Metagame 1v1 Metagame Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
imma just put my opinions here :
Sleep : you got counters for it , for everyone of the sleep users. lax forexample with uproar or other stuff etc. the people have already given enough examples. sleep is in my opinion one of the cases like serene grace where it feels unfair if you lose to it but use it yourself and you lose still and get frustrated over it
Skymin: im sry but thats still a no go for me , its the cancerous lovechild of togekiss and jirachi
Species clause: straight unban i dont see why not
Darkrai: I think a suspect if not unban would be appropriate where i though rather lean towards a suspect then anything else
Zygod: as many pointed out definetly not a ban . suspect at max. it loses to any common spA with ice even hp Ice blacephalon . plus it get utterly destroyed by any taunt user thats faster than itself
in Conclusion . People Run TAUNT
 
Dudes, what you fail to understand here is that a high base Special Attacker along with a very high Base Power Special Attack in Seed Flare should have ideally KOd any Water-type Pokemon, but it doesn't take a Water-type Pokemon which is too low in the usage list to actually tank something that is 2X against it, Primarina with its 80 HP/ 116 SpD is able to nearly tank it, was my point.




All other calcs are quite relevant, I don't see anything faulty or wrong, the specs calculation was to show that it doesn't even net the KO with specs, Specs vs Koko is irrelevant coz outspeeds, HP Ice does nothing against anything else but LandoT and Garchomp
252+ SpA Adaptability Porygon-Z Hyper Beam vs. 248 HP / 80 SpD Charizard-Mega-Y: 306-360 (85.2 - 100.2%) -- 6.3% chance to OHKO
. And if we are not unbanning a Pokemon just because it can flinch 60% of the time, purpose defeated. Z-Move Shaymin hits nothing ( Z-Seed Flare hits nothing but Water-types , Z-anything else doesn't exactly cut the edge), which is why i neglected mentioning them. Set speculation is after I get something worth mentioning, as of now, it's Scarf and Specs.

Seconded. Nice factual post.
252+ SpA Shaymin-Sky Seed Flare vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Ludicolo: 204-240 (67.7 - 79.7%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
Skymin doesn’t OHKO every single Water type, let’s unban it! No. Why. Do people use Jirachi to OHKO the tier? (Air slash doesn’t OHKO either FYI)
The answer is NO, because that’s stupid to do. This is literally a better Jirachi with coverage.

Guys, come on. Do we really want the bastard child of Deoxys-Attack and Togekiss in our tier?

Dangit I should have agreed with you so I could be a “factual post” like gojira
 
Last edited:

DEG

peace
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
No, no and no. We're not unbanning Skymin or Darkrai anytime soon. Everyone was complaining about Jirachi 2 months ago and now want Skymin unbanned, I don't get it. Skymin is way better than Jirachi, it has a better speed stat allowing it to run Choice Specs to deal more damage while flinching the opponent which gives it a better win percentage than Jirachi. It also has a better typing and move allowing it to deal better with Fire, and Water-types. Both struggle against common Steel-types so no on win on that point. On top of that Skymin can also utilize Sub Seed as it is fast enough to pull it. On another hand, Darkrai is a problematic Pokemon, I don't see how can you allow something with insane coverage and has access to a Sleep-inducing move. It high high speed and special attack which allows it to put the opponent to sleep or hit it with a super effective move, it has moves from all important types, Electric, Dragon, Dark, Fighting, and Ghost which allows it to hit most things super effectively and with sleep it can cheese more wins.

Zygarde-Perfect will eventually get suspect tested, if not now, later since it is allowed as a playtest and was going to be suspected later on in the metagame.

Uselesscrab will write our opinion about Species Clause and hopefully that will end the debate once for good.
 
Yeah, what DEG said. As far as Species Clause is concerned, we're going to hold firm on keeping it in place. A lack of Species Clause heightens the guessing-game, already moderately luck-based nature of team preview, while simultaneously increasing the potency of versatile top-tier threats such as Kyurem-B**, Porygon-Z, and, more than any other single Pokemon, Charizard.

I don't see how Wrath of Alakazam's "common counter" scenario is desirable in the slightest; rather, it further centralizes the metagame around a small set of Pokemon and their hardest counters, some of which counters perform poorly against the rest of the metagame. It's been well established, by the way, that it's nigh impossible to find a 100% counter to Pokemon like Kyurem-B** and Mega Metagross in the first place, simply given the nature of 1v1.

Other than that, there have not been many compelling arguments, of the few arguments that have been made at all, put forth for the repeal of species clause. Gradient Facade's comments about how having two of the same Pokemon is similar to changing one Pokemon's moveset or EVs are very well-reasoned, but I feel like that sort of revision between battles requires quick thinking and ingenuity, plus it is only effective if the same people continue to play on the ladder. In that case, you're playing off opponent expectations by skillfully modifying your set.

If I bring Taunt Babiri Berry Whimsicott and my opponent is running godsquad and chooses to send his Mega Mawile, then I switch to Moonblast + Occa Berry before the next battle to anticipate his Gyarados or Charizard, that feels to me like a more "deserved" source of ladder points than if I simply bring two Kyurem-Bs** and claim a second consecutive win because my opponent doesn't know if he should stay regular and DD with his standard Charizard X like he did last time (when he lost to my Icium Z one) predicting a Scarf set or mega-evolve and Outrage expecting the Icium Z one again.

In the first situation, there is no expectation of my deceit; I made a clever move to take advantage of my predilections of my opponent. In the second situation, my opponent might as well flip a coin to determine whether he Dragon Dances or Outrages. Yes, I know this situation could be reversed. I could switch my Kyurem-B from Icium Z to Choice Scarf between battles to screw up my opponent and play mindgames. That requires actual proactivity on my part. My opponent is not thrust into a situation where he automatically faces a 50/50 from the first ladder match's team preview. (Those come later, after the second battle, when we get to the psyching-each-other-out phase and all bets are off.) And I won't even get into how stupid species clause's absence would be in tournament games.

Wow, I went on quite a tangent. I feel like there are probably some holes in the scenarios I presented above, so feel free to point them out to me. Anyway, I guess my overall point is that by having species clause, we eliminate one additional source of luck and guessing in an OM filled with luck and guessing.

** yes i know there is some debate about whether it's even possible to bring 2 kyurem-bs because of the dna splicers please don't focus on this and miss the point of my post as a whole
 
Last edited:

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Other than that, there have not been many compelling arguments, of the few arguments that have been made at all, put forth for the repeal of species clause. Gradient Facade's comments about how having two of the same Pokemon is similar to changing one Pokemon's moveset or EVs are very well-reasoned, but I feel like that sort of revision between battles requires quick thinking and ingenuity, plus it is only effective if the same people continue to play on the ladder. In that case, you're playing off opponent expectations by skillfully modifying your set.

If I bring Taunt Babiri Berry Whimsicott and my opponent is running godsquad and chooses to send his Mega Mawile, then I switch to Moonblast + Occa Berry before the next battle to anticipate his Gyarados or Charizard, that feels to me like a more "deserved" source of ladder points than if I simply bring two Kyurem-Bs** and claim a second consecutive win because my opponent doesn't know if he should stay regular and DD with his standard Charizard X like he did last time (when he lost to my Icium Z one) predicting a Scarf set or mega-evolve and Outrage expecting the Icium Z one again.

In the first situation, there is no expectation of my deceit; I made a clever move to take advantage of my predilections of my opponent. In the second situation, my opponent might as well flip a coin to determine whether he Dragon Dances or Outrages. Yes, I know this situation could be reversed. I could switch my Kyurem-B from Icium Z to Choice Scarf between battles to screw up my opponent and play mindgames. That requires actual proactivity on my part. My opponent is not thrust into a situation where he automatically faces a 50/50 from the first ladder match's team preview. (Those come later, after the second battle, when we get to the psyching-each-other-out phase and all bets are off.) And I won't even get into how stupid species clause's absence would be in tournament games.
First I don't believe making an assumption as to how proactive people are or aren't is valid reasoning for anything. I'd like to point out that most top players, such as Kentari, Raimon, UnleashOurPassion, etc don't consistently use just one team at a time while laddering, they're always switching teams up, and if things get intense enough, even switching sets on individual mons to achieve the same effect you outlined with the Whimsicott example. Simply put, changing teams is almost a requirement to getting good performance rates in 1v1. Removing species clause would encourage people not only just to learn opponent's sets as they battle, but to beat the mons using those sets completely, rather than falling into the well-hated realm of counter teaming, or just niche teambuilding in general.

Second People aren't just going to use the same set two or three times in the same team when it comes to teambuilding (This may be an assumption, but even if people go against it, it will only hinder the people using them, rather than their opponents). Every individual set has its own grouping of things it beats and loses to, many sets having such a different range of coverage in comparison to other sets of the same mon, that they essentially become a different pokemon by that comparison.

An example of this would be Porygon-Z. The typical Choice Scarf set is used for outspeeding and OHKO-ing many frail threats, while the lesser used Choice Specs set is used for punching right through bulkier mons that normally beat the Scarf set. This effectively makes Specs Porygon-Z an entirely different threat from Scarf Porygon-Z, with Specs being more comparable to something like Charizard-Y.

Since you can already use Charizard-Y along with Scarf Porygon-Z to cover a similar range of threats as Specs Porygon-Z and more, Why not simply allow us to use the Specs Porygon-Z alongside it instead? Don't you think it's a little suspicious that very few people who took advantage of no species clause, if any, won battles consistently? Not to mention, the lacking presence of good players in Gen 6 1v1 replays who took advantage of no species clause at all, regardless of win or loss, for any purpose other than memes? Exactly. This is because having the same species of mon on a single team acts only as a hindrance to your overall potential viability.

Third The only possible reason I can think of to keep species clause in place, otherwise, is that 1v1 without it would become more "uncompetitive", akin to Accuracy dropping, Sleep, Jirachi, and more. The problem with this idea is that it is mathematically unable to be proven. All the concepts I listed above are uncompetitive, and they all have percent-based chances associated with them, while 1v1 with or without species clause will always be the case of you asking yourself whether you beat the mons your opponent has or not, which does involve risk management, but not typically any kind of fixed chance or gamble that is associated with "uncompetitive" things, similar to picking your lead mon in a 6v6 environment.

Ultimately, I can't provide any reason besides my own opinions that 1v1 without species clause would be better than it is now, just like how I can't change your feelings of whether 1v1 should be 3v3 or the original 1v1. I just implore that you think about it and make the decision that would best benefit the metagame and our community.
 
First I don't believe making an assumption as to how proactive people are or aren't is valid reasoning for anything. I'd like to point out that most top players, such as Kentari, Raimon, UnleashOurPassion, etc don't consistently use just one team at a time while laddering, they're always switching teams up, and if things get intense enough, even switching sets on individual mons to achieve the same effect you outlined with the Whimsicott example. Simply put, changing teams is almost a requirement to getting good performance rates in 1v1.
Yeah ok, there isn't anything remotely controversial about any of these statements

Glyx said:
Removing species clause would encourage people not only just to learn opponent's sets as they battle, but to beat the mons using those sets completely, rather than falling into the well-hated realm of counter teaming, or just niche teambuilding in general.
You use language that makes this sound so positive but it seems to me like you're saying people have to prepare better for specific Pokemon and counter them extra-well because they might just run into two or three at a time...

Glyx said:
Second People aren't just going to use the same set two or three times in the same team when it comes to teambuilding (This may be an assumption, but even if people go against it, it will only hinder the people using them, rather than their opponents). Every individual set has its own grouping of things it beats and loses to, many sets having such a different range of coverage in comparison to other sets of the same mon, that they essentially become a different pokemon by that comparison.

An example of this would be Porygon-Z. The typical Choice Scarf set is used for outspeeding and OHKO-ing many frail threats, while the lesser used Choice Specs set is used for punching right through bulkier mons that normally beat the Scarf set. This effectively makes Specs Porygon-Z an entirely different threat from Scarf Porygon-Z, with Specs being more comparable to something like Charizard-Y.

Since you can already use Charizard-Y along with Scarf Porygon-Z to cover a similar range of threats as Specs Porygon-Z and more, Why not simply allow us to use the Specs Porygon-Z alongside it instead?
I never assumed that people would use the same set... in fact my entire post was predicated on people using different sets. Case in point: my Kyurem-B example.

I really don't get what you're trying to articulate here. Is it that I should be viewing Specs Porygon-Z and Scarf Porygon-Z as two completely different Pokemon? Because in one crucial way they are not. They have the same sprite. I'm not trying to be condescending or didactic here. However, as you quite rightly pointed out, they are entirely different threats. In other words, I might have to assume at team preview, when making my point, that I'm facing both simultaneously. So I certainly won't send a Charizard, which beats Specs but not Scarf. (Assume for the purposes of this example that the two are equally used, which they are not.) Would I go for a Mega Mawile, which beats Scarf but has a chance to lose to Specs? Maybe...but I might get psyched out by there being two of them. Do you see why this isn't the foundation of a competitive metagame?

Glyx said:
Don't you think it's a little suspicious that very few people who took advantage of no species clause, if any, won battles consistently? Not to mention, the lacking presence of good players in Gen 6 1v1 replays who took advantage of no species clause at all, regardless of win or loss, for any purpose other than memes? Exactly. This is because having the same species of mon on a single team acts only as a hindrance to your overall potential viability.
This whole series of questions is extremely anecdotal, first of all, but I could just as easily replace "no species clause" with "accuracy-lowering moves." Something does not have to be really good to be banned. Which leads into your next point:

Glyx said:
Third The only possible reason I can think of to keep species clause in place, otherwise, is that 1v1 without it would become more "uncompetitive", akin to Accuracy dropping, Sleep, Jirachi, and more. The problem with this idea is that it is mathematically unable to be proven. All the concepts I listed above are uncompetitive, and they all have percent-based chances associated with them, while 1v1 with or without species clause will always be the case of you asking yourself whether you beat the mons your opponent has or not, which does involve risk management, but not typically any kind of fixed chance or gamble that is associated with "uncompetitive" things, similar to picking your lead mon in a 6v6 environment.
It's a good thing we don't rely on mathematical proof to ban things. I tried to make this point clear when people were throwing around all that "Kyurem-B beats 72% of the metagame" stuff. Forgive my weird word choice as I just spent four hours writing essays about linguistics, but you have greatly semantically narrowed the definition of "uncompetitive" to the point that it no longer resembles the official meaning outlined in Smogon tiering policy:

OU official tiering policy said:
II.) Uncompetitive - elements that reduce the effect of player choice / interaction on the end result to an extreme degree, such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant
A.) This can be match up related; think the determination that BP took the battling skill aspect out of the player's hands and made it overwhelmingly a team match up issue, where even with the best moves made each time by a standard team often were not enough.
B.) This can be external factors; think endless battle clause, where the determining factor becomes internet connection over playing skill.
C.) This can be probability management issues; think OHKOs, SwagPlay, Evasion, or Moody, all of which turn the battle from emphasizing battling skill to emphasizing the result of the RNG more often than not.
D.) Note uncompetitive elements are almost always present in the battling skill aspect; they will, however, be present in the team building aspect should we allow them in the sense of having to rely on excessively specific counters (such as loading teams with Sturdy or Keen Eye Pokemon and the like).
Point C is one of only three ways something can be deemed uncompetitive, yet you choose to assume it's the only one. Have I not shown that "the effect of player choice" is considerably reduced with my above Charizard X vs. Kyurem-B example? Moreover, have I not shown that we have to "rely on excessively specific counters" in a post-species clause world? Because if I haven't, you and WoA certainly did with these statements:

WoA said:
Here, species clause also brings with it the possibility of having a common counter for the all these, like Archeops. So, keeping in mind the possibility of having a common counter if bringing the same Pokemon, i call for a UNBAN ON SPECIES CLAUSE.
Glyx said:
Removing species clause would encourage people not only just to learn opponent's sets as they battle, but to beat the mons using those sets completely
Ultimately, I can't provide any reason besides my own opinions that 1v1 without species clause would be better than it is now, just like how I can't change your feelings of whether 1v1 should be 3v3 or the original 1v1. I just implore that you think about it and make the decision that would best benefit the metagame and our community.
I hope that people trust that we have everyone's best interests in mind when we do this stuff. I understand that maintaining species clause is not as fun — one doesn't get to make as many quirky teams with funny lures — but I hope I've proven that it's more competitive this way.
 
Incoming wall of text.

Yeah, what DEG said. As far as Species Clause is concerned, we're going to hold firm on keeping it in place. A lack of Species Clause heightens the guessing-game, already moderately luck-based nature of team preview, while simultaneously increasing the potency of versatile top-tier threats such as Kyurem-B**, Porygon-Z, and, more than any other single Pokemon, Charizard.


It's been well established, by the way, that it's nigh impossible to find a 100% counter to Pokemon like Kyurem-B** and Mega Metagross in the first place, simply given the nature of 1v1.

From my perspective, I do not like the idea that a select few 1v1 threats can prevent every other pokemon in 1v1 from being paired with itself. If a pokemon is so versatile and powerful that it is 100% impossible to truly counter, then that is a problem caused by that pokemon itself, not the lack of a species clause since that pokemon will always be impossible to truly counter regardless.


I wanna add to Glyx's own argument for a second here. As he has said, Charizard Y is a wallbreaker that can be paired with scarf Porygon-Z. In this way, Charizard Y fills the same roll in assisting scarf porygon Z in an extremely similar manner as specs Porygon-Z would. Whether you face Char Y+Scarf PoryZ or Specs PoryZ+Scarf PoryZ, you are forced to pick an option while knowing that you can only beat 1, not both. There are other examples, but even if you don't have to go against two identical looking pokemon, you still have to face multiple threats whose synergy means that you cannot truly counter them without some very specific team building.


On the note of luck and the uncertainty of what sets certain pokemon are running, your opponent running multiple sets with the same pokemon can actually make it EASIER to figure out what sets are being ran.


Say you run into 3 charizards at once. You automatically know for sure that at least one of those zards is a different mega evolution than the others or all 3 would be countered by certain mons. One zard set is almost certainly going to use a bulky/defensive spread to beat any threats that can outspeed and OHKO a typical offensive zard set. With that knowledge alone, we can already pretty effectively estimate what sort of team our opponent has brought.


Now, let's look at a typical 1v1 core as another example: Kyurem Black, Charizard, and Mega Gyarados. Just like charizard, its partners can run multiple different sets. However, because each of them has different weaknesses instead of all sharing the same ones, it becomes very difficult to accurately gauge what each mon is running. Kyurem B might be scarfed in order to beat fast special attackers that would otherwise beat offensive Charizard X. However, Charizard may actually be a bulky Y variant that is instead designed to beat anything that Icium Z Kyurem B cannot break through.


I am kinda going off on my own tangent now. The point that I am trying to make is that a team made up of identical looking threats and a team made up of varied threats can both leave you guessing which mon you should send out when playing against a player with equal . You cannot be sure what sets are being ran on what, even if the mons look different. In that regard, a species clause does not cut down on the luck based aspects of choosing which pokemon to send out.


You might be wondering why I am trying so hard to argue against the species clause. From my perspective, I think the lack of a species clause makes it easier to determine what mons are unhealthy for the metagame by giving an extremely direct method to show a specific mon's flexibility/versatility. If it only takes 3 of the same mon to bring the 1v1 metagame to its knees, that alone should be a pretty telling reason why something is too overpowered in the 1v1 metagame. That is what the lack of a species clause is to me: a tool to more effectively showcase imbalance within the metagame so that we, the players and voters, act accordingly.


Sorry for the wall of text.
 

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Yeah ok, there isn't anything remotely controversial about any of these statements
Going to assume not sarcasm-
You use language that makes this sound so positive but it seems to me like you're saying people have to prepare better for specific Pokemon and counter them extra-well because they might just run into two or three at a time...
More or less. Maybe it's just my dictator way of thinking, but I view ironing out bad teambuilding as a good thing.
I never assumed that people would use the same set... in fact my entire post was predicated on people using different sets. Case in point: my Kyurem-B example.

I really don't get what you're trying to articulate here. Is it that I should be viewing Specs Porygon-Z and Scarf Porygon-Z as two completely different Pokemon? Because in one crucial way they are not. They have the same sprite. I'm not trying to be condescending or didactic here. However, as you quite rightly pointed out, they are entirely different threats. In other words, I might have to assume at team preview, when making my point, that I'm facing both simultaneously. So I certainly won't send a Charizard, which beats Specs but not Scarf. (Assume for the purposes of this example that the two are equally used, which they are not.) Would I go for a Mega Mawile, which beats Scarf but has a chance to lose to Specs? Maybe...but I might get psyched out by there being two of them. Do you see why this isn't the foundation of a competitive metagame?
Of course they aren't completely different pokemon, they just serve differing roles. The point I was trying to make that you missed is that why shouldn't I be allowed to use the combination of Specs and Scarf Porygon-Z when Charizard-Y does Specs Porygon-Z's job significantly better? The choice at preview isn't much different, unless you're expecting Band Porygon-Z for some reason...
This whole series of questions is extremely anecdotal, first of all, but I could just as easily replace "no species clause" with "accuracy-lowering moves." Something does not have to be really good to be banned. Which leads into your next point:
I'm glad you at least got the point. The point being to clarify for you (just in case you didn't know) and everyone else that Species Clause isn't something that was put in place because it broke the meta, rather that it's only there for what some people may consider the sake of being competitive.
It's a good thing we don't rely on mathematical proof to ban things. I tried to make this point clear when people were throwing around all that "Kyurem-B beats 72% of the metagame" stuff. Forgive my weird word choice as I just spent four hours writing essays about linguistics, but you have greatly semantically narrowed the definition of "uncompetitive" to the point that it no longer resembles the official meaning outlined in Smogon tiering policy:

Point C is one of only three ways something can be deemed uncompetitive, yet you choose to assume it's the only one. Have I not shown that "the effect of player choice" is considerably reduced with my above Charizard X vs. Kyurem-B example? Moreover, have I not shown that we have to "rely on excessively specific counters" in a post-species clause world? Because if I haven't, you and WoA certainly did with these statements:
Of course. The problem is that you contradicted your example with Charizard X vs Kyurem-B by saying my First section was not controversial. Then again you could've just been being sarcastic and not explaining your reasoning behind the statement. Now secondly, what's your beef with probability management/math in general? Knowing what your odds are in a hax-influenced metagame like 1v1 seems pretty important, especially if it's mentioned in smogon's own tiering policy, no?
I hope that people trust that we have everyone's best interests in mind when we do this stuff. I understand that maintaining species clause is not as fun — one doesn't get to make as many quirky teams with funny lures — but I hope I've proven that it's more competitive this way.
Your math-hating explanation better be good, honestly. Otherwise it might start to seem like you're just pushing your own agenda now that you're in power, which would be good if we chose you as a leader, but that isn't quite the case.
 
I am becoming fatigued by this conversation, and I think that will be pretty apparent in this post. I wanted to take time to respond to Gradient later, but oh well.

Going to assume not sarcasm-
Yes, I was being serious.

Of course they aren't completely different pokemon, they just serve differing roles. The point I was trying to make that you missed is that why shouldn't I be allowed to use the combination of Specs and Scarf Porygon-Z when Charizard-Y does Specs Porygon-Z's job significantly better? The choice at preview isn't much different, unless you're expecting Band Porygon-Z for some reason...
I don't know how to explain the guessing component any more than I already have. Also, Charizard was not a good choice of an example on your part because I don't ever know if I'm going to see a Charizard Y in particular when I get into team preview.

Of course. The problem is that you contradicted your example with Charizard X vs Kyurem-B by saying my First section was not controversial.
Let's take a look at these sections again.

I simply bring two Kyurem-Bs** and claim a second consecutive win because my opponent doesn't know if he should stay regular and DD with his standard Charizard X like he did last time (when he lost to my Icium Z one) predicting a Scarf set or mega-evolve and Outrage expecting the Icium Z one again.
First I don't believe making an assumption as to how proactive people are or aren't is valid reasoning for anything. I'd like to point out that most top players, such as Kentari, Raimon, UnleashOurPassion, etc don't consistently use just one team at a time while laddering, they're always switching teams up, and if things get intense enough, even switching sets on individual mons to achieve the same effect you outlined with the Whimsicott example. Simply put, changing teams is almost a requirement to getting good performance rates in 1v1.
Yes, I'm reading this again and I still agree with it. But changing teams every battle? That's not necessary, it's often not strategically sound or remotely advantageous, and I think people who do that (like Kentari, yes) make up a very small minority. Even so, by the way, if you're running a set rotation of several teams, you're bound to run into the same matchup twice. To be completely honest, at this point, this line of discussion has gotten far enough away from the issue of species clause that I'm having trouble figuring out where we're going.

Now secondly, what's your beef with probability management/math in general? Knowing what your odds are in a hax-influenced metagame like 1v1 seems pretty important, especially if it's mentioned in smogon's own tiering policy, no?

Your math-hating explanation better be good, honestly. Otherwise it might start to seem like you're just pushing your own agenda now that you're in power, which would be good if we chose you as a leader, but that isn't quite the case.
I have no "beef with math in general." I don't believe arbitrarily determined percentages like the Kyurem-B one are the sole means by which we should decide whether or not to ban something, but that's unrelated.

If you had brought up something probabilistic in favor of getting rid of species clause and I had immediately dismissed it, maybe then you could say that I have an issue with refusing to accept clearly defined probabilities. But actually, what you did was say that since you have no way of quantifying that species clause is uncompetitive, it must not be, even though the other criteria involved with species clause are qualitative, not quantitative — and as you said, I correctly applied those criteria.

This whole process of posting and parsing through arguments is very tiresome and I really don't want to seem like my role as one of the leaders of this meta is to endlessly argue with people who disagree with me, but "math-hating"? The "agenda" stuff... that's just incendiary for the sake of being incendiary. I don't feel that I should have to dignify that with a response, but for what it's worth, my initial post was on behalf of the entire leadership. I have no personal "agenda" and the idea that I would be strong-arming DEG and TI (lol) or whatever because I hate math!!! is bizarre.

Anyway, I'm not going to post here for a while. I'd like to see what others think on the subject, because clearly I can't get my points across.
 

lost heros

Meme Master
is a Pre-Contributor
Of course they aren't completely different pokemon, they just serve differing roles. The point I was trying to make that you missed is that why shouldn't I be allowed to use the combination of Specs and Scarf Porygon-Z when Charizard-Y does Specs Porygon-Z's job significantly better? The choice at preview isn't much different, unless you're expecting Band Porygon-Z for some reason...
I'm going to address this part because this bugs me. This seems to suggest there is no competitive advantage for running two of the same pokemon over two pokemon that serve a unique role. This is untrue for a simple reason: the etiquette of how you play matters.

Let's imagine for a second two people are on the ladder and have not yet decided they're changing teams yet. There's a variety of reasons they might do this such as they're trying to peak to post an RMT, they're testing a team, the current team does an exceedingly good job against the majority of the current ladder. For whatever reason (scouting, played before, good reasoning), each player knows what the other person is running. For this example, player 1 knows that player 2 is running either Mega Charizard Y and Scarf Porygon Z or Specs Porygon Z and Scarf Porygon Z and player 2 knows that player 1 is running Protect Stone Edge Blaziken. For the sake of this example, the other 3 pokemon won't be considered. You should be able to notice something here. Blaziken will be favored in the matchup against Charizard Y and Specs PZ, but unfavored against Scarf PZ. However, none of these matches are 100% and there is a chance for error in all of them.

In the first example where Species Clause exists, Player 1 will be able to play optimally with Blaziken regardless of what pokemon Player 2 uses. Against Charizard Y, he'll protect turn 1 and Stone Edge turn 2. Against Porygon Z, he'll protect turn 1, turn 2, and then HJK turn 3. This gives calculable chances of success for each match up. Match up 1 is 80% favored for Blaziken. Match up 2 is 70% favored for Porygon Z. Overall Player 1 has 55% chance beating Player 2 (assuming Player 2 chooses his pokemon equally)

However, if we are to remove Species Clause, Player 1 CANNOT play optimally in either match up. Ideally against a Specs Porygon Z, Player 1 would like to not risk going for the second Protect as he outspeeds from +1, theoretically giving him a 90% favored matchup. However, because there is no distinguishable features between specs and scarf PZ player 1 does not know if he should attempt a second protect. If he does the matchup drops from 90% favored to 30% favored, and not only this against Scarf PZ his match up stays the same. If Player 1 chooses to never protect his match up will be 90% and 0% respectively overall being 45%. If he always goes for the protect it will always be 30%. If he protects half the time, then it's 60% and 15% respectively overall being 37.5%. Player 1 playing the best he can, chooses to never go for the protect which has an overall win rate of 45%.

So despite Specs Porygon-Z having a worse matchup against Blaziken, purely by having two Porygon-Z's will Player 2's win rate rise. Not only will Player 2's win rate rise, but it will only because of an element out of Player 1's control, which according to smogon is the hallmark of an uncompetitive aspect and is one we can reasonably keep out.
 
Last edited:

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
I'm going to address this part because this bugs me. This seems to suggest there is no competitive advantage for running two of the same pokemon over two pokemon that serve a unique role. This is untrue for a simple reason: the etiquette of how you play matters.

Let's imagine for a second two people are on the ladder and have not yet decided they're changing teams yet. There's a variety of reasons they might do this such as they're trying to peak to post an RMT, they're testing a team, the current team does an exceedingly good job against the majority of the current ladder. For whatever reason (scouting, played before, good reasoning), each player knows what the other person is running. For this example, player 1 knows that player 2 is running either Mega Charizard Y and Scarf Porygon Z or Specs Porygon Z and Scarf Porygon Z and player 2 knows that player 1 is running Protect Stone Edge Blaziken. For the sake of this example, the other 3 pokemon won't be considered. You should be able to notice something here. Blaziken will be favored in the matchup against Charizard Y and Specs PZ, but unfavored against Scarf PZ. However, none of these matches are 100% and there is a chance for error in all of them.

In the first example where Species Clause exists, Player 1 will be able to play optimally with Blaziken regardless of what pokemon Player 2 uses. Against Charizard Y, he'll protect turn 1 and Stone Edge turn 2. Against Porygon Z, he'll protect turn 1, turn 2, and then HJK turn 3. This gives calculable chances of success for each match up. Match up 1 is 80% favored for Blaziken. Match up 2 is 70% favored for Porygon Z. Overall Player 1 has 55% chance beating Player 2 (assuming Player 2 chooses his pokemon equally)

However, if we are to remove Species Clause, Player 1 CANNOT play optimally in either match up. Ideally against a Specs Porygon Z, Player 1 would like to not risk going for the second Protect as he outspeeds from +1, theoretically giving him a 90% favored matchup. However, because there is no distinguishable features between specs and scarf PZ player 1 does not know if he should attempt a second protect. If he does the matchup drops from 90% favored to 30% favored, and not only this against Scarf PZ his match up stays the same. If Player 1 chooses to never protect his match up will be 90% and 0% respectively overall being 45%. If he always goes for the protect it will always be 30%. If he protects half the time, then it's 60% and 15% respectively overall being 37.5%. Player 1 playing the best he can, chooses to never go for the protect which has an overall win rate of 45%.

So despite Specs Porygon-Z having a worse matchup against Blaziken, purely by having two Porygon-Z's will Player 2's win rate rise. Not only will Player 2's win rate rise, but it will only because of an element out of Player 1's control, which according to smogon is the hallmark of an uncompetitive aspect and is one we can reasonably keep out.
I cannot dispute that a metagame without species clause enabled would make it easier for players to make which sets their mons are using more ambiguous, akin to Charizard, but I can suggest that this concept is one that already exists in the current metagame due to players who proactively change their sets to have more favorable matchups against opponents.

I can also suggest that because of this, the removal of species clause would make it more convenient for people to achieve this factor of ambiguity, but it's just that, a convenience. Of course, there are people who aren't as proactive when it comes to teambuilding, but I don't believe these people are representative of the 1v1 community as a whole, or even a majority in terms of the vocal community. Ultimately, it's not my choice who we make these kinds of changes for, but I believe that if suspect tests have any kind of comparison to clause tests, it's that the credible, knowledgeable, and overall qualified people within the community should be the ones making these choices.
 

DEG

peace
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I'm not going to reply to every argument post from above cause that would take too long but let me have my say into this. Species Clause was added for three reasons, and I'll make them all clear, first was to make the metagame more competitive by Smogon standards, make team preview rely on predictions and not just a guessing again, to diversify the metagame.

1) Our objective as a 1v1 leadership team and community is to make the metagame both enjoyable and competitive. We aren't leading a sort of only fun metagame nor something like Anything Goes. 1v1 should be treated as a competitive metagame, that should follow the same definitions as competitive. This would solidify us a a metagame trying to become better, and move forward and not be taken as a fun metagame that has no place in a competitive scene.

2) As explained above and before, having the same two Pokemon would amplify the guessing games. A lot of sets can be guessed via Team Preview by adding different same Pokemon to that Team Preview that would take out the prediction part in team preview which is an essential aspect of plays in 1v1. And that becomes worse when you have 3 of the same Pokemon which would just turn it to something as stupid as a coinflip. If you come with an argument about how the team would be bad with that, do not even bother saying it, since if the team becomes bad why are we even bothering discussing this, why don't you just drop it**.

3) Diversity has always been a problem ever since Generation 5, but in Generation 7 we are seeing more Pokemon, more sets and more cores in general. By removing Species Clause we allow people to run good Pokemon more than once which will hit diversity. This will also give the community more Pokemon to talk about being broken, "omg running 2 of this Pokemon is unpredictable, can we please get this Pokemon banned". Diversity is something we aim to get, it's something we aim to work to reach to make the metagame more enjoyable and competitive.

**We ban / unban things to bring positive changes to the metagame, if such change is either negative or neutral we do not touch it. We shouldn't waste time to make the metagame significantly worse or just add/remove for the sake of it. I don't know if I'm making sense I'm tired and decided to write stuff and clarify stuff, I'll develop if needed.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to reply to every argument post from above cause that would take too long but let me have my say into this. Species Clause was added for three reasons, and I'll make them all clear, first was to make the metagame more competitive by Smogon standards, make team preview rely on predictions and not just a guessing again, to diversify the metagame.

1) Our object as a 1v1 leadership team and community is to make the metagame both enjoyable and competitive. We aren't leading a sort of only fun metagame nor something like Anything Goes. 1v1 should be treated as a competitive metagame, that should follow the same definitions as competitive. This would solidify us a a metagame trying to become better, and move forward and not be taken as a fun metagame that has no place in a competitive scene.

2) As explained above and before, having the same two Pokemon would amplify the guessing games. A lot of sets can be guessed via Team Preview by adding different same Pokemon to that Team Preview that would take out the prediction part in team preview which is an essential aspect of plays in 1v1. And that becomes worse when you have 3 of the same Pokemon which would just turn it to something as stupid as a coinflip. If you come with an argument about how the team would be bad with that, do not even bother saying it, since if the team becomes bad why are we even bothering discussing this, why don't you just drop it**.

3) Diversity has always been a problem ever since Generation 5, but in Generation 7 we are seeing more Pokemon, more sets and more cores in general. By removing Species Clause we allow people to run good Pokemon more than once which will hit diversity. This will also give the community more Pokemon to talk about being broken, "omg running 2 of this Pokemon is unpredictable, can we please get this Pokemon banned". Diversity is something we aim to get, it's something we aim to work to reach to make the metagame more enjoyable and competitive.

**We ban / unban things to bring positive changes to the metagame, if such change is either negative or neutral we do not touch it. We shouldn't waste time to make the metagame significantly worse or just add/remove for the sake of it. I don't know if I'm making sense I'm tired and decided to write stuff and clarify stuff, I'll develop if needed.
This post is partially to DEG

Sounds great! I'm working on an informational post on what Species Clause does, just to help clarify any confusion some people have.

On the other hand, keeping Species Clause is perfectly fine. However, many people believed that it was unjustified when implemented at the beginning of the generation, but if the goal is to make 1v1 more official/public, forget about species clause. Its a Showdown wide policy (along with endless battle clause) and if you have a problem with it take it there.

However, after spending a night looking at the facts, statistics, and matchups, species clause has very little impact on the metagame. Do not argue this, it is pointless. Its simply too bad we're not going to get it.

I'll also make a post on the other things people want to consider changing.
 
I cannot dispute that a metagame without species clause enabled would make it easier for players to make which sets their mons are using more ambiguous, akin to Charizard, but I can suggest that this concept is one that already exists in the current metagame due to players who proactively change their sets to have more favorable matchups against opponents.

I can also suggest that because of this, the removal of species clause would make it more convenient for people to achieve this factor of ambiguity, but it's just that, a convenience. Of course, there are people who aren't as proactive when it comes to teambuilding, but I don't believe these people are representative of the 1v1 community as a whole, or even a majority in terms of the vocal community. Ultimately, it's not my choice who we make these kinds of changes for, but I believe that if suspect tests have any kind of comparison to clause tests, it's that the credible, knowledgeable, and overall qualified people within the community should be the ones making these choices.
I hate to have YET ANOTHER one-liner, but this is the sort of argument that really cheeses me off.
1v1 should not and cannot make decisions based on the wishes of the top 5% of all players if it wants to continue to grow. Yes, it would make it easier to get these high ELOs that you crave, but what about the new player that gets the proverbial rug pulled out of his feet with this huge change? What happens to them? In my opinion, the bans and unbans should be made more with the lower ladder in mind. One fine example of this was Deoxys-Defense. It may not have been all that great high up on ladder, but it made low ladder play hell. Believe me, sometimes I just didn’t want to play without a dedicated counter, and neither did anyone else. This takes diversity and flushes it down the tubes. While unbanning Species Clause may make your life easier, it won’t for the new players trying to get into the meta. And that is not OK.
 
make team preview rely on predictions and not just a guessing again, to diversify the metagame.
hi there quick question
what's the distinction between predicting, say, a scarf vs specs pz and guessing a kyub set alongside a zard? or simply trying to mindgame?
what exactly makes the first thing a guessing game, a game of complete chance and the others a skill based game of predictions?
 

Nalei

out!
is a Pre-Contributor
hi there quick question
what's the distinction between predicting, say, a scarf vs specs pz and guessing a kyub set alongside a zard? or simply trying to mindgame?
what exactly makes the first thing a guessing game, a game of complete chance and the others a skill based game of predictions?
During the first game, there really is no distinction; the distinction occurs after you've found out what sets your opponent has. Once you know the sets of the Charizard and Kyurem-B, because they have different sprites, you can tell what they are as soon as they click it. When your opponent has two Porygon-Zs, you know that one is Specs and one is Scarf, but not which one. This leads to the person facing off against the dual Pory-Zs to potentially make suboptimal plays. Species clause therefor, on the ladder, has potential to be uncompetitive, but in tournament style play where you only face the same team once, there's no problems with it.
 

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
I hate to have YET ANOTHER one-liner, but this is the sort of argument that really cheeses me off.
1v1 should not and cannot make decisions based on the wishes of the top 5% of all players if it wants to continue to grow. Yes, it would make it easier to get these high ELOs that you crave, but what about the new player that gets the proverbial rug pulled out of his feet with this huge change? What happens to them? In my opinion, the bans and unbans should be made more with the lower ladder in mind. One fine example of this was Deoxys-Defense. It may not have been all that great high up on ladder, but it made low ladder play hell. Believe me, sometimes I just didn’t want to play without a dedicated counter, and neither did anyone else. This takes diversity and flushes it down the tubes. While unbanning Species Clause may make your life easier, it won’t for the new players trying to get into the meta. And that is not OK.
That's a slippery slope you're walking on there, friend. Going down that path can lead to something like "Dugtrio is OP pls ban because I only use Pikachu and choose not to use anything better", you should be plenty familiar with these kind of people if you've spent as much time in the lower ladder as you lead us to believe. There's always going to be a range of people who can provide thoughtful and coherent contributions to discussion, and then... those who use Pikachu because they like Pikachu.
Heck, if you ask the lower ladder of Anything Goes, they'd probably tell you that they want all legendary pokemon banned.
 
After reading all of the previous posts and doing more thinking, this is the conclusion I have arrived at...

I still see the inclusion of a species clause as an obstacle to figuring out what mons have an unhealthy presence within the metagame. It means that said overpowered mons can hide more effectively behind their own team mates and not be as blatant in their brokenness.

However, I cannot deny some of the counter arguments that support the species clause as well. I have already talked in detail about the aspect of luck present in both non-species clause and pro-species clause teams, but I do agree that facing multiples of the same pokemon could be extremely frustrating for a new player and could hurt this mode's growth as a result.

Another aspect is, as stated above, a decrease in diversity. Yeah it's good to make it clearer which mons are broken, but once those overpowered mons are taken out of the picture we're still left with multiples of the same pokemon, which could still make diversity a challenge and limit the potential of mons who fill very specific niches in 1v1.

While I do see short term benefits to the undoing of the species clause, I cannot deny that there are some long term consequences as well.

With that being said, I am reluctantly dropping my case on the species clause.
 
That's a slippery slope you're walking on there, friend. Going down that path can lead to something like "Dugtrio is OP pls ban because I only use Pikachu and choose not to use anything better", you should be plenty familiar with these kind of people if you've spent as much time in the lower ladder as you lead us to believe. There's always going to be a range of people who can provide thoughtful and coherent contributions to discussion, and then... those who use Pikachu because they like Pikachu.
Heck, if you ask the lower ladder of Anything Goes, they'd probably tell you that they want all legendary pokemon banned.
Obviously I don’t want to ban Tapu Koko just because my favorite Pokémon are Hawlucha and Weavile. You have to think of this within reason, obviously we aren’t directly getting 1v1’s ban list from the requests of 1200 players. But huge paradigm shifts in 1v1, you might want to look at everybody it would affect, not just the well-respected and known 1v1ers.
 

Yung Dramps

awesome gaming
is a Pre-Contributor
Behold, ladies and gentlemen, for the new wave is here. While you were all busy taking a look at those mostly garbage new mons (seriously stop using Blacephalon, I like it normally but it's awful in 1v1) and somehow managing to make Laser Focus useful, I was making the REAL innovations.

794_Sprite.gif

Buzzwole @ Salac Berry
Ability: Beast Boost
EVs: 56 HP / 252 Atk / 40 SpD / 160 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Endure
- Bulk Up
- Reversal
- Rock Slide

On top of taking on the stuff it normally does, Endure Salac Buzzwole can also beat...
- Kyurem-Black
- Blacephalon
- Mega Charizard Y
- Mega Pinsir (Prediction required V.S. Sub/SD)
- Porygon-Z
- Hoopa-Unbound
- Archeops (You do need to be careful against Fly variants)
- Volcarona
- Marowak-Alola
- Heatran

The Speed EVs let you outspeed base 110s after Salac Berry, and the Attack EVs w/ nature are to maximize firepower. The remaining EVs are there to beat Marowak.
 
Last edited:

Nalei

out!
is a Pre-Contributor
Behold, ladies and gentlemen, for the new wave is here. While you were all busy taking a look at those mostly garbage new mons (seriously stop using Blacephalon, I like it normally but it's awful in 1v1) and somehow managing to make Laser Focus useful, I was making the REAL innovations.

View attachment 92188
Buzzwole @ Salac Berry
Ability: Beast Boost
EVs: 56 HP / 252 Atk / 40 SpD / 160 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Endure
- Bulk Up
- Drain Punch
- Rock Slide

On top of taking on the stuff it normally does, Endure Salac Buzzwole can also beat...
- Kyurem-Black
- Blacephalon
- Mega Charizard Y
- Mega Pinsir (Prediction required V.S. Sub/SD)
- Porygon-Z
- Hoopa-Unbound
- Archeops (You do need to be careful against Fly variants)
- Volcarona
- Marowak-Alola
- Heatran
The Speed EVs let you outspeed base 110s after Salac Berry, and the Attack EVs w/ nature are to maximize firepower. The remaining EVs are there to beat Marowak.
If you're running Endure, why not Reversal? Also, Scarf variants of most of those mons mess up Buzzwole.
 
After a few battles here on 1v1, I've come up with a list of my favorite Pokemon to use. I'll list them by serious sets then gimmick sets and a few teams of each. You can add them to the sample folder so that new people to 1v1 can dunk Gyarados and Dragonites with Pikachu in my absence.

Serious Sets:

Gyarados @ Gyaradosite
Ability: Intimidate
EVs: 248 HP / 160 Atk / 100 Spe
Adamant Nature
IVs: 0 SpA
- Dragon Dance
- Outrage
- Waterfall
- Earthquake

A very bulky Gyarados who's been reliable at taking down what I designed it to take down.

Pairs nicely with pokemon that have trouble with:
Kyurem-B, Charizard-Y*, Charizard-X, Pranksters, Fear, Magnezone*, Dragonite, Heatran, Blaziken-M*, Whimsicott*, Excadrill, Latios, Haxorus, Marowak-A, Garchomp, Donphan and more.


Basic strategies:
Take a Solarbeam from Charizard-Y as a regular Gyarados while you set up a Dragon Dance. Finish off with a waterfall as a mega if the Chary will use Blast Burn. If the Chary is bulky, and can tank a Waterfall, set up a second Dragon Dance as a regular Gyarados or simply go for the 30% flinch. Mathematically odds are in your favor. If the Charizard-Y uses Will-o-wisp, continue the Dragon Dances for flavor and kill with a chance to crit, flinch, or rely on their bad defensive stats. People will C-team with ancient power or hidden power electric - you'll still live and have successfully weakened their Charizard set. Pick teammates that appreciate a bad Charizard-Y set to fully take advantage of the desperate person

Mega Immediately and Dragon Dance. Outrage. If they live, it's a bad Charizard-X set.
+1 160+ Atk Mold Breaker Gyarados-Mega Outrage vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Charizard-Mega-X: 310-366 (86.1 - 101.6%) -- 12.5% chance to OHKO
The bulkiest of Charx's can't win every match against a +1 gyarados.
Dragonite will use the same strategy and as a bonus, test one match to see if a single outrage will kill.

Mega Immediately and Earthquake. If they go first, they're running at least 188+ speed. Watch to see if they use a z-move because they might be scarved. 252 SpA Magnezone Zap Cannon vs. 248 HP / 0 SpD Gyarados-Mega: 314-372 (79.8 - 94.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO. Dont worry about the scarf set.

Blaziken's dual stabs are resisted by regular Gyarados. Stay as a regular Gyarados the whole match. Blazikens love to sub or protect turn one so go ahead and treat yourself to a Dragon Dance. You'll get c-teamed with Thunder Punch Mega Blaziken so try to play mind games. If you stay regular turn 1, you will for sure bait out the turn 2 Thunder Punch - mega if you expect this. +1 252+ Atk Blaziken-Mega Thunder Punch vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 294-346 (74.8 - 88%) -- guaranteed 2HKO -- After they swords dance t1.

Learn the set after a few losses. Mega vs Regular Gyarados depends on if the Donphan is Z-Rock or Z-Ground. Waterfall vs Dragon dance depends on if they z-move turn-1 or use counter (bad set). Never touch a Donphan unless you're Mega Gyarados.

Mega Immediately and Dragon Dance. Follow up with an Outrage.

-1 252 Atk Teravolt Kyurem-Black Fusion Bolt vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 166-196 (42.2 - 49.8%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
You'll live against 2 full Fusion bolts.

-1 252+ Atk Choice Band Teravolt Kyurem-Black Fusion Bolt vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 272-322 (69.2 - 81.9%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
-1 252+ Atk Teravolt Kyurem-Black Gigavolt Havoc (180 BP) vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 328-386 (83.4 - 98.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
-1 252+ Atk Teravolt Kyurem-Black Fusion Bolt vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 182-216 (46.3 - 54.9%) -- 62.1% chance to 2HKO
Scarier territory here but you'll live outside of a critical hit. (1/16 games)

-1 252+ Atk Teravolt Kyurem-Black Subzero Slammer (200 BP) vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 135-160 (34.3 - 40.7%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
I think they're trying to show off.

+1 160+ Atk Mold Breaker Gyarados-Mega Outrage vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Kyurem-Black: 334-394 (73.5 - 86.7%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
without their +attack nature, you'll tank their fusion bolts.

+1 160+ Atk Mold Breaker Gyarados-Mega Outrage vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Haban Berry Kyurem-Black: 167-197 (36.7 - 43.3%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
Even if Haban Berry, You'll still deal 110.2% minimum with two Outrages. (36.7% from haban hit + 73.5% full hit).

+1 252 Atk Teravolt Kyurem-Black Fusion Bolt vs. 248 HP / 0 Def Gyarados-Mega: 372-438 (94.6 - 111.4%) -- 68.8% chance to OHKO
Even Impossible 252 HP/252+ Attack/ 252+ Defense Kyurem-B @ Weakness Policy can not OHKO Gyarados every time.


Important things to remember: Pranksters can not status you when you're a dark type. Baiting a Tapu-Lele works 0% of the time. If you've been Trick-Or-Treated or hit by Truant Entrainment, going mega will return your stats and ability to the classic dark-water with mold breaker. The faster Gyarados intimdates first.


Metagross-Mega @ Metagrossite
Ability: Clear Body
EVs: 116 HP / 252 Atk / 140 SpD
Careful Nature
- Meteor Mash
- Bullet Punch
- Earthquake
- Zen Headbutt/ Coverage Punch

Why this set is fun:
252 SpA Tapu Koko Gigavolt Havoc (185 BP) vs. 116 HP / 140+ SpD Metagross-Mega in Electric Terrain: 271-319 (82.1 - 96.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
252+ SpA Tapu Koko Gigavolt Havoc (185 BP) vs. 116 HP / 140+ SpD Metagross-Mega in Electric Terrain: 295-348 (89.3 - 105.4%) -- 37.5% chance to OHKO

Pairs nicely with Pokemon who have trouble with:
Tapu Lele, Tapu Koko, Tapu Bulu, Kyurem-B, Magnezone, Diancie, Venusaur-M, Porygon-Z, Mimikyu*, Lopunny-M, Magearna, Crustle, Golem*, Mawile-M, and more depending on your fourth move coverage.
Check to see the Z-Move Mimikyu and Golem carry before going Metagross.

Important things to remember: Metagross is weaker than Metagross-Mega so if you know your opponent will bait a Metal Burst or Counter, the best option is to do a light hit from Metagross-Mega such as bullet punch or stay as regular Metagross and use a stronger hit like Meteor Mash.
Clear Body is important to block charm spammers and -speed moves like rock tomb or bulldoze.

Metagross-Mega @ Metagrossite
Ability: Clear Body
EVs: 240 HP / 148 Atk / 120 Def
Impish Nature
- Meteor Mash
- Bullet Punch
- Earthquake
- Zen Headbutt/ Coverage Punch

An older set used if Crunch Gyarados and other larger physical threats challenge your team. I use the Special Defensive one more.


Magnezone @ Electrium Z
Ability: Sturdy
EVs: 252 SpA / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Modest Nature
- Electroweb
- Zap Cannon
- Flash Cannon
- Hidden Power [Ice]/ Hidden Power [Fire]/ Mirror Coat/ Hyper Beam/ Protect

Great little guy who takes down a multidude of threats and easy to understand evs. Last move is really up to you.

Pairs nicely with Pokemon who have trouble with:
Charizard-Y, Diancie, Tapu Koko, Tapu Lele, Tapu Fini, Magearna, Slowbro, Mimikyu, Nonbulky-Metagross, Jirachi, Heatran*, Porygon-Z, Gardevoir, Altaria, Celesteela, and more depending on your last move.

How to use a Magnezone: Electroweb--> Z-Zap Cannon. The Ev's put you just faster than a base 100 speed pokemon such as Charizard, Victini, etc. Z-Zap Cannon for maximum power. Statistically Zap Cannon is second only two Thunder wave when it comes to landing paralysis and the opponent being immobilized on the same turn. Thunder Wave: 22.50%. Zap Cannon: 12.50%. Thunder: 5.25%, Thunderbolt, 2.50%. (Tri Attack: 1.6675% or 3.9175% if you include Freezing for a turn.)
Be careful against Rock Tomb bulky Heatrans. Try not to get too trigger happy with the z-move either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oh heckaroon (Diancie-Mega) @ Diancite
Ability: Clear Body
EVs: 252 HP / 96 SpA / 160 Spe
Modest Nature
- Protect
- Diamond Storm
- Earth Power
- Moonblast

chrispy's boi (Heracross-Mega) @ Heracronite
Ability: Guts
EVs: 248 HP / 108 Def / 152 SpD
Impish Nature
IVs: 0 SpA
- Close Combat
- Bullet Seed
- Pin Missile
- Counter

what sample (Greninja) @ Waterium Z
Ability: Protean
EVs: 252 SpA / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Ice Beam
- Hydro Cannon
- Grass Knot
- Hyper Beam

PPstall that venus (Venusaur-Mega) @ Venusaurite
Ability: Chlorophyll
EVs: 248 HP / 8 Def / 252 SpD
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk / 30 Spe
- Leech Seed
- Charm
- Giga Drain
- Synthesis

whatchagotthere (Banette-Mega) @ Banettite
Ability: Frisk
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 248 HP / 252 Def / 8 SpD
Relaxed Nature
- Disable
- Protect
- Phantom Force
- Will-O-Wisp

OG Slow (Aggron-Mega) @ Aggronite
Ability: Sturdy
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 252 HP / 12 Def / 244 SpD
Relaxed Nature
IVs: 0 SpA / 0 Spe
- Protect
- Seismic Toss
- Metal Burst
- Rock Slide

Ponyboy (Altaria-Mega) @ Altarianite
Ability: Cloud Nine
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 248 HP / 216 SpA / 44 SpD
Modest Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Draco Meteor
- Hyper Voice
- Flamethrower
- Ice Beam

Rodman (Conkeldurr) @ Assault Vest
Ability: Iron Fist
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 248 HP / 8 Atk / 252 SpD
Careful Nature
- Drain Punch
- Earthquake
- Mach Punch
- Thunder Punch

Heatnar (Heatran) @ Air Balloon
Ability: Flash Fire
EVs: 4 HP / 252 SpA / 252 Spe
Modest Nature
- Rock Tomb
- Overheat
- Flash Cannon
- Earth Power

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fresh sets
Tapu Meme (Tapu Fini) @ Tapunium Z
Ability: Misty Surge
EVs: 252 HP / 4 Def / 252 SpD
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Nature's Madness
- Nature Power
- Brine
- Protect

If you land a 130BP brine on an opponent you win in spirit no matter who wins the battle.


anime is real (Pikachu) @ Light Ball
Ability: Static
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 Def / 252 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Endure
- Fake Out
- Reversal
- Volt Tackle
Fake out -> Volt Tackle to hell
Fake out -> Endure -> Big ol wallop of a Reversal.
Fake out -> Endure to take a contact move and 30% to paralyze opponent -> Reversal Dunk
Fake out -> Tapu Koko really thinks you have lighting rod -> spam Volt Tackle


Fresh Gimmicks (Skarmory) @ Quick Claw
Ability: Sturdy
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Def / 4 SpD
Relaxed Nature
IVs: 0 Spe
- Toxic
- Fly / Sky Drop
- Roost
- Protect

Protect-> Toxic -> Protect -> Pray that 20% actually works.
The goal is to Quick Claw fly, force your opponent to miss, then turn 2 the opponent misses and you fly down after, giving your two turns of immunity and toxic damage. When lined up with protect that is Four straight turns of damage. Without leftovers, toxic will kill in 5 Turns. A perfect match requires at least this: Toxic lands, Protect, QClaw Fly up, land the Fly, Protect. Sky drop is even funnier than fly and you'll get ELO in my heart.
Odds of this working are 90% to land the toxic, 20% to fly up, 80% not to land early: 14.4%. However if you so much as deal ~10% damage from fly, they'll faint a turn early. It's a quality laugh.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jirachi @ Steelium Z
Ability: Serene Grace
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 248 HP / 36 Def / 224 Spe
Timid Nature
- Doom Desire
- Fire Punch
- Thunderbolt
- Moonblast

Jumpluff @ Apicot Berry
Ability: Infiltrator
EVs: 4 Def / 252 SpD / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 HP / 0 Atk
- Strength Sap
- Substitute
- Protect
- Leech Seed

Mawile Killer (Clefable) @ Weakness Policy
Ability: Unaware
EVs: 228 Def / 180 SpA / 100 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Reflect
- Flamethrower
- Moonblast
- Protect

Cresselia @ Psychium Z
Ability: Levitate
EVs: 248 HP / 252 Def / 8 SpD
Bold Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Future Sight
- Toxic
- Moonlight
- Protect

Nature Koko (Tapu Koko) @ Normalium Z
Ability: Electric Surge
EVs: 32 HP / 4 Def / 252 SpA / 220 Spe
Modest Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Nature Power
- Hyper Beam
- Charge
- Substitute

Suicune @ Waterium Z
Ability: Pressure
EVs: 248 HP / 16 Def / 96 SpA / 148 SpD
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Rain Dance
- Hydro Pump
- Whirlpool
- Mirror Coat

Pretty darn good (Drilbur) @ Choice Scarf
Ability: Mold Breaker
EVs: 252 Atk / 64 SpD / 192 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Earthquake
- Poison Jab
- Rock Slide
- Drill Run

Hell yeah (Doduo) @ Salac Berry
Ability: Early Bird
EVs: 68 HP / 252 Atk / 188 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Brave Bird
- Endure
- Flail
- Rest

Man (Mantyke) @ Eviolite
Ability: Water Absorb
EVs: 248 HP / 252 Def / 8 SpD
Relaxed Nature
- Toxic
- Scald
- Confuse Ray
- Dive
 
Last edited:

Rosa

AAAAAAA
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator

Welcome to the introduction of our first 1v1 room project: 1v1 Championship. This project will start every month and like its name indicates it's going to be a leaderboard points based championship. Points will be given out depending on how many peoples are in the tour and how many games you win in the tour, those are calculated by *Scrappie. There's going to be a series of single elimination tournaments, since the bot cannot count double eliminations or round robin. We will include a pool of metagames that will be played.

Metagames: SM 1v1, ORAS 1v1, UU 1v1, Monotype 1v1, AG 1v1, AAA 1v1, Sketchmons 1v1. More will be added as they will be out of developmental mode.

Rules:
-Single Elimination.
-We will start with hosting 2 tours per day separated by 12 hours and increase to 4 per day separated by 6 hours if needed. The time will be 4 AM and 4 PM EDT, so like 8 and 8 PM UTC.
-Winner gets included in the hall of fame for now, maybe there will be more prizes.


Samples teams are HIGHLY appreciated from now on, also rules about the 1v1 OMs will be out soon, stay tuned!

Starting June the 1st.
June: charizard8888
July: DEG
August: Blazikin
Requesting that we put this along with the current month's tournament schedule either on the front page of the thread or in a roomfaq/rfaq so that we can avoid the daily confusion of our late night tournaments. In addition, we should have the commands for creating the tournaments in the staffintro or something just so that way when we're in the middle of the night pulling some random global auth to make the official because nobody else is online, they'll at least know what they're doing without having to bend over backwards trying to figure out how to add the same type clause to 1v1 or something like that-
Also,
Who in their right mind thought 4 AM EST would ever work well-
 
I know that this might not seem like the right place to put this but I might aswell as it only affects the 1v1 community, and I personally feel that it's pretty important that others see it.

my entire life has been flipped upside down in the past few days
everything I was once good at, no longer
and being suicidal constantly on top of all the other shit I have to deal with from school and my parents is "ok" and that it's all going to be ok but I sincerely doubt that
I come to PS to escape all that and when i get constant hax and pestering
it makes me very upset
I'm trying to cope with it all and PS is one of my only outlets
and now I can barely even play it anymore without tilting off the face of the earth from hax and other stupid stuff
and now that I can no longer win tours or do anywhere remotely good on ladder I don't see much of a reason for playing the game
I know no one really cares about that or what is happening to me
but if someone takes the time to read through it thank you for listening, it means a lot.
I'm sorry and apologize sincerely for any pain I have caused in the past few days with my words but life is tough currently and it doesn't look like its getting any better
I'm trying my best to win the monthly tour so maybe I can get room voice like I've always wanted
and I know just about everyone here is just going to say that RV means basically nothing and it shouldn't matter
but I have different values than everyone else and it's just what I want
so when I lose all these tours I get a bit heated and angry because everything in my life just looks horrible and no good
so again im sorry to anyone I have hurt in my fits of anger

I have wanted to just not deal with it all for so long now and stop doing everything, and RV tour has given me a small amount of hope that maybe it'll show i can rise to the challenge and become something
but now that's all going downhill
but I can try
its the best I can do at this point since I can't do much of anything else with my mom constantly abusing me mentally and emotionally
saying I'm not good enough to be much of anything
and constantly berating me
it takes a toll on the heart when it's been going on for this long and I don't really want to deal with it much anymore
but I might aswell own up to my mistakes incase I decide to act upon my feelings
which is exactly why I decided to apologize here for everything said
and say that

I'm sorry.

If I ever disappear without saying why, I'm pretty sure the reason will be obvious.

I hope to become better with myself, and if I actually do win the RV monthly tour, I am sure that I will become much better, and a much nicer user. Something good would have happened in my life and I would be forever grateful.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. It means a lot more than you think it might, even if it doesn't apply to you.
Have a good day everyone.
 
Last edited:
It may have fallen off a fair bit since last gen, but Mega Sableye still has what it takes to be a very useful member in 1v1.

This is a core that I recently made that I have had some pretty nice success with.

Family Jewels Core

Sableye-Mega @ Sablenite
Ability: Prankster
EVs: 248 HP / 8 SpA / 252 SpD
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Will-O-Wisp
- Snarl
- Taunt
- Recover

Venusaur-Mega @ Venusaurite
Ability: Thick Fat
EVs: 232 HP / 180 Def / 80 SpD / 16 Spe
Bold Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Charm
- Leech Seed
- Synthesis
- Sludge Bomb/Giga Drain

Gyarados-Mega @ Gyaradosite
Ability: Intimidate
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 88 HP / 252 Atk / 80 Def / 88 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Dragon Dance
- Outrage
- Waterfall
- Taunt/Crunch

Sableye is a powerful answer to many anti-meta pokemon such as Heatran, Magnezone, sturdy users, Mega Slowbro, Meloetta, etc. Venusaur pairs wonderfully with Sableye and covers a huge amount of physical attackers which can beat it. Mega gyarados is simply there to fill in as many little gaps that remain as possible (the set can be easily changed to suit your needs obviously). I prefer Venusaur defensive and Sableye specially defensive, but they can always reverse roles if you want.

For lack of a better term, this core has shown itself to be great at disrupting other disruptors and seems to have an above average performance against more niche 1v1 cores that are used against more common cores.

Favourable Matchups:
Choice Scarf
Mega Slowbro
Aggron
Aegislash
Jumpluff
Zygarde-Complete
Basically all sturdy users
Snorlax
Naganadel

However, this team does have a few poor matchups.

Countered by:
Physically defensive Tapu Lele
Mega Gardevoir

Unfavourable matchups:
Charizard Y
Mega Pinsir
Mega Heracross

With these strengths/weaknesses, this core prefers to face more niche threats and beat them at their own game. I usually find this core to be better as a counterteam than an outright laddering team but I still find this core to be very solid. Now have yourself a good day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top