More Thoughts on Stealth Rock

Do you support the testing of a Stealth Rockless metagame?


  • Total voters
    674
Status
Not open for further replies.

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Let's go ahead and list the SR weak things in OU that are being held back by the opressive 25% or more damage that's being taken.

3. Salamence
Despite his SR weakness compromising his limited bulk (when not EVd to take hits) so that every Ice Beam basically OHKOs him, Salamence is probably the scariest Pokémon in the metagame right now.

4. Zapdos
One of the most versitale Pokémon in the metagame, used as a supporter that handles Scizor or a Baton Passer or a sweeper. The SR weak barely hurts at all, other than taking CB Returns.

6. Gyarados
Much like Salamence, except Thunderbolt needs some power behind it and is less common on tanks. Basically, SR doesn't hurt its standard set, and Bulky Gyarados wasn't exactly stellar anyway.

10. Shaymin-S
People want this banned in the current metagame (though I completely disagree with them). Stealth Rock is one popular way of handling it in the metagame, and while that's a dumb reason to "not ban" SR, it's more proof that SR is being used to handle threats.

Guys. People choose to use SR partially because it makes checking DP threats much, much easier. I think rather than unfairly punishing anything (except Moltres), SR is so popular because of these guys.
 

Darkmalice

Level 3
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Actually, RS having no SR makes it all the more relevant. It shows that even without SR discriminating against them, these types are all mediocre anyway, to the point that they aren't being used even without SR. It's because they're bad typings in general, their SR weakness notwithstanding.
It is near impossible to compare the RS metagame, one heavily based on stall, to the DS metagame, which by direct contrast, is heavily based on offensive. SR is by far, not the only change in the metagame. For example, SR greatly benefited Claydol, yet despite being OU in RS, it became UU for other big reasons (e.g. harder attackers physically and specially, and Tyranitar's improvements).


Many of those BL pokemon gained improvements in this generation (admittely though, most of those you mentioned would remain BL). Crobat was #60 in October Usages; it could be OU without SR. Abomasnow, Charizard and Arcanine are not trailing far behind Crobat in terms of usage.
I would confidently bet that Moltres would be OU; it's faster than Heatran, has Roost, U-turn and STAB Air Slash > STAB Flash Cannon. Magmortar is also faster and has Thunderbolt and Focus Punch. Scarf Tyhlosion may become OU, for Eruption could be prepared with Focus Punch for Heatran and Blissey.

But most importantly, we cannot say, for sure, that SR has a massive effect on these pokemon, Salamance, Zapdos, Gyarados and Skymin till it is tested. "SR does this to that pokemon and that to another pokemon, what happens if SR goes?" We can all guess what happens, but the guess won't be completely reliable. Froslass could even end up OU - with no SR weakness, Sash is viable on non-lead Froslass (and she's immune to Hail), and Ice Beam or Thunderbolt for the many flying pokemon, and with the sash inact, is able to swap into Salamance and Gyarados, survive and OHKO back. But this is just a guess. No amount of facts discussing the effect on SR in the current metagame can accurately say what will happen without SR.
 
^He thinks it has Levitate and not Snow Cloak.

Anyways, a resurgence of Hail would mean Walrein would see more use, and Regice is nice for Skymin, as well as being a pretty good special tank all-around. Special Rock and Steel attacks are rare, so only the fighting and fire weaks are really relevant, and 100 base defense certainly beats Blissey. Articuno can be a decent support pokemon and be quite tough to take down when EV'd properly, but its weaknesses mean it'll have difficulty in OU, though immunity to spikes, tspikes, and hail is always nice. Maybe even Houndoom and its unique STAB could make a name for itself. Ho-oh, of course, would be fairly clearly uber without SR.

Oh, and SDS, while Abomasnow does have a lot of weaknesses, he has a few resistances in nice places. Water, Grass, and Electric resists with a neutral to Ice means there are very few bulky waters he can't come in on, and Auto-Hail is a really, really nice ability. Leech seed increases his survivabiliy, and STAB Wood Hammers, Blizzards, and Grass Knots are a threat to a lot of things.

And Chris is me, I'm confused by your post. You seem to be saying that SR doesn't really hurt those 4 that much.
 
Nothing is fair. And nothing has to be fair. Articuno has semi-uber total stats, yet classified as UU, (well, one of the factors is SR). Breloom has a pathetic 460 total stat, but would casue lots of pain.

ETC

In fact, I feel that no moves should be banned.

Note: To make the metagame fair, Nintendo has to make more entry harzard moves, other than the three we are having right now.
 

Mario With Lasers

Self-proclaimed NERFED king
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Let's go ahead and list the SR weak things in OU that are being held back by the opressive 25% or more damage that's being taken.

3. Salamence
Despite his SR weakness compromising his limited bulk (when not EVd to take hits) so that every Ice Beam basically OHKOs him, Salamence is probably the scariest Pokémon in the metagame right now.

4. Zapdos
One of the most versitale Pokémon in the metagame, used as a supporter that handles Scizor or a Baton Passer or a sweeper. The SR weak barely hurts at all, other than taking CB Returns.

6. Gyarados
Much like Salamence, except Thunderbolt needs some power behind it and is less common on tanks. Basically, SR doesn't hurt its standard set, and Bulky Gyarados wasn't exactly stellar anyway.

10. Shaymin-S
People want this banned in the current metagame (though I completely disagree with them). Stealth Rock is one popular way of handling it in the metagame, and while that's a dumb reason to "not ban" SR, it's more proof that SR is being used to handle threats.

Guys. People choose to use SR partially because it makes checking DP threats much, much easier. I think rather than unfairly punishing anything (except Moltres), SR is so popular because of these guys.
Is it just me, or Regice could be a nice check to them all + Yanmega? Lemme see...

EDIT: Errm, okay, Regice can handle with Zapdos and Yanmega, but fears Skymin's Seed Flares, may be killed by Salamence's Outrages (but is not 2HKO'ed by Fire Blast with a little Sp. Def investment) and Gyarados' Stone Edges (and can survive two Waterfalls from a Gyarados with zero DDs). Well, at least it's something.

There's also the fact that things like Moltres could finally be used (not "oh jeez Moltres is my favorite pokémon yet I can't use it due to SR", but "hey cool Moltres is a counter to Stone Edge-less Lucario, gotta us-- shit, Stealth Rock...", and that those rocks also help those threats, which may be worse than helping its counters.


Now, I have a question: What if Stealth Rock is not "overcentralizing", but a SR-less metagame is so "descentralized" that it allows a lot more viable strategies than a SR metagame? Would we ban the move, or would we keep it because "the metagame as we know is not broken (yet)"?
 

jrrrrrrr

wubwubwub
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'm just posting again to say that the notion of "we don't know until we test it" is absurd and completely ignores reality. Banning Stealth Rock "just to see what its like" is akin to taking everything we know about the metagame and throwing it out the window. Basically if you are in favor of banning stealth rock then you are in favor of not playing d/p anymore. The last two years of knowledge we have acquired would be useless, we would be back at a "Rhyperior! Electivire!" stage where we have nothing but speculation.

Even though it would be great to have Moltres be more usable, it would come at the cost of Lucario and Skymin and many other currently OU mons being neutered. Do you understand how many OHKOs/2HKOs the top OU pokemon can get because of SR? The entire offensive aspect of OU would not be usable anymore.

People are underestimating how much of a change this would actually be. Would it be interesting? Yeah, probably. Would it be beneficial? No. We shouldn't be LOOKING for things to ban, we want as many options as possible with what is given.
 
Now, I have a question: What if Stealth Rock is not "overcentralizing", but a SR-less metagame is so "descentralized" that it allows a lot more viable strategies than a SR metagame? Would we ban the move, or would we keep it because "the metagame as we know is not broken (yet)"?
Keep it. As far as I'm concerned, banning things because we think that this will improve the metagame is utterly retarded, as it basically destroys the game as anything can become fair play for banning in the name of "creating a better metagame". We ban things when it completely breaks the game, not in the name of making a "better game" and I have yet to see how Stealth Rock is necessarily a game-breaker. It helps some Pokemon, it hurts some. That in and of itself does not make Stealth Rock a game breaker.
 
I'm just posting again to say that the notion of "we don't know until we test it" is absurd and completely ignores reality. Banning Stealth Rock "just to see what its like" is akin to taking everything we know about the metagame and throwing it out the window. Basically if you are in favor of banning stealth rock then you are in favor of not playing d/p anymore. The last two years of knowledge we have acquired would be useless, we would be back at a "Rhyperior! Electivire!" stage where we have nothing but speculation.

Even though it would be great to have Moltres be more usable, it would come at the cost of Lucario and Skymin and many other currently OU mons being neutered. Do you understand how many OHKOs/2HKOs the top OU pokemon can get because of SR? The entire offensive aspect of OU would not be usable anymore.

People are underestimating how much of a change this would actually be. Would it be interesting? Yeah, probably. Would it be beneficial? No. We shouldn't be LOOKING for things to ban, we want as many options as possible with what is given.
I have to disagree here. SR limits the amount of options we have and the amount of pokémon that we can use and as a result we have a number of pokémon in BL that are too strong for UU and most certainly are not viable for OU play. It would be beneficial to the metagame to have as many options as possible of which pokémon to use.

If it gives trouble to the top OU mons then that is the metagame balancing.

Making another calculation of what can KO what is not that difficult and we already know some movesets that work and do not work.

Think of how Platinum introduced Trick to many pokémon, the Rotom forms, and Skymin. Can/have we adjusted to it? Yes. Can we potentially adjust to Stealth Rock removal?
 
I have to disagree here. SR limits the amount of options we have and the amount of pokémon that we can use and as a result we have a number of pokémon in BL that are too strong for UU and most certainly are not viable for OU play. It would be beneficial to the metagame to have as many options as possible of which pokémon to use.
How? We've already demonstrated that many of the BL Fire, Flying, Ice, and Bug types just plain suck. Our goal isn't to use as many Pokemon possible, so we ban stuff. Our goal is to ban what is broken. "Fire types don't get used as often thanks to SR" is not an example of broken. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hell, this is in line with one person arguing that OHKOs should be allowed in because while it may be broken, it would allow more usage of Seaking and Lapras. Utterly retarded.
 
How? We've already demonstrated that many of the BL Fire, Flying, Ice, and Bug types just plain suck. Our goal isn't to use as many Pokemon possible, so we ban stuff. Our goal is to ban what is broken. "Fire types don't get used as often thanks to SR" is not an example of broken. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hell, this is in line with one person arguing that OHKOs should be allowed in because while it may be broken, it would allow more usage of Seaking and Lapras. Utterly retarded.
You haven't proved they suck. You can only do that by proving that they are not usable in an SRless environment.

I am only proposing one thing, not two, not ten. I don't get how proposing something is somehow constituting to banning a lot of things. How many threads in Stark right now do we have on testing or banning something else? Not many.
 
I don't know when this "as few bans as possible / simple rules" mentality originated, but I find it ridiculous. It seems to limit us by giving us an excuse not to examine particular issues that aren't "problems" to us.

Why should we not be striving to improve the metagame whenever possible? Fixing problems should not be the only thing we do with our rules. Fix the problems with the metagame first, but then find ways to make it better.

Stealth Rock is a problem to some people, apparently, but not to me. There are potential benefits and drawbacks to testing it properly whether people acknowledge them or not, but it's not enough of a frontburner issue for me to want to deal with it right away.

Still, I think the "simple rules" doctrine is excusing us from properly examining this because "it's not deserving of a ban." How do you know that? How many D/P games have you actually played without even the slightest chance that Stealth Rock will make an appearance? Since it has been around from the beginning of D/P, I'm willing to wager that few of you have done such a thing. All of the potential effects we're discussing of this test/ban are little more than theorymon. We have very limited data concerning a metagame without Stealth Rock, data that is probably not reliable. (See the Stop the Rocks tournament.) Where's the harm in a test?

I have my doubts about whether a metagame without Stealth Rock would be "better" (read: probably not gonna happen), but that shouldn't excuse me from taking a look at the issue to be sure. I'd rather have concrete, reliable data to go on instead of ideas; I don't care what it takes to get it.
 

jrrrrrrr

wubwubwub
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
If it gives trouble to the top OU mons then that is the metagame balancing.
So SR balances the metagame? Why would you be in favor of a ban? I'm glad you see my point now...

Making another calculation of what can KO what is not that difficult and we already know some movesets that work and do not work.
Yes, except your entire argument is that SR makes certain pokemon less viable and should therefore be banned. My argument, as you are starting to agree with, is that Stealth Rock's presence makes MORE pokemon viable by guaranteeing OHKOs and 2HKOs that certain pokemon would not otherwise be able to get, which makes the incentive to use those pokemon much greater.

Think of how Platinum introduced Trick to many pokémon, the Rotom forms, and Skymin. Can/have we adjusted to it? Yes. Can we potentially adjust to Stealth Rock removal?
We can adjust, I just don't think we should force ourselves to do something that isn't necessary. Stealth Rock isn't broken, it is just common. Being good is not ban worthy, being broken is, and there has yet to be any evidence provided that would suggest that SR is broken. It does 50% to Moltres!!! Well, so does Surf.

I have to disagree here. SR limits the amount of options we have and the amount of pokémon that we can use and as a result we have a number of pokémon in BL that are too strong for UU and most certainly are not viable for OU play. It would be beneficial to the metagame to have as many options as possible of which pokémon to use.
I know this quote is out of order, but how do you know that SR limits the options we have? I presented a fairly legit case that SR actually opens tons of options that would not be present if SR were gone, especially offensively. All that has been presented is "SR limits this" and "SR stops that" without any indication of a concrete amount of things that are limited. Moltres has been the most common example, but who cares if Moltres is OU or not? Why is that a bad thing?

I don't know when this "as few bans as possible / simple rules" mentality originated, but I find it ridiculous. It seems to limit us by giving us an excuse not to examine particular issues that aren't "problems" to us.
Why should we not be striving to improve the metagame whenever possible? Fixing problems should not be the only thing we do with our rules. Fix the problems with the metagame first, but then find ways to make it better.
"If it aint broke, don't fix it". There is no logical reason to believe that an SR-less metagame would be better, more playable, or more diverse, and there has also been no evidence that would suggest this either. A ban on Stealth Rock is just as arbitrary and unfounded as a ban on weather effects from OU.

Stealth Rock is a problem to some people, apparently, but not to me. There are potential benefits and drawbacks to testing it properly whether people acknowledge them or not, but it's not enough of a frontburner issue for me to want to deal with it right away.
This is basically how I feel. Even though I agree that an SR-less game would be interesting, I really don't see why this is such a pressing issue either when we seriously still have Lati@s in Ubers. (....even with Soul Dew, anybody who has ever played Ubers would be able to tell you that all of their counters are OU...metagross, blissey, bronzong, ttar, scizor, etc)

Still, I think the "simple rules" doctrine is excusing us from properly examining this because "it's not deserving of a ban." How do you know that? How many D/P games have you actually played without even the slightest chance that Stealth Rock will make an appearance? Since it has been around from the beginning of D/P, I'm willing to wager that few of you have done such a thing. All of the potential effects we're discussing of this test/ban are little more than theorymon. We have very limited data concerning a metagame without Stealth Rock, data that is probably not reliable. (See the Stop the Rocks tournament.) Where's the harm in a test?
I think that "it's not deserving of a ban" is a pretty legitimate reason to not test something. The simple fact is that there is nothing that would indicate that an SR-less metagame would be good, and I actually think that an SR-less game would be worse. Since it has existed since the start of d/p, the burden of brokenness/reasons to test fall on those who want a test.
 
CardsOfTheHeart said:
I don't know when this "as few bans as possible / simple rules" mentality originated, but I find it ridiculous. It seems to limit us by giving us an excuse not to examine particular issues that aren't "problems" to us.
I think the idea is not that we should be actively seeking primarily to ban as few things as possible, but that that is the default state and we therefore need solid, reasoned justification in order to question anything's placement.

Now that being said, I don't think the "simple rules" argument is all that important in this case, simply because there are much greater concerns regarding how much gameplay itself would actually change without Stealth Rock. This is a move that essentially everyone agrees is an extremely important aspect of the metagame. Even if by some objective measures the metagame "improved" (for example, if it were less centralized), just the fact that we took out something as previously vital as Stealth Rock should be enough for people to question whether it's "worth it."


edit: oh and jrrrrrrr, out of curiosity, what made you change your mind about this?
 
Is it just me, or Regice could be a nice check to them all + Yanmega? Lemme see...

EDIT: Errm, okay, Regice can handle with Zapdos and Yanmega, but fears Skymin's Seed Flares
Ice isn't weak to Grass if I recall correctly, and Regice's Clear Body prevents the Special Defense drop. Scary indeed. ;D

Now, I have a question: What if Stealth Rock is not "overcentralizing", but a SR-less metagame is so "descentralized" that it allows a lot more viable strategies than a SR metagame? Would we ban the move, or would we keep it because "the metagame as we know is not broken (yet)"?
The impression I get from past deliberations on this forum is that there's no reason to fix what isn't broken. If the community agrees to banning Stealth Rocks based on the reason you provided, this would become a precedent that would allow for other arbitrary bans. You could theoretically ban Outrage (or pretty much insert any move here, it'd work somehow) because more pokemon could be viable, etc.

EDIT: Yeah jrrrrrrr and Kay already extrapolated on my point.
 

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Does anybody really know what a stable or unstable metagame really is? You could argue that the offensively-minded aspect of the metagame makes defensive play harder.

Well, I can't help thinking we've nothing to lose from trying this, so why shouldn't we at least give it a go? We can't argue whether or not the metagame goes pear-shaped until we try it. It's a bit like saying that a Scyther will always switch out of a Heatran... you never really know what will happen.

Anyway, most people seem to be saying that, since the metagame is 'balanced' at the moment, there's little reason to change it. Well, according to some it isn't balanced now, and it was balanced when Garchomp was kicking around. Just try it.

On the subject of an Outrage ban, I say that it shouldn't be benned but it should be returned to its RSE power level. After all, its counterpart Petal Dance didn't get a boost, and Hypnosis has already returned to its RSE level.
 
I have to disagree here. SR limits the amount of options we have and the amount of pokémon that we can use and as a result we have a number of pokémon in BL that are too strong for UU and most certainly are not viable for OU play. It would be beneficial to the metagame to have as many options as possible of which pokémon to use.

If it gives trouble to the top OU mons then that is the metagame balancing.
Something being in BL is not a good enough reason for banning a move. While SR does make it unusually difficult for certain pokemon to be able to compete effectively, there's really no telling what would happen as a result the SR ban. In my opinion, people use SR because so that they won't have to pack an unreliable Rock move on their team, yet still be able to effectively handle the flying threats in the game, and avoid the hassle of having to switch into those threats. But in the absence of Stealth Rock, the other rock type moves will definitely see more use to beat these fliers, the most common of which either resist Ice beam or Thunderbolt. Even if I'm completely off on my theory, many 'Rockers have a one move void to fill, and Stone Edge has a high potential for filling that void. With increased Rock-type moves, whatever you said made them BL(4x rock weak) will keep them BL.

Making another calculation of what can KO what is not that difficult and we already know some movesets that work and do not work.
You're missing the point of the phrase 'OHKO/2HKO with SR.' Many offensive pokemon fall just short of the threshold needed to OHKO a pokemon, even with maxed offenses. Stealth Rock fills in the 1%-12.5% gap that pokemon need

Think of how Platinum introduced Trick to many pokémon, the Rotom forms, and Skymin. Can/have we adjusted to it? Yes. Can we potentially adjust to Stealth Rock removal?
The question is not whether we can or not, because we will either way. The question is whether or not taking Stealth Rock out of the metagame is a necessary endeavor.

Lastly, I'd like to refer to the Attacking Types in October. Fire, Ice, and Rock type moves are first, second, and third, respectively, in terms of hitting the metagame, which brings forth two interesting questions. First of all if fire and ice moves hit the metagame so well, why aren't there more fire and ice types in OU to take advantage of this? Zapdos/Gyarados/Salamence/Skymin all seem to cope just fine with their own SR weaknesses. Second, why does Rock-type moves come in at the third highest if "the metagame revolved around stealth rock?" If the metagame was so centered around a weakness to rock, shouldn't rock-type moves be more around the bottom half of the chart instead of being third?
 
All it takes to eliminate Stealth Rock from the field is a single move. If SR bothers you that much, stick a rapid spinner on your team. When I put Forretress on my team, my friends put Rapid Spinners on their teams and now use entry hazards against me, they didn't cry for the ban of Stealth Rock completely. And if someone wants to ban SR, why stop there? Would there eventually be a ban on all entry hazards as other people say that SR should not be the only thing banned? If the argument for banning it is that it disadvantages some Pokemon, so what? SR does not hurt much if you simply use up one moveslot on one pokemon to get rid of it.
If someone used a team weak to ground type moves and kept getting destroyed by Earthquake, is it fair to ban Earthquake because it is so good at what it is meant to do? No, they simply have to change their team so that EQ does not destroy it and try again.

EDIT:
I am only proposing one thing, not two, not ten. I don't get how proposing something is somehow constituting to banning a lot of things. How many threads in Stark right now do we have on testing or banning something else? Not many.
The reason that I personally oppose this is that if we ban SR, it sets a precedent to ban any other move that seems to have a large effect on everyday battles, most notably weather and status. While you are proposing only a small change in the game, it opens the door for many more possibilities of banning. The developers made the game with SR well aware of the fact that it can take away 50% of some Pokemons HP. If we decide that no, that is not right, then what else is in our power to take away and change whenever a majority decides that they simply want it banned.

If there is a seperate clause to ban SR, who would not ban it besides those who have a pokemon with SR on their team? If you don't have SR, it is one less thing to worry about so that you don't have to plan for it. The whole point of pokemon is to plan and outstrategize the opponent. For proof, go on PBR wifi and battle one of the Uber spammers that has no idea what they are doing. They have sheer power on their side, but will almost always lose against someone from Smogon simply because the Smogon person plays smarter.

If you start taking things away because it is complicated, not because it is unfair, then there will simply be people who use it on one ladder and those who don't on another ladder.
(I realize that my argument above may ramble a little, but I have been typing, erasing, and retyping for a while. Sorry.)
 

jrrrrrrr

wubwubwub
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
edit: oh and jrrrrrrr, out of curiosity, what made you change your mind about this?
I realized that the positives of having SR outweigh the negatives of banning it. Even though everything I said in that PR thread still holds true, I just ignored the part where SR actually helps a lot of currently OU pokemon out.
 

david stone

Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
A lot of people are opposed to banning Stealth Rock because they don't like to ban moves and don't like the idea of more bans when what we have now isn't "overcentralized". What if (and this is purely for the sake of argument) banning Stealth Rock would allow us to unban current uber Pokemon?

If the current ubers are centralizing forces, and so is Stealth Rock, then it's possible that banning Stealth Rock would decentralize things enough to allow the unbanning of ubers so that "OU" remains the same size.

I'm not saying this would happen, I'm just wondering what effect this would have on your arguments.
 
A lot of people are opposed to banning Stealth Rock because they don't like to ban moves and don't like the idea of more bans when what we have now isn't "overcentralized". What if (and this is purely for the sake of argument) banning Stealth Rock would allow us to unban current uber Pokemon?

If the current ubers are centralizing forces, and so is Stealth Rock, then it's possible that banning Stealth Rock would decentralize things enough to allow the unbanning of ubers so that "OU" remains the same size.

I'm not saying this would happen, I'm just wondering what effect this would have on your arguments.
What ubers are we talking about here? The only Ubers that are affected by SR to a noticeable degree are Lugia, Ho-Oh and Rayquaza, and they would only become more powerful without SR. I don't see how removing SR would make ubers more viable in OU.
 
What ubers are we talking about here? The only Ubers that are affected by SR to a noticeable degree are Lugia, Ho-Oh and Rayquaza, and they would only become more powerful without SR. I don't see how removing SR would make ubers more viable in OU.
Same can be said in an opposite way, with SR gone Rayquaza's best counter Lugia will become even more defensive.

Personnaly i don't think SR ban will really make much of a difference. SR is nothing more then 'bonus' damage nobody really depends on it.
 
For the record, that argument actually has been made Obi. "If we ban Stealth Rock we might be able to keep Garchomp around, let's test it!" Of course Garchomp still went on to dominate the Stop the Rocks tournament, and is a pretty ideal partner for Salamence or Dragonite when they don't have to worry about residual damage anymore, so at least in that case the argument more or less failed miserably.

Anyway, I'd still be completely against a Stealth Rock ban, especially when you consider that a lot of the pro-ban arguments in a nutshell are "it's so unique, and so prevalent, that it must be broken!" Basically, things like Manaphy and Mew and Deoxys-N would have a huge impact, sure. Maybe Rain teams improve, Dual Screen pass teams/BP teams in general get a huge boost, or all-out offense becomes ridiculous but somehow beatable, respectively. OK, but "every turn you switch, you take damage, no matter what!!! broken!" sounds like it crosses the realm of "Strategies/Pokemon A, B, and C improve, Strategies/Pokemon X, Y, and Z get the shaft" and moves into "changes the entire game on a fundamental level, and removing it is literally a step backwards into Advance play."
 
Same can be said in an opposite way, with SR gone Rayquaza's best counter Lugia will become even more defensive.
And making Lugia harder to take down is far from a good thing, especially as far as OU is concerned.

Personnaly i don't think SR ban will really make much of a difference. SR is nothing more then 'bonus' damage nobody really depends on it.
Really? Many sweepers rely on SR to get those vital O/2HKOs. Many analyses make a point of this, taking SR damage into account for the damage calcs. And that extra damage is especially important for knocking big hitters like Zapdos, Gyarados, and Salamence in line, keeping them from switching in and out at will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top