I don't want to take a hit from Rhydon. My Exeggutor does not want to be damaged or paralyzed any more than he has to. I want to make it hard as hell for Rhydon to press anything. I don't want to give up any momentum. And most importantly, I don't have to. I'm not compelled in anyway to thunderbolt or drillpeck Rhydon, unless I've lost. To bring out Zapdos in the midgame would be great if team preview were a thing. We could use our pokemon more dynamically. But it's not a thing in gen 1 ou, which means that midgame Zapdos is arbitrarily risky given that it simply need not come out in the midgame. We are not compelled to make that play. Zapdos is perfectly happy to not make that play, no matter how tantalizing it might look.
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
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
I just want to outline that giving Rhydon entry points has varying degrees of how bad it is -> it's obviously good to be able to bring zapdos in midgame, presuming no rhydon, and some teams are way more okay with the rhydon actually coming in. So the expected value of sending zap out is still good because if there's no rhydon it's good and if there is rhydon it's not so bad. The main critique not encompassed by this is that if you don't reveal zapdos, the opponent is more likely to sacrifice their rhydon, but this has some arbitrary value to it that I think decreases in a tournament setting
Here is a series of premises that I believe to be plainly true:
1. There exist midgame situations where getting Zapdos in will press your advantage way more strongly than anything else IF they don't have Rhydon.
2. You can sometimes infer from early revealed information that seeing a Rhydon behind is less likely than normal.
3. There will be game situations where you are simply going to lose if you keep playing without your Zapdos at all (falling behind from early luck / bad match ups / bad reads / similar)
Any combination of 1+2, 1+3, or 2+3 verifying in the same game is likely good enough cause to full send your Zapdos in the spot where it can break the game open and simply accepting defeat in the event they have a Rhydon, in exchange of drastically raising your win chances in the event that they don't, and this will result in an overall increase in your expected winrate in the long run.
This is what people say when they recommend bringing Zapdos out in the midgame. I don't think anyone is blindly recommending full sending Zapdos in the midgame always. Rather they are saying that IF you find that spot to double switch it on a low HP Exeggutor or Cloyster or sleeping Snorlax etc; and the balance of "how likely am I to win if they have Rhydon" x "how likely am I to win if I keep playing without using my Zapdos at all" leans in favor of pulling the gamble; then you need to keep your eyes peeled and squeeze all the win% possible out of these spots, otherwise you are wasting some of Zapdos's potential.
1. There exist midgame situations where getting Zapdos in will press your advantage way more strongly than anything else IF they don't have Rhydon.
2. You can sometimes infer from early revealed information that seeing a Rhydon behind is less likely than normal.
3. There will be game situations where you are simply going to lose if you keep playing without your Zapdos at all (falling behind from early luck / bad match ups / bad reads / similar)
Any combination of 1+2, 1+3, or 2+3 verifying in the same game is likely good enough cause to full send your Zapdos in the spot where it can break the game open and simply accepting defeat in the event they have a Rhydon, in exchange of drastically raising your win chances in the event that they don't, and this will result in an overall increase in your expected winrate in the long run.
This is what people say when they recommend bringing Zapdos out in the midgame. I don't think anyone is blindly recommending full sending Zapdos in the midgame always. Rather they are saying that IF you find that spot to double switch it on a low HP Exeggutor or Cloyster or sleeping Snorlax etc; and the balance of "how likely am I to win if they have Rhydon" x "how likely am I to win if I keep playing without using my Zapdos at all" leans in favor of pulling the gamble; then you need to keep your eyes peeled and squeeze all the win% possible out of these spots, otherwise you are wasting some of Zapdos's potential.
Approaching this game with such an inflexible mindset is perhaps not the most conducive to long-term success, especially regarding one of the most potent breakers around. The point is that there is a legitimate time and place when mid game Zapdos is far superior to end game Zapdos for the purpose of achieving the win.
Of course it varies from player to player, but on average Rhydon is going to be sitting around ~30% usage, so about 70% of the time, there won’t be a Rhydon. Many times you’ll have to ask yourself if the reward is worth the risk, and quite frequently the answer can be yes, especially if you are able to mitigate how bad seeing a Rhydon is at that current point in the game. And, like Amaranth said, there’s lots of potential information you could extract from your opponent’s team to change the weights of Rhydon likelihood; the mid-game can mean a lot of different points throughout a game, it’s not necessarily the immediate post-opener turns. You do have time to gather information.
I will say this is also assuming one cannot use both mid-game and end-game Zapdos within the same battle. The moniker of “mid-game Zapdos” does not necessarily require it to be fully used and then die or experience some other form of great reduction of usefulness in the mid-game. It can be perfectly acceptable to send it out once or twice to force something out or try to soften things up before bailing out and just sitting there until the end of the game, daring the opponent to try to accommodate for it without messing up in some way. The loss of information advantage on your end can of course hurt your Zapdos’s chances of winning, but this is far from meaning they still aren’t generally good in a non-Rhydon matchup and the opponent very possibly could have already been playing in a way to accommodate the matchup depending on what they’ve gleaned from you and your team throughout the battle and scouting related things.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I believe this issue should be approached with more nuance than you seem to give it. None of us deny the isolated strength of end-game Zapdos either. Forgive me if I am incorrect about any of my perceptions on your stance.
Of course it varies from player to player, but on average Rhydon is going to be sitting around ~30% usage, so about 70% of the time, there won’t be a Rhydon. Many times you’ll have to ask yourself if the reward is worth the risk, and quite frequently the answer can be yes, especially if you are able to mitigate how bad seeing a Rhydon is at that current point in the game. And, like Amaranth said, there’s lots of potential information you could extract from your opponent’s team to change the weights of Rhydon likelihood; the mid-game can mean a lot of different points throughout a game, it’s not necessarily the immediate post-opener turns. You do have time to gather information.
I will say this is also assuming one cannot use both mid-game and end-game Zapdos within the same battle. The moniker of “mid-game Zapdos” does not necessarily require it to be fully used and then die or experience some other form of great reduction of usefulness in the mid-game. It can be perfectly acceptable to send it out once or twice to force something out or try to soften things up before bailing out and just sitting there until the end of the game, daring the opponent to try to accommodate for it without messing up in some way. The loss of information advantage on your end can of course hurt your Zapdos’s chances of winning, but this is far from meaning they still aren’t generally good in a non-Rhydon matchup and the opponent very possibly could have already been playing in a way to accommodate the matchup depending on what they’ve gleaned from you and your team throughout the battle and scouting related things.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I believe this issue should be approached with more nuance than you seem to give it. None of us deny the isolated strength of end-game Zapdos either. Forgive me if I am incorrect about any of my perceptions on your stance.
Last edited:
What does it mean, literally speaking, for Zapdos to be the best comeback pokemon in the game? It has been said of Zapdos by some, but what does that actually mean? It means the pokemon with the highest chance to overcome the highest amount of obstacles. In any game in which it is said that X character has great comeback ability, that is what is meant. So, what happens when you take a pokemon that can overcome (just using an arbitrary number) 6 challegning obstacles and reduce the amount of obstacles it needs to overcome to 2? It becomes a nuclear weapon.
What is the most important part of the game? Obviously the end game. It is the only part of the game that you need to win. Losing the early game means that your opponent has the advantage going into the mid game. Losing the mid game means your opponent has the advantage going into the end game. Losing the end game means you lose the game. And of course, winning the end game, despite winning or losing in the early or mid game, means you win the game. What should one take away from this? You should always be thinking about the end game at every turn. Whenever I come back from a long break, my first rusty loss is almost always due to playing through the motions while forgetting to stay conscious of this.
The old anti Zapdos argument that if one ran into a Rhydon, "You're forced into a 5 vs 6 situation," was never true. Nor is it true that if the Rhydon player knows what he is doing, we are actually playing a 5 vs 5. I said that for the sake of simplification. You're actually always playing a 6 vs 6. What the past anti Zapdos haters didn't understand was a concept called "Potential Energy." If a country with nuclear weapons goes to war with a country without nuclear weapons, the country without nuclear weapons uses their fullest potential in the war, whereas the nuclear armed country goes to war without their best weapon. They are playing, as the old Zapdos haters would say, a 5 vs 6. Even if the nuclear country starts to seemingly be put on the back foot, everyone knows what the end game has in store if they are forced to use their best weapon. Those nuclear weapons which they can potentially use are their real power.
Rhydon teams absolutely do not make up in the mid game for the power that Zapdos brings in the end game.
Whether or not you can bring Zapdos out in the mid game doesn't really matter. I've already said that can work. In the same way putting earthquake on reflect lax can work. The question is whether or not you should be doing that. This is not a univariate analysis. Yes, Rhydon is one variable (and an important one!) to take into consideration when determining whether or not Zapdos should be a primarily mid game or end game pokemon. But, even if Golem and Rhydon didn't exist, Zapdos would still be best situated in the end game given your other options (or at least the other options you should have) in the mid game. There are exceptions to rules. This goes without say.
Here's the thing: I have played the way you guys have played. You can't tell me anything new. I've played Zapdos a lot. Years ago, I was playing like you guys. The difference here is that I'm, to my great surprise, early to something new. And I'm talking to people who just have not seen the light yet but will. I'm not sure why I'm early, but it probably has to do with Chanseyless. I just so happen to be the first to learn to play Zapdos in its optimal form with Chanseyless. There probably was something (something which I have not thoroughly analyzed) about the old meta game which incentivized us to play Zapdos a certain way. But it's over.
Edit: probably the most obvious change is that you have new options in the mid game.
What is the most important part of the game? Obviously the end game. It is the only part of the game that you need to win. Losing the early game means that your opponent has the advantage going into the mid game. Losing the mid game means your opponent has the advantage going into the end game. Losing the end game means you lose the game. And of course, winning the end game, despite winning or losing in the early or mid game, means you win the game. What should one take away from this? You should always be thinking about the end game at every turn. Whenever I come back from a long break, my first rusty loss is almost always due to playing through the motions while forgetting to stay conscious of this.
The old anti Zapdos argument that if one ran into a Rhydon, "You're forced into a 5 vs 6 situation," was never true. Nor is it true that if the Rhydon player knows what he is doing, we are actually playing a 5 vs 5. I said that for the sake of simplification. You're actually always playing a 6 vs 6. What the past anti Zapdos haters didn't understand was a concept called "Potential Energy." If a country with nuclear weapons goes to war with a country without nuclear weapons, the country without nuclear weapons uses their fullest potential in the war, whereas the nuclear armed country goes to war without their best weapon. They are playing, as the old Zapdos haters would say, a 5 vs 6. Even if the nuclear country starts to seemingly be put on the back foot, everyone knows what the end game has in store if they are forced to use their best weapon. Those nuclear weapons which they can potentially use are their real power.
Rhydon teams absolutely do not make up in the mid game for the power that Zapdos brings in the end game.
Whether or not you can bring Zapdos out in the mid game doesn't really matter. I've already said that can work. In the same way putting earthquake on reflect lax can work. The question is whether or not you should be doing that. This is not a univariate analysis. Yes, Rhydon is one variable (and an important one!) to take into consideration when determining whether or not Zapdos should be a primarily mid game or end game pokemon. But, even if Golem and Rhydon didn't exist, Zapdos would still be best situated in the end game given your other options (or at least the other options you should have) in the mid game. There are exceptions to rules. This goes without say.
Here's the thing: I have played the way you guys have played. You can't tell me anything new. I've played Zapdos a lot. Years ago, I was playing like you guys. The difference here is that I'm, to my great surprise, early to something new. And I'm talking to people who just have not seen the light yet but will. I'm not sure why I'm early, but it probably has to do with Chanseyless. I just so happen to be the first to learn to play Zapdos in its optimal form with Chanseyless. There probably was something (something which I have not thoroughly analyzed) about the old meta game which incentivized us to play Zapdos a certain way. But it's over.
Edit: probably the most obvious change is that you have new options in the mid game.
Last edited:
we have reached the stage of discussion where the only thing left to say is: team pastes + replays of such teams vs. strong players please
I don’t think you guys have heard me correctly. I said that Zapdos teams beat Rhydon teams, and I’m very sure of it. This has never once been true in the entirety of the game’s history. This is historic.
I’ve said elsewhere in this thread that my goal was to never enter tournaments or anything for ego like that. My goal was always just to advance the meta. I wouldn’t normally do something like this, but seeing as I’m literally all alone with my new Zapdos strats (which is lonely but extremely exciting to be able to say), I feel that this moment allows for this.
A best of 7, or we can get crazy and do a best of 9, with me and player x. I am locked into a Zapdos team, and player x is locked into a Rhydon team. The consensus is that Rhydon teams have the advantage against Zapdos teams; that being the case, AND it being the case that my opponent has all the info on my team, which keeps me from using cheap surprise tactics, they should beat me handily if the consensus is true. Whoever can use Rhydon teams at their highest level, that’s who I want. Next time I’m free is the 25th and the 27th. I’m free all day those days. But depending on the time of my opponent’s availability, we may be able to schedule earlier.
Let’s make history, one way or another.
I’ve said elsewhere in this thread that my goal was to never enter tournaments or anything for ego like that. My goal was always just to advance the meta. I wouldn’t normally do something like this, but seeing as I’m literally all alone with my new Zapdos strats (which is lonely but extremely exciting to be able to say), I feel that this moment allows for this.
A best of 7, or we can get crazy and do a best of 9, with me and player x. I am locked into a Zapdos team, and player x is locked into a Rhydon team. The consensus is that Rhydon teams have the advantage against Zapdos teams; that being the case, AND it being the case that my opponent has all the info on my team, which keeps me from using cheap surprise tactics, they should beat me handily if the consensus is true. Whoever can use Rhydon teams at their highest level, that’s who I want. Next time I’m free is the 25th and the 27th. I’m free all day those days. But depending on the time of my opponent’s availability, we may be able to schedule earlier.
Let’s make history, one way or another.
This wasn't the contentious part of your post. The disagreement/discussion was about zap only being good as an endgame pokemon. Having a match is cool and fun, but if you're looking to prove something it should be in the service of what the discussion was actually about.
I don't think zap teams beating rhydon teams is unprecedented at all, it's why teams like gar egg zap/Jynx egg zap exist. I remember ABR saying during world cup (somewhat hyperbolically I suspect) that zap 3x is "free" into someone who never uses laxless don. It's one of the reasons that team structure even exists, to mix things up and actually punish certain zap brings. ABR's take is more on the extreme end, but loads of players have had opinions like this for years, which is why no one really objected to that part of your argument.
If you want to test the actual contentious part of what you said through a bo7, the opponent should be able to bring whatever they want. Then we can see if the opportunity cost of keeping zap in the back tips the scales. If they have to bring don every time, it doesn't really address what people actually disagree with (because then of course keeping zap for the end is the right play).
It's not contentious to say Zapdos teams beat Rhydon teams? My goodness. What universe have I ended up in? Welllllllllll, if my opponent can just bring what he wants then it's just me battling a dude. It goes from an experiment to just two guys having a battle. Which... is just weird. I should just enter a tournament at that point. I'm actually confused as to what your stance is.
Hello. I am John Smogon, the greatest Pokémon battler of all time. I accept your challenge on the condition it is a best of 51 at minimum as anything less would be insufficient to draw conclusions. I would prefer at least a best of 101 but I understand not everyone can have such legendary stamina as me (I work out a lot). I will give you until Sunday to prepare your mind and body.
I thought we were talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of mid set zap, and thought that was the evidence Amaranth was asking for (his quoted text primarily covered how zapdos was played, not the rhydon stuff). So I felt the experiment should measure what we were actually discussing (you play zap every time in the way you think is optimal and we see how large the opportunity cost of keeping it in the back is against different teams). Testing don vs zap felt like a weird derailment to me for something no one was really disputing (we all know don teams are flawed and lose to some zap teams), and it would basically make keeping zap in the back optimal every time.
But if you meant that EVERY zap team generally beats EVERY don team (which is how others seem to have interpreted it), that is indeed crazy and I apologize for misunderstanding. Unless someone said that explicitly in no uncertain terms (every don team generally loses to zap), I'd assume they were talking overly generally (which is what I assumed in this case).
Tldr: your take was so hot it scorched my reading comprehension
Last edited: