More Thoughts on Stealth Rock

Do you support the testing of a Stealth Rockless metagame?

  • Yes, I would like to test a metagame without Stealth Rock.

    Votes: 365 54.2%

  • No, I do not think Stealth Rock needs to be tested.

    Votes: 309 45.8%
  • Total voters
    674
Status
Not open for further replies.
What's the big deal with SR? If you use it, it comes with the loss of tempo. You are not attacking, or switching. You're using a move that does absolutley nothing to the opposing pokemon. Suicide Leads are like running 5 pokemon and Stealth Rocks, you just gimp yourself and your team IMHO. Some people run bulky pokes with SR, if they don't lead off with it. This is just a free switch for your opponent, or a lucky KO. It's easy to punish SR users. I run a Scarf Roserade lead, so not many leads get to use SR with the exception of those that carry Lum Berry (Sup, Bronzong?) Switch in Azelf on your opponents Swampert. So what, he got SR up! Congratulations. Azelf just got a free switch in.

It's a good move, but there are risks to using it and I think this balances it. The whole arguement of "OH NOES WE CAN'T USE MOLTRES!" ect, is just plain absurd. Strong Persuiters never stopped Gengar. Dugtrio doesn't stop Heatran.

IT'S AN ENTRY HAZARD THAT GETS THINGS THAT SPIKES DON'T. Get over it.
 
uh darknessmalice that was completely uncalled for and you didn't even defend your position

edit: oh you edited but still

noob3 try not to use caps as a defense for your position or trivialize the thought of others with stuff like "The whole arguement of "OH NOES WE CAN'T USE MOLTRES!" ect, is just plain absurd." let's keep this civil =\
 
Blame Game... Testing Stealth Rock would tell us if it was broken or not. Look at Garchomp, look at Deoxys-S. Upon analysis from of the metagames with or without them we determined both were Uber.

I mean no offense dude, but I try to be objective towards the voting as much as possible. When Garchomp was first tested as a suspect I originally thought it was not Uber at all, but my mind changed and with that I voted Uber upon the analysis of that metagame. If I qualified for voting on Stealth Rock I would try to be objectionable towards that too.

A suspect test gives us insight on what things are like with or without something and even though I strongly stand against such a move I would try to be objective to the results of that. If you have a better basis in which to judge something suggest away.
 
Chris is me said:
And not surprisingly, you completely missed the point of Obi's post. It was a satirical comparison designed to highlight the OP as "ridiculous". By actually debating "SR versus Trick", you're completely missing the point of what he was trying to say.

Guys. Carefully ask yourselves this: What would a no SR test prove? Obviously it has a huge impact on the metagame and it will change. What will come out of the test though? Will we be able to see its power, or just its influence? Know what you're looking for when you test.
Click to expand...
Agreeing with you here, however I'd like to point out that a lot of people have been suggesting a "SR clause" for quite some time instead of an outright ban, and honestly, I see no harm in such an addition, as it appeases both sides without setting the community back much at all.

I'd go so far as to suggest just cutting to the creation of such an option in the foreseeable future and bypassing any kind of evaluation period at all. The people who want to try out "SR off" can and will, while everyone else can continue as normal. If a "SR off" person wants to challenge someone who uses SR, they will have to cede to the standard, which is "SR on".

At least, this is how I envision things.
 
ANinyMouse said:
Agreeing with you here, however I'd like to point out that a lot of people have been suggesting a "SR clause" for quite some time instead of an outright ban, and honestly, I see no harm in such an addition, as it appeases both sides without setting the community back much at all.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is would it get integrated into the ladder or tournaments and other events? I don't think with just one clause we would separate into two different Standard ladders, etc.
 
MythTrainerInfinity said:
The problem with that is would it get integrated into the ladder or tournaments and other events? I don't think with just one clause we would separate into two different Standard ladders, etc.
Click to expand...

That's why we would need a test; to see if the clause would be implemented or not. Go ahead and say SR isn't Uber, but the fact that so many people want it tested and say its broken is more than enough reason to test.


Gormenghast said:
uh darknessmalice that was completely uncalled for and you didn't even defend your position
Click to expand...

Completely wrong considering Chris' (and BlameGame's) comment and that I did defend my position (with one word). But I rather discuss testing SR than have an argument about insults.
 
@Gormenghast

This isn't Advance. Revenge killing something never was so easy in Pokemon history, Choice Scarf, residual damage adding up, new priority, dedicated revenge killers (Skymin, Dugtrio, Gengar, for example).
But anyway, you aren't going to SR in the face of a sweeper you can't deal with.

Is our actual testing really more worthwhile? What if we learn that recently banned Pokemon would fit well into a SRless OU metagame?

I'm not against the path that's being taken. Just posting my thoughts about it.

@Blame Game

You're missing my point by comparing Switching to SR.
The impact is, to many people, negative. It takes away from the game more than it adds, that's why I think it should be tested.

The testing actually can tell us if it's broken or not. Look at the analysis. So many of them mention SR, and they're often getting pretty important KOs. It's helping already powerful Pokemon and making common OU counters ineffective.

Anyway, improving the metagame isn't reason enough for a test?
 
MythTrainerInfinity said:
The problem with that is would it get integrated into the ladder or tournaments and other events? I don't think with just one clause we would separate into two different Standard ladders, etc.
Click to expand...

No, the default would be "SR on," just like Item Clause is off by default in most tournaments.

My point about "two different" metagames or ladders was in reference to the path of action of those who desire a SUSPECT TEST of SR.

Personally, I think we ought not even bother with a suspect test at all, and instead just allow people the option to turn it off if they so desire. Sure, it might be interesting to force an anti-SR metagame to develop through another ladder, and I'd be interested in what would happen, but that has been suggested to cause a lot of division in the community, as well as being a huge "waste of time," since nothing is broken about our current metagame. Sure, banning SR might THEORETICALLY improve our current metagame and morph it into a new one, for instance, but as things stand, it isn't REQUIRED.

And so once more, I say moving to a SR Clause without a test would keep people happy without wasting too much time. In fact, it might help the case of those who want a suspect test, since it would allow those people to build up battling experience (possibly "proof") and get a taste for "how things could be" instead of rushing headlong into it.
 
I think Id rather have a move that is easy to setup and does damage to everyones Pokemon then leave Gyarados, Salamence, Yanmega, Skymin and Zapdos completely unchecked. Yeah you can use a counter for them all but without SR they just switch in and out pretty much without consequence.

ANinyMouse said:
Personally, I think we ought not even bother with a suspect test at all, and instead just allow people the option to turn it off if they so desire. Sure, it might be interesting to force an anti-SR metagame to develop through another ladder, and I'd be interested in what would happen, but that has been suggested to cause a lot of division in the community, as well as being a huge "waste of time," since nothing is broken about our current metagame.

And so once more, I say moving to a SR Clause without a test would keep people happy without wasting too much time. In fact, it might help the case of those who want a suspect test, since it would allow those people to build up battling experience (possibly "proof") and get a taste for "how things could be" instead of rushing headlong into it.
Click to expand...

So I would have to make a SR-Ok team and a SR-Not Ok team depending on whether or not someone wanted to tunr on a clause for a non broken move? Good call.
 
Regice is at best a pathetic Gyarados counter, being weak to Stone Edge and only having 80/100 defenses. Salamence probably does a siginificant amount with DD Outrage too (though it probably lives).

Seriously, regice isn't a good pokémon, and that's not just because of SR.

Besides, the question of "ban or not" has nothing to do with things becoming too threatening.
 
Boingo said:
People, stop saying this. It's no less speculation than saying "Moltres/Articuno/whatever will be a lot more viable with no SR around". WE DON'T KNOW until we actually test it. And no matter how opposed you are to the thought of Stealth Rock being banned, a test won't hurt you.

I'm honestly surprised at the (to some extent) heavy opposition to a Stealth Rock test (not ban, but test!!). Are people really that afraid of a potential change in their beloved Metagame?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are arguing that Moltres and Articuno won't be any more viable when they're coming in with 50% more HP. Viability doesn't imply usage, and I would assume that having 50% more HP would mean something is more "viable" in a game. Their usages, however, cannot be determined without empirical data.

With regards to testing Stealth Rock, I'm not quite sure what it would accomplish. Like previous posters stated, a metagame without Stealth Rocks would simply be different. The term "broken" is highly subjective, and I'm not sure how testing results would determine whether Stealth Rocks are "broken" or not. I'm interested in the opinion of someone who supports testing Stealth Rock, and to hear them explain their positions on how the results would be interpreted and the corresponding course of action. Thanks.
 
There are two simple ways to test if SR is broken.

See how powerful Salamance, Zapdos, Gyarados, etc become. If any of them become suspects, I would be keen to say SR is broken.

Or see how dramatically flying type pokemon usage increase in a SRless metagame, especially the forementioned flying pokemon.
 
There are 11 flying-types in OU already...which is a great theorymon argument for "banning SR allows good flying types to overcentralize!" While some flyers are neutral to SR by virtue of their second typing (skarm, etc), it's something interesting to consider.
 
MythTrainerInfinity said:
ViVi, without SR you have Regice among many others, which stop all of the pokémon you have listed.
Click to expand...

Yes and when Regice goes down (which will happen, it isnt that great anymore) how are you going to deal with those Pokemon? If SR isnt up, like I previously stated, they can switch away from any 'revenge killer' you'll bring out with no consequence.

SR is extremely over used but it helps keep Pokemon honest imo.
 
darknessmalice said:
See how powerful Salamance, Zapdos, Gyarados, etc become. If any of them become suspects, I would be keen to say SR is broken.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine it's easy to be this stupid. Just in case you've missed it, you're stating the following:

"If banning one move causes the possible banning of a number of Pokemon, then I think we should definitely ban that move."

You seem to have this freaky idea that more bans > less bans 100% of the time, despite the fact that said idea goes against all game theory ever.

Furthermore, I move to say that a SR test would actually be harmful to the entire Suspect Test process for one main reason:

Testing SR will not prove that it is broken, only that SR has an impact on the metagame, and if SR is banned on said basis, it will frame the Suspect Test as an arbitrary decider that is not acting on the behalf of the metagame.
 
Hypothetical situation:

Stealth Rock is tested and we find that 60 Pokemon end up OU. (The current number is near 50, remember.) The resulting metagame isn't considered to be worse than before, but it's not considered better, either.

Would Stealth Rock be worthy of a ban then?

Just curious.
 
Testing, testing Skymin is also getting ready for a vote, the only reason I'd support the ban of Skymin is for the Ban of Stealth Rock, do we really want BellyZards, Zapdos, Salemence and friend running around with out fear of damage, Rocks keep the game balanced to leave the ban of a single move is erratic. Most people can cope with Stealth Rocks anyway, anyone, but me think Brozong would of made an awesome spinner, but that's off the point most people have found a way to cope with Stealth Rocks or even prevent it.
 
CardsOfTheHeart said:
Hypothetical situation:

Stealth Rock is tested and we find that 60 Pokemon end up OU. (The current number is near 50, remember.) The resulting metagame isn't considered to be worse than before, but it's not considered better, either.

Would Stealth Rock be worthy of a ban then?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

No. If Current Metagame = New Metagame, then the current metagame with less bans should be prioritized over an arbitrary new metagame.
 
CardsOfTheHeart said:
By saying that, you imply that you don't want a metagame with more OU Pokemon. Interesting...
Click to expand...

Lets introduce the Level Balance clause on the ladder, so we have loads of OU pokemon!... Seriously, this is not a good argument. Our aim is not to have more OUs. We banned Garchomp and Deoxys-S because they were overly good, not to make more pokemon viable.
 
Differing objectives; that's always the problem, isn't it? I, for one, want a healthy metagame with as many OU Pokemon as possible. (Level Balance clause does not constitute "healthy" imo.)

We all have our own ideas for an ideal metagame. That's why it's difficult to agree on things like this.
 
As far as usage concerns for bans go, I say have the smallest number of bans such that the number of OU Pokemon is above some threshold. I don't know what this number would be, though.
 
The problem is that there's a point at which such decisions are entirely arbitrary. There's no valid way to determine the threshold, especially given that OU is such an abstract concept, and that not being included in OU doesn't exclude a Pokemon from play. Once the decision-making process becomes arbitrary, it starts to hurt the metagame rather than help it, as well as hurting the credibility of the people behind the metagame's decision-making.
 
If you look at the ratios of OU Pokemon to fully-evolved Pokemon in previous generations as a guide, then the "ideal" number for D/P OU should lie somewhere between 43 and 53. There has to be more to it than that, though.

Besides, I don't know if shooting for an "ideal" number is such a good idea. As long as the metagame is healthy, it shouldn't matter how many Pokemon are classified as OU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top