Unpopular opinions

[A_Wild_Noob_Appeared!]

I think it's fair to say that the defensive properties of the Ice type are a pain point for the type system.

For most types it is possible to design a Pokemon for a variety of roles (both offensive and defensive) in a way where its typing contributes to its viability, rather than hindering it. While types such as Rock and Bug are generally considered below-average defensively, there are Pokemon that use the defensive properties of those types well. Rock-types in particular have historically been able to fill defensive roles if they have good/great special bulk and aren't too passive (Diancie, Nihilego, and Rhyperior).

When you look at the Ice-types which are used defensively, the benefit they can get from their typing isn't anywhere near as high (Avalugg's Ice STAB lets it threaten out physical Dragon and Ground types, Articuno gets an Ice neutrality vs Nidoqueen, Piloswine can threaten out Defoggers, that's basically it). While the types don't have to be perfectly balanced, the fact that there isn't much potential for Ice-types to perform well as anything other than fast attackers (a constraint not felt by any other type to such a degree) does limit creativity. I think that the type chart is mostly in an acceptable state, and fixing this would require a huge cascade of changes to the fundamental nature of the battle system, but I think it's still worth pointing out.

Also when Gamefreak was creating a Rock-type based on Stonehenge with mystical themes, they should have maybe given it a SpD stat higher than that of a Magikarp. Can't blame people for thinking that Rock is a bad type if they refuse to play to its strengths even when given the perfect opportunity.

 

[ant4456]

I don't think Fairy types are overpowered at all, I don't even consider them Top 2. Top 3, yes, but I'd put probably both Steel and Ghost ahead of them, at least in Singles. If you mean Doubles, there is a much better argument for Top 2 or even Top 1. Even then, I don't think Fairy is a problem: whatsoever. There will always be a Top 1, and I do not see Fairy as "ahead" in any big stretch. In fact, stacking Fairy Types has still rarely been a thing.

Plus, I feel like a lot of the "Fairy is overpowered" is mostly because Fairy is the newest type. Steel was and still kind of is extremely overpowered, but it's also old so people don't really talk about it as much. I hope that as time goes on (we have already hit 10 years of Fairy Types), people will stop seeing it as some "weird balance decision", and more of what it is: A great, top tier type competitively that also is home to some of the most unique Pokemon designs, and arguably one of the coolest in terms of theming.

Honestly Steel Type isn't even just a problem in competitive. Throwing a few Steel Types on enemy teams in the early game of most Pokemon games would make a huge problem, as Fire types are usually rare, Ground types are usually mid to late game, Fighting Types depend a lot on game... So you have at best a the few neutral types, or the game's offerings of:

normal, flying, bug types

and god forbid in that case you picked the Grass Type.

steel type is such a crazy type that even in singleplayer it can pose a giant risk to balance

 

[Samtendo09]

I don't think Fairy types are overpowered at all, I don't even consider them Top 2. Top 3, yes, but I'd put probably both Steel and Ghost ahead of them, at least in Singles. If you mean Doubles, there is a much better argument for Top 2 or even Top 1. Even then, I don't think Fairy is a problem: whatsoever. There will always be a Top 1, and I do not see Fairy as "ahead" in any big stretch. In fact, stacking Fairy Types has still rarely been a thing.

Plus, I feel like a lot of the "Fairy is overpowered" is mostly because Fairy is the newest type. Steel was and still kind of is extremely overpowered, but it's also old so people don't really talk about it as much. I hope that as time goes on (we have already hit 10 years of Fairy Types), people will stop seeing it as some "weird balance decision", and more of what it is: A great, top tier type competitively that also is home to some of the most unique Pokemon designs, and arguably one of the coolest in terms of theming.

Honestly Steel Type isn't even just a problem in competitive. Throwing a few Steel Types on enemy teams in the early game of most Pokemon games would make a huge problem, as Fire types are usually rare, Ground types are usually mid to late game, Fighting Types depend a lot on game... So you have at best a the few neutral types, or the game's offerings of:

normal, flying, bug types

and god forbid in that case you picked the Grass Type.

steel type is such a crazy type that even in singleplayer it can pose a giant risk to balance

Ooh, you are absolutely right about that one!

Steel’s many resistances may be called a “necessary evil” in competitive as a glue mon to ensure a safe switch-in in most scenarios... though that can easily be accomplished by any great dual type that offer plenty of resistsnces without being a Steel-type. It makes too easy to make a Pokémon’s defensive potential too well, but thankfully that didn’t happened so far compeitively, though it’s a byproduct of GF favoring hyper offense way too much.

And while Steel is a mediocre offensive type due to inconsistent moves, that didn’t stopped making an already great type even better just by giving so many defensive boosts, and while not good offensively, it isn’t outright bad, to the point that the positives coming from being Steel-type far outweight the negatives.

Excadrill would likely still be banned back in Gen 5 even without the Steel-type, but it does say something that several Pokémon is viable partially or even very much thanks to their Steel-typing.

 

[Sonikku A]

Why would it be, if anything it should be the opposite, as Dragons have hardly ever had any problem dealing with armored knights (in fact, since most dragons know fire moves, dragons rarely struggled with steel types as far as just "hitting supereffectively", it's always just been rather a issue of practical 4MSS in competitive)

Your second point is partially why I noted weather buff, but here's the thing
Most dragon types can no longer spam high power stab if an ice mon switches in with my change. Choice sets suddenly lose power to prediction since it's an immunity
Similarly if they DO use their stab on a steel it'll be resisted, and either again force not relying on Choice sets, or using a weaker fire move that can then be walled by common Ground/Rock/Water cores

As for steel, eh. The western legends typically have a special sword used to slay them, just that the mortality of the soldier themself is high. Similarly most had an affinity to gold, so that could be a "weakness" mentally
In East Asian legend...

So Steel being SE is still a good choice thematically

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

I doubt gen 2 was intentionally to "nerf psychic" per se as gen 1 did not really have a competitive scene (and regardless the only types that interacted with Psychic in a meaningful way either did not really have users or were bugged in first place), and rather they probably wanted to add new types + figured fire should resist ice for logic reasons.

Incorrect. Sugimori explicitly said that Dark was created for balance reasons.

Remember, while competitive balance was never considered, in-game balance was something they were genuinely aware of.

 

[AztecCroc]

look at Gen 8. Ghost + Anti-Dark damage achieves perfect neutral coverage (see Flutter Mane, Annihilape, or just every Ghost with Focus Blast/Dazzling Gleam/Moonblast type coverage). Dark gained the resistance in the Fairy types in exchange for the increased neutral damage so the change there was more balanced on Paper at least.

That's more the fault of the removal of Pursuit than the removal of the Steel resist. Look at NatDex (both Gens 8 and 9), the Dark weak Ghosts not named Dragapult are kept in check much better there (and Dragapult can more be blamed on Z-Moves than anything).

 

[pika pal]

That's more the fault of the removal of Pursuit than the removal of the Steel resist. Look at NatDex (both Gens 8 and 9), the Dark weak Ghosts not named Dragapult are kept in check much better there (and Dragapult can more be blamed on Z-Moves than anything).

Pursuit wouldn't help in the case of some of the later Ghosts I noted like Annihilape (who is bulky enough to not have any fear of Pursuit users anyway)

252 SpA Flutter Mane Moonblast vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Tyranitar in Sand: 216-254 (63.3 - 74.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO (so no reason it'd switch out and have to take the weak OR strong Pursuit)

And my point remains on the fact that anything with Ghost STAB can get its coverage with 1 move, 2 at most, just by nature, and can get away with not watching for weird combos because only one of those Resistances is a common one vs Fairy having 2-3 Resistances, of which 1 is the main Defensive typing in the game and the other 2 are pretty common even if not the focus of a mon. Pursuit has literally no relation to my contention with Ghost's incredibly scarce defensive answers on the Type Chart, even acknowledging it keeps the Ghosts-in-practice controllable as offensive counterplay.

 

[ant4456]

my hot take is pursuit is dumb anyways and making trapping based on typings is dumb also

esp. because it also punishes psychic, IMO one of the weakest types chart wise

 

[AztecCroc]

Pursuit wouldn't help in the case of some of the later Ghosts I noted like Annihilape (who is bulky enough to not have any fear of Pursuit users anyway)

252 SpA Flutter Mane Moonblast vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Tyranitar in Sand: 216-254 (63.3 - 74.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO (so no reason it'd switch out and have to take the weak OR strong Pursuit)

And my point remains on the fact that anything with Ghost STAB can get its coverage with 1 move, 2 at most, just by nature, and can get away with not watching for weird combos because only one of those Resistances is a common one vs Fairy having 2-3 Resistances, of which 1 is the main Defensive typing in the game and the other 2 are pretty common even if not the focus of a mon. Pursuit has literally no relation to my contention with Ghost's incredibly scarce defensive answers on the Type Chart, even acknowledging it keeps the Ghosts-in-practice controllable as offensive counterplay.

In Gen 8 which is what you started with when making this point (FM and Annihilape are Gen 9) the only non-legendary Ghost above UUBL is Dragapult. UUBL consists of Gengar, Mega Sableye, and Blacephalon. UU is Aegislash and Chandelure.

Gen 9 has Ape and Flutter join Pult in the Uber zone, and Gholdengo and Sinistcha (who'll probably fall off given it's UU in regular gen 9) in OU and that's it above UU.

Pursuit absolutely checks the Ghosts who aren't just broken regardless.

 

[pika pal]

my hot take is pursuit is dumb anyways and making trapping based on typings is dumb also

esp. because it also punishes psychic, IMO one of the weakest types chart wise

I sort of get the idea for Ghost since it's immune to conventional trapping so this is a specialized answer, but Psychic being collateral is an unfortunate trade-off there.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

Psychic definitely occupied a weird spot in Gen 1: its overall lack of type interactions both defensively and offensively lended to a powerful type, but it was really at once both an above average mid-game type and a busted uber powerful type up there with Dragon, and in-game balance wise there were two places it was in: it was a type with some mons like Mr. Mime, Alakazam, Jynx, and more who had great Special but were given really bad physical bulk to counteract it as their "weak point" despite their unintuitive type interactions.

The big elephant in the room, however, and what truly made Psychic powerful, was one (or really two) Pokemon: Mewtwo. Mewtwo was basically designed as this god-tier powerful Pokemon that you meet at the very end of the game in the very last and most deadly dungeon of the game. RBY definitely had single player JRPG game design and dungeons were a big part of it: many optional dungeons had different flavors and the legendary birds were different "dungeon bosses" of different elements, and Mewtwo was basically the ultimate dungeon boss and de facto final boss of RBY: much, much stronger than anything else with no real weak points, while its high Special and powerful Psychic STAB and Recover made it a near unstoppable force and a challenge to catch in-game. It was basically designed so that you use it, it's unstoppable, you fight it and try to catch it, it will be a major force and challenge to try to capture it for your Pokedex.

Mew was similar although not intended to be caught and more of a socialization mystery at the time, but its whole thing in-universe is that it has everything's DNA and can thus do almost anything and has a solid 100 across stat spread, while Mewtwo is more specialized and in-universe is a scientific experiment that went berserk and destroyed the lab it was in.

I do imagine the Psychic type being the powerhouse it was in Gen 1 was at least partially intentional in that regard, mainly to highlight the power of Mewtwo and Mew as these Uber powerful forces above everyone else. Other Psychic-types being strong in PvP was collateral, that said, while they were capable of being dealt with, picking on their weak physical bulk was the way for the most part, not "hitting them super effectively", which is something I think they wanted to change in Gen 2 hence why Dark was created: to block Psychic *and* hit it super effectively.

In hindsight this makes me realize Tyranitar's type combination was likely deliberately made so it could be the powerhouse that could best all other legendaries/pseudo-legendaries: a 600 BST tank that can wall Mewtwo and hit it with Crunch, resists Dragonite's Hyper Beam and also hits it with Rock STAB, deals with both Lugia and Ho-oh and the original legendary birds.

 

[Coronis]

Psychic definitely occupied a weird spot in Gen 1: its overall lack of type interactions both defensively and offensively lended to a powerful type, but it was really at once both an above average mid-game type and a busted uber powerful type up there with Dragon, and in-game balance wise there were two places it was in: it was a type with some mons like Mr. Mime, Alakazam, Jynx, and more who had great Special but were given really bad physical bulk to counteract it as their "weak point" despite their unintuitive type interactions.

The big elephant in the room, however, and what truly made Psychic powerful, was one (or really two) Pokemon: Mewtwo. Mewtwo was basically designed as this god-tier powerful Pokemon that you meet at the very end of the game in the very last and most deadly dungeon of the game. RBY definitely had single player JRPG game design and dungeons were a big part of it: many optional dungeons had different flavors and the legendary birds were different "dungeon bosses" of different elements, and Mewtwo was basically the ultimate dungeon boss and de facto final boss of RBY: much, much stronger than anything else with no real weak points, while its high Special and powerful Psychic STAB and Recover made it a near unstoppable force and a challenge to catch in-game. It was basically designed so that you use it, it's unstoppable, you fight it and try to catch it, it will be a major force and challenge to try to capture it for your Pokedex.

Mew was similar although not intended to be caught and more of a socialization mystery at the time, but its whole thing in-universe is that it has everything's DNA and can thus do almost anything and has a solid 100 across stat spread, while Mewtwo is more specialized and in-universe is a scientific experiment that went berserk and destroyed the lab it was in.

I do imagine the Psychic type being the powerhouse it was in Gen 1 was at least partially intentional in that regard, mainly to highlight the power of Mewtwo and Mew as these Uber powerful forces above everyone else. Other Psychic-types being strong in PvP was collateral, that said, while they were capable of being dealt with, picking on their weak physical bulk was the way for the most part, not "hitting them super effectively", which is something I think they wanted to change in Gen 2 hence why Dark was created: to block Psychic *and* hit it super effectively.

In hindsight this makes me realize Tyranitar's type combination was likely deliberately made so it could be the powerhouse that could best all other legendaries/pseudo-legendaries: a 600 BST tank that can wall Mewtwo and hit it with Crunch, resists Dragonite's Hyper Beam and also hits it with Rock STAB, deals with both Lugia and Ho-oh and the original legendary birds.

Eh it didn’t really work that way with Mewtwo - Crunch was special and T-tar’s special attack is relatively poor. Plus ya know, Suicune.

 

[Sonikku A]

People saying GF for Gen 2 didn't consider competitive data are kinda wrong
Even ignoring Sugimori's statement for Dark type, HAL and GF legit polled data of winners in Gen 1 tournaments for Stadium trainers. Stadium also was intended to be the defacto way to do tournaments given its "patches" and clauses
Gen 2 dev we can see how harshly GF nerfed Tauros after late 1998 (It initially had 55 for Sp Atk in SW1997, changed to 40 in final), a premiere Gen 1 threat in comp. Psychic being nerfed even though weaker Psychic mons were frail was definitely on purpose in response to comp data, same for overall Normal type nerf
What gets me is they didn't buff Bug in response bar removal of Poison weakness

 

[Ironmage]

The further extension of "fairy requires unconventional Steel and Poison mons" that's been on my mind: how many mons does it take to sustain something as large as a type as anti-meta? It feels like it requires not only a spread of offensive mons of those types (to deal with several dual-typings of Fairy) but even more defensive mons so that the unconventional has a standard to not be. This then cascades into larger mon pools of every type in order to maintain parity. I'm not saying that it's currently solved in Natdex, but I am stuck thinking that the design intentions of the type may not be possible in a limited format.

 

[Hugin]

Tbh I feel like having gyms actually use mechanics like the ones you mentioned would automatically make them tougher then they currently are just by virtue of there being something happening. Like a Fire gym using Drought/Sunny day would cripple a players water types forcing them to make a new strategy that isn’t just spam surf/water pulse/etc and win.

Though personally I do feel like almost all gyms could stand to bring in an extra Mon or two. The eighth gym leader should not have the same amount of Mons as the second gym; like at least 5 at the most.

Fair. To take it back to the original point(a discussion of Gen 2's gyms sucking), I think there's various ways a gym can be good, and people get confused because they don't always agree on the definition of good.
For example, Galar's gyms are impressive. It's a massive stadium, the soundtrack is incredible, there's a designated "Shit is serious" moment when the ace comes out and Dynamaxes...it was the first game where I think the gyms really lived up to the hype. I doubt I could name any mon from their teams other than the DMax one, and the gen's mechanics meant they weren't exactly challenging fights if you knew what you were doing, but none of that mattered when playing.
Personally? I think that gyms should be a challenge, which is different from being a tough fight. A tough fight can just be a bunch of overleveled mons, or giving everything a free stat boost and 2 moves a turn a la Alola*. And tough fights are good, but I want battles that say "learn the mechanics of the game and be rewarded". Now, you have to make them tough to do that, so that players don't steamroll the fight with one mon, but that's the side-effect, not the goal. Gyms, both as in-universe places of education and as the mandatory fights, seem perfect for that, but with few exceptions, GF just doesn't use them for that.

*If you want hard boss fights, there you go. Alola, if you aren't cheesing them, made things as difficult as reasonably possible in a game aimed at kids. Just not if you're fighting the human characters.

 

[Cobalt Empoleon]

*If you want hard boss fights, there you go. Alola, if you aren't cheesing them, made things as difficult as reasonably possible in a game aimed at kids. Just not if you're fighting the human characters.

Agree with everything else, but I think you're underselling some of the non-Totem fights a bit! In USUM at least, all the Kahunas' mons have 252/252 EV spreads and 30 IVs across the board, which make them quite threatening (although obviously they have major shortcomings like their terrible Z-move AI). I remember Hala in particular really caught me by surprise with how tanky his Pokemon were. However, I think it's fair to say that this is a pretty lame way to make battles harder.

I think that gyms should be a challenge, which is different from being a tough fight. [...] I want battles that say "learn the mechanics of the game and be rewarded"

As I said, though, 100% agree with the rest. Discussions of difficulty in Pokemon tend to focus on the fangame/Kaizo approach, which simply isn't feasible in an official title. Fangames can safely assume near-perfect game knowledge, but the main series games can't and shouldn't. It seems really obvious to me that they should lean more into designing each Leader with a powerful strategy in mind and also interesting and accessible forms of counterplay, like a less boring version of the guy in Virbank City who tells you that he was struggling against Roxie until he caught a Magnemite at the Virbank Complex. Maybe there's a Gym Leader who uses a scary Aurora Veil team, but you can do a little sidequest to get access to Brick Break in the same city; Hex team/Safeguard; setup spam/Encore; etc. Nothing is forcing the player to use these strategies, but they'll be rewarded if they do.

You could take it in a different direction and ramp up the raw power of Gym Leaders, but make it so that various NPCs give the player specific information about their teams through their dialogue if they choose to investigate the town/city/area. This already happens a little bit, but the details are usually pretty sparse (and sometimes it ends up being a little misleading for casual players, like the Gym Guide in BW's Nimbasa Gym).

I'm imagining there being enough info available to formulate a mon-by-mon strategy if you really take the time, like

"I thought I was being clever using my Electrode's Charge Beam against Coral's Mantine, but it held on and retaliated with Mirror Coat! Guess it must have really high Special Defense..."

"I heard that Coral hasn't taught the move Rain Dance to any of her Pokemon. I suppose she doesn't need it, thanks to her Politoed's Ability Drizzle!"

"My brother says it's silly of me to bring a Ground-type like Hippopotas to my battle against Coral, but its Sand Stream ability can take away the rain so my other Pokemon have a better shot of winning."

"I can't believe it... I had the perfect plan in place: Spikes, Toxic Spikes, Stealth Rock, Sticky Web... then her Tentacruel comes in and clears it all away with Rapid Spin! All that work, erased in an instant..."

etc etc

excuse the random placeholder Gym Leader I invented for the purpose of this explanation

Of course, some people might think it's cheap to have so much intel before the battle, so these NPCs could preface their hint with naturalistic dialogue in the form of a Yes/No prompt, indicating that they're about to reveal something about the Leader's tactics.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

I feel there are different ways to make a Gym and Gym Leader memorable, sometimes it can be aesthetic, and sometimes it can be atmosphere.

Galar's Gyms are pretty universally memorable because of the atmosphere, as stated, being a big spectator event and Dynamax being a massive spectacle helps. Some also have fun gimmicks.

Or it can be something simple like Brock in Gen 1. He's not a hard fight per se, but he's a suitable first boss in that he's the first real roadblock who introduces the first real "wow" moment in the game and it takes more effort or thought to beat him than anything you face beforehand. He's manageable to a point where a new player can feasibly win, but he has enough presence to stand out and be memorable. He comes at you with a rock monster in Geodude and then a giant rock snake in Onix, who straight up walls every com mon, is the biggest threat you've faced thus far, and requires more than just spamming Tackle/whatever and taking it down thanks to walling that. Bulbasaur players can either grind to Level 13 or close and KO with Vine Whip, learning about type effectiveness and "elemental" moves to win, or they can wear Onix down in a war of attrition with Leech Seed and Growl for debuffs. Charmander players will likely have to grind to Level 16 and evolve it so they gain a power advantage in both level and the mon itself. Squirtle players have Bubble to do heavy damage to Onix in a few blows, and like Bulbasaur players, will also learn type advantage. In Yellow, players will have to get teammates like Nidoran, Mankey, and Butterfree, learning they need teammates. There's a lot that this battle can teach you, and Onix was an effective "first boss" in that regard. There's a reason almost everyone remembers Brock and his Onix so well even now.

Obviously that particular instance is archaic and from an outdated game design that wouldn't work in modern Pokemon, although there are other examples over the years.

In Gen 1 itself Misty was a threatening second boss because her Starmie was legit *dangerous*, while Giovanni is memorable as the last boss for narrative reasons because he's the Team Rocket boss of the Gym that had an absent leader.

Norman is also a notable example in Hoenn in the narrative front, since he's literally your father and there's narrative buildup to you vs. him in a Gym Battle, and he's a threat with Slaking to enforce that, making it all the bigger a milestone when you do beat him and essentially surpass him as a Trainer (child surpasses parent story). Some Hoenn Gym Leaders stand out for different reasons: Winona has a strong Altaria that's either very deadly with DD+Aerial Ace+Earthquake in RSE, or Cotton Guard+Roost in ORAS to be near unkillable, making her a threat in battle. Tate and Liza showcase the Doubles gimmick.

BW1 had quite a bit here in my eyes. Elesa is very memorable not because she is actually hard, but because she had a very unique and memorable gimmick in Volt Switch spam to constantly alternate her mons and do damage at the same time making her a unique pain. Lenora was also a deadly first boss. Striaton is a forced tutorial but it's memorable precisely because it's that.

I do think Johto had one memorable Gym Leader, and that was Claire. In part because her Kingdra was hard to defeat with near unresisted coverage and no weaknesses to exploit at that point, and also in part because she was in the Dragon's Den. Kalos doesn't have a lot of memorable Gym Leaders but Korrina has story relevance since she introduces the Mega Evolution mechanic.

You get the rundown but there's plenty of ways to have memorable Gym Leaders, you just have to make sure they succeed in, well, standing out in that way.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

So, this is a subject someone raised to me, and I was curious what people here thought - Do Hazards need to be nerfed?

Like, it's kinda hard to deny how much hazards have shaped competitive Pokemon at this point. Teambuilding at this point is shaped around the mechanic, how it can be set, how it can be removed, and how you can avoid the dreaded damage caused by Stealth Rocks. It has only intensified with Gen IX, where a number of factors have made the mechanic a huge reason for the current misery endured in the meta, to where even something as innocuous as Ribombee is now subject to hate.

So the question is, should Hazards be significantly nerfed in some fashion, such as having them be temporary much like Weather, Terrain, and Screens are? Or should it just have the removal options expanded so that it acts as a less dominating mechanic? Curious what people think.

 

[Worldie]

So, this is a subject someone raised to me, and I was curious what people here thought - Do Hazards need to be nerfed?

Like, it's kinda hard to deny how much hazards have shaped competitive Pokemon at this point. Teambuilding at this point is shaped around the mechanic, how it can be set, how it can be removed, and how you can avoid the dreaded damage caused by Stealth Rocks. It has only intensified with Gen IX, where a number of factors have made the mechanic a huge reason for the current misery endured in the meta, to where even something as innocuous as Ribombee is now subject to hate.

So the question is, should Hazards be significantly nerfed in some fashion, such as having them be temporary much like Weather, Terrain, and Screens are? Or should it just have the removal options expanded so that it acts as a less dominating mechanic? Curious what people think.

Hazards are non existant in official competitive pokemon

They need to be buffed not nerfed.

With how common Intimidate shuffling is as well as Amoongus whole existance and despise from VGC players, if anything I'll expect more, stronger buffs to them.

 

[Cobalt Empoleon]

So, this is a subject someone raised to me, and I was curious what people here thought - Do Hazards need to be nerfed?

Like, it's kinda hard to deny how much hazards have shaped competitive Pokemon at this point. Teambuilding at this point is shaped around the mechanic, how it can be set, how it can be removed, and how you can avoid the dreaded damage caused by Stealth Rocks. It has only intensified with Gen IX, where a number of factors have made the mechanic a huge reason for the current misery endured in the meta, to where even something as innocuous as Ribombee is now subject to hate.

So the question is, should Hazards be significantly nerfed in some fashion, such as having them be temporary much like Weather, Terrain, and Screens are? Or should it just have the removal options expanded so that it acts as a less dominating mechanic? Curious what people think.

It's hard to think of a change that strikes the appropriate balance without being cumbersome to convey to the player. A five-turn clock would be interesting; my only criticism is that I think it'd make them even less appealing to use in-game. No team preview + healing items + virtually no AI switching means you're probably only gonna get one or two instances of hazard chip per use of the move (assuming the Pokemon that come out are even affected by your hazards of choice), unless you're steamrolling through the opponent's team anyway.

Maybe they could be buffed in terms of damage/effect in exchange for disappearing after a single switch-in (or disappearing layer by layer in the case of Spikes/Toxic Spikes)? Of course, that just raises several more questions about exactly how much stronger they should be to compensate haha. What I like about this idea is that it makes them more viable in VGC Doubles but weaker in Singles.

 

[CPU]

1. In Generation 5 OU, some Dragon-Types were literally using only one Attacking move: Outrage, and succeeding.

You had sets like Outrage, Dragon Dance, Roost, Substitute, succeed and sweeping great teams. That's insane. No coverage necessary. Ferrothorn? Not a problem, it will break through eventually. That's absurd.

Dragon-Types were also absurd in Doubles and the only reason they weren't spammed even more was because Physical Dragon STAB isn't very good in Doubles.

Defensively, Dragon resists the entire 4 Basic Types (Grass, Fire, Water and Electric), and is only weak to two: Ice and Dragon. Dragon being, you know, the type we are talking about; and Ice-Type being a rarer type to be viable, especially in Doubles, which matters more than Singles.

It was also one of the best neutral defensive typings in the game. You wanna blame it on stats? Fucking Altaria was a good Dragon Dance sweeper in DPP UU.

Dragon-Type was objectively busted. Like, insanely so. DragMag was literally a thing, being able to remove the one or two Steels on a team, the only thing stopping the Dragons from basically picking up a KO every time they attacked, was viable. Stacking 3+ Dragons on a team was viable!

2. Fairy resisting Bug makes sense because in a lot of folklore, fairies control bugs and creatures of lower dominion. It's a lot more fair to say Fairy shouldn't resist Bug than your prior statement though.

Dragon type was busted but stats are a big reason why it was so threatening. Stats of both Pokémon and moves. All but two pseudo legends being Dragon Type (all with strong offensive stats) bloated the type with threats. There were also Kingdra, Flygon, and Haxorus, all with BSTs of 500 or higher. I'm going off of memory here but I think the only two fully-evolved Dragon types as of Gen 5 with a BST below 500 were Altaria and Druddigon? That's goofy. Latias and Latios were two other 600 BST legends allowed in OU. Outside of an OU meta, Game Freak had just made two straight generations with Dragon Types as box legends (with a few extra forms for good measure), not to mention Rayquaza.

The BP of Outrage and Draco Meteor was also absolutely part of the reason for the Dragon Type's dominance. But it was coupled with attack stats usually working from 110 base, at minimum. That doesn't help.

Something certainly had to be done about the Dragon Type after gen 5, and I like Fairy as an addition, but numerically it's a pretty nutty type too. It's largely kept in check by the relatively low BSTs of its possessors, as well as low BP of its main attacking moves.

Psychic is kind of the Gen 5 Dragon Type done "right." It has a high number of very strong/legendary pokemon with it, but numerically it's a weak type. It also doesn't have any conventional moves of its type with a BP over 90. It probably also helps that, even in the early gens, there were weaker mons with the typing, so while it was always top-heavy, so to speak, it had more reasonable options.

 

[Magcargo]

Hazards are non existant in official competitive pokemon

They need to be buffed not nerfed.

With how common Intimidate shuffling is as well as Amoongus whole existance and despise from VGC players, if anything I'll expect more, stronger buffs to them.

Nah, they are good. Glimmora is a great Stealth Rock setter in BSS. And hazards are amazing to break Focus Sashses. Not as dominant as in Smogon metas though since switching is noticably weaker.

 

[Worldie]

Nah, they are good. Glimmora is a great Stealth Rock setter in BSS. And hazards are amazing to break Focus Sashses. Not as dominant as in Smogon metas though since switching is noticably weaker.

Yeh, that was mostly where I was getting at.

The reason GameFreaks made now 3 "auto-setters" for Hazards as well as massively increasing Spikes distribution is cause of the almost nonexistant usage they have (or had, in case of bss) in VGC/BSS.

Considering the usage is still very low AND Intimidate shuffling + Amoongus are still what they are, if anything I'll expect *more* hazard buffs in the future.

good thing smogon doesn't balance the game otherwise we'd still be playing 1 hour long 6v6 matches

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

Considering the usage is still very low AND Intimidate shuffling + Amoongus are still what they are, if anything I'll expect *more* hazard buffs in the future.

If that's the case, then I really do seriously advocate Smogon just abandons this ship and makes its own meta while it still can.

 

[MoonlightRose]

So, this is a subject someone raised to me, and I was curious what people here thought - Do Hazards need to be nerfed?

Like, it's kinda hard to deny how much hazards have shaped competitive Pokemon at this point. Teambuilding at this point is shaped around the mechanic, how it can be set, how it can be removed, and how you can avoid the dreaded damage caused by Stealth Rocks. It has only intensified with Gen IX, where a number of factors have made the mechanic a huge reason for the current misery endured in the meta, to where even something as innocuous as Ribombee is now subject to hate.

So the question is, should Hazards be significantly nerfed in some fashion, such as having them be temporary much like Weather, Terrain, and Screens are? Or should it just have the removal options expanded so that it acts as a less dominating mechanic? Curious what people think.

It's more likely they get a buff then a nerf, in the only format Gamefreak really cares about they're nonexistent.