Blissey

[kd24]

I want to "nominate" Blissey for a suspect test but not for the reasons you might be thinking. I am not saying Blissey should be removed, nor am I saying Blissey is Uber. What I am saying, is that we sometimes make desicions on what would "improve the metagame" (which to me is making as many pokemon as possible viable, as well as making it more enjoyable), and reconstructing the defensive characteristic, (which I truly believe Blissey fits under right now).

I would propose that we remove Blissey after all suspect tests are done (maybe with Mence if he is removed from ladder), and look for these three things:

1.) Are more Pokemon viable in competitive play, but the metagame is not dominated by Pokemon following Blissey's removal?
2.) Is the metagame more enjoyable following Blissey's removal?
3.) Can we reconstruct the defensive characteristic of an Uber Pokemon? As it stands, the characteristic "could" apply to Blissey, who does wall a large portion of the metagame, enough that some Pokemon actually switch to physical attacks on all special movesets, just for her.

I will try and defend my position on this the best I can, if anyone feels the same way, please give any extra reasoning for this. Also please note, this is not a test to "ban Blissey", that is not what I want at all. I want to either show that sometimes a more diverse and enjoyable metagame may not always be the best choice, and that the characteristic of an Uber could be redone (I respect Tangerine and everything he has done into creating them a lot more than he might realize, please don't yell at me saying I don't respect them =[)

Any thoughts on this? If this is actually something to consider, please move to pr, I just want to put this in stark first, especially if this has already been considered and either ignored or rejected.

 

[The SPrinkLer]

Well, you talk about a more enjoyable metagame. The definintion of an uber is not if the removal of this Pokemon will make it more fun, but if it's broken.

Also, I agree Blissey does wall a large portion of the metagame, but do you know how much is really needed? It doesn't wall a majority, due to a larger physical-based metagame. If we need a majority, then Blissey doesn't deserve to be tested. That's just my opinion on things. Until someone defines a % or something along those lines, I don't think we should actually do anything, so I agree we could redefine the characteristics to make it more specific.

 

[MrIndigo]

Blissey is really not worth the time at the moment; since Latias has been brought in, Blissey usage has dropped dramatically and it's really not invalidating many pokemon, because the metagame is quite physically based, and there are plenty of support options.

Once upon a time, I would have agreed with you but since Latias came down to OU, it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[kd24]

Well, you talk about a more enjoyable metagame. The definintion of an uber is not if the removal of this Pokemon will make it more fun, but if it's broken.

Also, I agree Blissey does wall a large portion of the metagame, but do you know how much is really needed? It doesn't wall a majority, due to a larger physical-based metagame. If we need a majority, then Blissey doesn't deserve to be tested. That's just my opinion on things. Until someone defines a % or something along those lines, I don't think we should actually do anything, so I agree we could redefine the characteristics to make it more specific.

as i explained on IRC (and just reposting here so others can see it), by testing Blissey, we can get a % number that defines a portion of the metagame. If by example, Blissey ended up walling 20% of the metagame as we saw a 1/5 increase in usage of special attackers or whatever, we could then say maybe 25% is the range of a "portion of the metagame"

by testing blissey, we only bring us that much closer to finding it.

Blissey is really not worth the time at the moment; since Latias has been brought in, Blissey usage has dropped dramatically and it's really not invalidating many pokemon, because the metagame is quite physically based, and there are plenty of support options.

Once upon a time, I would have agreed with you but since Latias came down to OU, it doesn't seem worth it.

you just reinforced my point. the metagame is physically based, quite as you put it. By removing blissey, we can see the affect it has on that and see if it balances itself out (more special based, less physical based). I don't see how latias affects it, im not saying blissey is a threat that needs to be banned, but for the reasons i layed out, should be tested.

 

[YoungMoney]

Blissey simply doesnt need any testing. Blissey is one of those pokemon where you can just take a glance and see if its broken or not. And let me tell you, it isnt. Yes Blissey does wall a number of OUs but it does have its draw backs. Pokemon like Scizor (Number one used OU to date) can take advantage of her, so can extream threats like Lucario. Blisseys horrible defence stat is the spot to hit. And since most of the better OU teams have natural ways to get around Blissey, it cant really be considered "Broken". Blissey in uber would just be silly IMO because of the fact that it walls a majority of the pokemon in the metagame, yet flees from the rest. Garchomp was made uber because of the amount of effort it took to counter and teams being overcentralized but Blissey is nowhere near the same boat.

 

[The SPrinkLer]

I actually understand where you're coming from KD. I wasn't entirely sure what you meant, but Blissey is a great Pokemon to test the Special spectrum of things. Too bad there's no "dominant" Physical wall because SDLuke and HO friends rip them up and severely injure tham after stat up move. Blissey can take basically any special hit boosted and cripple them back and stall them out.

 

[kd24]

Blissey simply doesnt need any testing. Blissey is one of those pokemon where you can just take a glance and see if its broken or not. And let me tell you, it isnt. Yes Blissey does wall a number of OUs but it does have its draw backs. Pokemon like Scizor (Number one used OU to date) can take advantage of her, so can extream threats like Lucario. Blisseys horrible defence stat is the spot to hit. And since most of the better OU teams have natural ways to get around Blissey, it cant really be considered "Broken". Blissey in uber would just be silly IMO because of the fact that it walls a majority of the pokemon in the metagame, yet flees from the rest. Garchomp was made uber because of the amount of effort it took to counter and teams being overcentralized but Blissey is nowhere near the same boat.

again, i'm not saying that blissey is broken. quite the opposite in fact. I am saying blissey might not be broken at all but its removal would improve the metagame in a variety of ways. Yes pokemon can set up on it like scizor and lucario, but i'm not saying, "blissey is walling everything, we should banned it". What i am saying is that removing blissey would add even more options into the metagame that blissey would usually take out. And who knows, maybe one of those pokemon who was previously affect by blissey turns out to be a new check to scizor or lucario (i bet raikou usage would increase, and he is definitely a check to use on scizor if you really need one).

I actually understand where you're coming from KD. I wasn't entirely sure what you meant, but Blissey is a great Pokemon to test the Special spectrum of things. Too bad there's no "dominant" Physical wall because SDLuke and HO friends rip them up and severely injure tham after stat up move. Blissey can take basically any special hit boosted and cripple them back and stall them out.

glad i have converted you (i think?). i understand that there is no dominant physical wall like blissey is on the special side, but the good news is blisseys depature won't change that. In fact, it would likely bring more balance between the walling spectrums. As for blissey being able to cripple a portion of the metagame, i agree with you, but lets save that for if it ever happens and we see if the game thrives.

 

[Huntofthelion]

It can't hurt to test it, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

1.) Are more Pokemon viable in competitive play, but the metagame is not dominated by Pokemon following Blissey's removal?

Obviously more pokemon would become more viable, you're removing one of the premier walls of the game. As to whether or not the metagame is dominated by a new Pokemon in Blissey's absence, I don't believe that would have any bearing on the status of Blissey in the metagame, it would simply mean that if Blissey is banned than the new Pokemon is a suspect.

2.) Is the metagame more enjoyable following Blissey's removal?

Again, I don't think that a metagame being more enjoyable without it is grounds to ban something. If that is the case, then lets get rid of everything with Serene Grace ._.

So like I said I'm not sure I get where you're coming from. From what I read I take it you want to test Blissey because you think without it the metagame would be more enjoyable?

 

[Mike Legend]

Agreeing with mostly whats been said. Blissey is not broken. Sure it can wall a good portion of the Special attackers in this Metagame, but it can't do much in return, as you go to a Physical attacker, except Paralyze and thats easily played around. A lot of the premier special attackers don't carry a physical move just for Blissey, but Snorlax as well, or even a Special Wall in general such as Cressellia or SpD Celebi.

I don't think Blissey centralizes the Metagame around Physical attackers at all, because you don't need to have a full out Physical HO team to take care of Bliss. I'm not against testing it, howver. I believe it could be very interesting.

 

[blasphemy1]

I agree that it would improve the metagame, but I suppose shoddy battle isn't supposed to be fun, which is why I have just given up on it

 

[kd24]

Obviously more pokemon would become more viable, you're removing one of the premier walls of the game. As to whether or not the metagame is dominated by a new Pokemon in Blissey's absence, I don't believe that would have any bearing on the status of Blissey in the metagame, it would simply mean that if Blissey is banned than the new Pokemon is a suspect.

obviously yes, but the main point is "would all those new viable pokemon not be too overpowered by the glue that was previously blissey". What i do not want at all is any pokemon being broken after blissey's removal setting off a chain reaction. One of the ideal prospects would be that everything thrives, nothing becomes overpowered enough to be considered suspect, but we have more options.

Again, I don't think that a metagame being more enjoyable without it is grounds to ban something. If that is the case, then lets get rid of everything with Serene Grace ._.

heres the difference. Blissey fits under a characteristic of an uber already, and removing her would likely increase the enjoyment out of playing. removing something that by the current definition of uber that would also improve diversity and enjoyment? I don't see any argument against that, other than reevaluating what the defensive characteristic of an uber is.

and of course, that is the real point of this test, can we make it better?

Agreeing with mostly whats been said. Blissey is not broken. Sure it can wall a good portion of the Special attackers in this Metagame, but it can't do much in return, as you go to a Physical attacker, except Paralyze and thats easily played around. A lot of the premier special attackers don't carry a physical move just for Blissey, but Snorlax as well, or even a Special Wall in general such as Cressellia or SpD Celebi.

I don't think Blissey centralizes the Metagame around Physical attackers at all, because you don't need to have a full out Physical HO team to take care of Bliss. I'm not against testing it, howver. I believe it could be very interesting.

nothing i haven't already said really, i agree right now blissey isn't broken, although her removal could have a complete positive effect on the metagame. players will always find new ways to adapt to a metagame, whether a pokemon is removed or added. glad to see that you think the concept is interesting.

I agree that it would improve the metagame, but I suppose shoddy battle isn't supposed to be fun, which is why I have just given up on it

sounds like a yes vote to me, and i think what we should strive for is making pokemon as fun as possible. remember, it is a game at its heart.

 

[Acritter]

I've personally rarely, if ever, had serious problems with Blissey walling out my team. I dunno, it's certainly a great Pokemon, but it doesn't appear to be broken.

Suicune, on the other hand... but that's just my team's weakness.

 

[Huntofthelion]

heres the difference. Blissey fits under a characteristic of an uber already, and removing her would likely increase the enjoyment out of playing. removing something that by the current definition of uber that would also improve diversity and enjoyment? I don't see any argument against that, other than reevaluating what the defensive characteristic of an uber is.

and of course, that is the real point of this test, can we make it better?

If she already fits the definition of an Uber than whether or not she makes it enjoyable shouldn't matter at all.

nothing i haven't already said really, i agree right now blissey isn't broken, although her removal could have a complete positive effect on the metagame. players will always find new ways to adapt to a metagame, whether a pokemon is removed or added. glad to see that you think the concept is interesting.

I bolded the parts where it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I really don't get what you're trying to say by bringing up "the metagame being more enjoyable', as I don't think it applies at all to a competitive atmosphere.

 

[Ulevo]

I'm starting to see why some of the more credible and experienced players avoid the Stark Mountain forum.

 

[LoveDensity]

First of all, I agree that the uber characteristics sucks

Anyways, I am hating this logic right now. You want to ban a Pokemon not because it is broken, but because it would make a better metagame. Yes, the point of the suspect test right now is to find Pokemon that are broken or not which can lead to a better and fair metagame. A better metagame is what we all aim for. But a "too" fair metagame to make the game better is flawed as a fair metagame is not exactly good.

However, a better metagame has to have a degree of fairness. That is why I think we are testing suspects if they are broken or not, even though the tests are driven by personal interests. But this is why we gave Pokemon like Garchomp, Manaphy, Latias, etc a chance to prove themselves in OU. Finding things that are broken are also better steps to identify a better metagame. In my opinion, it is a better process to solve things then just picking out a Pokemon whom we think is annoying to the game. I personally would rather get rid of Salamence (really needs testing), Lucario, Jirachi, Gliscor, Metagross who would otherwise prove to be more broken+annoying in a offensive metagame like dppt

I would like to ask further why test Blissey? It is not broken, so why should I complain?

 

[kd24]

I bolded the parts where it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I really don't get what you're trying to say by bringing up "the metagame being more enjoyable', as I don't think it applies at all to a competitive atmosphere.

i guess we just disagree with each other on this, as i believe the ideal metagame is both competitive and enjoyable, and this will likely always be debated because there is no "sum" that can outweigh the other. I just think that even if we lose a bit of competitiveness by tossing out blissey, we would gain enough enjoyment from the new metagame to make up for that. if you don't feel that way, its absolutely fine and a good point to make.

i have to go for now, ld you make good points and ill respond the best i can tommorow (snow day, school called, we have none!)

tay had some excellent points on irc on why other mon/s should be tested first, and why it might not be smart to do this. if he posts it that would be great so other people can see points of opposition. even if this never happens, it could be a good discussion thread, and views on the opposing side would be great.

 

[ARandomDude]

Ok seriously, if Blissey isn't Uber. Why bother testing? Based on the top 20, Blissey walls about 1/3 of the metagame, which isn't quite a significant portion. Not to mention, most of the special sweepers in the top 20 have Trick, and Blissey can be Toxic Spiked.

Besides, how will removing Blissey for a month help determine significant portion? Say the special sweeper content moves from 33% to 50%. So what's a significant portion? Is it 33%? 50%? 17%? You haven't really shown how exactly how this will help your test.

 

[Scofield]

I'm starting to see why some of the more credible and experienced players avoid the Stark Mountain forum.

I'm sorry but can you please refrain from making backhanded comments like that? It does nothing to contribute to the topic, if there's a reason you feel so strongly about the way you do, explain it in words and not snide comments.

Yes, I agree, blissey should be tested. I don't know why I'm the only one that sees that blissey fits the defensive uber characteristic to a T. Not only that, but due to it's MASSIVE hp, it can also deal with weaker physical hits. You need a strong physical hitter (lucario, etc) in order to ko it. Blissey can force out just about any special attacker that switches in, which allows it to toss status around...meaning that half the physical threats that can beat blissey can't switch into it (luke...). I hear that blissey actually balances the game by keeping threats at bay...but being a user of balanced teams I've hardly ever used blissey as it is difficult to find a place for it on those types of teams, so I just don't find that to be true. Yeah, stall will take a massive blow if blissey goes, so what?

 

[The SPrinkLer]

We discussed this on IRC to an extent on #Stark. Kd brought up saying about if say it walls (this is just hypothetically) 20% of the metagame, and we removed it, how much special atackers would increase. Say they would increase by 20%. then that should be the cutoff point. This thread is basically to redefine to characteristics as some people clearly don't understand -.-

The characteristics aren't very specific, and that's why this thread is what it is, with Blissey as the target, because it's the most premiere wall in Standard play.

 

[Alex_Dino]

Blissey has always been OU, why change it now? Yeah, it's a pain, but it's not that big of a pain to counter. Everyone has memorized the standard sets, even when it comes to whether or not it's using Seismic Toss or Flamethrower. Either way it's easily countered. And in all reality I don't see OU being without it.

 

[The SPrinkLer]

a Defensive Pokemon can't really be countered, because anything can pretty much switch into it, bar the off chance of getting crippled by T-wave...

 

[ultimifier]

PLease explain what you mean by that Ulevo. It seems quite disrespectful, and quite hypocritical that you are insulting respected members when you make posts like that.

PLease note that I have been a suspect voter before and I respect the time and effort that all PR members have taken to test the suspect pokemon. The system was good at first when the pokemon were more black and white, but now that the votes are so close and theres just too much grey area i truly think that something has to be changed:

OP: I think you make a very good argument. It seems that no pokemon can truly fit under any characteristic as it is quite subjective as what is meant by considerable portion and little effort. We currently dont have any number to say this is the line where a pokemon is uber and if they are below it they are OU. Because of this the Suspect tests are usually controversial because the characteristics are subjective and you will almost always have people on each side of the argument.

For example, when i play offense I find mence to not be that big of a deal because i simply have 3 pokemon on my team faster than it so it has a hard time setting up. When i play defensively (which i rarely do) i find mence just rapes me. He comes in on my forry late game, DDs and continues to take out 2/3 of my pokemon.

What im trying to say is that if I only played Offensively i probably would vote mence OU and if i played defensively I would vote him uber. This is what we should strive to avoid when making tier decisions because it's not objective at all, its completely subjective.

The idea removing blissey is similiar to Obi's idea of adding in rayquaza for a suspect test, just to see what an obviously uber pokemon does to the metagame. Removing blissey would be more benificial in my opinion, as blissey is pretty close to uber, but clearly not, while rayquaza is WAY past the OU uber line.

So tl;dr i agree with KD24 and support the idea of doing a "blissey-less" ladder to see what people think. If people all like the metagame without blissey more and vote it Uber then i think the suspect test criteria seriously needs to be changed. If people like the metagame without blissey more but vote it OU then we know that there is evidence that people are not being as subjective as I (and im sure many others) believe some of the voters to be.

 

[WECAMEASROMANS]

I honestly dont think moving blissey to ubers is a good choice. For one, the top players on the ladder use stall teams, and mostly all of them have blissey in them. Also, blissey would suck in ubers, as it can't wall the majority of the ubers as well in ou. For example, darkrai can continue to use dark void plus bad dreams to eventually kill it, blissey is 2koed by kyogre's water spout with specs, mewtwo has trick, many special pokemon have mixed sets (deoxys-a, diagla), etc. Also, the final reason is because I also use one. :0

 

[boredomisbliss]

i disagree that blissey should be tested. first of all, how do we define a "significant portion"? imho it should be 50%. why? because that way you cannot wall a "significant portion" yet be slapped around by "a significant portion". blissey does not wall half the metagame.

on that note, lets examine the top 10:
Scizor: Superpower
Salamence: outrage/brick break
Rotom: Trick
Latias: Trick
Tyranitar: Superpower
Heatran: Explosion
Gyarados: Taunt/Waterfall
Metagross: Meteor Mash/Explosion
Jirachi: Trick/101 Sub
Lucario: Close Combat
Infernape: Close Combat

sure there are a few things that hate blissey to death, but are they really a significant portion? none of the pokemon/moves are uncommon on these, and they can deal with blissey just fine

 

[Scofield]

Scizor: Superpower first, you have to switch into twave/toxic or flamethrower, but ok, that's easy enough. Next, you have to hope blissey doesn't have protect. Or you can use non choiced scizor, but really, that sucks.
Salamence: outrage/brick break again, you have to switch in, just sub ice beam for flamethrower in the last sentence. now, you do realize that brick break only 2hko's blissey? mence really fears twave as it loves its speed. as for outrage, getting prematurely locked into outrage is a major boner.
Rotom: Trick
choiced rotom is pursuit bait
Latias: Trick
choiced latias is pursuit bait
Tyranitar: Superpower
iirc without expert belt superpower from jolly max attack ttar actually misses out on the ko. ttar doesn't like switching into blissey either has twave hurts it more than scizor. this one does pretty well though, although if it's your blissey counter you pretty much can't run ddtar.
Heatran: Explosion
protect?
Gyarados: Taunt/Waterfall
taunt gyarados sucks tbh, and blissey can otherwise twave, also can't switch in.
Metagross: Meteor Mash/Explosion
I suppose this works as well as ttar, but blissey can easily switch out as pursuit doesnt even do that much, with rotom being the #3 pokemon or something and a 100% counter.
Jirachi: Trick/101 Sub
Choiced rachi is magnezone bait. 101 subs (not a good set imo) or wish I guess beats it.
Lucario: Close Combat
can't switch in
Infernape: Close Combat
can't switch in