Entry Hazards - Are They Broken?

[youngjake93]

Jake you have to give a reason why it is broken. A really good reason. You can't just say "its broken because it is broken". What is "the idea of being broken"? You are just calling it broken without giving an explanation or insight on how the metagame would be better without it. Also you can't compare a broken pokemon (excadrill) to a possibly broken move (SR).

There are only 2 viable ghost in OU... Jellicent and gengar... With team preview you can easily manage SR as both of these pokemon are not super common anymore. If you get pursuit trapped then that is your problem as well. If you really want SR to be gone there are many ways to do it. Spinners are usually very effective if you play them right.

You can easily manage SR if your SR-weak mon is a one switch-in late-game cleaner and you dedicate your spinner to the goal of its late-game sweep. You can't manage SR to where you can use something as a mid-game pivot that HAS to come out a lot. Such as specs chandy or banded kyurem-b. They have the perfect resistances and stats to be high-ou with these sets, but they aren't and those aren't even their best sets in this meta. If spinning/magic bounce was so effective, than these sets would be effective. Defensive mons such as the 3 kanto bird and gyarados suffer even further since they usually make up part of the defensive core. You can't wait until you get a chance to spin to switch them in since they have to counter things and you can't switch them in because they will get owned by SR. If spinning were an effective counter, then you obviously not have to worry about rocks if you carried a spinner.
Powerful and no effective counters=broken. Almost everything that has been banned actually had counters(maybe not OU-viable ones, but yea), hasn't been this centralizing, and was not so efficient of a threat(efficient, not deadly).

 

[vyomov]

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for double posting, will edit that to remove it immediately.
Alexwolf brought up the issue that SR shouldn't be banned because "it is popular, 90% of teams use it". Agreed. However, SR should be banned because:
a) It has severely imbalanced the metagame
b) It has made certain types overtly advantaged over others before a move is even made
c) It makes a lot of playstyles redundant such as hail and sun
d) It allows Rain teams to counter Sun teams and Hail teams all too easily as Rain Pokemon can freely switch in and out according to the need while Sun pokemon always have to be worried about 25-50% damage
e) The only way to counter it(Rapid Spin(Magic Bounce is situational)) doesn't even work all the time
f) Jellicent, a spinblocker just happens to counter a lot of rapid spinners
g) No limit on how many times SR can be set up, once rapid spinner on other team is gone can just set up once more
h) Distribution is terrible, pokemon like Chansey and Blissey have no right/need but can spam it to prevent other pokemon from defeating them
i) No reason not to use it(no disadvantage to the user)

 

[Lady Alex]

I have yet to hear why should SR be suspected and why some people think is broken. The only arguments i have seen here to support SR's brokeness are that it is on every team and that it is the best move in the game. Are we even serious guys? Since when usage = broken and since when the best move = broken? There are plenty of ways to deal with SR, either by using one of the ways to deal with it (Rapid Spin, Magic Bounce, offensive pressure), or by building a team that doesn't care about it. Also, i have seen many times in this thread the nonsense that the spinblockers of OU are better than the spinners, and i was wondering were logic went... OU has two of the best spinners out of any tier, one offensive and one defensive, Starmie and Tentacruel, and both can beat every single spinblocker while being excellent all around Pokemon. Would it be better to have more spinners available? Definitely, but this doesn't mean that there aren't enough ways to deal with SR atm.

The argument for the anti-SR side is not that SR is broken because it is on every team, but that it is on every team because it is broken. Two very very different sentiments. The rest of your post has already been talked about in previous posts.

 

[Wizarus]

I have yet to hear why should SR be suspected and why some people think is broken. The only arguments i have seen here to support SR's brokeness are that it is on every team and that it is the best move in the game. Are we even serious guys? Since when usage = broken and since when the best move = broken? There are plenty of ways to deal with SR, either by using one of the ways to deal with it (Rapid Spin, Magic Bounce, offensive pressure), or by building a team that doesn't care about it. Also, i have seen many times in this thread the nonsense that the spinblockers of OU are better than the spinners, and i was wondering were logic went... OU has two of the best spinners out of any tier, one offensive and one defensive, Starmie and Tentacruel, and both can beat every single spinblocker while being excellent all around Pokemon. Would it be better to have more spinners available? Definitely, but this doesn't mean that there aren't enough ways to deal with SR atm.

SR doesn't prevent any playstyle from being viable, and it doesn't force every player to overprepare for it or lose. It doesn't even have a few counters, out of which most are niche and have no use outside of dealing with SR. So basically, SR fits none of the criteria that make something broken, yet you want it banned?

''I don't like it'' with ''it should be banned'' are two very different things. I, like many other people, dislike the bland discrimination that SR brings to Fire, Bug, and Ice types. If the goal of GF when creating SR was to hit everything immune to Spikes, why not make SR deal 25% to Flyng-types and Levitators and be done with it? Why unecessary nerf all those other Pokemon? Also, the fact that SR can deal 50% to Pokemon such as Moltres, Yanmega, and Charizard (yeah even Charizard. Did you know that a simple Sunny Day set with Lefties and Fire Blast, Solarbeam, and HP Fighting/Ground has no counters in OU outside of Blissey and Latias, while having decent Speed for OU standards), Pokemon that would be otherwise be very viable in OU, is just annoying and unfair. But this doesn't mean that SR is broken, it means that some things are inherently good while some other things are inherently bad. Some types are inherently worse than others, and certain elements of the game favor some types more than others. In the same way that Ice-types are some of the worse types in the game, SR leaves some types at a disadvantage. Do you find it fair that Dragon-types have so many resistances and so few weaknesses, as well as almost perfect neutral coverage. Or do you find it fair that Fighting types basically have no common weakness while sporting excellent resistances? The game is not fair, it is actually full of bland discriminiations, and SR is one of them.

This has always been such a controversial matter because many people fail to understand that SR being on every team isn't a reason for being broken. So what if SR is necessary for every team? How does this translate to SR being broken? Steel-types are necessary on every team too, should we ban them?

So unless we see even one real argument as to why SR should be suspected, it shouldn't and it won't be suspected.

Are there really plenty of ways to deal with SR? Compared to the wide, wide distribution of the move, there are a grand total of 4 viable Rapid Spin users in OU; 2 of them losing to Jellicent, and the other 2 needing rain support to beat it. There are only 2 Magic users, both have horrendous defensive stats requiring heavy prediction to stop SR from getting up. Offensive pressure may stop spikes, but it's not stopping SR from getting up. Just look at suicide leads like Custap Skarmory, which dies happily knowing it managed to lay at least SR down, and Deo-D, which was banned in part because it almost guaranteed SR was put on the field. Building a team that doesn't care about SR in OU limits your options against threats in this metagame that already limits your options.

I don't see how you can ignore the huge impact SR has had in OU. There are only 3 Fire, Ice and Bug type pokemon weak to SR in OU. 1 of them has Uber stats, and the other 2 have access to the best boosting moves in the game. This has nothing to do with fairness; certain types will always be superior to other types in this game, but SR takes this fact and magnifies it to the point where pokemon weak to it that would normally be viable in OU aren't anymore.

 

[jas61292]

This has nothing to do with fairness; certain types will always be superior to other types in this game, but SR takes this fact and magnifies it to the point where pokemon weak to it that would normally be viable in OU aren't anymore.

And?

This has everything do do with fairness. That is the entirety of your argument. Why does it matter if they "would be viable?" That is not this metagame, and, as has been brought up many times in this thread, what would be in a potential metagame is not an proper argument. No Pokemon "should" be OU. No Pokemon "should" be uber. Pokemon are placed where they are based on their quality in the metagame they are in. There is no such thing as "normally OU."

The problem I see is that the main argument for banning is based on flawed logic. Looking at the characteristics of a desirable metagame, the only one really being addressed is variety. However, anyone saying Stealth Rocks hurt variety does not understand that characteristic. Variety is all about the number of viable choices. Not that Pokemon XYZ is usable. It doesn't matter if Pokemon XYZ looks like it should be viable. If its not, it is not. That doesn't impact variety. Look at the size of OU. It is larger than any generation in the past. Stealth Rock did not reduce this. Variety itself is not affected by stealth rocks. Just WHAT is viable. And, since nothing deserves to be in any given tier, which specific Pokemon are where is irrelevant.

I think a lot of the confusion comes in when people try and make comparisons to other things that were banned. Excadrill has been brought up a few times, and I think it is good to illustrate the flaws in how it is used. Excadrill hurt variety. This is true. When it was around you had to run a counter to it. If you didn't, you lose. That is a fact. That hurts variety. Every single team must have one of a few select Pokemon or lose. Stealth Rock is not like that at all. Not running a spinner does not make you lose. It may make you lose IF you use certain Pokemon, but that is not the same thing. The inability to use any given Pokemon does not impact variety. Only the requirement that you DO you use certain Pokemon has that effect, and that is not how Stealth Rock functions.

 

[vyomov]

Is it variety then, if half the teams you see are rain teams?
No, it isn't.
I agree, we can't argue based on what could be.
However, what is right now isn't a pretty picture either.
OU is dominated by types SIMPLY because they resist Stealth Rock.
Stealth Rock is suppressing creativity because teams need to run rapid spinners.
Hypothetically, one can construct a team with only SR resists. In practicality, it doesn't work because chances are, the team is then imbalanced.
Stealth Rock is suppressing playstyles and is also imbalancing the metagame.

 

[ganj4lF]

I'm honestly surprised this topic got so much discussion. After reading the whole thread (quickly, but hopefully I didn't lost anything too important), I still have to find a good reason to ban SR. The ban-SR camp did a pretty good job at refuting arguments for SR (which is actually not surprising, since half of them were horrible in the first place), but never made a point that could really convince me that SR is broken. The main points broungh up were:

• It discriminates different types.
  So what? I can't see why this should be an argument for banning SR. There are a ton of things that discriminate between different types in the game, and noone is complaining about them. Should we consider banning Toxic because it doesn't affect Steels / Poison types? This makes no sense. I can see someone may not like their Moltres, Articuno, whatever made so unviable by SR, but that's not a reason to ban a move since it really doesn't prove it's "broken" (which is immensely subjective as usual, but let's act for a moment as we all agree on a definition of brokenness...). (EDIT: I also forgot to add what jas said just over here, this doesn't hurt the "variety" factor in the OU metagame, which was also somewhat hinted by this post as well).
• It is used by almost every team out there.
  This doesn't mean it's "broken". I don't want to argue much on this point since it was already discussed too much for my likings, I'd just want to add a brief refutation to the Lady Alex post over mine. You argue than it's not the usage implying the "brokenness" but the "brokenness" implying the usage; whether this is true or not, if "brokenness" implies usage, then usage is completely irrelevant for this discussion, since it cannot help us to decide if SR is "broken" or not.
• It's so hard to deal with.
  This is arguable. spinners exist, and many of them are good pokemon in this meta to start with. Someone also argued that spinning is not the only method to avoid hazards, which i wholeheartedly agree, since Taunt leads, Magic Bounce users, or just building a team that doesn't care about SR (I did this countless times) are all viable solutions. Heck, the last one means you may even be able to not bother countering SR at all, which sets it apart from monsters like Excadrill & co; I realize that the threat SR poses is much more subtle, but still, the fact that it can be played around quite easily even without using its dedicated "counters" makes me think it's far from "broken".
• It deals too much damage!
  This isn't really an argument in either way's favor but let me comment anyway: we should discuss whether or not we do want SR into the OU metagame, not if it could be implemented better with some adjustments.

Those arguments are not really convincing at all, as I pointed out, and while I do not subscribe the whole "keep SR to avoid Dragonite and Volcarona being broken" thing, I don't feel it's even necessary to find a counter argument until a clear argument for banning SR is brought out. Also, I'd want to say that it should be a super-strong one to even considering changing my position: banning SR would create a potentially very messy precedent in banning a specific move instead of a pokemon or a class of moves / mechanics (no, Double Team is not banned, Evasion moves are. No, Horn Drill is not banned, OHKO moves are). The only vaguely resembling precedent is Soul Dew, which is not a move in the first place, and is very specific anyway. That said, I'm not entirely against move bans, but I'd do that only if someone could prove without any doubt that SR is unhealthy for the metagame. In that regard, I'm not opposed to a suspect test, but I don't want to support it either; it looks like a huge time waste, but it won't be harmful besides that. Unfortunately (or fortunately, from my point of view), there just doesn't seem to be enough support (also seeing the poll) for the ban-SR camp to even think about a test.

 

[Wizarus]

And?

This has everything do do with fairness. That is the entirety of your argument. Why does it matter if they "would be viable?" That is not this metagame, and, as has been brought up many times in this thread, what would be in a potential metagame is not an proper argument. No Pokemon "should" be OU. No Pokemon "should" be uber. Pokemon are placed where they are based on their quality in the metagame they are in. There is no such thing as "normally OU."

The problem I see is that the main argument for banning is based on flawed logic. Looking at the characteristics of a desirable metagame, the only one really being addressed is variety. However, anyone saying Stealth Rocks hurt variety does not understand that characteristic. Variety is all about the number of viable choices. Not that Pokemon XYZ is usable. It doesn't matter if Pokemon XYZ looks like it should be viable. If its not, it is not. That doesn't impact variety. Look at the size of OU. It is larger than any generation in the past. Stealth Rock did not reduce this. Variety itself is not affected by stealth rocks. Just WHAT is viable. And, since nothing deserves to be in any given tier, which specific Pokemon are where is irrelevant.

I think a lot of the confusion comes in when people try and make comparisons to other things that were banned. Excadrill has been brought up a few times, and I think it is good to illustrate the flaws in how it is used. Excadrill hurt variety. This is true. When it was around you had to run a counter to it. If you didn't, you lose. That is a fact. That hurts variety. Every single team must have one of a few select Pokemon or lose. Stealth Rock is not like that at all. Not running a spinner does not make you lose. It may make you lose IF you use certain Pokemon, but that is not the same thing. The inability to use any given Pokemon does not impact variety. Only the requirement that you DO you use certain Pokemon has that effect, and that is not how Stealth Rock functions.

How is not being able to use a certain amount of pokemon without the support of only 4 rapid spin users who can't even guarantee SR removal without even more support not affecting variety? SR is basically telling you "you cannot use X without heavy support"; no other move in the game does that to that degree. The only move that's even remotely comparable is Toxic Spikes, which is guaranteed to be removed just switching in a grounded poison type in addition to the other removal options, and is no where near as crippling as SR to most pokemon. The only abilities that are comparable are the weather inducers, who force you to a specific pokemon. When SR is nerfing entire types to the point where it's heavily affecting the viability of most pokemon in that type, of course it's going to affect variety.

 

[Halcyon.]

How is not being able to use a certain amount of pokemon without the support of only 4 rapid spin users who can't even guarantee SR removal without even more support not affecting variety? SR is basically telling you "you cannot use X without heavy support"; no other move in the game does that to that degree. The only move that's even remotely comparable is Toxic Spikes, which is guaranteed to be removed just switching in a grounded poison type in addition to the other removal options, and is no where near as crippling as SR to most pokemon. The only abilities that are comparable are the weather inducers, who force you to a specific pokemon. When SR is nerfing entire types to the point where it's heavily affecting the viability of most pokemon in that type, of course it's going to affect variety.

In a competitive environment, you simply can't use whatever you want and expect to win all the time. You could say that Dragon types are detrimental to variety because they require you to carry a Steel type to absorb Outrages and Draco Meteors, but banning either of these moves would be dumb. In a similar vein, you can't run a team that is full of Stealth Rock-weak Pokémon either. Even if we ignored their weakness to Stealth Rock, it wouldn't be a smart competitive decision to run such a team because you have such a huge weakness to Rock types anyway (which is a big deal, not only because of Stealth Rock, but also because of Terrakion and Tyranitar). Even if we banned Stealth Rock, people would still not run teams consisting of Thundurus-T, Volcarona, Moltres, Articuno, Yanmega, and Salamence, because Scarf Terrakion could run right through it with Rock Slide. You could run this team, so long as you had a Pokémon that could absorb Rock type attacks consistantly (think Hippowdon), but how is that any different from running a Starmie or a Tentacruel? Both situations would require that the player build a team that deals with its obvious weaknesses.

 

[alexwolf]

The argument for the anti-SR side is not that SR is broken because it is on every team, but that it is on every team because it is broken. Two very very different sentiments. The rest of your post has already been talked about in previous posts.

You still have to give a reason as to why it is broken though. And if you say that the rest of my post has already been adressed then i guess that there really isn't any real reason as to why SR should be banned.

Are there really plenty of ways to deal with SR? Compared to the wide, wide distribution of the move, there are a grand total of 4 viable Rapid Spin users in OU; 2 of them losing to Jellicent, and the other 2 needing rain support to beat it. There are only 2 Magic users, both have horrendous defensive stats requiring heavy prediction to stop SR from getting up. Offensive pressure may stop spikes, but it's not stopping SR from getting up. Just look at suicide leads like Custap Skarmory, which dies happily knowing it managed to lay at least SR down, and Deo-D, which was banned in part because it almost guaranteed SR was put on the field. Building a team that doesn't care about SR in OU limits your options against threats in this metagame that already limits your options.

I don't see how you can ignore the huge impact SR has had in OU. There are only 3 Fire, Ice and Bug type pokemon weak to SR in OU. 1 of them has Uber stats, and the other 2 have access to the best boosting moves in the game. This has nothing to do with fairness; certain types will always be superior to other types in this game, but SR takes this fact and magnifies it to the point where pokemon weak to it that would normally be viable in OU aren't anymore.

When did i ever ignore the huge impact that SR has had in OU? Just because i don't want it banned means that i don't think it is a centralizing force in OU?

As for ways to deal with SR, you already mentioned some of them but there are more. You say that 2 of the spinners that beat Jellicent need rain up, which isn't true. LO Starmie can beat Jellicent even outside of rain with the correct move (Psyshock 2HKOes SpD Jellicent and Thunderbolt 2HKOes PhD Jellicent). Furthermore, you didn't mention the teams that are not particularly affected by SR, such as teams that have no Pokemon weak to it and don't make a lot of switches, such as HO teams. So while the ways to deal with SR are not as much as we would want, the same way that the ways to deal with Terrakion are not as much as we would want, SR is absolutely manageable.

The last two paragraphs address the notion that the "SR is broken" group hasn't talked about why SR is broken. I also made the comparison that you have to run rocks yourself to win in a SR metagame, just like people felt they needed to run Excadrill to win in an Excadrill meta. There is one "reliable" stealth rock counter in OU that can fit on a variety of teams, starmie. But for starmie to do its job, it has to switch in safely, possibly beat a ghost type, not get pursuit trapped, and then waste another turn spinning. And somehow do all of this without losing momentum. Good opportunities to spin are extremely rare. Yes you can spin whenever if there is no blocker, but usually the cost of wasting that turn(two counting the swtch in) is far too high.

Combine the fact that SR is reeeally good to the fact that it is hard to counter and SR fits the idea of broken. Consequently, every team uses it because you must use an equally broken strategy to compete on a level playing field if viable counters to the strategy aren't cost-effective. The argument is not that it is broken because everyone uses it. The argument is not based solely on the type-centralization effect. It's mainly based on the fact that SR actually is broken. And if this is the case, suspecting a move shouldn't be seen as taboo.

The comparison with Excadrill is invalid because of one big difference: there are many ways to deal with SR, as has been mentioned plenty of times in this thread. While SR may be a necessity to most teams, it is not imposibble to deal with, or not even really hard, as long as you prepare for it, as you do with most big threats in OU.

 

[Lady Alex]

You still have to give a reason as to why it is broken though. And if you say that the rest of my post has already been adressed then i guess that there really isn't any real reason as to why SR should be banned.

lol what a leap. You never brought up any original arguments against what has already been discussed regarding why SR deserves a suspect test. Whether or not you like what has been said, if you don't address any of it, there's no need to go out of the way to satisfy you.

 

[alexwolf]

lol what a leap. You never brought up any original arguments against what has already been discussed regarding why SR deserves a suspect test. Whether or not you like what has been said, if you don't address any of it, there's no need to go out of the way to satisfy you.

I made this leap because nothing thast has been mentioned in this thread explains why SR is broken. The only arguments against it are ''it is mandatory on every team'', ''it hurts the viability of many Pokemon'', and ''the ways to deal it are not good enough''. None of those arguments are correct, either because they don't indicate brokeness (in the case of the first two) or because it is false (the ways to deal with it are not good enough). Whether i brought up something original or not is irrelevant, as the the side that wants SR suspected/banned still hasn't given any reason as to why SR is or could be broken.

 

[MMII]

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.

I know this is just a subjective comment on the state of affairs more than an actual argument but it's silly to think that removing SR moves BW closer to ADV Ubers anymore than adding Drizzle + Drought pushes BW OU towards DPP/BW Ubers.

There is a large difference between a Pokemon and a move. If a Pokemon is used on every team and can only be countered by using that Pokemon plus its only counter on every team, it has significantly overcentralised the metagame. Overcentralising the metagame is a clear negative impact on the competitive environment.

Again, "overcentralization" isn't even a word. It's a make-believe term that has no set definition. The way it is typically used, though, is to describe an element in the metagame (usually a specific Pokemon) that has a significant effect on that metagame. The situation you describe is an example of an extremely unbalanced Pokemon that directly cripples the variety in teambuilding significantly. The fact that it is a major element in the metagame is just one of the characteristics it happens to have for being such a significantly unbalancing force. That characteristic isn't inherently bad and could very well be there for very different reasons without being an unbalancing force. (I wanted to nitpick this because I'm really sick of this "overcentralization" fallacy even if it was just "misusing" a term in this case.)


What's annoying me is that a lot of the arguments for the last two or so pages (with exceptions of course as always) have been formed under the assumption that SR is broken. Which is silly because it's unfounded and has a clear-cut conclusion, anyways. Here's a quick summary of the effects SR has on the metagame:

• It universally punishes switches (with the exception of Magic Guard)
• It has a wide distribution
• It is easy to setup
• It is more difficult to remove
• It discriminates against certain types

Personally, I find the first four points to be fundamentally beneficial. Again, switching is, hands down, THE most powerful tool in Pokemon. Having something that punishes the switching of nearly everything is important so that this amazing tool has some sort of significant drawback involved. The fact that is so easy to fit on teams as a result of its wide distribution and the reliability that it'll remain on the field makes sure that its beneficial effects remain, more or less, a constant. The fact that certain types are hurt more than others is just flavor to me. It's very easy to ensure it doesn't deal unbearable amounts of damage in teambuilding and even at it's worst it has been proven that having other qualities can still earn a SR weak Pokemon a team slot. (if the standard damage was 25% I'd have an issue but 12.5% is very fair) The many years of its existence has shown that this hazard is far from unbalanced in practice as well.

 

[Lady Alex]

I made this leap because nothing thast has been mentioned in this thread explains why SR is broken. The only arguments against it are ''it is mandatory on every team'', ''it hurts the viability of many Pokemon'', and ''the ways to deal it are not good enough''. None of those arguments are correct, either because they don't indicate brokeness (in the case of the first two) or because it is false (the ways to deal with it are not good enough). Whether i brought up something original or not is irrelevant, as the the side that wants SR suspected/banned still hasn't given any reason as to why SR is or could be broken.

There is no clear-cut definition of what broken is, and is ultimately up to individual interpretation. There is just a fundamental disagreement between what makes something broken and not broken. saying that the ways to deal with X threat are good enough is also largely up to individual interpretation. Saying that "Checks A and B are clearly enough to deal with Threat C in the metagame, so saying those aren't enough is wrong," with nothing to support why it's wrong is an opinion that has zero substance. Since something being broken or not is ultimately up for interpretation, whether or not you bring up an original point that suggests why the point you're disagreeing with is untrue is completely relevant.

 

[youngjake93]

I don't see how people say "you don't have to use rapid spin if none of your pokemon care about rocks" as if it is an argument.
That's like saying "you don't have to use Ferrothorn to counter Sw Sw Kingdra if you have priority or water resists as every member of your team. Not broken"
SR restricts your entire team. One member 4x weak to it essentially ruins your team. Whereas, one member weak to Kingdra and 5 resists still is ridiculously covering the threat.
I seriously don't understand... Making every member of your team a check to a threat is not a normal answer to the threat. That means it is broken. Right?

 

[MMII]

That comparison is exaggerated. Avoiding too many of a single specific weakness is far different than packing multiples of a single specific resistance and/or attack. That Kingdra easily and effortlessly wins whole games if the other team does nothing to stop it. Stealth Rock just adds an extra chip damage that slightly tilts the balance to one side over the other. It's been proven multiple times that a better player can (and often will) win in spite of not having their own Stealth Rock up while the opponent has managed to setup theirs.

Edit: For kicks and giggles here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3479735

 

[toshimelonhead]

The only problem I have with hazards is a lack of a good spinner. Forretress does not count. Tenta is fine on rain teams but not great otherwise. Starmie works for offensive teams but gets owned by Ferrothorn. Everything else is below OU. Hopefully Gen 6 fixes this.

 

[alexwolf]

There is no clear-cut definition of what broken is, and is ultimately up to individual interpretation. There is just a fundamental disagreement between what makes something broken and not broken. saying that the ways to deal with X threat are good enough is also largely up to individual interpretation. Saying that "Checks A and B are clearly enough to deal with Threat C in the metagame, so saying those aren't enough is wrong," with nothing to support why it's wrong is an opinion that has zero substance. Since something being broken or not is ultimately up for interpretation, whether or not you bring up an original point that suggests why the point you're disagreeing with is untrue is completely relevant.

So now it's time to use the ''every ban comes down to opinion'' card right? Of 'course this is true, but let me remind you that before going there, we try to examine a suspect or potential suspect based on more objective criteria with as less bias possible. Of 'course those criteria have subjectivity in them too, but not as much as statements such as the ones made here to support SR's ban. The less subjective a criteria for banning something is, the more chances it has to be used as a real argument for banning something. So if you want to bring up that everything comes down to subjectivity then fine, i will just answer you that the majority of the people doesn't want SR banned and this will end here. If you want to put so much emphasis on personal opinion then you should respect the personal opinion of the majority right? You also said that i supported the claim that there are enough ways to deal with SR with nothing. Did you miss the part where i explained the ways to deal with SR? Did you miss the part where each playstyle has ways to deal with SR? And did you miss the part where the majority agrees that there are enough ways to deal with SR?

You see, this is what happens when you base your arguments around the subjectivity of the banning criteria. Subjectivity is something bad and something we want to avoid as much as we can, so saying that everything comes down to opinion doesn't help your case. Especially when this opinion you speak of has huge bias and has almost never been used for banning something else in the past. Most bans in the history of Smogon have been made according to the criteria i already mentioned, such as ''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''. So the first thing you obviously need to do when trying to support the ban of something, when this something is broken under very subjective criteria, is to get the support of the majority. As you can see this isn't happening here, so wanting to suspect SR is completely unreasonable at this point. You can't present objective criteria as to why SR should be banned and you can't even present subjective criteria that are supported by the majority of the community, and you want me to believe that a serious argument for banning SR has been made?

 

[BKC]

yee's post said absolutely everything i wanted to say so i figured i'd repost it here. i wonder what dpp would've been like without sr. hmm...

also, to all the people who are theorymonning about what an sr-less metagame would be like, i highly recommend playing some adv. the difference between sr and no sr is huge and is clearly much more competitive [and enjoyable, i might add]. you won't be able to get away with abusing the shit out of hazards and/or broken mons, you'll have to play for your win. take it from a guy who came into adv as primarily a dpp player thinking "god this is gonna suck" but now considers adv ou as the best tier in the history of pkmn.

at the very least, if you're not willing to at least try and play in an actual sr-less metagame instead of just theorymonning about it, i don't think you really should be talking about what you think an sr-less metagame would be like when you can actually try it out. before anyone tries to jump on this, yes, i'm well aware there are a million differences between adv and bw2, but it's the principle that counts here.

 

[Curtains]

Yes the principle does count but like you said BW2 and ADV are almost two different games strategy wise. So playing in one won't really help theorymoning in the other. Just in my experience playing ADV i found it much like the end of DPPT. A lot of stall and semi stall with some key offensive threats to worry about. I wonder if someone can tell the guy that made PS to just make a tier without SR. It doesn't have to be a suspect test. Just make it a extra tier like randbats or hackmons. Just to try it out. I feel that would be better than going back to a different game.

 

[dcae]

Here's a quick summary of the effects SR has on the metagame:

• It universally punishes switches (with the exception of Magic Guard)
• It has a wide distribution
• It is easy to setup
• It is more difficult to remove
• It discriminates against certain types

Personally, I find the first four points to be fundamentally beneficial. Again, switching is, hands down, THE most powerful tool in Pokemon. Having something that punishes the switching of nearly everything is important so that this amazing tool has some sort of significant drawback involved. The fact that is so easy to fit on teams as a result of its wide distribution and the reliability that it'll remain on the field makes sure that its beneficial effects remain, more or less, a constant. The fact that certain types are hurt more than others is just flavor to me. It's very easy to ensure it doesn't deal unbearable amounts of damage in teambuilding and even at it's worst it has been proven that having other qualities can still earn a SR weak Pokemon a team slot. (if the standard damage was 25% I'd have an issue but 12.5% is very fair) The many years of its existence has shown that this hazard is far from unbalanced in practice as well.

Melee, I see where you are coming from. I completely agree with the majority of your statements. The problem IMO with Stealth Rock is that the cost of investment is far lower than the return. This is a simple business concept that can be applied here. The reason why SR is run on 99% of teams is due to the fact that the investment of one turn allows you to notch up consistent damage throughout the game if your opponent lacks a spinner. Spikes for example is very balanced: it takes a few turns to set up, but deals consistent damage. Limited distribution also balances it. It punishes switches consistently, but has several immunites. Problem with SR is that it can deal 25% to one pokemon for every switch-in. This all due to one turn of set up. Stealth Rock would be much more balanced if it had, like Spikes, limited distribution and maybe a couple turns to set up. However, more than half of Pokémon can learn it, and one simple turn permits to garner a huge advantage over the opponent. Players attempting to use Pokémon weak to SR must restrict themselves to spinners, who then need further support to defeat spinblockers. This kind of restriction is unhealthy when taking into account the investment and the subsequent return. I argue for it to be suspected due to these reasons. I can see the perspective of pro-SR people, and some of them are well constructed arguments, but I believe the root of the problem is once again the simple concept of investment cost being far less than return.

 

[Lady Alex]

So now it's time to use the ''every ban comes down to opinion'' card right? Of 'course this is true, but let me remind you that before going there, we try to examine a suspect or potential suspect based on more objective criteria with as less bias possible. Of 'course those criteria have subjectivity in them too, but not as much as statements such as the ones made here to support SR's ban. The less subjective a criteria for banning something is, the more chances it has to be used as a real argument for banning something. So if you want to bring up that everything comes down to subjectivity then fine, i will just answer you that the majority of the people doesn't want SR banned and this will end here. If you want to put so much emphasis on personal opinion then you should respect the personal opinion of the majority right? You also said that i supported the claim that there are enough ways to deal with SR with nothing. Did you miss the part where i explained the ways to deal with SR? Did you miss the part where each playstyle has ways to deal with SR? And did you miss the part where the majority agrees that there are enough ways to deal with SR?

You see, this is what happens when you base your arguments around the subjectivity of the banning criteria. Subjectivity is something bad and something we want to avoid as much as we can, so saying that everything comes down to opinion doesn't help your case. Especially when this opinion you speak of has huge bias and has almost never been used for banning something else in the past. Most bans in the history of Smogon have been made according to the criteria i already mentioned, such as ''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''. So the first thing you obviously need to do when trying to support the ban of something, when this something is broken under very subjective criteria, is to get the support of the majority. As you can see this isn't happening here, so wanting to suspect SR is completely unreasonable at this point. You can't present objective criteria as to why SR should be banned and you can't even present subjective criteria that are supported by the majority of the community, and you want me to believe that a serious argument for banning SR has been made?

You're very, completely off the mark with this post. None of the arguments supporting a suspect test for SR have been centered around personal bias about wanting a SR-less metagame. I made the point that there is no rigid definition of what "broken" means so that you would realize that you have to actually bring up new, legitimate reasoning that makes clear why the statements you disagree with are incorrect. You can't simply say "they are wrong" and be done with it. There's little point in responding and discussing anything with you if you're unwilling to bring anything to the table.

 

[alexwolf]

You're very, completely off the mark with this post. None of the arguments supporting a suspect test for SR have been centered around personal bias about wanting a SR-less metagame. I made the point that there is no rigid definition of what "broken" means so that you would realize that you have to actually bring up new, legitimate reasoning that makes clear why the statements you disagree with are incorrect. You can't simply say "they are wrong" and be done with it. There's little point in responding and discussing anything with you if you're unwilling to bring anything to the table.

I didn't say they are wrong, i said that they are very subjective and thus hold little weight. Furthermore, if you are using subjectivity as a measure as to if SR should be suspected or not and most people believe that it shouldn't, this should basically answer your own question as to why SR shouldn't be suspected. Because, according to the very subjective reasons you presented as to why SR should be suspected, the subjective opinion of the majority disagrees.

The only non heavily subjectively point that the pro-SR-ban has made is that SR is difficult to deal with, which has been brought down many times in this thread and in practice too. Very few teams go out of their way to deal with SR, and very few teams are actually threatened by SR, so the notion that SR is overly difficult to deal with is ridiculous. It is definitely not easy to deal with, as it happens with many other top threats in OU, such as Terrakion, Jirachi, and Scizor, but this is it.

 

[phantom]

The problem IMO with Stealth Rock is that the cost of investment is far lower than the return.

That's what I find as well. When I use SR and I find that my opponent has 4 SR weak pokes or 1 4x weak and two 2x weak, I can pretty much say that I took out one Pokemon and broke almost any Focus sash user by setting up rocks alone. Obviously that kind of team will have a Spinner / Magic Bouncer, but the point is how it gives such a distinctive indirect advantage with so little effort put into it.

 

[Death in the Wind]

Yes. The fact that Stealth Rock deals at least 25% damage to most Pokémon immune to Spikes, combined with the fact that Stealth Rock along with just a single layer of Spikes deals that exact amount of damage to the majority of Pokémon anyway makes it almost impossible to build a successful team that does not have countermeasures to entry hazards (since most teams that do not have such can expect to have most of their offensive Pokémon capable of switching in only four times per match against a team with both Stealth Rock and Spikes, while their defensive Pokémon also become far less effective at switching in and walling the opponent's Pokémon's attacks. And then of course, there is the general pressure that entry hazards place on a trainer, especially the way they discourage switching, something which often makes people sacrifice Pokémon that they normally would not, and therefore giving their opponent an absolutely massive advantage), and the restriction that this places on team building makes said process incredibly limited, since in order to build a successful team, people need to make an active and conscious effort when team building to ensure that their teams have entry hazards in check, something that involves either including a Rapid Spinner in a team along with Pokémon capable of checking Spin-blockers, including a Magic Bounce Pokémon along with teammates that can very easily threaten common entry hazard setters, or having very entry hazard-resilient Pokémon in an insanely hyper-offensive team. And fulfilling any of the three aforementioned conditions is a process that cannot succeed without already having a significant portion of the team existing for the sole purpose of keeping entry hazards in check, making entry hazards an extremely overcentralizing force in the metagame to my eyes.

And everything I have mentioned above does not even begin to touch on the fact that Stealth Rock alone is capable of dealing a whopping 50% damage to some Pokémon, the fact that there are some Pokémon weak to Stealth Rock and susceptible to Spikes, the fact that even Stealth Rock-resistant Pokémon get destroyed by that entry hazard in addition to two or three layers of Spikes (which is not difficult to set up with Pokémon like Ferrothorn, especially in the rain, due to the sheer number of Pokémon by which it cannot be touched), as well as the fact that entry hazards can be mercilessly abused with pseudo-Hazing moves. I honestly can see no reason to believe that something which demands all successful teams to go to such ridiculous lengths to have countermeasures for could possibly not be broken.