hey, t it uses dig on first turn and copycats (assuming it lived the atack used on it t1) , the lagging tail makes it move last when its under the ground but not when using copycat cuz dig is a two turn move this assures that you almost certainly win if get the dig off . sorry if you didnt understand a thing but tldr it assures you almost guarantee win if you like hit t1 w digI've been thinking about running Grafaiai and I've seen that it's sample set has Prankster and Lagging Tail at the same time? What's the point of that? Isn't that both a waste of an item and an ability slot?
Yeah what Arvin said, you want Dig to go off as late as possible to stay invincible for as long as possible and so Copycat gets to copy Dig instead of whatever the opponent uses. Lagging Tail on Prankster moves doesn't usually matter since it only makes Copycat go after all other +1 priority movesI've been thinking about running Grafaiai and I've seen that it's sample set has Prankster and Lagging Tail at the same time? What's the point of that? Isn't that both a waste of an item and an ability slot?
The first thing you say gotta go is Cinderace because you got gimped by a Shuca Berry variant. I'm not one to say this a lot, but I actually think you got skill issued on bromy take on what should go. i'm of the opinion that we should try to have a really large 1st slate in which people lean towards being a bit ban happy, followed by a 2nd slate 2-3 weeks after in which more bans take place / some unbans are made. while this is a controversial way to undertake this process, it would compress likely 3-4 months of tiering into 2-3 weeks. the mons involve both unbanned/ dlc2 mons as well as some predlc2 mons which were the main talking points regarding tiering action.
the mons I would put on the slate are:
i lost to Shuca counter cteaming my landot on ladder this shit is too techable ban plz
ilyHello, it is time for another completely unwarranted analysis on a random move: Fickle Beam
Premise: On the first turn of the battle, does fickle beam, dragon pulse, or draco meteor do more damage on average.
Fickle beam, a strange special dragon move with a 30% chance to do double. Does a move with a 30% chance to do 160 damage with perfect accuracy defeat the reigning champ draco meteor? No! but fickle comes in at 91% of draco's damage. That's worth considering imo (seeing that Fickle's highest damage is more than draco's with no chance to miss.)
Total Damage = Normal damage + Damage due to crits without secondary + Damage due to secondary chance without crits + Damage due to secondary & crits - Damage due to misses
(all assuming high rolls for now)
Expanded out for fickle:
Total Damage = [240 * Base Damage * (1-Secondary %) * (1-(1/24))] + [240 * Base Damage * 1.5 * (1/24) * (1-Secondary %)] + [240 * Base Damage * 1.5 * Secondary % * 2 * 1/24]
Verdict:
While this move is limited to just one pokemon, Hydrapple, we could see it spread over time. Other moves that have lost their signature move status: Heat Crash, Sacred Sword, Soft boiled, etc, so this one may as well. Maybe Hydreigon, Dragapult, or Alolan Exegg could get it.
It ultimately comes in pretty close as a weaker alternative to draco meteor, but a better move than dragon pulse.
...
Bc I get comments like "what does this mean" or "why" or "this is confusing & it was obvious" on these type of posts, need I remind everyone of the fruits of these weird studies: Charge Koko/ Zera/ Eleki, Guardian of Alola + Brine, Tough Claws + Stomping tantrum Mega Metagross, etc.
Im just going to voice my opinion about this course of action. First of all, there should be a community survey to determine what mons get banned to begin with, or at least a council vote based on otr. I assume that's implied, but it was notably missing from this post.My view on tiering rn Pt.2
Last post, I talked about ban / unban slate, had that went through, we would have reached a fresh meta already. Unfortunately, council largely just laughed it off, however I did receive positive feedback from non-council. Despite this, I want to change my approach from ban/unban slate to something different. This post is my opinion and doesn't reflect the views of the entire council. Shoutout njnp for bringing the kokoloko method to my attention.
The Idea
Seeing the recent situation in ou regarding the kokoloko method being discussed, I see one main flaw with it which is every single mon is re-suspected. This would take a significant amount of time for results which would be mostly expected. I firmly believe that the best approach to take from here is similar to the kokoloko method, however, instead of everything being resuspected, a community feedback survey decides which mons are re-suspected (via 60% agreement from qualified voters). This would ensure a majority decision is reached not by the council, but the community, giving the wider community say on what should and shouldn't be re-suspected. This fixes many of the problems with my previous idea, as it makes bans not revolve only around the council, and it negates the speculative element of the previous method. After this process has played out, tiering would return to normal unless there was significant reason not to.
List of Mons To Ban
Scroll up for reasoning on any of these. I've removedas it was the most speculation based.
This wouldn't be a slate, these mons would be banned, without any council vote.
Why?
The way discussion is leading, the mons that are currently otr will not all be banned. Going off the latest suspect which took 2 weeks to complete, assuming a 2 week intermission to allow the ban to be implemented and meta to settle, the suspect process takes 4 weeks to complete. From collecting opinions from the otr thread and meta discussion, cinderace and likely one of meloetta and necrozma will be quickbanned and hoopa and necro/melo will be left to suspect. These 2 suspects would take 8 weeks together. Assuming regidrago, custap* and iron valiant are suspected at a later date, these suspects would take 20 weeks, or about 5 months altogether, given a generous 2 weeks between each of them. By following the method I proposed, only the things the community finds worthy of re-suspect would be suspected, greatly shortening the time needed to reach an ideal metagame.
*Custap will not be involved in this as a suspect is basically required for this sort of thing, but it will be happening.
Why the bans being speculative doesn't matter
One of the main arguments against this system is that banning mons that are only slightly unhealthy at the time on bans, but have shown they could be broken as the meta progresses is solely based on speculation, mainly![]()
. The bans being speculative doesn't matter as if the community sees fit, they can and will be undone through a majority vote into unban in suspect. If the community finds the meta better without them, then they are deemed unhealthy and the bans remain in place.
Why this Method is More Reliable than Traditional Tiering (In this specific case)
This methods reliability is based off the fact that the one mon would be isolated, instead of other broken mons co-existing, making it seem more healthy. I'll use random mons so people don't misinterpret what I say. For example, sayis being suspected before anything else. In this scenario it is clearly unhealthy, however during the suspect,
proves to be the bigger problem. This demographic continues and
isn't banned, despite clearly being very unhealthy, as people believe that
should be first to go due to being stronger, wasting 3 weeks and making it harder to suspect
at a later date. However, if
is isolated, people could realise that it is unhealthy and should be banned, then after
is banned,
could go to suspect and see a similar fate.
How this method grants the wider community more say
Despite this method involving the council removing more mons, it's no different to just quick-banning things, except for the fact it gives the community more input, as they can vote on which mons should stay banned/be taken to suspect. The recent survey showed that people largely thought the council was out of touch with the actual community and I see this as the perfect solution. While some believe the community just want suspects, I believe giving the community a fresh, more healthy meta fast is what the community deserve. As for suspect enthusiasts, there would be no lack of suspects, they would just be more meaningful.
Pros:
- Reaching an ideal meta faster
- Giving the community more influence and say
- Reducing impact of council so that everyone's opinion matters
- Isolated suspects increase reliability
- Less heavy-lifting for TLs in terms of suspects
- Less stress on room staff from people complaining about certain mons
- Very easy to revert decisions if shown to be wrong, unlike traditional tiering
Cons:
- Untraditional
- Speculative in nature, although this is fully remedied by a community vote for re-suspects, and the re-suspects themselves
As always, lmk what you think, I'd appreciate lots of feedback / discussion both here and on the on the radar thread. Contrary to popular belief, the most important thing behind many council decisions is community input and discussion, so if many of you agree, this could realistically happen. My discord is rtm24, hmu if u have any questions.
If we decide to use a community survey to determine what mons are banned initially, I doubt people will change their mind later on. Confirmation bias is going to come into play here, and resuspects will not go through.good post
1st off, a community survey would be the best method to decide the mons banned.
As for the meta not supporting the return of mons, I definitely see your point, however, people would be able to contrast their experiences with building/playing and opinions from before it was banned. To add to your example, people might be changing their teams from before the ban and realise, oh wait, my teams beat meowscarada without really trying. Or they might see, huh, I don't have to run av urshifu on every team (random example) to beat porygon-z reliably anymore. The experience building and playing in absence of these threats is what would help form peoples opinion of whether they should be banned or not and I believe you underestimate players in thinking they won't be able to see it from this perspective.
To give a relevant example, say regidrago is banned. After its banned, people realise that they still find themselves running a fairy and a steel type which beat drago on every team so they deem it fine to return for a suspect. So while I definitely understand your point, the opposite would also happen and it would lead to mons that require very specific counters or necessitate usually unviable counters staying banned, as players realise how far they had to go out of their way to counter those mons.
As for the standard method, you've acknowledged it'd take significantly longer, and also stated that it has the advantage of seeing the meta with the suspected mon as players adapt. One problem with this is as I stated:This methods reliability is based off the fact that the one mon would be isolated, instead of other broken mons co-existing, making it seem more healthy. I'll use random mons so people don't misinterpret what I say. For example, sayis being suspected before anything else. In this scenario it is clearly unhealthy, however during the suspect,
proves to be the bigger problem. This demographic continues and
isn't banned, despite clearly being very unhealthy, as people believe that
should be first to go due to being stronger, wasting 3 weeks and making it harder to suspect
at a later date. However, if
is isolated, people could realise that it is unhealthy and should be banned, then after
is banned,
could go to suspect and see a similar fate.
Its easy to act like there are no risks to tiering the standard way, however, the risks are more wasting time, and damaging trust with the community.
While it certainly does benefit from having the meta already somewhat adapt to the threat, making it focal point, being a re-suspect would also achieve the same thing. By having a community vote and counting voters for what is re-suspected, we can't go wrong, as a community consensus is the only real way to gauge the opinion of the community as a whole. Rather than tiering for just what council wants, we should respect everyone's opinion, so if the 1v1 community as a whole agrees on something by majority, it should be final, regardless of if some individuals disagree.
YES DUDE. If 1v1 had a tiering survey to give our opinions on what should and should not be banned, this tier would be soooo much better off. Maybe the bans wouldn't come directly from the survey but AT LEAST things get acknowledged more. Just think about it: no Iron Valiant. No Regidrago. No Necrozma. Maybe also no Cinderace while your at it. The bans so far were expected and not controversial at all...Im just going to voice my opinion about this course of action. First of all, there should be a community survey to determine what mons get banned to begin with, or at least a council vote based on otr. I assume that's implied, but it was notably missing from this post.
My main concern is that once we ban these mons, the meta will not support the return of any mons whether or not they would otherwise be balanced. This is because players would not prep for them, and therefore they would not fit easily back into the new post-ban meta. For example, if we banned Meowscarada or Porygon-Z, people would likely no longer run bulk for these threats, and many teams would be 3-0d by them. This would make it difficult to determine whether they should be resuspected.
If we take the more cautious method of only quick banning mons that are clearly banworthy (with community support), and suspecting those that are more controversial, it would certainly take significantly longer as you pointed out. However, this has the advantage of actually seeing the meta with the suspected mon where players adapt to deal with it. This makes it easier to accurately determine whether the mon should be banned.
New here on forum but long time showdown player
Im here to discuss 2 thinks:
1) i really agree that some mons should be banned, i dont know why its not obvious, like, even if we ban 5/6/7/8/9 mons, we still got like 700 xD not that people wouldnt got options...
2) i find today one guy using zapdos with PP ability, agility, substitute, protect and roost, i REALLY think that strategy is 100% antigame, like, ok its not hard to counter, just use something with taunt or disable or encore, ok, but its 100% not fun and this shouldnt be permitted, winning against anyone with 80 rounds just letting they got out of PP is not a strategy, this is not like things with screens, protects and you win with toxic or leech seed or anything, this is just stupid
A lot of these strategies with Zapdos PP stall, toxic and leech seed that you speak of are easily countered with the moves Encore and Taunt as well as Pokemon which just hit generally hard. I’m going to assume that whatever teams you use just end up being 3-0ed by these sets. I’d recommend you give Skeledirge a try, it should be able to naturally break through these strategies with Torch Song going through Substitute and naturally boosting its Special Aftack as well as a powerful Blaze Blast Burn which can be given priority with Custap Berry and Encore.
This post will respond to the community concerns around the meta via MY OWN opinion.
I will start by saying that I've been enjoying both building and clicking in this meta, it's def the most fun I've had in SV or 1v1 for the past months. It is true that the current teams seem to be the same ish mons however I think it's just the novelty factor playing and we're gonna see more diversity in a bit and as deep as we get in GC. This meta reminds me of ORAS, it is top heavy but it still has room for innovation and new mons, it is also v balanced imo.
Basically how I see it is that we're in a Dragon dominant metagame instead of the usual Fairy dominant that we've been used to, I believe this can create some unease for some builders and players because when Dragons are popular instead, some cores such as FWG gets less and less popular with cores such as DD, DFairyS, DFireFairy... get more and more common. This dragon heavy meta is just caused by our Dragons being really good, and especially the two best dragons Gouging Fire and Archaludon not being afraid of Steels and Fairies like other dragons.
Both Gouging Fire, and Archaludon have been phenomenal and easy to fit on every meta, they possess really great tools when it comes to offensive and defense and can juggle between their EVs and Sets. Both of these dragons are a ton better than Regidrago in the current meta, and people should acknowledge that. Gouging Fire and Archaludon nail better MUs on preview and can be built around easily due to their flexibility and great chemistry with a lot of Pokemon also their checks are not always linear (specially Gouging Fire). Meanwhile, the current meta cores really hurt Regidrago from one side, Steels like Corvik, Iron Crown, and Metagross beat it most of the time, Fairies always beat it, vs Dragons it's a toss due to Haban Berry from both sides being probable. Regidrago checks are one linear and you know what beats Regidrago directly from preview + it has to stretch itself and may lose to Pokemon like Cresselia, and PZ. Don't get me wrong, Regidrago is a good Pokemon as it can beat Pokemon like Ursaluna or Iron Hands that may annoy other Dragons but imo it's not the unhealthy Pokemon it was before, def. not in the current meta.
On topic with the Dragon metagame, these there's still Raging Bolt, Haxorus, and Dragapult that are actually good and have niches which is honestly great to see, competition exists around dragons on the team and def. not one linear. IMO no Dragons are currently broken or unhealthy I'd love to see more from this meta before judging anything.
Hoopa-U seems like an annoying Pokemon honestly but it's held back by Dragon-types like Regidrago and Gouging. It is a v good Pokemon with great offensive and defensive capabilities and can beat Fairies, Steels and Psychics, however the annoying part is that it has to actually hit 2 Gunk Shots sometimes to beat a fairy. It's pretty inconsistent but when you feelin' lucky it rarely loses. What holds it back is def the Dragon metagame, and U-turn on unexpected mons (Ogerpon), it also has to stretch itself to beat a lot of stuff which makes it annoying for the player and opponent. I still don't see it as problematic yet.
Custap Berry. lol. I have yet to see any surprise custap user, or anything from that item that would push it into the unhealthy territory. It's a normal item and has been a fine addition. Come on, are you telling me we don't know that Skeledirge, Primarina, and Sylveon are the main 3 that run custap and rarely archaludon. The users of this item are linear as of yet and we know how to beat them and what beat them whether they run custap or any other item. I don't see the hype around this item, all other items are way better unless your name is Skeledirge and Primarina
I'm gonna end this by saying, can we seriously start holding Encore accountable to the bs in our metagame. Ever since Encore has widened its distribution in SS and now SV the metagames have been very volatile and shaky. SS isn't a topic rn but I think we should take action in SV. The main reason people see Valiant, Custap, and other Pokemon such as Snorlax and Dragonite as blatantly unhealthy or broken is because of Encore, imo w/out encore the whole metagame changes to the better. Encore forces you tiptoe your moves, it restricts what you can do in-game and what Pokemon check what Pokemon, I think it's time to SERIOUSLY discuss the unhealthy aspect of encore.
tldr;
DO NOT TOUCH THE META RN, IT'S BALANCED.
Regidrago worse than Gouging and Archa
Hoopa-u not broken
Custap Berry is a fine addition to the metagame, 0 unhealthy aspect as of yet
Serious discussion around Encore should be held.