Garchomp and this Metagame

[CLegacyM]

With Roost and DD, pick: Skarmory and Levitating Bronzong, or Heatran and Heatproof Bronzong. With Dclaw and EQ you are walled by the first two. With Dclaw and Fire Blast/Fang you're walled by the ladder pair. If you do EQ and Fire Blast/Fang then you're walled by anything Flying Fire resists, such as Gyarados and opposing Salamence.

Not that I don't like Mence, I love it. It can do a ton of things (like we're saying)...

Another thing: after all these Speed Boosts (even 1 really), you outrun a lot, making you voulnerable when you Roost. Not being hit by EQ, being hit in general. Mence could easily lose 50%~ from an attack.

Why would Roost change how much damage it's taking from an attack unless that attack is fighting? Or Grass? I mean those are the only resistances Flying provides. If anything Roosting is an advantage because it takes away the 4x Ice weakness and the rock weakness and the electric neutrality. I mean, there are many more benefits to roosting first than roosting second. I really don't see your logic here.

That said, if mence is carrying brick break it's going to be doing neutral or SE damage to all of those things (who the hell uses heatproof bronzong anyway). And, again, it's a team game. If you are using a set that can be countered by one pokemon -- just wait until that pokemon is gone.

Also in response to jrrrrr saying "when do you ever have time to DD up twice in this metagame?" With DDMence and roost on my team I've been averaging at LEAST 2 dds a match if not more.

In fact, I've had much more success with this Garchompless team than I have had with Garchomp.

 

[Mr.E]

This is why SDChomp is more powerful than DDMence. It's just simply more practical to use with the speed of the D/P metagame.

*rimshot*

Pun intended?

 

[CLegacyM]

Ok, I have a new suggestion. I don't really care to be honest either way -- I don't use Garchomp. But just to appease the people that really do think Garchomp is banned...here it is.

Ban Garchomp holding Yache Berry.

Now before you get confused -- no, I am not asking for Yache Berry itself to be banned. I am asking for just the single instance of Garchomp using Yache Berry to be banned. I recall, or was told, that Perish Trapping Jynx in GSC was banned, and we've all heard the clamour for Lati@s to be unbanned as long as they are not allowed to use Soul Dew.

So, my question is, why not just ban Garchomp @ Yache Berry? In all of the arguments the biggest one is that Garchomp is uncounterable. It is only uncounterable when holding this berry because its counters can't OHKO it (and neither can other faster or sturdy attackers because of it). So, by eliminating Yache Berry it no longer has the capacity to survive against its counters and thus wont stay in to outrage, or whatever.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion that maybe we can all come to an agreement on and make some progress. Just post saying you agree if you agree.

 

[lilyhollow]

I think that's a terrible idea. Let's say we did that, now I can say "hey, Kyogre/Ho-oh/absolutely anything might be balanced for OU if we banned leftovers, Choice Specs, Choice Band, and every other item except Macho Brace for those pokemon."

This is a different situation than the one with Lati@s, whose items only affect them (in other words we are "banning the item" not "banning the item on the pokemon").

 

[jrrrrrrr]

So what you are essentially saying is you'd rather play with one side of the coin. Let's just play in a metagame where physical attackers can run wild and limit the special attackers because it's easier that way (let's not forget that it makes the OU metagame much smaller and it means we can cover all the threats effectively too!!).

Special attackers are simply outclassed by physical attackers in terms of movepools, typing and stats. The fast special sweepers all have poor typing and defenses (Azelf and Porygon-Z come to mind here) and for the most part physical attackers are just better pokemon overall. Blissey is just the icing on the cake.

Neutrality =/= one of the best in the game. Especially considering that you are always trying to do the most damage possible.

Dragon might not be the best in every situation, but if pokemon is a game of averages and statistics, I'll take my neutrality. Obviously certain types have advantages over others, but Dragon's advantage is that it is never a bad choice even if its not the best.

"Guessing right" is just to avoid losing one pokemon. At most you should never lose more than one pokemon to Garchomp unless your opponent has outplayed you thoroughly and youre entire team is weakened and/or slower than Garchomp. Again, you just fail to realize that all of its potential counters will cripple it if it stays in to try and kill them. So they lose their most potent attacking threat and you just lose the pokemon that was there to counter it in the first place. You are, if anything, in a better position than when you started because his best offensive threat is gone while all you've lost is your counter to it which was designed to beat/cripple it in the first place. Duh.

But, they didnt lose their best offensive threat since it is still alive, even if it is in revenge kill area. There aren't always situations where revenge killing is applicable or useful. Plus, if Garchomp gets a KO, then gets revenge killed, now you are at a disadvantage because they get a free switch after the 1-for-1.

Again, it's not overpowered especially since its counters end up crippling it anyway unless you've been outplayed and I already mentioned how that puts you at a more advantageous position anyway. I don't know about the OU tier shrinking because I haven't been around for a while and I don't know what marks the cutoff in usage for the OU tier.

The OU tier lost 3 pokemon just last month because of Garchomp's spike in usage over the last 6 months. The cutoff for OU is being in the top 75% of usages. Obviously as Garchomp continues to be used more frequently, others will be used less.



Now that we pretty much have an agreement of the power and centralization of Garchomp, what can actually be done about this?

Ok, despite all of the "garchomp is overpowered!" "no it isnt!!" arguing that's been going on, Curt and I were talking and it seems that instead of just banning Garchomp, a ban on Yache Berry Garchomp seems like it would be much more appropriate. It keeps true to the simplistic approach of banning vs unbanning that some people are in favor of while also compromising with those who acknowledge that Garchomp is broken in OU. A ban like this would be akin to the Perish Trap Jynx ban in GSC (as I understand it, at least).

I dont think that Garchomp would be an issue if Yache didn't remove its counters from the game. A Garchomp that can actually be revenge killed is a much safer Garchomp imo. Does anyone else think this might be reasonable? I will quote a post from TPR that I feel is very relevant to this. Amazing Ampharos encourages rulesets that are both simple and promoting decentralization. Eliminating Yache Berry on Garchomp would certainly be a simple solution to allow more pokemon into OU by curbing Garchomp's usage.

I believe that we should limit the degree to which we seek to influence the metagame's development through rules to centralization. We should seek to prevent the metagame from becoming overcentralized. By this I mean we should seek to prevent a radical decline in the number of Pokemon being used, and I would contend that the current metagame is not overcentralized (therefore I am opposed to the banning of any Pokemon currently legal anywhere, including Garchomp and Wobbuffet). This means that I don't think we should seek to maximize Pokemon viability; we only need to prevent it from dropping below a certain critical threshold.

I think our secondary goal is to keep the rules as short as possible. That means that, if a Pokemon can be unbanned without causing overcentralization, it should be unbanned.

Even though AA doesnt seem to think that Garchomp is centralizing the game, recent usage statistics seem to be pointing in the other direction.

 

[Cynthia]

Banning a whole set of items and just banning one particular item on one particular Pokemon are two entirely different matters.

Removing Yache would certainly balance Garchomp more, but there hasn't been a true precedent for it. I think it's a solid idea though.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Yeah, I know that there really isn't a precedent for it. But, on the other side of the coin, there isn't a precedent for a pokemon that is as dominant as Garchomp is because of one item.

Let's say we did that, now I can say "hey, Kyogre/Ho-oh/absolutely anything might be balanced for OU if we banned leftovers, Choice Specs, Choice Band, and every other item except Macho Brace for those pokemon."

So what? I don't think that is a bad thing, especially in the names of centralization and power. You seem to have completely missed the point that OU is supposed to be a balanced tier to begin with.

 

[lilyhollow]

I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at.

What I'm saying is that we could easily have a balanced OU tier and increase the number of current Ubers that are viable within the standard metagame, by neutering their ability to hold the items that make them effective; Garchomp is not necessarily special in that one single item "causes" it to become uber, so that would mean we could theoretically end up with a ruleset of

Evasion/OHKO Clause
No Mewtwo/Kyogre/Groudon/Deoxys-A
No Ho-oh with leftovers
No Manaphy with leftovers or choice specs
No Deoxys with offense-boosting items

etc, etc, etc, etc., and that is something we want to avoid. Again, Garchomp is not necessarily special so if we call into question Yache Berry on Garchomp, we have to call into question dozens of different pokemon/item combinations and it's just not worth it, especially when it could very well end in an extremely complicated ruleset.

 

[CLegacyM]

You seem to be missing the point -- you are trying to complicate something that isn't complicated. Taking away items of stuff like Kyogre and Groudon wouldn't change their power. It might make them slightly weaker but they are already so far gone that it wouldn't matter.

Like jrrrrrrr was saying -- we are trying to make the most balanced environment possible. Testing after testing if we could prove that one of those pokemon without a certain item could make it in OU then we are obligated to make that a reality.

While there is no proof that Yache exclusively makes Garchomp uber (although I don't think it's uber anyway) Yache is pretty much the foundation of all the arguments making Garchomp uber. Can you come up with an argument for Garchomp to be uber without Yache? If not, then it should be safe to say that by removing Yache we are making Garchomp fair in OU.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Just to comment on the whole "You should only lose 1 pokemon to garchomp" thing,

If there was a pokemon who's only move was: "This pokemon faints, do 150% to your opponent's next 2 pokemon (take out 1, damage the next, or if that one's already damage, kill it and the next 1)."

Everyone would use that pokemon. I mean heck, use 4 of that pokemon and you win 2-0 every game.

Yes Garchomp isn't that powerful, but when people make the argument "as long as a pokemon takes down 1 enemy, it's already don't its job," this is the type of brokennness they are inferring to.

If a pokemon was garanteed to take down 1 enemy, that's aready amazing, but garanteed to do even more is simply broken.

Pokemon is a resource game, and obviously if you use less resources on your side to take out more resources on the other side, you will always win. If every garchomp always does 150% percent damage to the opponent's team, there's no reason why you SHOULDN'T be running it.

edit: Just like Obi always says about saving late game sweepers: "If they want to play most of the first part of the game with only 5 pokemon v. my 6, I'll be happy to take that advantage."

If Garchomp's power really is that it can take down 1 pokemon (and hurt another one) every game, that's it's as if the match started off 4.5 pokemon v. 5, or if both players are using garchomp, 3.5 v. 3.5. If (and I myself am not quite sure about this "if") Garchomp is that strong, it seems pretty damn overcentralizing to me.

 

[lilyhollow]

You seem to be missing the point -- you are trying to complicate something that isn't complicated. Taking away items of stuff like Kyogre and Groudon wouldn't change their power. It might make them slightly weaker but they are already so far gone that it wouldn't matter.

Well then let's just ban everything but Burn Orb on those two and test them in OU for a couple months, you can't argue that their overall strength goes down significantly to the point where they could be viable in OU. And hey, what about Deoxys-D without leftovers, that would be interesting right? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we could bring down the entire Uber tier, and just muck with item options until the "OU" tier rests at around 40 or 50, with 0 or very very very few bans. Hell, why leave it at that, why not make all of our UU troubles go away and make that ruleset filled with stuff like "No Slaking with attack-boosting items"? Doesn't exactly have a nice ring to it but it could sure balance things out right?

In fact, why stop at items? As far as I'm concerned, you have no justification for banning Yache Berry on Garchomp that wouldn't also allow us to ban, say, Earthquake or Outrage on Garchomp. Do you have any, or was this entire proposition thrown together on the basis that "the primary argument for Garchomp becoming Uber has been Yache Berry"?

I don't think I'm "needlessly complicating" anything at all, the very nature of your proposition is extremely complicated all on its own. We ban Garchomp or we don't, any middle ground does not, in my mind, do anything to simplify the rules, and in fact only serves to complicate them. Honestly I think jrrrrrrr misunderstood the second part of the AA post he quoted, or otherwise neglected it; either way it's something we definitely should be taking into account here.

Like jrrrrrrr was saying -- we are trying to make the most balanced environment possible. Testing after testing if we could prove that one of those pokemon without a certain item could make it in OU then we are obligated to make that a reality.

1) This process would take a ridiculous amount of time. We could probably come up with a way for every single uber to be usable in a diverse, balanced OU metagame, if we did enough testing with different pokemon/item combinations. Just based on the amount of time it would take alone, such a process would never be worth it.

2) This process could overcomplicate the ruleset so much that even saying "well... at least it's more balanced now, right guys?" probably wouldn't justify it.

3) Smogon is not trying to create the most balanced environment possible, which is something I'd think should be obvious considering that Deoxys-S, the widely-renowned "best late game cleaner in the game" is now OU, and that (!) Garchomp, by far the #1 threat in standard, is still heavily under question.

While there is no proof that Yache exclusively makes Garchomp uber (although I don't think it's uber anyway) Yache is pretty much the foundation of all the arguments making Garchomp uber. Can you come up with an argument for Garchomp to be uber without Yache? If not, then it should be safe to say that by removing Yache we are making Garchomp fair in OU.

I don't really care how balanced Yache-less Garchomp is any more than I do about Swords Dance-less Garchomp, both are hypothetical scenarios that do not, and should never exist unless Gamefreak decides to do us a favor and remove it in-game.

 

[Fatality]

CLegacyM- I was rushed and couldn't really explain what I was trying to say about Roost Mence (I was leaving and just got back today), but whatever, let's not argue.

On banning YacheChomp: I'd go for banning it. Honestly if it didn't have Yache and still was sweeping your team, then you need teambuilding help. Base 102 Spe is not that great >_>, ZOMGWTFBBQ! It's 5 points faster than "average" 328. Starmie, HP Ice Gengar, a ton can easily KO with an Ice Beam or such.

 

[Syberia]

If considering banning Yache Berry is out of the question, then considering banning Soul Dew to allow Lati@s in OU should also be out of the question.

 

[Miao]

I don't think banning Yache Berry is out of the question, more that banning yache berry on just Garchomp opens up a can of worms, since you could start fussing with it to the extent that "such and such is cheap on X".

Banning Yache outright is worse, since it makes the other dragons less viable, leaving an opening for them to drop furthur in usage.

Soul Dew isn't really the same since the item can be banned outright in OU with no ill effects other than adding more diversity.

One thing I'm wondering about is what effect the latis will have on garchomp first. Both are dragon types with a higher speed than garchomp. Sadly, both are more special oriented than not, regardless, garchomp will usually be outsped by the two, and they don't share the x4 weakness the other dragons have to ice. They've been allowed without soul dew since the beginning i nthe "ingame" meta, which seems okay, although overzealous about banning legendary pokemon.

 

[CLegacyM]

You are overcomplicating things. Because, what you are saying requires testing. Literally taking Yache away from Chomp -- and Chomp only -- is already an obvious way to take away the argument for Garchomp being uber.

What can of worms would that open that hasn't already been opened by the Lati@s discussion? I mean, honestly, it's the same concept entirely. Although Soul Dew can only be used by them that doesn't matter -- you are still banning a specific set or item on a specific pokemon to allow them to be more balanced in the OU metagame. It's the same thing when you are banning Yachechomp. There is no difference. Yache would remain the game to be used by other pokemon, but at the same time the only pokemon that seems broken (key word seems, as not everyone believes it is broken) while using it doesn't have access to it.

 

[sandman]

You are overcomplicating things. Because, what you are saying requires testing. Literally taking Yache away from Chomp -- and Chomp only -- is already an obvious way to take away the argument for Garchomp being uber.

No yache berry is not the only thing, you might be sick of hearing this but with sandvile garchomp takes advantage of a free turn more than any other pokemon. Also garchomp can ev its self to survive an icebeam without a yache berry and put a salac berry there instead to get a speeed boost making it technically even more threatening than the yache berry set once set up. This makes garchomp incredibly hard to counter because you have to switch a pokemon in to lower Garchomp's HP and die, then send another pokemon into revenge kill it.

 

[sanjay120]

Suicide Bomber Chomp loses a lot of attack power and is stopped by Bronzong and other walls.

 

[lilyhollow]

Literally taking Yache away from Chomp -- and Chomp only -- is already an obvious way to take away the argument for Garchomp being uber.

Who cares about "the argument"? The only reason the Yache Berry argument is so prominent is that it has just now started gaining ridiculous popularity. You obviously don't see Swords Dance being used as the specific reason why Garchomp is so powerful, because Swords Dance Garchomp has been used from the very beginning; that doesn't mean it isn't just as responsible as Yache Berry is for Garchomp's possible brokenness. Basically what you're saying is that the only reason you want to ban Yache Berry on Garchomp is because that is what people have been arguing about lately. So what?

And once again, "No Garchomp with Yache Berry" makes a more complicated ruleset than "No Garchomp" (to my understanding), so you have to undergo testing to prove that it is somehow more balanced that way.

What can of worms would that open that hasn't already been opened by the Lati@s discussion? I mean, honestly, it's the same concept entirely. Although Soul Dew can only be used by them that doesn't matter -- you are still banning a specific set or item on a specific pokemon to allow them to be more balanced in the OU metagame. It's the same thing when you are banning Yachechomp. There is no difference. Yache would remain the game to be used by other pokemon, but at the same time the only pokemon that seems broken (key word seems, as not everyone believes it is broken) while using it doesn't have access to it.

With Soul Dew we are effectively banning the item itself, because everything that can use it is broken when holding it (in other words, the blame falls on the items, not necessarily the pokemon).

 

[CLegacyM]

Right, and the blame here is on the item completely. As I've already pointed out there is no argument without Yache berry. Period.

So stop making me restate the same thing over and over again when you just can't comprehend the comparison. It is the exact same thing as allowing Lati@s in OU without Soul Dew because it is the item itself that is sparking the discussion of the pokemon being uber.

Jesus.

 

[lilyhollow]

The blame cannot be on the item if the item is not broken on any other pokemon that can activate it.

You haven't really addressed any of my points and just keep going back to the silly Soul Dew comparison, which doesn't make sense because Soul Dew is broken on every pokemon that can use it which makes it pretty clear whose
"fault" it is. Again, in effect, we are banning Soul Dew from standard altogether (and deeming it broken), since nothing but Latias or Latios can actually make use of Soul Dew in any way.

As I've already pointed out there is no argument without Yache berry. Period.

Like I said, this doesn't matter. "There is no argument without Swords Dance." So give me one good reason why banning Yache Berry makes sense as opposed to banning Swords Dance, besides your flawed Soul Dew comparison.

 

[CLegacyM]

What is flawed about the comparison? Soul Dew as an item wouldn't be banned completely. In fact, any pokemon could use it just as any pokemon could use yache berry. The difference is that each item's use is relative to the pokemon that is using it. Bronzong using yache berry or soul dew would be roughly the same -- it would gain no benefit whatsoever.

Yache berry in the hands of something like Garchomp however is completely different. I don't understand why you can't fucking understand this but it's getting a little bit ridiculous. The argument isn't flawed you just aren't capable of putting the connection together no matter how much I spell it out for you.

 

[lilyhollow]

What is flawed about the comparison? Soul Dew as an item wouldn't be banned completely. In fact, any pokemon could use it just as any pokemon could use yache berry. The difference is that each item's use is relative to the pokemon that is using it. Bronzong using yache berry or soul dew would be roughly the same -- it would gain no benefit whatsoever.

It would effectively be banned since no pokemon in the game besides Latias or Latios can use it, as in activate its effects. Bronzong can use Yache Berry and even if it's not necessarily a good idea, doing so can impact a game. Soul Dew on anything besides Latias or Latios cannot. In any case, if I were in charge I would be banning Soul Dew's use on any Pokemon in standard simply to remain 100% consistent with the ruleset. I believe that's irrelevant either way though.

I don't understand why you can't fucking understand this but it's getting a little bit ridiculous. The argument isn't flawed you just aren't capable of putting the connection together no matter how much I spell it out for you.

Like I said, you keep going back to the Soul Dew comparison which I don't think is relevant either way. If it were a valid comparison, I would be arguing against a "No Latias/Latios with Soul Dew" metagame for the same reasons that I don't want a "No Garchomp with Yache Berry." You have yet to even bother replying to any of those reasons.....

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Let's look at the argument from another side. There are a number of arguments to be made.

"Garchomp with Yache Berry is overpowered." Obviously it is, or it wouldn't be so wildly popular nowadays. It lets Garchomp live a shot that should knock it out, letting it dealo massive damage to things that normally should finish it off. It also gives it a free turn of setup, which lets it OHKO almost everything in the game, and even 2HKO 252 Bold Cresselia with Outrage. Now, let's look at this from a different standpoint.

"Garchomp with Swords Dance is overpowered." Obviously, without Swords Dance, it would lose most of its destructive potential, meaning that a free turn from Yache Berry wouldn't be as important. It couldn't OHKO most everything in the metagame, nor could it 2HKO Cresselia. It would simply be a powerful bulky threat. Of course, there's another side of the coin.

"Garchomp with Outrage is overpowered." Outrage is an insanely powerful move, and with Swords Dance, it allows Garchomp to 2HKO Cresselia. Without it, Cresselia would become an extreme hard counter to Garchomp. Scarf Garchomp would also be neutered, as it depends on Outrage for its fast power.

Here we are. There's no *one* thing that makes Garchomp overpowered. It's well known that Garchomp was incredibly good and used quite often even before Yache Berry was in vogue, so that's out. Scarfed sets don't use Swords Dance, but Garchomp is still an insane threat with it. And many Swords Dance sets don't use Outrage for fear of being locked in against something that kills it.

Banning a single powerful option doesn't change the fact that the Pokemon is far more powerful than anything else in the metagame. When there are that many factors that make a Pokemon overpowered, it immediately stands to reason that it's not the factors, but the Pokemon itself.

 

[Mr.E]

I find it ironic that you would agree with the "Garchomp is overpowered" sentiment in the same post you basically said Cresselia is a hard counter to it, killing it outright or at least crippling it and setting up for a possible revenge kill (depending on if Outrage locks in at two or three turns) even if Garchomp is at full health and Cresselia is the one switching into it.

 

[Chimera]

I'm imagining an ubers list with "yache berry garchomp" and i'm not getting this brainfreeze. It's really NOT that complicated, and I think if we looked at past usage statisitcs we'd learn a bit more than we give ourselves credit for. YacheChomp really didn't take off early in the meta. Sd chomp existed, but was more often seen with Sub since you had suicune, cresselia, and starmie switching in and making your life miserable. Scarfchomp would get walled by most Steels, same with CB builds.

why is it we are discussing banning a pokemon, and banning a move (something new), yet a single build, the uncounterable build, is somehow too crazy a concept and complicated? Everything else so far is banned because its significantly better (see Mewtwo, Lati@s, Rayquaza) or breaks a fundamental rule (wobby).

All this "there's no harm in testing." Testing banning Garchomp would take just as long as banning Yache Chomp. It can't just be a matter of pokemon usage numbers changing, some of it would definitely have to be players' perspectives, and whether or not Chomp was significantly easier to deal with when a good ol' ice beam or shard definitely did the trick.