-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
OU RBY OU Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Enigami
- Start date
Chansey is really good. One day I suspect Chansey will be even better. I think Lusch's current viability ranking is the most accurate one in regards to today's meta. Where he has Chansey is where I think Chansey should be today, though in the future I think Chansey will be much higher. So, I'm no Chansey hater. I'm bullish on Chansey. But as of now, regardless of that win rate, I do think it is unfair to reduce Chanseyless teams to "curveballs." If competent player X and competent player Y played a long session of "First to win 10 games," and one player HAD to use Chansey and the other player couldn't, I really don't think the Chansey player would have that much of an advantage.
And I still stand by my earlier point that, though Chanseyless teams don't trump Chansey teams, I do think that ultimately Chanseyless team users are building their strategies against very old team structures, and just by the very nature of that endeavor, i.e. forming new strategies against an opponent that doesn't see any need to change much, it leads to plateu. Because, ultimately, the chanseyless teams already work against their most popular target. I'm not saying dominate, I'm just saying they have achieved their goal in finding out how to win if played competently, and what would make Chanseyless teams evolve are new ideas that didn't go toe to toe with them, but destroyed them.
Stats Taken from RBYPL Week 1 Bo5 slot.
Code:
+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| Rank | Pokemon | Use | Usage % | Win % |
+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| 1 | Tauros | 32 | 94.12% | 46.88% |
| 2 | Snorlax | 28 | 82.35% | 46.43% |
| 3 | Exeggutor | 23 | 67.65% | 56.52% |
| 3 | Starmie | 23 | 67.65% | 47.83% |
| 5 | Chansey | 20 | 58.82% | 50.00% |
i hope it doesn't need to be explained why it's dangerous to take conclusions about the metagame as a whole from four bo5s where people hard prepped for each other lol
Despite what we think of Cless (I'm sick of spelling out Chanseyless, too long!), it does at least seem to have more room for growth. Just from field observation alone, whenever I'm using Cless, the structure feels like it makes sense when I'm playing against Chansey teams, yet when I face another Cless team... the games are fun... but doesn't it seem like the current Cless teams feel very arbitrary against one another? The games feel more... improvy. Ya know? It feels like very unexplored territory. There have to be more effective Cless teams that can be designed to destroy other Cless teams. That alone seems like, if not low hanging fruit, at least fruit we know is there and would be worth pursuing. So, if nothing else, Cless teams do have at least this avenue to explore. Ironically, it obvioulsy hurts them in end, unless this new unexplored design just so happens to also be just as effective against Chansey teams.
Last edited:
I was looking at the viability chart for this year on the first page. Golem is currently "D" rank, even though it has nearly every single quality Rhydon has. Which is at "A" rank itself. The difference between the two of them are the difference between "A" meaning it's great, and "D" meaning it's situationally niche of a use at best. How is this the difference of them? I can find myself using either of the two of them interchangeably nearly infinitely.
Why are they even compared to as similar if that's the true difference in performance?
Furthermore the traits that make Onix which is sitting at "F" rank, has Onix being more similar in Rank to Golem as Golem does to Rhydon. Golem IMO isn't closer to Onix than it is to Rhydon in comparable competitive quality.
TLDR: Golem is currently considered to be closer in similar competitive quality to Onix than Rhydon, by ranking standards. But my own personal experience using Golem leads me to believe it is closer in quality to Rhydon. It's also more often compared to Rhydon. So why is Golem closer to Onix than Rhydon in rankings?
Rhydon has higher attack allowing it to 2hko chansey and has more bulk, which ends up being worth more than explosion in the long run.
Not true. Onix is unranked. He doesnt have a tier.
1. Rhydon is B1, not A.
2. Assigning tiers hard definitions like this is just wrong. Every player is going to look at them differently. Giving a tier on the VR a hard definition like this is literally just getting yourself worked up over nothing. Its a tier list, which inherently gives things of similar quality the same rank, regardless of how close the things below it are to it.
If you want to use golem, do it. Its a really good mon and it fits great on teams like CloyGol or BroGol. This whole vr thing really means nothing besides golem not being as good as other mons.
If you want to get better ideally you use the better mons, but if you don't care and are content using the good but flawed ones, who are we to tell you no.
onix unranked so that argument piece doesn't make a lot of sense, but the big thing is rhydons superior physical attack lets it hit a clean 2hko on chansey and it puts a huge dent in starmie, whereas those two can fend off golem way easier. rhydon also busts past egg better, can fight lax better, etc. golem having explosion and a slightly higher speed tier is notable though! it's for sure usable and good at that. doing less damage to starmie especially is ultra bad though
I don't think the game is close to solved, poker uses a similar level of complexity, and most of the advancement of complexity density happened post 2000s despite that game being around much longer.
Edit: Comparison between poker and Gen1:
Comparison 1:
Poker uses 52 cards
Gen1 uses 148 mons with maybe 20-25 needed to be thought to.
Comparison 2:
Poker uses Check/or call ,raise/or bet and fold. The board cards are drawn from the standpoint of 5 out of 52 cards.
Gen1 uses 6 vs 6 drawn from maybe 20ish viable picks with 4 moves on each of them, the 4 moves are also drawn from other viable possibilities.
Both use psychological elements and mathematical calculations based off of the opponents play.
These are similar games IMO, why would it be that an older game is able to see large advancements many decades after it's creation? I think there is still great room for improvement.
Edit 2:
poker uses 13 cards with only mostly the top 4 of them being viable, but it depends on how they interact with each other. It depends on opponents tendencies as well. There are 4 suits. Additionally there are boards, board textures, a flop of 3 cards a turn of 1 card, a river of 1 card. The math used is based off of how that your 2 cards interact with the board cards and your opponents range of tendencies. Some of it is exact math and some of it is implied
Pokemon uses 13 ou mons with only mostly the top 4 of them being great, but it depends on how they interact with each other. It depends on opponents tendencies as well. There are 4 moves. Additionally there are 15 types that interact with each other by resistances of 0.5x and super effective of 2x. As well as statuses that impact the mathematics, moves that can miss with different frequencies and damage ranges. Some of it is exact math and some of it is implied.
Ik that in mons it isn't exactly 13, but the psychological components, and the math being used are actually very very similar. I think that if OU were studied more like how poker is, that it could advance. Because poker was studied by far more people so the kind of intensity of study was with a greater density.
The biggest advancement in poker was that online poker has the availability of 3rd party Huds (heads-up-display) that aggregate data in real time for real time use as well as future study. Someone would have to develop a Hud that tracks user data over time. E.g. like this exact opponent "x" frequency's when that I have "Y" mon in. The exact terms used for poker that matter the most are called VPIP (voluntary put in pot) and PFR (pre-flop raise) and 3bet frequency.
I also thought of chess as similar so stockfish would be what I would be referencing if it's from a chess equivalent, but chess is a complete information game, poker and pokemon are both non-complete information games.
I am certain if somebody made a HUD for Gen1OU that if developed from the pokemon equivalent standpoint of the data points used in poker, that it would make for most certainly the biggest great leap in Gen1ou history.
The first to make a Stockfish esque thing or a HUD will infinitely be the best.
Edit: Comparison between poker and Gen1:
Comparison 1:
Poker uses 52 cards
Gen1 uses 148 mons with maybe 20-25 needed to be thought to.
Comparison 2:
Poker uses Check/or call ,raise/or bet and fold. The board cards are drawn from the standpoint of 5 out of 52 cards.
Gen1 uses 6 vs 6 drawn from maybe 20ish viable picks with 4 moves on each of them, the 4 moves are also drawn from other viable possibilities.
Both use psychological elements and mathematical calculations based off of the opponents play.
These are similar games IMO, why would it be that an older game is able to see large advancements many decades after it's creation? I think there is still great room for improvement.
Edit 2:
poker uses 13 cards with only mostly the top 4 of them being viable, but it depends on how they interact with each other. It depends on opponents tendencies as well. There are 4 suits. Additionally there are boards, board textures, a flop of 3 cards a turn of 1 card, a river of 1 card. The math used is based off of how that your 2 cards interact with the board cards and your opponents range of tendencies. Some of it is exact math and some of it is implied
Pokemon uses 13 ou mons with only mostly the top 4 of them being great, but it depends on how they interact with each other. It depends on opponents tendencies as well. There are 4 moves. Additionally there are 15 types that interact with each other by resistances of 0.5x and super effective of 2x. As well as statuses that impact the mathematics, moves that can miss with different frequencies and damage ranges. Some of it is exact math and some of it is implied.
Ik that in mons it isn't exactly 13, but the psychological components, and the math being used are actually very very similar. I think that if OU were studied more like how poker is, that it could advance. Because poker was studied by far more people so the kind of intensity of study was with a greater density.
The biggest advancement in poker was that online poker has the availability of 3rd party Huds (heads-up-display) that aggregate data in real time for real time use as well as future study. Someone would have to develop a Hud that tracks user data over time. E.g. like this exact opponent "x" frequency's when that I have "Y" mon in. The exact terms used for poker that matter the most are called VPIP (voluntary put in pot) and PFR (pre-flop raise) and 3bet frequency.
I also thought of chess as similar so stockfish would be what I would be referencing if it's from a chess equivalent, but chess is a complete information game, poker and pokemon are both non-complete information games.
I am certain if somebody made a HUD for Gen1OU that if developed from the pokemon equivalent standpoint of the data points used in poker, that it would make for most certainly the biggest great leap in Gen1ou history.
The first to make a Stockfish esque thing or a HUD will infinitely be the best.
Last edited:
A lot of viability ranking confusion comes from the fundamental error in ranking singular mons in the first place. I have been extremely confused myself as to why people hate on Golem so much as well. But it comes down to (probably) this. Take the classic Starmie/Chansey/Lax/Egg/Tauros/Rhydon team. Rhydon just is better on this team. So if you are playing with teams like this, it makes sense to say "Rhydon is just better than Golem." But with certain other teams that want an electric poke check but also fast paced, leverage gaining plays, Golem makes more sense and is "just better than Rhydon." I (un-rigorously) began making a tier list of teams earlier in this thread. A tier list of teams is probably much harder to make, but simply beginning that project, I think, would be better than viability ranking lists of singular pokemon.
Also, while we're talking about hated on pokemon, Lapras is good. Thank you.
Also, while we're talking about hated on pokemon, Lapras is good. Thank you.
Last edited:
Yes. This is also near universal outside of very specific structures.
More Damage output + more bulk = better pokemon 90% of the time. Golem is still v slow and doesnt have the greater attack that rhydon has, forcing it to explode in a lot of situations. When you have a rock you really want longevity with it and golem rly doesnt have that.
This isnt a situation of "Theyre both great and tier lists suck bc fsr golem is low" and rather "Rhydon is better than golem 90% of the time."
Yes. Hence the fact it is in C3. Not lower D (or below.)
i actually like this take -> golems edge over rhydon is more present in less viable teams therefore golem is a lot worse even if pound for pound its not that much worse. thats what I read this as, anyways
a tier list of teams is an extremely productive way to view and evaluate a metagame imo.
the main golem issue that i see come up a lot is that it often wants to explode before zapdos actually comes out, making you weaker to zapdos than you would a rhydon preserved most of the game, but i think the other important golem trait is fearlessly smashing into snorlax -> body slam paralysis isn't so terrifying when you can rip an explosion! the takeaway from this is that an aggressive golem lets me preserve my own lax/chansey, which then makes me able to deal with a zapdos in the back anyways. just my perspective on the pokemon anyways.
tldr: i agree in spirit with some things said and i think golem is pretty usable
This is actually how most people probably think, and it portrays exactly what I was referencing in my post. So, just to repeat myself: the misconception that Rhydon is simply better comes from the ubiquitous use of a structure tailored to Rhydon. Your language betrays this. For example, emphasizing "longevity," which is something Rhydon wants (some of them even use rest), whereas Golem wants to kill things (explosion is the opposite of rest). Or how you said, "Forcing it to explode." Your Golem should want to explode. It's not a last resort like being forced to use agility when your Zapdos is paralyzed and it's your last poke and you need to make the comeback. You're using Golem, because it has explosion. You want to use it. Explosion, btw, has more damage output than any move Rhydon has.
Other things which are important to note. Explosion kills a slightly damaged Tauros (Explosion kills at 75-89). Meaning, Golem can take a blizzard and kill a slightly damaged tauros, Rhydon cannot. Golem can take an ice beam from Chansey and then kill, Rhydon cannot. Golem can take a psychic from Alakazam and then kill, Rhydon cannot. And many other cases like this. You don't necessarily want to end up in these head to heads, but in a game where one, from time to time, is forced into a corner, these are very important differences that have saved me from losses.
Last edited:
Golem IMO is better than Rhydon, but it's because of the implied value of it, explosion as a move is more like that it always gets to have equity that is near 1 to 1 vs anything. Golem also outspeeds Rhydon, and Rhydon is more common at like a 6 to 1 ratio. Golem beats Rhydon in a 1 on 1. Golem functions similar enough to Rhydon otherwise and substitute is by far rhydons least valuable move anyways.
Bro, Substitute allows to not only beat Stoss Chansey, but also to execute my favorite strategy, fishing for Para. A paralyzed team vs Rhydon is already screwed, if they can't even move, they are finished.
That's a good idea, but you will always average doing 99% damage to yourself in the long run because substitute does 24.99 damage to yourself and paralysis is 25% to land. It is a good strat, but what I am saying is that with golem because it has explosion your opponent will over predict more frequently because of the implied idea that it could explode without needing to actually use it....Also, what move do you think is Rhydon's worst move?
Which only matters vs rhydon.
Mons is not 1v1s.
Wrong. Its the 4th move which commonly gets swapped out. Leer/Rest/Rock Slide.
And it is ONLY a 1 to 1 because u only beat zapdos and rhydon who wont let u kill it until late game (uve alr boomed.)
Great post! One thing. A dead golem isnt beating zapdos.
What I am trying to say is that Golem because it has explosion has my opponent need to play differently based off of the implied implications that if it has explosion that they have to play more cautiously or that they risk a greater ability of myself to calculate where my explosion will land vs them. Such as: more swapping has to happen on average on opps behalf because of the difference of what golem and Rhydon are, without necessarily ever even using explosion.
Tldr: Golem because it has explosion forces opps to play differently, and that difference matters without needing to actually use that exact move.
Tldr: Golem because it has explosion forces opps to play differently, and that difference matters without needing to actually use that exact move.