I didn't mean to say OU viable, just more used in their respective tiers. I might've articulated myself badly, sorry for that.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Entry Hazards - Are They Broken?
- Thread starter faint
- Start date
- Status
I didn't mean to say OU viable, just more used in their respective tiers. I might've articulated myself badly, sorry for that.
I was using it as a bad example. Point is, once we start banning moves, we'll keep banning moves, or at least, people will start pushing for specific moves to be banned, which in my opinion is not a good way to go.
Do I think Stealth Rock is unbalanced? Hell yes. Do I think it needs a nerf? Yep. Can we really ban it? I don't think we really can, unless we want to start thinking about move tiers (I don't want to think about move tiers).
You, like most of the other pro-sr camp, are still essentially saying "we need it even if it's broken" You admit that you think it's unbalanced. If that is the case. If SR is unbalanced. It needs to be banned. There are no other moves that even closely match SR in their scope of influence on the metagame. Stealth rock is completely incomparable to any other move in this regard, so there is no reason to believe that people will push for other moves to be banned. Even if they did, there's nothing wrong with questioning something's balance. Move tiers is a ridiculous idea.
Initially, I wasn't totally sure that SR needed a suspect test, but the lack of legitimate arguments coming from the side who says it should stay is really starting to convince me that SR is more problematic than ever believed and should be addressed.
I want to ask how realistic everyone thinks this is- I see it as a 1% even with the thread but if a new attitude crowd comes out and influences too much I will be too pokehappy to know what to do. ADV Ubers I found about as much fun as pokemon could POSSIBLY be, and while there's no way BW could match it for me I imagine it could shift towards that kind of meta and be more fun in any case. I believe blasting with offense is much more fun without the SR game involved.
Hazards aren't getting banned this gen guys, forget it. It's too late to makes this drastic of a change just because of how it basically shapes the meta into what it is now. If I were any of you, I'd keep these arguments for 6th gen and bring that up during the first suspect test, at least then these kind of propositions have legitimacy in that they can actually be implemented and not result in a theorymon flame war.
This attitude is ridiculous. It's never too late to get rid of something that's broken. Also take into consideration that if stealth rock is banned, it could potentially carry over into 6th gen anyway, since I doubt we're going to be bringing things down to test like we did when BW was released (anyone remember the horrible mess things like skymin, darkrai, deoxys-A and friends caused?). I guess I can see why some people find the idea of banning stealth rock so outlandish. Since 4th gen, the metagame has completely revolved around it, and it's never been seriously from a balance perspective. I would suggest to everyone to get rid of the notions that it's not broken simply because it's been around for so long and never been suspected, and that it's too late to get rid of it now. Those ideas are untrue
@yee, I never played 3rd gen competitively, only starting in 4th, but I'm really hopeful that people will be open-minded enough to question Stealth Rock's state of balance. I really would like to see a metagame without it as well.
wait a minute.... I thought we couldn't comment on the metagame after a ban according to you? That goes against the idea that we dont ban based on future metagames.... Just because you want to see a metagame without it doesn't mean it is broken or unbroken. But really... Can you explain to us why it is broken. You are not really hitting the issue presented in the original post. Please explain why SR is broken? I don't think it is broken because of the balance it brings to the metagame. Many tough threats are much more approachable with rocks up.
I'm not saying that it should never be banned b/c its been around for a while. I don't agree with that notion. I'm saying that atm banning it wouldn't be feasible because gen 6 is just less then a handful of months away. The amount of analyses that would need to be updated not to mention the other cascade of suspect tests that would follow such a significant ban would certainly change the entire make up of the tier. You would basically be creating a whole new metagame by banning SR, to me that's not practical especially when the tier is on such a timer. Maybe if we had another year or two it wouldn't be such a drastic suggestion.
Let's get this out of the way here, I'm not pro-SR. My point was that, the way we've set up ban lists, Stealth rock can't really be banned under anything we've done before (although looking at this now, I suppose trying something new isn't taboo). My argument was never a question of balance, but more one looking at precedent bans and comparing it to that. Also, I don't want move tiers either, I'm just saying that if we start banning moves, it's not unthinkable that something could happen (though that's not really a great argument).
Icecream brings up an interesting point, though. BW was based off of Stealth Rock. Most of the OU meta deals with it well, and those who don't are either rejected or can somehow compensate for it. A ban would certainly change things up, not post-Genesect change, but like new generation change. I'm thinking that it might be interesting to get a suspect ladder going, just to see what a Rockless meta would look like.
I'm not using any speculation about what a post-sr metagame would look like in any of my arguments. Is it wrong that I want to see a metagame without it lol? My stance on why I think it potentially deserves a ban isn't "I don't like the current metagame so I want SR banned," where the pro-OU side really IS using the argument "I'm afraid of what the metagame will look like if we ban it, so let's not ban it." What haven't I hit on? You're just going in circles. My original point was that it's completely ubiquitous, NECESSARY on every team, and shuts out more potentially viable pokemon than it keeps in check (not that it keeping other things in check even matters). No one on the Pro-OU side has really even given a legitimate counter-reason as to why my point is even mistaken. The arguments have consistently been based on what they think the balance of the metagame after would be like, and I have consistently iterated that it doesn't matter what the metagame after an SR ban would look like. If SR is broken, it deserves to be banned. Smogon does not keep broken things in OU to check other things that might become broken if said broken things were removed.
You're right. Banning SR would set a new precedent. There's nothing wrong with that. Like I said, it's unlikely something as silly as move tiers would ever become a thing, but, in the miraculously unlikely event,it did, why is that a problem? You're also right that it would potentially shake up the metagame more than it has at all so far this gen. Once again, that is completely acceptable if something broken is removed.
Lady Alex If you think SR is broken why do you believe it is "necessary"? ("There's zero reason not to use it" is not an answer) You are trying to make an argument but you have to elaborate. We need specifics please. You said that it shuts down more potentially viable pokemon but what does it shut down? How are they viable without SR? Also just because it is on every team does not make it broken. Usage stats never dictate a suspect's decision. Also it is important to bring up the impact of the loss of SR on the meta. Unlike a broken pokemon sent to ubers many more items and cheap strategies come up and become useful. Like someone else said: it is a different metagame.
@lady alex
*sigh*
again you haven't answered my questions at all in the slightest. I will bold them to make them clear.
@lady alex
You didn't. unless you are glitching under the site where I cant see the post please escort me to them. because the few i have seen only attacks me and not the issue.
@lady alex
*sigh*
again you haven't answered my questions at all in the slightest. I will bold them to make them clear.
@lady alex
You didn't. unless you are glitching under the site where I cant see the post please escort me to them. because the few i have seen only attacks me and not the issue.
I have to feel that SR is not broken. SR checks many threats in OU and in all tiers in general, and it is important for stall teams as far as dealing damage goes. The same is true for Spikes and Toxic Spikes. Without entry hazards, stall would almost become non-viable, as due to the power creep experienced in 5th gen even full stall could be beaten down with entry hazards banned. While hazards may have an obvious influence on the metagame, that influence is not broken like Genesect's or Tornadus-T's. Without hazards, stall teams would HAVE to rely on status, which could easily be circumvented by running a cleric. Think about the meta without SR. The metagame would be defined by things such as Volcarona and Gyarados, and without SR there would be no real way to stop them once they got going. Without hazards at all, again, stall would be largely non-viable. That's my honest opinion, feel free to agree or disagree.
EDIT: You all know this was started as a troll thread, dont you?
EDIT: You all know this was started as a troll thread, dont you?
@curtains- You don't think having SR on every team is necessary? There's zero reason not to use it, which is why nearly 100% of teams do. Others have already gone into detail about some of the pokemon/playstyles are significantly hindered by rocks, so I'm not going to regurgitate those examples. You can find them in previous posts. The fact that it is on every team arguably CAN mean that it's broken. In one of my previous posts, I mentioned one of the arguments that caused excadrill to be banned. There's no reason that we should have to carry skarmory/gliscor on every team in order to reliably check one absurdly powerful threat. Similarly, there's no reason we should have to carry SR on every team in order to reliably succeed. You're completely wrong that it's important to bring up the impact of losing SR on the metagame. We can speculate, and that's can be fun and interesting, but that cannot have any bearing on whether or not we ban something. Once again: it doesn't matter what the metagame after an SR ban would look like. If SR is broken, it deserves to be banned. Smogon does not keep broken things in OU to check other things that might become broken if said broken things were removed. Is that not clear yet?
Except, yes. I answered each one of them individually. Not what you wanted to hear? Sorry.
Except, yes. I answered each one of them individually. Not what you wanted to hear? Sorry.
There is a big difference between broken =/= usage and broken has absolutely nothing to do with usage. It is insane to say something with almost 100% usage is not more likely to be broken then something with much less usage. SR is so powerful you are basically forced to use it.
Maybe more importantly SR totally throws the type chart out of wack. Note Spikes are clearly not broken imo. But again I tihnk at this point there is nothing to be done. But with gen6 coming out I hope we take a serious look at SR.
Maybe more importantly SR totally throws the type chart out of wack. Note Spikes are clearly not broken imo. But again I tihnk at this point there is nothing to be done. But with gen6 coming out I hope we take a serious look at SR.
Other people have pointed out specific ramifications(like me). No need to make Lady Alex do it again.
And it wasn't said "suspect rocks because they are on every team". It was "suspect rocks because nearly every team NEEDS them, it limits team building, and every RMT says 'you should find room for SR on your team'". They aren't high in usage because it is a popular strategy(which wouldn't warrant a suspect neccessarily), they're high in usage because they are a broken strategy.
List of things that can be done:
1. Have a suspect test for Stealth Rock.
2. If it is found by voters to be broken, ban it. If not, no harm done.
Ok have a suspect test this gen. But it will be a waste of time because the results will look just like the poll. If you do have a suspect test then it would have to be without SR.. You do understand that? right. If it was a suspect test with rocks nothing would even change. so understand that people would be going off if they like the metagame without rocks. Which is my entire point.
Don't know if you read, but someone just explained why Stealth Rock can't be banned this late.
Here's an idea. Host a tournament with Stealth Rock banned.
I think a suspect test is worth going for, just testing the lack of Stealth Rock. It would be an enlightening experience, and doesn't guarantee it getting banned. After a suspect test we can stop theorymonning and decide as a community whether Stealth Rock is really bad enough to be banned. We have still roughly five months, so it is perfectly feasible to suspect it. Everyone goes home happy.
If that happens to be the case, then why do you care if it gets suspected? It's totally obvious the test would be without SR. Who would think otherwise? Regarding your edited post (it's extremely tedious looking back to see if you've edited your posts with new material, so stop doing that please): The fact that there's zero reason not to use it is very much an answer. The reason it's used on every team is because it's not only so amazingly good and so easily abused, but also because there are so few spinners available, and most of them lose to Jellicent alone (I've already said this, and it's ridiculous that I'm having to repeat myself. Stop going in circles)
I did read that, and it was a terrible justification.
Lady Alex, I would like to make two points.
First, it is up for debate whether or not the ubiquity of Stealth Rock is unhealthy for the competitive environment. However, there is little logic in comparing it to a threat which requires one of two specific Pokemon to be on your team. One moveslot is not analogous to one Pokemon slot. Using this example does not help your point.
Note that I am not saying that your overall point of view is wrong. I am simply pointing out two parts of it that don't hold up logically. That is all.
I would be interested in seeing a metagame without Stealth Rock, simply out of curiosity. It would undoubtedly be different, and it really is nothing more than speculation to say that it would be better or worse with complete certainty without testing it.
First, it is up for debate whether or not the ubiquity of Stealth Rock is unhealthy for the competitive environment. However, there is little logic in comparing it to a threat which requires one of two specific Pokemon to be on your team. One moveslot is not analogous to one Pokemon slot. Using this example does not help your point.
Second, this is a skewed view. As I have detailed in a previous post, Stealth Rock enables many Pokemon to become useful. It is entirely possible that the removal of Stealth Rock from the format results in less Pokemon being viable. It is impossible to say without testing the format without Stealth Rock whether or not the removal of Stealth Rock will result in more or less Pokemon being viable.
Note that I am not saying that your overall point of view is wrong. I am simply pointing out two parts of it that don't hold up logically. That is all.
I would be interested in seeing a metagame without Stealth Rock, simply out of curiosity. It would undoubtedly be different, and it really is nothing more than speculation to say that it would be better or worse with complete certainty without testing it.
I vote no, entry hazards are not broken. As far as Spikes/Toxic Spikes go, they take some time to lay down, and by doing this, you are potentially allowing an opponent to set up. So it's usually best to tread carefully when playing with Spikes and Toxic Spikes, and don't let your opponent set a bunch up when playing against them. Stealth Rock is a different story. They take one turn to set up, yet do just as much damage as 3 layers of Spikes to pokemon who are weak to rock (and double the damage to pokemon who are 4x weak!). Rocks are no doubt the best entry hazard, although I don't believe them to be quite broken. I think Volcarona and friends would have a better time if the damage done was only 25% HP to 4x rock weaknesses, 12.5% to 2x rock weaknesses, 6.025% to rock neutrality, etc...
I'm having trouble with the idea that Stealth Rock is broken simply because it is used all the time. Things like Toxic are used on almost every team too, but we wouldn't ban that. I know the two aren't comparable, so please don't point out that that was a weak analogy. The point of this is what makes something broken? I believe that a thing is broken iff it causes people of greater skill to lose to people of lesser skill a majority of the time, or at least lessen the gap between them to the point where matches become a tossup. I would say that very rarely are matches decided by who gets up Rocks first (I say rarely, because it is obviously possible for this to be the case, just not commonly). When Genesect was running around, matches became "who can set up Rock Polish first?" and when Excadrill was around it was "who can set up Swords Dance first?" but this isn't the case with Stealth Rock. Basically, a new player that has Stealth Rock doesn't have an extreme advantage over a veteran who doesn't. Yes, it is an advantage, but not one that puts them on an even playing field, in my opinion. That is why I said Stealth Rock isn't broken. It is a staple of OU, and it causes a lot of Pokémon to be considered less viable than others, but it's affect on the metagame isn't inherently negative. It makes some Pokémon good and some Pokémon not good. But it isn't on the same level as, say, Drizzle or Drought (which I do think should be suspected) when it comes to the support it brings. That's just my two cents.
My question is what's the point of banning SR when it will hurt OU in the short term rather than helping it?
BW2 has about 5 months left in it so there's really no point in banning it when things like Volcarona and Dragonite will become broken and just fuck up the meta. If you wanted to ban SR this topic should've been brought up like 2 years ago, it's a little late. Can we not just wait until Pokemon XY to address these issues?
BW2 has about 5 months left in it so there's really no point in banning it when things like Volcarona and Dragonite will become broken and just fuck up the meta. If you wanted to ban SR this topic should've been brought up like 2 years ago, it's a little late. Can we not just wait until Pokemon XY to address these issues?
- Status