, flying and Ice types unusable. The metagame revolves around this stupid move. You need your stealth rock set up, your rapid spinner, your spin blocker, your spin blocker counter. Its infuriating.

 

[Jean mi]

Hey guys, this is an interesting conversion but I haven't read all so I apologise if what I'm gonna say is already said.

I do find entry hasard useful : they prevent battles to be very long by switching to counters all over again or prevent from doing hit and run with choice mons strategies with choice mons.

However, I think Stealth Rocks is discriminating some types too much. There are too many fighting and steel types in OU (and also dragon for another reason) and a lot less fire, bugs, ice etc and those who prevail have a secondary type that negates the SR damage (Scizor, Heatran, Mamoswine, etc). There should more pokes like Lapras on a rain team, Charizard on a sun team, Shuckle on a sand team that could be really good.

I suggest 2 nerfs to fix this issue :

1. Make more ways to get rid of hazards : more moves like rapid spin or an "auto-spin" ability.

2. Nerf the SR so they don't do damage depending on the weakness to rock, but more like this : 25% damage on flying types (and maybe levitaters) and 12.5% on other types. I suggest more damage on flying types simply to complement spikes as this type is immune to them and most flying types have access to roost anyway.
This way, SR can still play their role by prevent excessive switching while not handicaping pokemon by their typing alone.

 

[PyroSpark]

I don't believe stealth rocks are broken but I do believe that they are negative to the meta by making some pokemon completely useless because of a 4x weakness to them. Pokemon like moltres, articuno and yanmega never get to show their full potential because of stealth rocks, not to mention that pokemon that resist stealth rocks are a lot more prevalent EG. Steel and Rock types. With stealth rocks gone it would allow for more pokemon to be viable and the meta not so centered around teams full of steel, fighting and ground types because they work the best with rocks and weather. And of course butterfree would go OU because butterfree is awesome.

Agreed. It's like people forget that certain types are just slaughtered by it. Sure flying avoids toxic spikes and whatever, but they still get fucked by the all-time most popular entry hazard. >_>

And lets take a minute to laugh at how many pokemon can use stealth rock and how little can actually spin them away.

 

[Neon Kaiser]

Agreed. It's like people forget that certain types are just slaughtered by it. Sure flying avoids toxic spikes and whatever, but they still get fucked by the all-time most popular entry hazard. >_>

And lets take a minute to laugh at how many pokemon can use stealth rock and how little can actually spin them away.

People know that Stealth Rock deals more damage to some types than others. However, that is not a reason to ban something. Some types are better than others, that's just the way it is. Ice has only 1 resistance (itself) and 4 weaknesses. It's always gonna be a bad type, even without Stealth Rock. On the other hand, Steel has 1 immunity, 11 resistances and only 3 weaknesses. It's clearly always going to be a much better type than Ice, regardless of whether or not Stealth Rock exists.

I do agree though that I hope X&Y makes getting rid of entry hazards a bit easier and more common.

 

[Sound]

I voted other. I don't feel that SR is broken, simply ridiculously unhealthy for the metagame, which is I feel like it should be banned.

• It punishes switches. I don't think anyone will disagree that switching is the most powerful tool in the game. It's absurd someone can nerf that in one turn, with very little drawback or risk. Sure, I may KO your setter, but to what end? Chances are, SR did enough damage take out at least "one" Pokémon as whoever's calculations demonstrated. While Spikes can do the same, they're generally considered inferior. Because they are. However, they're inferior in the same way Scarf-Mienshao is inferior to Terrakion. While, in most cases, you'd prefer the second, the first has some perks that make it worth using. I could do a whole post on Spikes vs. SR, hell, just the utility of spikes, if anyone cares.
• It's incredibly difficult to counter. I think we can all agree Donphan and Cloyster aren't good Spinners, nor pokemon. Forretress is outclassed by Skarm/Ferro without Rapid Spin. Tenta is not merely a situational spinner, but a situational Pokémon, period. Outside of rain, just... Don't bother. I'm speaking from experience here. Starmie is the only Pokémon whose good outside of spinning in most conditions. So, unless I'm using a Rain team (which means, just to support 1 Pokémon, I'm using two slots just to help it overcome one weakness), I have to choose between using Starmie or Forretress (isn't one of the criteria for banning something "If this Pokémon forces you to run otherwise subpar pokemon as counters"?). Everything else isn't reliable in the slightest. Magic Bounce users lack the defense and resistances to consistently counter lay-ers. Taunt is highly situation as you have to be in with them. In addition, a misprediction can leave you down a Pokémon with no advantage whatsoever.
• It hurts viability. Like with Spikes, I could go into a whole post on this (and it wouldn't be OMGMOLTRES!!!), but I'll try to keep it short. The reason we have SR-weak Pokémon in OU is because these Pokémon generally can accomplish everything they want to with one switch in. I.E. MixMence only needs to get in once to kill the Skarmory blocking your Lucario sweep, Volcarona only needs to get in once (after its counters are gone) to set up and sweep, etc. The SR weak Pokémon that aren't OU don't have this quality. Weavile needs to switch in many times to force out or revenge kill that Garchomp/Latios/Gengar, but SR limits its ability to do so. Rotom-H/Togekiss/Zapdos hate not being able to do the same on the defensive spectrum. Victini needs to switch out to negate the bad effects of its primary move.

 

[GOthee]

Hello, noob trainer! Let's take a trip to Unova! I'll be your competitive pokemon guide! We're going to build a pokemon team! Won't it be fun! You can pick six from all of these great pokemon to go into battle with!

Ooh, ooh, what about that one?

That thing looks badass!

Umm...no. You can't pick that. It's...it's basically deadweight.

Wha? It's got more special attack than standard OU pokemon like Landorus and Latias! It's not crazy fast, but it can either choose one of the best abilities in the game to fix that, or pack a Choice Scarf with Tinted Lens and become a ridiculously powerful revenge killer whose STABs are resisted by nobody but Heatran! Also, just look at it, it's a six foot long monster dragonfly thing, who wouldn't want that on their team?

When did you get so knowledgeable about the metagame? I thought you were a noob?

Just go with it for the purposes of exposition, narrator-dude.

What...whatever. Anyway, it's deadweight because it takes 50% from Stealth Rock every time it switches in.

So? I bet that's not too common.

Actually, every team in the game uses it because it's basically free damage.

Oh...hm. Well, can I get rid of it?

Sure, I guess. You could use Rapid Spin.

Oh, okay. Who can do that?

Well, basically Starmie and Tentacruel. Unless they have a Jellicent. Or a Gengar. Or a trapper to kill them with. Or they just OHKO them before they can move.

Um...how often does that happen?

A lot.

So you're telling me that Yanmega is only going to be able to switch in once in any given battle I use it in because of a ubiquitous field condition that's almost impossible to stop from setting up, has zero downsides, and is incredibly difficult to remove as long as my opponent has one of a multitude of strategies to stop me from Rapid Spinning?

Pretty much, yeah. Look, why don't you stick to the list of approved pokemon, like Jirachi and Terrakion. Don't you worry your little noob head about innovation, leave that to the people who know how to play.

Wait, this sounds stupid. Why is this Stealth Rock thing still around?

Didn't I tell you not to ask silly questions? We need Stealth Rock because it's been around forever! Plus, how would we deal with Dragonite or Volcarona without it?

Um, I don't know. Counter them? Isn't that up to you to figure out once it happens? Besides, if they're so good that the only thing that can stop them from wiping through the metagame is a field condition which supposedly isn't that hard to stop from setting up (says Curtains), and is completely shutting out the viability of other pokemon, why are they still around? Wouldn't that indirectly prove that the presence of pokemon like Dragonite and Volcarona, by necessitating such a battle condition, is itself toxic to the metagame and should stop? And wouldn't the supposed fragility of your counter (I can only counter these pokemon if SR is up, otherwise they're Uber) be a large indication that they deserve to be Uber in the first place?

Listen, kid, you don't understand. Stealth Rock never decides a battle. Curtains told me that "Rarely are games decided by the accused brokenness of SR." Duh. When have you ever seen a game that was swung because SR was on the field? Wait, I thought you were a noob? When have you seen a game at all?

Look, get past that hang-up, narrator-dude. SR sounds like it swings a lot of games. Don't suicide leads like Taunt Terrakion and Custap Skarmory exist because HO teams know that having SR on the field is worth an entire teamslot? Doesn't the on-site analysis of every single offensive pokemon in the metagame specifically say that you need a Stealth Rocker to turn important 3HKOs into 2HKOs, etc.?
Plus, this seems fallacious to me. Even if battles themselves aren't affected, you're sitting here telling me pre-battle that I can't even put this pokemon into my team because of Stealth Rock. It seems to me like most of the damage that this thing is doing happens before a battle even occurs, when large sets of pokemon are implicitly excluded from viability because Stealth Rock is just "accepted" to be a necessary battle condition. I mean, at this point, even if I never played a game where Stealth Rock was up, I'm not going to have Yanmega on my team because you, the onsite analysis, and every other respected OU player I've ever talked to told me that Yanmega is terrible because of Stealth Rock. I bet if I wanted to use Moltres, or Abomasnow, or Honchkrow, you'd tell me the same damn thing.

Look, kid, you don't have a RIGHT to use Yanmega. Stealth Rock is no more "overcentralizing" than any other powerful pokemon. It's just like, your opinion, man, that's no reason to ban it. Alexwolf said that we only ban things if they meet certain criteria, like ''does a Pokemon restrict a certain playstyle to a big extend'', ''does a Pokemon only have few ways to be dealt with, out of which most are only useful for dealing with it'', and ''does a Pokemon force teams to be overprepared for it or lose''.

But Stealth Rock isn't a pokemon, with checks, counters, and strategies available to stop it, which takes up an entire teamslot. It's a single move that takes one turn to set up and is distributed over massive numbers of already-powerful pokemon (Terrakion, Mamoswine, Celebi, Blissey, Jirachi, Tyranitar, Hippowdon, I could go on for days). It's so difficult to stop that even if it's possible, I have to build my team under the assumption that Stealth Rocks will be on my side of the field. Apparently every team has to have Stealth Rock and can mindlessly throw a game-defining field condition into play in only one turn. Didn't we ban mindless stuff like Moody and Blaziken for very similar reasons?
As to your criteria, they seem to fit. Hail, for example, is crippled by Ice-type's weakness to SR. Stall gets whacked because it's the most switching-intensive playstyle there is. "Does a Pokemon only have a few ways to be dealt with" - hell you just told me that all I could do was Rapid Spin, and there were only two Pokemon that could do that, and only in very favorable conditions! "Does a Pokemon force teams to be overprepared for it or lose" - well, this is different with a Pokemon and a field condition. But it sounds to me like what we're doing right here, building a team specifically around having very few or no weaknesses to Stealth Rock, is itself a form of overpreparing. Why aren't we at least suspecting this again?

Because...because...we don't have enough time. Alright? We're out of time. Now here. Politoed, Tentacruel, Jirachi, Ferrothorn, Jellicent, Keldeo. Nice and happy, nobody who's Stealth Rock weak, SR possible on two pokemon, you can spinblock. Shut up and ladder like everybody else.

...


Edit: Along with the above, I would also like to pose this as a question to those who believe there is nothing wrong with Stealth Rock. You come across an RMT which uses the following Togekiss spread.

Togekiss @ Leftovers
EVs: 252 HP / 4 Def / 4 SpD
Calm Nature
- Body Slam
- Air Slash
- Flamethrower
- Roost
The user says: Togekiss is my counter to Landorus. See? Look:
252 SpA Life Orb Sheer Force Landorus Focus Blast vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Togekiss: 133-157 (35.56 - 41.97%) -- 89.84% chance to 3HKO
Does that seem reasonable to you?

Very nice post kid. I agree i prefer Stealth Rock gone so pokes like Volcarona and Dragonite get suspected and Yanmega can join OU. But i wonder, what is OU? is Yanmega really OU??? or is it that thanks to SR he is UU so that means Yanmega sint such good pokemon after all, power isn't everything. I think i am mroe confused than before.

 

[Organization Member XIV]

I have to agree with jpw. I mean, SR IS basically free damage. The only viable OU spinners are Starmie and Tentacruel, as well as Forretress. The former two are destroyed by Thundurus-T and Jellicent and Gengar cockblock their spins anyways. The latter is destroyed by basically anything with a Fire move, and while it has its own Rocks, it HAS to come in on a death or predicted set-up move unless it will most likely die to a Fire move. Plus, if we really have that little creativity in OU where SR is basically forced to be on every team and makes certain types unviable, we have to ask whether SR is broken. You can't honestly tell me that if Abomasnow didnt have Snow Warning it would be OU. I honestly think that a ladder without SR would be perfectly reasonable. It's not like you guys are being asked to suspect SR, just make a separate ladder without it. Look at Donphan. While it's certainly not the best thing in OU, it's only used on teams is when it is used on Sun Teams because it can set up Rocks, which Dugtrio does better anyway-however Dugtrio actually has more of a role than to set up SR. Don't give me that shit about "But our concern isn't what COULD be, it's about what is," either. To maintain the health of the metagame and every other metagame we always have to be concerned about the present AND the future (not the past because that's not a good indicator in a changing environment like Pokemon). If I had told you Salamence would become OU after the DPPt era, everyone would have looked at me like I was nuts. However, in the future it became OU. THAT'S my point, only focusing on the present allows barely any interpretation of what a constantly changing metagame becomes. While we have suspect tests, that's only when things are proven broken IN THE PRESENT. SR just unfairly turns games, despite what Curtains said. Let me ask you guys one question. If I have SR on my team but someone else doesn't, and we both have no SR weak mons, who is more likely to win? Generally, me because I basically have free damage. Even if he outplays me, I could just force him to keep switching by stalling him out and counter-playing, which results in a slow but sure wearing down of my opponent's Pokemon. Have we really come to the point where we won't even consider SR because it's been used for too long? I know that's not ALL of the reasoning in this thread, but if that idea is allowed to continue growing eventually it becomes ingrained in Smogon's ideals, which I'm sure no one wants.

Phew, had to get that off my chest.

EDIT: Yes I realize I voted no but I've changed my opinion due to the sophistication of the arguments against SR.