For my Garchomp set, I would probably just use Dual Chop on Giratina, and then use Ice Shard before it can Heal / Destiny Bond.Adapt is better since STAB draco or scales or core smacks giratina which with prankster beats this set.
What about Soundproof blocking Clanging Scales? Couldn't we just use neither ability for overall damage comparisons? Also, if they have Misty Surge teammates, Dragon moves are cut in half.It also smacks fc bro which walls this set as well.
For Thousand Arrows, Celesteela is hit neutrally on the first hit, while Bolt Strike can be a 1HKO surprise move. They can switch out Celesteela once they see you have Thousand Arrows, with Bolt Strike they just get knocked out.Finally on adapt Arrows is a thing which this set can’t run viably.
For Tough Claws, you have to Run High Horsepower for the ability to kick in, only making it about as strong as Precipice Blades without an ability. Then if you use Tectonic Rage, you miss out on Life Orb since you have to run Groundium-Z, and Tough Claws doesn't boost Tectonic Rage unless the base move itself is contact, and at that point you are substituting Life Orb with Tough Claws for a 1-time use base power move (which they could predict and switch to a resist/Immune), and then you have basically a useless item.Also tech dual chop is 120 bp you are probably better off running tc tantrum hammers filler.
I agree, I find that for the PHeal Normals listed, a slow Core Enforcer is their bane. Xerneas can block Core Enforcer, take hits thanks to the SpD boost, abuse Magma Storm to trap and set-up. Earth Power can be substituted over Spore or Magma Storm to hit Flash Fire foes, and seems self-sufficient, plus an Immunity to Dragon Tail doesn't hurt. With Knock Off team support, Spectral Thieves are Spored. Now, it appears more reliable than Slaking or Regigigas as a PHeal sweeper.some noms
View attachment 147843mmx a -> a+: mmx is a legitimate contender for s rank, so i think placing it in a does it a massive disservice. it's one of the scariest and most versatile wallbreakers in the tier — mmx is so hard to prep for bc it can run so many different sets with very different counters and its bulk and speed make it very difficult to check offensively. to me it is undoubtedly one of the best mons in the tier currently and i think it is easily on par with the mons in a+
View attachment 147844shedinja a- -> a/a+: shedinja is really underrated atm i feel. there are very few pokemon in the tier that place a greater restriction on teambuilding than shed. it just does so much in one teamslot — shed is a phenomenal wall, a terrifying wallbreaker, an incredible pivot, and it just wins some matchups single-handedly. its frailty and the team support it necessitates are notable flaws ofc, but i think they are often overstated and they are far outweighed by shedinja's many, many strengths
View attachment 147845View attachment 147846gigas/slaking a -> a-: these two are good but very predictable and it feels like every team is really well prepped for them atm. they just feel a bit outclassed by other ph sweepers and i dont really think they're quite on the same level as the other stuff in a rank rn
View attachment 147847solgaleo a- -> b+/b: solgaleo being a tier above dusk-mane is pretty nonsensical atm. solgaleo's bulk is only marginally better, and dusk-mane has the benefit of lower speed, better attack (2hkos aud with anchor), and more viable offensive sets, making it more unpredictable. solgaleo's better speed can be an advantage, but at that point it faces competition from mega metagross. solgaleo almost never shows up in high level play nowadays and the metagame just doesn't feel kind to it. i think a drop for this mon is long overdue
View attachment 147848mega aerodactyl c-> b-: mega aero does a whole lot of cool stuff. its strongest set i feel is the cb tough claws set with like ascent/cc/uturn/ice, which just does so much cool stuff: outspeeds and ohkos mmx, mmy, gengar, scept while also having the power to 2hko tina with stab ascent. unlike other comparable superfast physical attackers like mosa and the bee, aero has the typing and bulk to take common priority moves; aero comfortably lives +3 modest lo owing from triage ray and ohkos it in return with ice hammer, and it can live stuff like mdiancie fakespeed. aero matches up very well against the current metagame i feel; it's difficult for many teams to wall and it offers defensive utility by checking a lot of common offensive threats (did u know it outspeeds +1 pogre and does like 90% with ascent?). from my experience with it, it feels a step above the rest of c rank atm
View attachment 147849mega metagross ur -> c/d: big gross is an awkward mon that has always struggled to find a niche, but a 700 bst steel type kinda has to be at least somewhat viable. the scarf regen set that has been popping up on ladder recently is a really solid pivot that can serve as a pretty reliable offensive switch-in to -ates and various mmy sets. it also has some decent offensive sets that function as a faster but slightly weaker dusk mane, or a bulkier but weaker kartana. gross feels pretty underexplored currently and im sure there are other good gross sets yet to be discovered. i definitely think it's at least as viable as all the stuff in d rank currently and on par with a lot of the dudes in c
nah, i think they're really similar enough to pretty much always share a ranking unless an attacker that beats one but not the other becomes super popular, which it really hasn't.I think we should try and identify what makes Slaking and Regigigas different, and if they even out then pair them back together again, but I believe they are often treated as conjoined twins, rather than at least fraternal twins.
1. If Giratina is using a + Def Nature, then even with Sap Sipper it would be 2HKOed:FYI standard prank Tina runs Sap over DBond to reliably answer Band Adapt MMX and other physical wallbreakers.
Also Tech Dual Chop is 120 BP, which is unboosted Pblades, just pointing that out.
You aren’t using calcs with an item on Adapt set when comparing.
Btw not trying to pointing out everything but there are some stuff that are inaccurate.
Thanks for the reply, I meant horsepower mb
Ice Shard seems good enough for this to be unique ig
1. Aren't PHeal MMX, Contrarian MMX, and Pheromosa popular?nah, i think they're really similar enough to pretty much always share a ranking unless an attacker that beats one but not the other becomes super popular, which it really hasn't.
besides, with both of them their viability stems more from how common their defensive checks are, not their offensive checks (which they don't really have after a shift gear boost). slaking and regigigas have the exact same defensive checks because their attack and speed are the same.
so yeah, slaking and regigigas are different in that some teams would prefer slaking and others would do better with regi, but i don't think they're really distinct mons in terms of viability. if slaking is a-, regigigas is a-, and so on.
You made a useful post, but omitted Safety Goggles Shedinja. I know Safety Pads can be used but they are not always used. Some Regi/Slaking use Spectral Thief over Knock Off as well.Proofread/accurate enough
I don't disagree that some kind of framework would be helpful, but I don't think rank descriptions are the best option for several reasons.so there's been a few things about the bh vr that have kinda annoyed me for a while, which i was reminded of when i was writing that nom post earlier. the big problem is that the ranks are not in any way defined. S rank, A rank, B rank etc don't intrinsically mean anything; they're just letters that can be interpreted however you please. this is a problem for a few reasons.
- it makes the vr kinda unhelpful for newer players. a person just starting to get into bh might take a look at the vr to get a sense of what the best mons in the tier are, which pokemon are worth using, etc. with the ranks being completely undefined, it may be unclear to a new player how they should interpret the vr. how much better are the pokemon in A rank than the ones in B rank? are D rank pokemon worth using? without any sort of rank descriptions or definition, the vr is much less useful as an informational resource.
- it makes it really hard to effectively argue to move pokemon around. because the ranks don't intrinsically mean anything, the only point you can reasonably make to change a pokemon's rank is something like 'i think its better than the other pokemon in its rank' or 'its as good as the pokemon in this rank', which doesn't really mean anything. so many of the debates in this thread about what rank pokemon should be in often ultimately just come down to different people having different conceptions of what the different ranks mean, which is really just not very productive. having the ranks actually be defined makes it possible to make a proper reasoned case for moving mons beyond 'i think mmx should be in a+ bc it is as good as gengar'
- it makes it unclear what criteria the rankings are based on. the pokemon on the vr are ranked based on 'viability', but that's a very nebulous term that isn't actually defined anywhere. should we rank pokemon based on the strength of their best set, or should we consider all of their viable sets in aggregate? as an example, xerneas is ranked solely on the strength of the poison heal set, and it doesn't really have any other viable sets. to contrast, mega tyranitar has like half a dozen viable sets, but none of them are as good as xern's ph set individually. how highly should that versatility be weighed? on another note, to what extent should we consider team support? on a team built to fit it, shedinja is one of the strongest pokemon in the meta, but the support that it requires means that it only fits on a small number of teams. should shedinja be penalised on these rankings for that? these questions are pretty important to have a consensus on when it comes to making a viability ranking, and so defining the ranks in some way would help with this and make the whole thing feel a lot less arbitrary.
i'm proposing that we collectively come up with a set of rank descriptors to define what the ranks mean and lay out the criteria by which pokemon are ranked. something like what the vgc vr has, but with the descriptions tweaked to fit bh.
I think we should just have a common threats checklist:I don't disagree that some kind of framework would be helpful, but I don't think rank descriptions are the best option for several reasons.
First off, BH is a diverse enough metagame that any kind of actual descriptor of importance would be either infeasably long or woefully inadequate. For instance, lets take a look at the current A+ rank:
Diancie-Mega![]()
Giratina![]()
Kyogre-Primal![]()
Gengar-Mega![]()
Registeel![]()
All these mons are the best at what they do, so perhaps that might seem like a decent descriptor, but how does that mesh with shedinja or Kangaskhan or Kartana or Chansey or Kyurem-B being lower down? They aren't all equally splashable (something like Gengar is significantly less splashable than FC Chansey, for instance, despite the rank difference, and Gengar is also way less splashable than registeel), they aren't all critical to their build type...
Secondly, to take a step even further back from this, What's with the reductionist attitude towards "'I think its better than the other Pokemon in its rank?" Even with a descriptor, that doesn't solve this "problem," because said "problem" is intrinsic to the concept of a VR. No matter what your ranking metric is, they're designed to separate Pokemon into ranges of quality, and by reducing your own complex and highly adapted intuition and feel for "how good a Pokemon is" to a few sentences that fail to capture all the information you do, you're purposefully limiting your own effectiveness. Like, intuition is a good thing, and it's worth using when available, because people's brains are pretty good at implicit multi factor analysis if they can avoid major bias, while they're comparatively far worse at explicit comparative analysis.
I get the argument that it might shorten arguments, but I think it's pretty obvious that instead of discussing a Pokemon's merits badly, the annoying arguments under the new system would transform into definition disputes and picking apart word choice while the good arguments wouldn't change much.
Doing that would be near impossible because in order to have a checklist for every archetype possible would defeat the purpose of adding it, which is to help out new players. The checklist would have to be extremely exhaustive to accomplish its goals, but then new players would most likely be confused on where to start. Also, factors of a good team are universal in some areas, but others are quite objective. What makes a good balance team to you (for example at least one unaware user; at most two defensive mons) could be different for me (2-3 defensive mons with prankster/mbounce/other). While balance is very clear cut (uses like 3 offensive/2defensive/imposter iirc), other archetypes like HO vary wildly. Within the blanket types of teams, there are subsets like ShedStall, Dual Regen Stall, Pressure Stall, etc. all being parts of stall.I think we should just have a common threats checklist:
[X] 1 Steel-Type on your team to resist -Ates, and many other common Attack types like Psychic.
[_] 1 Ghost-Type to stop Shedinja from using Endeavor, and block Rapid Spin.
[_] 1 Status absorber to handle Spore, etc. such as a Misty Surger, Poison Healer, Comatose, Magic Bouncer, and so on.
[_] 2 or less Pokémon on your team sharing a weakness to each type.
*Role compression also needs to be highlighted, as that alone is what makes niche Pokémon like Aegislash viable in the first place: a Ghost and a Steel Type.
TLDR: Create a Teambuilding Checklist of universally common things to prepare for, or at least to consider, so that way people are aware of why they are picking a Pokémon for their team.
This way people can think of it as a RMT checklist when looking at the VR rankings.
Alternatively, we could just expand the Role Compendium with a sentence beside the choices, without going through the entire VR list per set.
It wouldn’t be all subtypes, just the secure things teams always use, like Stealth Rock. Has any team not used Stealth Rock?Doing that would be near impossible because in order to have a checklist for every archetype possible would defeat the purpose of adding it, which is to help out new players. The checklist would have to be extremely exhaustive to accomplish its goals, but then new players would most likely be confused on where to start. Also, factors of a good team are universal in some areas, but others are quite objective. What makes a good balance team to you (for example at least one unaware user; at most two defensive mons) could be different for me (2-3 defensive mons with prankster/mbounce/other). While balance is very clear cut (uses like 3 offensive/2defensive/imposter iirc), other archetypes like HO vary wildly. Within the blanket types of teams, there are subsets like ShedStall, Dual Regen Stall, Pressure Stall, etc. all being parts of stall.
Honestly I think that while the VR isn't in the best spot right now, there's no way* to add to it without adding things that would confuse newer players too. IDT it would accomplish that much. QT said it well.
Just my two cents; sorry it was late here when I wrote this if you can't understand my ramblings I can pm or smth
*realize i'm dumb and there's probably something I'm missing