Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the playerbase of a tier thinks that the current meta sucks, then the council should at least consider their opinion and possibly suspect the major issue if they deem it as worthy. Now, I think that S/M UU is a pretty trash tier and has been for a while and is currently suffering under the effects of their being way too many near-broken mons at the top of the metagame that centralize it extremely hard and cause there to be a spike in teams trying to check those near-broken mons (which is why stall has been optimized to the point to where now it's being argued as broken.) However, since some of these near-broken mons have been suspected (Scizor, Mega Altaria) and have been deemed worthy to stay in the tier, now we are at this point because people are too scared to shake up a tier that has been swarmed with unhealthy threats for years now. Admittedly, that isn't the worst thing ever since S/M is reaching it's last days but honestly if everyone thinks the tier sucks but won't ban the broken stuff then that's their fault. So if stall/Blissey is the new broken thing, then the council should probably suspect test it and if the community decides it's broken then they ban it and this "better" UU meta is realized. Of course I don't think this is likely considering the trend the tests have been going in but hey let's just see how it goes.
I am just going to quote a few arguments here, cuz I basically think the same way. I'd like to hear your opinions about those arguments as well.
I really loved the evolution of UU this generation but all the same, I actually dislike constant metagame shifts, suspects, and basically anything that forces me to change my teams/sets. I am open to changes, I just felt like during the generation these changes were way too much. I would basically get on PS! one day to figure out the team I built a week ago is now unviable cuz something had adjusted its set to have a better position in the metagame, forcing me to build/adjust again. It was also quite a bit unfortunate when Gliscor and Kommo-o went to OU, I basically had to change/delete 90% of teams I've had. And during the possibly UUBL suspect tests, we had to build new teams and trying to evaluate if the Pokemon was good/bad. In my opinion, the best meta SM UU ever had was the Clefable meta and stuff just went loose after the first OU drops. There isnt any stage of the metagame where I enjoyed it as much as I did on Clefable meta, I just feel like it would be much more enjoyable if we actually had some long breaks without changes. ( I also feel like this is the reason why a great majority voted no on M-Alt and Scizor suspects, cuz the aftermath would be too big.)
About nerfing stall, I don't think there is a way to address this issue without causing even bigger problems. Regenerator itself is a pretty dumb ability and promotes lazy gameplay as it is already mentioned. You literally switch out and restore your HP. Banning Regenerator as a whole is pretty bad as we will get rid of Mienshao, Amoonguss, and Slowbro as well and I don't remember any of those causing a significant unhealthy impact on the metagame. As for banning Blissey, I don't really understand why this was even suggested. Blissey may be the heart of stall cores but Blissey isn't exclusive to stall, it is a great utility Pokemon you can use on balance teams as well with its wish passing capabilities w/ Heal Bell.
I completely understand both sides of this whole debate. If someone feels that the metagame is that good currently then it's fully understandable that they do not want something major to change especially in this late stage of the tier which could actually just end up hurting Gen 7 UU. On the other hand, I can see why so many people want to suspect test Alomomola since it really does make stall much better than it should ever be. Many people think that the current metagame is not THAT good or is great but can get even better if we make this change (I am of the opinion that it is great, but if we can make it even better we have the responsibility to try). I have used stall on the ladder for both the Mimikyu and Mega Altaria suspect tests and from this experience, I genuinely believe that it is too overpowered. I will elaborate a little further...
Alomomola is without a doubt the only pokemon I feel we can suspect test in regards to this issue. Testing regenerator as a whole is not something I would want to do because pokemon like Amoonguss and Mienshao are very good on various playstyles and should not see their contributions to this tier ruined all over an issue that could be solved in another way. I do not think Quagsire is as big of a problem and unlike Blissey/Alo it has other alternatives so would it really change much? As for Blissey, it is such a good pokemon for many balance or even offensive builds to use that banning it would end up hurting the variety in other playstyles, not just stall. For myself, Alomomola is the best route to take for the next suspect test if we do end up having one, which personally I would be in favor of.
I am just going to quote a few arguments here, cuz I basically think the same way. I'd like to hear your opinions about those arguments as well. I really loved the evolution of UU this generation but all the same, I actually dislike constant metagame shifts, suspects, and basically anything that forces me to change my teams/sets. I am open to changes, I just felt like during the generation these changes were way too much. I would basically get on PS! one day to figure out the team I built a week ago is now unviable cuz something had adjusted its set to have a better position in the metagame, forcing me to build/adjust again. It was also quite a bit unfortunate when Gliscor and Kommo-o went to OU, I basically had to change/delete 90% of teams I've had...There isnt any stage of the metagame where I enjoyed it as much as I did on Clefable meta, I just feel like it would be much more enjoyable if we actually had some long breaks without changes.
Boredom of the process of Suspect Test is not an element worthy of consideration. We don't make tiering decisions based on shit being boring or fun. If you're bored of the suspect process, go find another game to play. This is how we do things. We also have a fundamental responsibility to follow our tiering policies when pushing for or arguing against any tiering change. Boredom of the suspect process or changing the metagame to be more fun is NOT part of our tiering policies.
Factors such as whether the meta would be more enjoyable aren't relevant to future potential suspects.
The rest of your post is too broad to be substantiated. You mention constant metagame shift as something you dislike, but isn't this inherent to every metagame ever? Even RBY, which was quite literally depicted in the cave paintings of the Neanderthals, experiences metagame shift to this day.
ABR showed me his RBY folder and told me these were all the good consistent teams possible in RBY: there were about 10 teams. Last year, Pearl told me the optimal way to play RBY had already been figured out. While both incredible players, they were both dead wrong. Going Chansey turn 1, Sing Chansey usage up, Eggy usage down, Zap win rate real low, .. a lot can change in a year. That just shows this tier is forever evolving and I'm excited to see what direction it goes next. (-metalgro$$ in The future of RBY OU in Smogon)
and that's with a fraction of the UU playerbase, a fraction of the options, a fraction of everything, really. Metagame flux is a part of having a metagame, so dislike of it isn't a compelling argument at face value. Could you be more specific as to what makes UU's metagame flux bad in comparison to the organic shifts that happen in all metagames?
I don't see what's wrong with suspect-testing Regenerator myself. I definitely agree with the notion it's mindless, and the main arguement against is that it'd make some Pokemon with it unusable. That notion I don't agree with:
-Slowbro is still a really good Terrakion check and a solid wall in general. And most sets carry a recovery move anyway, so while Regenerator certainly helps Slowbro out, it won't die a horrible death without it.
-Amonguss is hurt a bit more by the loss of Regenerator, but like Slowbro it's still a solid wall that can swap into a lot of physical attacks, toxic, and powder moves, as well as still spore things. It's other ability Effect Spore can even still be used as a decent punisher to U-Turn spam. You might have to run Black Sludge and Synthesis on Amonguss but again it'd probably still be viable.
-Meinshao I think sucks even with Regenerator, but its other ability lets you spam HJK so that's nice.
I think the only poke severely hurt by it is Alomomola, and that's fine by me because it's one of the most obnoxious Pokemon in the tier and everyone who runs it has the same moveset and does the same exact thing.
Other quick opinions:
-Against suspect testing Blissey to spite stall, as Blissey is decent pick on balance teams as well. And whoever said it's the only thing that can reliably come in on Specs Primarina is on the money.
-I don't think stall is overpowered, but it sure makes the tier unfun to play.
-I don't mind suspect tests and I don't see why people have a problem with them. You can just keep playing normally while they're going on. You don't have to participate.
-I thought Mega-Altaria should've been banned.
We’re not suspecting regenerator or thinking of complex bans at this time. If a mon is suspect worthy due to regenerator, then we’ll look at the mon in question for any potential suspect, not regenerator as a whole.
Hey. Before saying anything I'd like to say that I may repeat some things that were said before, but I want to highlight them because I found unbelievable some of the things that have been said in this thread.
Regarding the "it's too late for a suspect test" argument
I'd like to remind you this: yes, there is a new generation coming in two months, BUT SM UU will be around for several years thanks to tours such as UU Classic and UUPL. That being said, I'd ask you: is it too late? I find ridiculous how so many people have said that they want the metagame to establish itself; establish on want? On a metagame where there is a playstyle that's clearly better than the rest? We should solve the problem instead of saying that, so we can try to make SM UU an AIDS-free tier in the future; because unhealthy things are AIDS, does not matter if we took 5 years to realize and suspect test them.
Regarding the "Regenerator is broken/unhealthy" argument
I don't see Regenerator as an unhealthy ability to the metagame. I would understand that argument in GSC/ADV, where hazards weren't what they are today. On top of that add the fact that in UU, in particular, there are lots of overwhelming mons + Z Moves + Lures that make Regenerator a very good ability and not a broken one. However, I want you to see the number of things that Regenerator mons have to do in UU. Amoonguss has to try to stop Fairy-types (Rank A+ Primarina to name just one), Fighting-types (Rank A Cobalion to name just one), and on top of that, it has to deal with Rank S Altaria and Scizor. The next Regenerator Pokemon is Slowbro, an amazing mon (specially Mega-Slowbro, but that's for another discussion), that has to live in a tier with Hazards + Status + VoltTurn + Strong Special Attackers: if we look at the UU tier we see Manectric and Scizor being very common threats in balance / bulky offense builds; next stop we have Strong Special Attackers such as Primarina / Hydreigon / Celebi and Latias. We also have to take into consideration that a lot of mons are now running Toxic because they don’t need another move, such as Rotom-H and Terrakion. That being said, I can be 100% sure that these two regenerator users show us that the ability is amazing, but not broken, because the HP that they are recovering is just not enough. I will talk about Alomomola in the next paragraph.
Regarding the 'stall is broken' argument
Before talking about Alomomola, I want to say something about stall as a whole. Stall is without a doubt the best and most powerful playstyle in SM UU, but I don't agree with people saying that it is easy to use, actually it is the hardest to learn HOW to use, because there is a difference between using stall and knowing how to. As pokeisfun showed in his first post, a lot of people have lost a lot of times having a good matchup because they didn’t make the best play possible in a playstyle built around the links that the mons create with each other. However, this is just to let that clear, because we have to look at stall like a playstyle that will be used in high-level games, where the players should not make mistakes. That been said, I'll talk about Alomomola: most of the people that say that Regenerator AND Stall are broken say that getting rid of Alo will solve the problem, and for me, that's a hard NO. There are lots of hard stall / semistall teams that don't have Alomomola but they represent the same problem for the tier that the teams that do have Alo. So why banning Alomomola will change something? A quick example is the last three hard stall/semi stall teams that pif have been using. Him, as one of the most relevant stall players, has said that stall only loses when it is played poorly or against impossible matchups, but imo the only reason that a stall team is going to lose is the former (and hax obv). I have seen a lot of ladder/tours games in which the non-stall player have won with a very good matchup, however, the real reason is that the stall player didn’t see the best option he had to win. Let me give you an example based on games that I have played in the last two weeks, I don't have replays so I have to use words: I have been using a Celebi + Togekiss team, which are two of the best stallbreakers in the metagame, and Togekiss' case is even better because I have been using Metronome to help in the Pyukumuku matchup. So, playing in the ladder I've played against pif a lot of times, and in the firsts games I won because I had a better matchup but after some games he knew what sets I was using exactly and it is that what I want to highlight: an excellent player that plays as good as he can will put himself in a position in which he cannot lose against Togekiss or Celebi, but somebody that's not playing at his best will not realize that going hard into Pyukumuku is actually the losing play, and I understand that, because Pyuku is supposed to beat Kiss in the 1v1, but taking into consideration a set that can help against stall it is not the best possible play, because the stall player needs to position himself so Togekiss can never beat him.
So... What’s the problem?
Blissey. That's the problem. If we want to nerf stall (especially Hard stall) we need to get rid of Blissey. If we see the 95% of Hard stall/semi stall teams have Blissey on it, as it is the best Pokemon for that playstyle, mainly because it helps in so many situations and against so many mons, especially the ones that are supposed to beat the whole team. Let's see the example that I gave before vs Pif: in some point he started to play as he knows he can and started to position himself using Blissey so I cannot try to win easily with Togekiss and Celebi, so we started to have longer games in which I ended up with the L (I would really like to have those replays). What I'm trying to say is that Blissey is the piece that makes stall the best playstyle in our metagame, taking that last thing that I said into consideration ofc: PIECE, because this a 6v6 game, and he is one of those links that keeps Stall together. That being said, Blissey needs to be suspect tested.
Tl;dr: Never is too late to fix something that is negative, especially when that something still has a lot of time to live. Regenerator is not broken, and it will never be. Stall, if played well, is broken. Blissey needs to be at least suspect tested.
For reference, here are all the teams I have been using regularly that could arguably be considered stall ( the last 2 you could argue are balance). All of them were made after Zeraora dropped and whatever those changes were - the stall team I have in the RMT Archives was the last one I made before a long break and after that, I used it again but lost to random Zeraora on the ladder so that's how I remember.
This is what I'm talking about when I say stall is extremely powerful and can't be adequately prepared for in general because there are too many variations. It's not just MU fishing, in a sense players always want a MU advantage, we all MU fish. What I'm saying is stall gives you a decisive MU advantage almost all of the time because you can't prepare for all the variants and as someone said, slapping on a NP Ape just isn't cutting it when that's a known commodity by now.
Yes there are some weaknesses in each one - for example, the Hydreigon stall is weak to Klefki and Bisharp (as it lacks Quagsire). The Kyurem one has a poor match up vs Celebi. Ones that lack Chesnaught, Altaria, Tangela or Hydreigon struggle versus Crawdaunt.
The question is, are you really preparing for stall adequately? Or is the stall player just choosing which of the few mons he or she wants to have a bad MU versus?
My friends, we have options besides banning Regenerator so let's drop that for now as it's too controversial. We can suspect Alomomola or Blissey or Quagsire as the obvious options. Perhaps Pyukumuku?
The important thing is we have to agree stall is OP in the first place, yet I don't see any seriously developed arguments that stall isn't OP, only people giving a short, valid, but unsubstantiated opinion. Please, if you don't think stall is OP, can't you try to at least address the arguments, such as the point that stall basically never loses in tournaments if properly played.
We already spent an extra week on the weather suspect. We have no time to waste if we want to continue suspects. I hope we can move quickly if we want to try and nerf stall or suspect Latias or something, as long as its productive.
Also please understand, this is new territory for all of us. We've been spending the whole generation trying to suspect Pokemon, not an entire playstyle, with few exceptions, and certainly never a play style as deeply embedded as stall. Nobody knows everything which is why we need the leadership to guide us but also for us to make our thoughts known. Leadership can't read our minds and I'm tired of seeing people complain and expecting council to do everything.
Oh and a really important point to respond to Gungunj:
I agree with your baseline that Blissey is on the vast majority of stalls and powering them up and is a key piece in all stalls.
But things like Alomomola are important too EVEN WHEN NOT ON THE TEAM.
You’re right we played a few games where I elected not to use Alomomola (it was the dual unaware team above plus a similar team with Mandibuzz over Gligar). So how did Alomomola have an effect anyways? It’s in the building part of the game. If we ban suspect Alomomola, then things that aren’t really breakers now like CB Scizor and CB Terrakion can suddenly begin to wear down stall rather nicely. So instead of needing to use clearly anti-stall measures like Metronome Togekiss plus Celebi on your teams, you can use sof measures that still work well versus other styles too.
And neither of us have yet addressed the argument banning Blissey will cause other problems for the tier. That’s why I suggest Alomomola or one of the unaware users as a midpoint, since that won’t affect the metagame as much.
On the other hand, I’m perfectly happy to deal with the fallout of a potential Blissey ban with more suspects. It just seems very few other people are.
Oh and a really important point to respond to Gungunj:
I agree with your baseline that Blissey is on the vast majority of stalls and powering them up and is a key piece in all stalls.
But things like Alomomola are important too EVEN WHEN NOT ON THE TEAM.
You’re right we played a few games where I elected not to use Alomomola (it was the dual unaware team above plus a similar team with Mandibuzz over Gligar). So how did Alomomola have an effect anyways? It’s in the building part of the game. If we ban suspect Alomomola, then things that aren’t really breakers now like CB Scizor and CB Terrakion can suddenly begin to wear down stall rather nicely. So instead of needing to use clearly anti-stall measures like Metronome Togekiss plus Celebi on your teams, you can use sof measures that still work well versus other styles too.
And neither of us have yet addressed the argument banning Blissey will cause other problems for the tier. That’s why I suggest Alomomola or one of the unaware users as a midpoint, since that won’t affect the metagame as much.
On the other hand, I’m perfectly happy to deal with the fallout of a potential Blissey ban with more suspects. It just seems very few other people are.
I agree with the teambuilding approach, but I think the thing here is not improving the stall matchup in certain games. I mean, if we see at the pokepaste you share we see Blissey in all the full stall teams. So, if we ban Alomomola the matchup against other common stalls will be the same. There are a lot of mons that can be problematic for stall teams such as Celebi, CB Terrak, Togekiss, DD Alt (especially with tspikes), Cobalion, CB Scizor, etc. However, at least for me, the most important thing is fixing this as good as we can, and I don't think banning Alomomola or Pyukumuku will really make the change that we are looking for.
And yes, I think that the Blissey suspect is not the only one that needs to happen, but... will we have more suspect tests? will the UU community ask for them? I don't know. Let's find out.
I want to be very clear, stall is disgustingly obscene, by far the strongest playstyle in the tier and dominating the metagame to an extent that none of us has ever seen in previous UUs back to generation 3, which is all I can speak to. It only loses tournament games when unquestionably misplayed.
In SPL, out of the 96 USUM teams used, 8 or 9 were stall teams. Can a playstyle with less than 10% usage really be considered to be dominating the metagame?
In UUPL, pokeisfun had the opportunity to be a manager. This was the perfect chance to show how dangerous stall could be — a team of players handpicked by the #1 UU stall player himself, with direct access to all of pif's teambuilding and knowledge. Out of 28 games, how many times did pif's team use stall? Just one time.
Let's look at this quote for a clue. It seems reasonable to say that a game is a great matchup if and only if the game can never be lost except by badly misplaying. So let's rephrase the quote a bit.
"Stall either has a great matchup or has a horrendous matchup in tournaments." *
This is what players have known for ages — stall is a very matchup-based playstyle. There are exceptions where games are close, requiring predictions from both sides, but often a stall game is already won or lost at team preview. If the stall team can control hazards and comfortably counter the opposing threats, even the best plays and luckiest hax will not save the opposing team most of the time. But on the flip side, using stall can result in hilarious defeats, such as this Virizion sweep from SPL where the stall team has almost no counterplay.
Tournament players know that bringing stall too frequently will result in getting counter-teamed. If you bring stall 3 weeks in a row, don't be shocked when your next opponent pulls up with Energy Ball Reuniclus, Taunt SD Haxorus, Sub NP Hoopa, and Metronome Togekiss. I imagine many tournament players would rather save stall as a surprise weapon rather than overusing it and risking an embarrassing blowout.
*Or even, "Stall always loses unless it has a great matchup and and is played decently."
What kind of players can be found on the ladder? Inexperienced players who may not know how to play against stall, players spamming that one sample team, and players testing teams that could use some improvement — all easy pickings for stall. While other playstyles will also put in good results against these players, stall is the most consistent at winning positive matchups. Even in good matchups, offense often relies on making predictions and connecting inaccurate moves. Of course, the ladder also contains experienced players with good teams, but as long as stall can maintain a passable win rate against the good players, the extremely high win rate against the rest of the ladder allows stall to reach higher ratings than other playstyles.
Another factor in stall's ladder success is that many players do not enjoy using stall. Maybe they dislike the long games, want to be able to make fancy predictions and plays, or just feel that using stall is getting cheap wins. Because stall is underused on the ladder, players do not prepare for it as much as they should. When they finally encounter a stall team, their teams lack answers.
As we've seen, stall isn't dominating tournaments, and its ladder success can be attributed to unprepared opponents and underrepresentation. But there still might be good reasons to take stall down a notch.
Endless Battles: Stall versus stall (and sometimes stall versus balance) games often result in 1000 turn battles. Usually all that is needed for an endless battle is for both sides to have either the means to keep rocks off their side (double or triple defog stall teams are common) or two Regenerator mons. These battles can last hours and require no skill other than the force of will to keep clicking from one mon to another. A lower usage rate of stall would result in fewer stall versus stall matchups.
Balancing around the Ladder: Even if stall isn't dominant in tournaments, it is the strongest playstyle for laddering. Most players don't play tournaments and we suspect test and tier using the ladder. Perhaps making stall less viable for laddering is a better solution than telling ladder players to get good.
Fun: Many players dislike using stall, and even more hate facing it. If stall were seen less often, the tier might become more enjoyable for many players.
Blissey is the main core of Stall. I have never seen a good Stall without Blissey because there is absolutely not a single Pokemon which can do the same than Blissey. You're talking about Audino which is a garbage Pokemon which force you to get rid of Mega-Altaria or Mega-Aggron or things like Umbreon or Cresselia but none of this Pokemon can replace Blissey, not even a little bit. Blissey has Natural Cure, great instant healing recovery thanks to Soft-Boiled (which is a million time better than Cresselia's shitty recovery Moonlight), access to Stealth Rock, Wish or Heal Bell. How can you compare Cresselia to Blissey ? Just because they can handle Pokemon on the special side ? C'mon.. Max SpD Cresselia takes about 40-45% on Hydro Pump from Specs Primarina which force it to recover.. but wait it only has 8 PPs to heal itself. Even Moonblast is troublesome because it deals about 35-40%.
A Blissey ban is without a doubt a big nerf to stall (much bigger than an Alomomola ban), but stall would still have options for dealing with Primarina.
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Hydro Pump vs. 172 HP / 252+ SpD Snorlax: 195-231 (38.6 - 45.8%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Hydro Pump vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Empoleon: 103-122 (27.6 - 32.7%) -- 77.2% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Moonblast vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Celebi: 180-213 (44.5 - 52.7%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Moonblast vs. 252 HP / 124+ SpD Assault Vest Slowking: 126-148 (31.9 - 37.5%) -- 92.7% chance to 3HKO
If rocks are off:
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Moonblast vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Mantine: 144-169 (38.5 - 45.1%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
252+ SpA Choice Specs Primarina Hydro Pump vs. 248 HP / 204+ SpD Articuno: 186-219 (48.5 - 57.1%) -- 44.9% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
Yes, many of these calcs are nearly 2HKOs, but stall has always lived on the edge. Banded Terrakion's Stone Edge is almost a 2HKO on Gligar and LO Mamoswine's Earthquake is nearly a 2HKO on Alomomola.
As for the argument that nothing can replace Blissey, it is true that there is no other mon exactly like Blissey, and there is a good reason that Blissey is used on most stall builds. But there are other Stealth Rock users and other special walls. Natural Cure is just a luxury (and if you really want a specially defensive rocker with Natural Cure you can always use Celebi). My experience meming with a mono-flying stall team has left me convinced that stall can still get plenty of wins (at least against ladder players) without Blissey.
Note: The quotes below aren't necessarily arguing this point, but if I'm attacking a straw man, so be it.
There is not a single meta stall breaker that by itself gives a favorable match up versus this team, unless you make specific counter teaming that is bad overall for the metagame, such as HP Grass Scizor.
It should be noted that this particular Reuniclus set has little reason to be used other than to handle stall, as Psychic/Grass is pretty awful coverage in a tier that includes Scizor and Latias as S Rank Pokemon, and where Celebi and Hydreigon also see significant usage.
A set that enables a mon to destroy one of its hard counters can hardly be considered unviable. Z-Belch Hydreigon or CM Z-Volt Switch Cobalion sacrifice a lot to lure Primarina / Tentacruel, but they are considered viable (although niche). Back in gen 6, I ran Signal Beam Suicune to lure Celebi.
There often seems to be a mentality where the stall matchup isn't taken seriously in team preparation. Weak to Scizor? Slap HP Fire on Latias. Weak to Moltres? Run Stone Edge on Cobalion. Weak to AloBlissQuag? Maybe try HP Grass Scizor. If stall is truly the metagame-dominating force that some would claim it is, why wouldn't running coverage for common stall cores be top priority? (Papagoi was right all along.)
It doesn't necessarily take niche sets to beat stall either. For instance, Adamant LO Mamoswine 2HKOs everything on pif's team after rocks (84.8% chance on Quag), and Flame Orb Heracross gives the team all kinds of problems.
What I find to be very shocking is how pearls opponents in UU open are unable to bring teams that fare well vs stall even though they are in the late rounds of a big tour. Hes bringing the same fucking team over and over and his opponents cannot for the life of them figure a way to get past it. This is propably because they dont have friends who are able to pilot stall or have had the fortune of facing pif enough times on the ladder. Which is understandable. Very few people bother to learn how to properly use stall. Which is a part of the problem I think. Because you beat a couple of terrible ladder players who uses stall does not mean stall isnt OP.
Because a couple of players can't figure out how to beat stall doesn't mean stall is OP.
There isn't good evidence that stall is broken at the tournament level, but I guess we could ban something to make the tier more fun for ladder players. If we're going to ban something, I vote Blissey. Go big or go home.
In SPL, out of the 96 USUM teams used, 8 or 9 were stall teams. Can a playstyle with less than 10% usage really be considered to be dominating the metagame?
In UUPL, pokeisfun had the opportunity to be a manager. This was the perfect chance to show how dangerous stall could be — a team of players handpicked by the #1 UU stall player himself, with direct access to all of pif's teambuilding and knowledge. Out of 28 games, how many times did pif's team use stall? Just one time.
This is actually a shakky example. Since pif is known as a stall player, this would not be clever from him to bring Stall because his opponents will expecting him to bring Stall and they will probably make teams which will be able to get a good MU vs Stall archetype.
Talking about Blissey's ban. I do believe that if Blissey is banned, it would be the worst nerf for Stall. Without Blissey, Stall struggles so hard to handle threats such as Specs or Taunt Hydreigon, Specs Primarina, CM Latias (it will not need Psyshock anymore which means it would be even better). Neither Empoleon or Celebi can be as effective as Blissey because Empoleon doesn't have any good recovery while Celebi has a terrible typing. To deal with CM Latias, Stall would need things like Mega-Aggron/Steelix which means no Mega-Altaria which also lead to an even bigger weakness to Hydreigon etc..
I appreciate Warzoid trying to continue the conversation. Let me explain why most his views are totally misleading and lead to baseless conclusions and why some of his thoughts are well founded and merit further discussion.
In SPL, out of the 96 USUM teams used, 8 or 9 were stall teams. Can a playstyle with less than 10% usage really be considered to be dominating the metagame?
In UUPL, pokeisfun had the opportunity to be a manager. This was the perfect chance to show how dangerous stall could be — a team of players handpicked by the #1 UU stall player himself, with direct access to all of pif's teambuilding and knowledge. Out of 28 games, how many times did pif's team use stall? Just one time.
Let's look at this quote for a clue. It seems reasonable to say that a game is a great matchup if and only if the game can never be lost except by badly misplaying. So let's rephrase the quote a bit.
"Stall either has a great matchup or has a horrendous matchup in tournaments." *
This is what players have known for ages — stall is a very matchup-based playstyle. There are exceptions where games are close, requiring predictions from both sides, but often a stall game is already won or lost at team preview. If the stall team can control hazards and comfortably counter the opposing threats, even the best plays and luckiest hax will not save the opposing team most of the time. But on the flip side, using stall can result in hilarious defeats, such as this Virizion sweep from SPL where the stall team has almost no counterplay.
Tournament players know that bringing stall too frequently will result in getting counter-teamed. If you bring stall 3 weeks in a row, don't be shocked when your next opponent pulls up with Energy Ball Reuniclus, Taunt SD Haxorus, Sub NP Hoopa, and Metronome Togekiss. I imagine many tournament players would rather save stall as a surprise weapon rather than overusing it and risking an embarrassing blowout.
*Or even, "Stall always loses unless it has a great matchup and and is played decently."
Warzoid's first point is that a play style cannot be dominating if it only has 10% usage. I explained in my first post how stall always wins unless given a horrendous MU or misplayed. Adaam showed more games where stall almost automatically won on match up. I'm not going to pretend I can read the mind of these players, even on my own team, and say why they decide on one team over the other.
All I can show you is what I have observable evidence for. I have shown powerful evidence that stall is unbeatable unless you know its coming in advance. Warzoid does not dispute this point and even says "many tournament players would rather save stall as a surprise weapon" - implying that it can give a likely free win if used sparsely. How isn't this broken?
So what Warzoid is offering is second order logic. He says since stall isn't constantly spammed, it must not be broken. That would be a fair point, if I didn't just give first order evidence that stall is disgustingly obscene and far too powerful. When I say first and second order, I mean how directly related to the argument the evidence is. My evidence is first order and better and supports my claim. Stall is broken.
Warzoid's second point is that stall in gen7uu is no different that other generations in that it's MU based and he wrongly quotes (presumably me) saying "stall has a great matchup or has a horrendous matchup in tournaments."
His logic is fallacious because he's confusing outcomes with probabilities. Yes, you either have a good MU or a bad MU, that's the universe of outcomes. But he's making it seem like a 50-50. Adaam has shown evidence and Warzoid himself indirectly concedes in his surprise weapon quote, that it isn't even close to 50-50 for a good MU vs stall, tournament game after tournament game both players bring teams that have shockingly little for stall.
I feel like Warzoid must not have read my first post when he makes the absurd and wrong claim that my post can be interpreted as "Stall always loses unless it has a great matchup and is played decently." I say he must not have read it because I specifically showed a replay of 2019 UU Open semis where the stall player had an awful MU and an awful start, but still managed to win, partially because the opposing player didn't full pressure as I conceded but also partially because the stall player had a very tough team and played decently.
What kind of players can be found on the ladder? Inexperienced players who may not know how to play against stall, players spamming that one sample team, and players testing teams that could use some improvement — all easy pickings for stall. While other playstyles will also put in good results against these players, stall is the most consistent at winning positive matchups. Even in good matchups, offense often relies on making predictions and connecting inaccurate moves. Of course, the ladder also contains experienced players with good teams, but as long as stall can maintain a passable win rate against the good players, the extremely high win rate against the rest of the ladder allows stall to reach higher ratings than other playstyles.
Another factor in stall's ladder success is that many players do not enjoy using stall. Maybe they dislike the long games, want to be able to make fancy predictions and plays, or just feel that using stall is getting cheap wins. Because stall is underused on the ladder, players do not prepare for it as much as they should. When they finally encounter a stall team, their teams lack answers.
Warzoid's third point is an opinion piece without even presumption of evidence on how the ladder works. Frankly I think his comments are totally unfounded but they weren't relevant towards my arguments anyways so I won't comment further.
Warzoid's fourth point is a strawman on Primarina - nobody said don't ban Blissey because Primarina will destroy stall then, people quite clearly said don't ban Blissey because balance uses Blissey too and banning Blissey might damage the metagame overall. I had to say this because his point was just so wrong, responding to claims not made, even if I support his overall argument that Blissey is a viable suspect target.
A set that enables a mon to destroy one of its hard counters can hardly be considered unviable. Z-Belch Hydreigon or CM Z-Volt Switch Cobalion sacrifice a lot to lure Primarina / Tentacruel, but they are considered viable (although niche). Back in gen 6, I ran Signal Beam Suicune to lure Celebi.
There often seems to be a mentality where the stall matchup isn't taken seriously in team preparation. Weak to Scizor? Slap HP Fire on Latias. Weak to Moltres? Run Stone Edge on Cobalion. Weak to AloBlissQuag? Maybe try HP Grass Scizor. If stall is truly the metagame-dominating force that some would claim it is, why wouldn't running coverage for common stall cores be top priority? (Papagoi was right all along.)
It doesn't necessarily take niche sets to beat stall either. For instance, Adamant LO Mamoswine 2HKOs everything on pif's team after rocks (84.8% chance on Quag), and Flame Orb Heracross gives the team all kinds of problems.
Warzoid's fifth point is very good, thought provoking, and deserves more discussion. The essence of it is what exactly deserves to be called viable? If we are willing to say HP Grass Scizor is a viable set, then we shouldn't have any problem with stall because then obviously things like SD Virizion, CM HP Grass Suicune, random stall breaker, would all be considered viable. I don't think it's a useful way to think, to categorize as something as "viable" or "unviable" - rather we should think of it on a spectrum, as the VR rankings do to some extent (although even that thread is guilty of this binary categorization, clearly we can say S ranks are more viable than C ranks).
The important thing to do is not to just look at one of my teams though, but at the playstyle as a whole. One team might be slightly Mamoswine weak (you forgot to mention Scizor nearly counters Mamoswine), but others have Alomomola. Most teams might be Heracross weak but it still has to deal with combinations of Hydreigon and Doublade. It's really unfair to single out a single team when I've provided a dozen strong stall teams.
Anyways, what exactly are our tier's stallbreakers, how viable are they, and how good are they at breaking stall? If they are actually viable and good at their job, then perhaps we don't need to ban stall. I still think I raised enough points to have a suspect on Blissey, Alomomola, Quagsire or Pyukumuku.
all i want is a blissey or quag or pyuk or alo suspect, please just tell me why I can't have one or when I'm getting it HoggPearl have a nice day I truly support all UU players go UU!!! go friends~~~!!!
I think this discussion pretty much boils down to a question that could be paraphrased as:
What are the tiers viable stallbreaking options, what support do they require, and is it overly constricting to fit these onto teams?
Quick preface: Please don't confuse the options on this list with being capable of single-handedly beating stall or handling all variations of stall.
SD Heracross
SD Haxorus
NP Togekiss
CM + Psyshock Latias
DD + Facade Mega Altaria
CM + Energy Ball Reuniclus
NP (+ Grass Knot) Infernape (@ Fightinium Z)
SD Crawdaunt (@ Waterium Z)
QD + Roost Venomoth (@ Buginium Z)
Other options that can apply good pressure but are considerably less self-sufficient than the above options:
Slack Off Infernape (@ Life Orb)
Crawdaunt (@ Choice Band)
Substitute Gengar (@ Fightinium Z)
SD + Wood Hammer Mimikyu (@ Grassium Z)
Substitute + CM Suicune
Psyshock + Trick Latias (@ Choice Specs)
BD + Seed Bomb Linoone
Substitute Kyurem (@ Metronome)
SD + Toxic Doublade
NP Lucario (@ Fightinium Z)
Substitute Mamoswine (@ Metronome or @ Groundium Z)
SD Scizor (@ Buginium Z)
Superpower Nidoking (@ Life Orb)
Taunt Hydreigon (@ Life Orb or @ Dread Plate or even @ Metronome)
Substitute + CM Chandelure (@ Ghostium Z)
Substitute + SD Feraligatr
SD (+Taunt) Virizion (@ Fightinium Z or Rockium Z)
Substitute + NP Celebi (@ Psychium Z)
Superpower Volcanion (@ Fightinium Z)
Sand Tomb + Taunt + Toxic Gligar
HP Grass Mega Manectric
Mega Sharpedo
One could argue that some of these I pulled out of my ass but bear with me for now. I purposely left out some of the crazier stuff such as BD Chesnaught or Natural Gift Scizor because they're generally not worth the trouble. Please let me know if I missed something crucial so that I can add it.
Hazard setters:
Quick preface: Again, these aren't going to do well versus all stall builds given that stall can choose from a plethora of hazard removal.
SR + Taunt Cobalion
SR + Taunt Krookodile
SR + Ice Fang Mega Aerodactyl
SR + SD Terrakion
SR (+ Taunt) Nidoqueen (and/or Toxic Spikes)
SR + Taunt Gligar
SR (+ Knock Off) Empoleon
(SR + Avalanche Mega Aggron)
(SR + Refresh Swampert)
Spikes + HP Fire Roserade
Spikes + Taunt Chesnaught
(Spikes + HP Fire Mega Glalie)
Toxic Spikes Tentacruel
Other (such as pivots into Blissey or Alomomola) :
Roost Scizor
Cobalion (@ Leftovers)
Doublade
Gligar
Gengar
Taunt + Pain Split Weezing
Amoonguss
Rest + Sleep Talk Primarina
Blissey
Toxicroak
tbd
Choice Band Crawdaunt, HP Ice Mega Manectric & SR + Taunt Nidoqueen
^ Extremely simple, yet effective. Volt Switch on the Blissey, and collect your kill with Crawdaunt versus stall variants without Mega Altaria. In the case that the stall does feature Mega Altaria - and many of them do as we can infer from pif's team dump - SR Nidoqueen will cover for the team just nicely (Toxic Spikes is a pick worth considering as well). SR + Taunt Cobalion is a viable alternative over Nidoqueen but has to watch out for Flamethrower. I put HP Ice because even though HP Grass is justifiable, with a breaker like Crawdaunt it is not necessary and preventing Gligar from using Defog as well as having a move that deals some damage to Mega Altaria is more valuable. A good stall player will scout HP Grass anyway so it's easy to take advantage of that and bluff it by going for Volt Switch on the Ground type.
Choice Band Terrakion & SR + Avalanche Mega Aggron
^ With Gligar weakened/removed Terrakion has a much easier time applying pressure versus stall whereas Terrakion does better by default versus variants that opt for Moltres which give Mega Aggron trouble. I find that Toxic Spikes + Knock Off Tentacruel makes for a good addition to this core. It can afford to drop the Poison STAB with Mega Aggron covering for Mega Altaria and removing Leftovers from bulky Water types as well poisoning Ground types allows Terrakion to have a bit more leeway not being as reliant on making all the right predictions.
^ This one is harder to pull off simply by nature of Choice Specs and Choice Band locking its users into one move at the cost for power but with decent hazard support and the appropriate doubles it's still doable to open up some holes. With Blissey weakened/removed stall easily folds to Choice Specs Moonblast. I realise that Choice Band is sort of hard to justify on Krookodile but I believe it deserves some more recognition.
SD Crawdaunt (@ Waterium Z) & Healing Wish Latias
^ Other than the previous core, this one certainly doesn't rely on chip damage on Blissey. Waterium Z Crawdaunt doesn't mind Mega Aggron too much and can muscle past Quagsire and Alomomola. Catching a Toxic in the process of setting up with SD can proof deadly in that match-up however (finding safe opportunities to grab an SD can be difficult), and even though it is usually able to create a hole in the opponent's team in the process it isn't exactly ideal to trade your dedicated wallbreaker for in the stall match-up. Healing Wish Latias grants Crawdaunt a second attempt to clean later on. Ideally, this core has something in the back to take advantage of Pyukumuku because that thing is harder to break than Quagsire (Crawdaunt does learn Taunt which allows it to shut down Pyukumuku entirely but sacrificing the match-up versus offensive builds is almost impossible from a building perspective). Obviously, Mega Altaria needs to be accounted for otherwise (still takes a shitload from +2 Hydro Vortex though).
These are merely some examples I took from my own builder. I'll add more if I find the time.
Final musings or"Redefining building in SM UU"
Again, very few of the options listed above will beat stall all by itself but you can't really be expecting that from a single breaker anyway. Slapping a Choice Scarf user on your team doesn't make your team safe versus offense and it certainly isn't the case with breakers versus stall. Beating stall begins in the builder and frankly many people (including me) oftentimes do not consider/care about the stall match-up when building because A) just as warzoid pointed out in the end it isn't used all that much and B) it requires a good deal more effort and thought to build a team that doesn't simply concede versus a well-played stall (you come to realise very soon when building around that that super cool, new set or core you had in mind that you're likely to have to ditch that idea when you want to have a shot versus offensive and defensive builds both). This leaves me with the following question:
Is it overly constricting to prepare for stall in SM UU?
Possibly. But I'm not convinced. It is indeed the case that occasionally (and some will argue that more often than not) one will feel that there are simply too many dangers/threats lurking in the UU tier to account for when building. What I gathered from writing this post, however, is that there is a plethora of viable options out there for applying pressure to and beating stall that while needing support are not by any stretch of the imagination to be considered useless in other match-ups. Just as you can make the argument for offensive builds not being able to break every stall build, stall can't possibly prepare for all of the breakers that UU has to offer either. I already know someone's going to be unable to suppress the urge to go through the lists above and point out how stall has the tools to beat every single one of these to which I can only say: You are absolutely right. But you cannot fit all of these answers onto one stall team. From what I can tell it is and has always been a match-up issue with stall and if stall has become increasingly powerful in too many match-ups recently then I say stop whining and back to the lab. I believe UU has the tools to deal with this situation, that it can be overcome without having to resort to yet another suspect test and that new trends to combat stall will emerge. However, I might be wrong. I might very well be wrong and I'll gladly accept another suspect test if the consensus becomes that stall truly is too powerful and that something has to be done about it. As of right now, however, I believe that there still is room for exploration.
Since pif is known as a stall player, this would not be clever from him to bring Stall because his opponents will expecting him to bring Stall and they will probably make teams which will be able to get a good MU vs Stall archetype.
Imagine kink's team bringing bulky offense only once in an entire tournament because kink is known as a bulky offense player. Think about how silly that would be.
Talking about Blissey's ban. I do believe that if Blissey is banned, it would be the worst nerf for Stall. Without Blissey, Stall struggles so hard to handle threats such as Specs or Taunt Hydreigon, Specs Primarina, CM Latias (it will not need Psyshock anymore which means it would be even better). Neither Empoleon or Celebi can be as effective as Blissey because Empoleon doesn't have any good recovery while Celebi has a terrible typing. To deal with CM Latias, Stall would need things like Mega-Aggron/Steelix which means no Mega-Altaria which also lead to an even bigger weakness to Hydreigon etc..
I addressed Primarina in my previous post, but I'll tackle the rest.
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Flash Cannon vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Primarina: 112-132 (30.7 - 36.2%) -- guaranteed 4HKO after Leftovers recovery
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Flash Cannon vs. 252 HP / 16+ SpD Florges: 158-188 (43.8 - 52.2%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Draco Meteor vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Mantine: 177-208 (47.3 - 55.6%) -- 19.9% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Dark Pulse vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Mantine: 109-129 (29.1 - 34.4%) -- 99.6% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery (small chance to lose to multiple flinches)
Remember, it's choice locked, so we can always use Protect or pivot into a specially defensive Regenerator mon to scout. Or even make a prediction (gasp).
Keep in mind that Blissey isn't a 100% counter either:
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Focus Blast vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Blissey: 294-346 (41.1 - 48.4%) -- 10.5% chance to 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
So if we're allowed to switch out and heal later then we can probably include berry Snorlax:
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Draco Meteor vs. 172 HP / 152+ SpD Snorlax: 226-267 (44.8 - 52.9%) -- 27.3% chance to 2HKO
252 SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Focus Blast vs. 172 HP / 152+ SpD Snorlax: 280-330 (55.5 - 65.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
Pretty much any fairy handles this. Specially defensive Registeel can beat it down in much the same way that Blissey does.
+1 252 SpA Latias Gigavolt Havoc (185 BP) vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Registeel: 145-171 (39.8 - 46.9%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
+1 252 SpA Latias Gigavolt Havoc (185 BP) vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Stakataka: 192-226 (58.8 - 69.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery
Mega Altaria itself handles Latias if Latias isn't running Ice Beam or Psychium Z.
252 SpA Latias Psychic vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Altaria-Mega: 127-150 (35.8 - 42.3%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
Latias can also be Pursuit trapped with Muk, or phased with Dragon Tail Assault Vest Slowking (as a temporary measure, of course).
Every major threat can still be checked defensively without Blissey. But would stall teams struggle to counter all of the threats without Blissey, leaving them vulnerable in certain matchups? Wouldn't the goal of a Blissey suspect be for special attackers to become a bigger threat to stall? Should stall teams go unpunished for letting a specs breaker switch in repeatedly? Or would it be too much? So many questions.
Warzoid's second point is that stall in gen7uu is no different that other generations in that it's MU based and he wrongly quotes (presumably me) saying "stall has a great matchup or has a horrendous matchup in tournaments.".
The statement "stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up in tournaments" allows for two possibilities: (1) a horrendous matchup or (2) a matchup that cannot be lost except by misplaying, which I would consider to be a great matchup. So yes, that is exactly what the statement is saying.
I feel like Warzoid must not have read my first post when he makes the absurd and wrong claim that my post can be interpreted as "Stall always loses unless it has a great matchup and is played decently." I say he must not have read it because I specifically showed a replay of 2019 UU Open semis where the stall player had an awful MU and an awful start, but still managed to win, partially because the opposing player didn't full pressure as I conceded but also partially because the stall player had a very tough team and played decently.
This is an equivalent restatement of the quote: "Stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up in tournaments." But it is true that stall can still win a bad matchup if the opponent misplays. Let's add that clarification to pif's original quote. Here's the updated statement: "Stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up where the opponent plays well." And now let's rephrase it.
"Stall always loses if the opponent plays well unless it has a great matchup and is played decently."
If you doubt that the two statements are equivalent, please consult this professional-looking flowchart.
Note that I don't actually agree with either statement. I think there are some games where stall has a fairly equal chance of winning or losing where the result will come down to which player predicts better. But the general concept that stall is a very matchup-based playstyle is true. Another way of looking at pif's quote is to consider the statement "Trick Room teams never lose except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous matchup where the opponent plays well." This may be true, but if 90% of games are horrendous matchups, it doesn't really matter if the great matchups are easy wins.
All I can show you is what I have observable evidence for. I have shown powerful evidence that stall is unbeatable unless you know its coming in advance. Warzoid does not dispute this point and even says "many tournament players would rather save stall as a surprise weapon" - implying that it can give a likely free win if used sparsely. How isn't this broken?
"Unbeatable unless you know it's coming in advance" is a bit of a hyperbole. For instance, a player who brings LO Mamoswine against pif's Pyukumuku team probably didn't bring Mamo primarily to counterteam stall. But I agree that stall will usually win against unprepared players.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we analyze a bunch of high-level games and discover that the vast majority of teams are vulnerable to Sticky Web offense. We realize that webs teams can likely get free wins if used sparsely. Based on this analysis, can we conclude that Sticky Web teams are broken and dominating the metagame? No, all we can say is that players should use webs more. If players start successfully using webs more often, then the meta will adapt and additional analysis will be needed to see where webs stand in the new meta.
His logic is fallacious because he's confusing outcomes with probabilities. Yes, you either have a good MU or a bad MU, that's the universe of outcomes. But he's making it seem like a 50-50. Adaam has shown evidence and Warzoid himself indirectly concedes in his surprise weapon quote, that it isn't even close to 50-50 for a good MU vs stall, tournament game after tournament game both players bring teams that have shockingly little for stall.
As the joke goes, "It's a 50/50 if you win the lottery, either you do or you don't." My apologies if I seemed to be portraying the stall matchup that way. If the argument is that stall has a great matchup against a lot of the teams in the current tournament meta or that players should use stall more often in tournaments, then fine. But claiming it's a broken playstyle that's dominating the tournament meta is an overstatement. You can't fault players for preparing for the meta that they're playing in. If trying to fully cover for a playstyle with less than 10% usage leaves you weak against the other 90% of the meta, maybe it's the better choice to cover the other 90%.
Warzoid's first point is that a play style cannot be dominating if it only has 10% usage. I explained in my first post how stall always wins unless given a horrendous MU or misplayed. Adaam showed more games where stall almost automatically won on match up. I'm not going to pretend I can read the mind of these players, even on my own team, and say why they decide on one team over the other.
I stand by my statement that stall cannot be said to be dominating the meta with less than 10% usage. The definition of "dominating" is subjective, but I think something should be considered dominating if it's so strong that everyone keeps running it despite the meta being prepared for it. For instance, I consider Scizor to dominate the UU tier because everyone runs Scizor checks but it's on half the teams anyway because it wins games.
I'm going to take a wild guess as to why tournament players decide on one team over another — it's because they're trying to win. They use the team that they believe will give them the highest odds of winning. The top players don't bring stall more often because they don't think it's the best way to win.
Even the top tournament players aren't perfect. They sometimes misplay and they don't always bring the best teams. Maybe they should use stall a bit more. But if stall were some kind of magic pathway to free wins, they would be the first to be spamming it.
The statement "stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up in tournaments" allows for two possibilities: (1) a horrendous matchup or (2) a matchup that cannot be lost except by misplaying, which I would consider to be a great matchup. So yes, that is exactly what the statement is saying.
This is an equivalent restatement of the quote: "Stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up in tournaments." But it is true that stall can still win a bad matchup if the opponent misplays. Let's add that clarification to pif's original quote. Here's the updated statement: "Stall never loses except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous match up where the opponent plays well." And now let's rephrase it.
"Stall always loses if the opponent plays well unless it has a great matchup and is played decently."
If you doubt that the two statements are equivalent, please consult this professional-looking flowchart.
Note that I don't actually agree with either statement. I think there are some games where stall has a fairly equal chance of winning or losing where the result will come down to which player predicts better. But the general concept that stall is a very matchup-based playstyle is true. Another way of looking at pif's quote is to consider the statement "Trick Room teams never lose except when badly misplayed or against a horrendous matchup where the opponent plays well." This may be true, but if 90% of games are horrendous matchups, it doesn't really matter if the great matchups are easy wins.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that we analyze a bunch of high-level games and discover that the vast majority of teams are vulnerable to Sticky Web offense. We realize that webs teams can likely get free wins if used sparsely. Based on this analysis, can we conclude that Sticky Web teams are broken and dominating the metagame? No, all we can say is that players should use webs more. If players start successfully using webs more often, then the meta will adapt and additional analysis will be needed to see where webs stand in the new meta.
My quote: stall never loses unless misplayed or given a bad MU.
Your claim:
This means stall always loses unless played well and given a good MU.
Why these statements aren’t equal:
Just because stall is misplayed doesn't mean stall loses. Just because stall is given a bad MU doesn't mean it loses. The first statement isn't saying stall loses when played badly, only that that or MU is a necessary condition for it to lose.
This isn't even a debate on Pokemon anymore, you're just trying so hard to justify a fallacy...I don't get it. And then you try to pass it off as some joke with your totally unnecessary flow chart? Are you just trolling or are you actually trying to debate?
Think of it like this:
I always eat breakfast unless I wake up late.
That isn't equivalent to:
I never eat breakfast unless I wake up on time.
I might decide to rush a breakfast even if I wake up late. Or I might not realize I woke up late. There are scenarios where I will eat breakfast even if I wake up late. There are scenarios stall will win even if given a bad MU.
This isn't a debate, you're just putting out clearly fallacious logic, for what, I don't know, but it's misleading and if you're interested in an honest debate you should take that logic flow chart out.
As for your Sticky Web point, I see where we disagree now. To me, in your hypothetical, that indeed means Sticky Web is broken. I guess you have a higher threshold to determine if something is broken which is fine but I think means we don't have that much to discuss.
Is stall a magical pathway to a free win? Basically I'm saying it is. Again, you're using rational usage arguments to disagree. That's fine, I find it puzzling stall isn't used more. But I also showed games where stall was a free win so um....yeah as I said, this observable evidence is all I can deal with.[/spoiler]
To be fair, the statement I was rephrasing specified badly misplayed and a horrendous matchup where the opponent played well. If you want to say that badly misplayed games are still winnable or that horrendous matchups where the opponent plays well are still winnable, then I'm willing to admit that my logic is faulty and relies on incorrect hidden assumptions. My point that the statement only allows for great or horrendous matchups still stands though.
As for your Sticky Web point, I see where we disagree now. To me, in your hypothetical, that indeed means Sticky Web is broken. I guess you have a higher threshold to determine if something is broken which is fine but I think means we don't have that much to discuss.
I picked Sticky Web as the example because it sees almost no usage in tournament play. It's okay if you think that a playstyle can be determined to be broken even if it it sees virtually no usage in the meta, but you may find the idea to be a tough sell to the rest of the community.
Do you think that Sticky Web could also be considered to be dominating the metagame in my hypothetical, or do you believe that some usage is required for something to be dominating?
That's fine, I find it puzzling stall isn't used more. But I also showed games where stall was a free win so um....yeah as I said, this observable evidence is all I can deal with.
Building on my previous statement, it would be great if we could get some tournament players to chime in on why they don't use stall more often or why they believe stall is not the best pathway to winning much of the time.
To be fair, the statement I was rephrasing specified badly misplayed and a horrendous matchup where the opponent played well. If you want to say that badly misplayed games are still winnable or that horrendous matchups where the opponent plays well are still winnable, then I'm willing to admit that my logic is faulty and relies on incorrect hidden assumptions. My point that the statement only allows for great or horrendous matchups still stands though.
I picked Sticky Web as the example because it sees almost no usage in tournament play. It's okay if you think that a playstyle can be determined to be broken even if it it sees virtually no usage in the meta, but you may find the idea to be a tough sell to the rest of the community.
Do you think that Sticky Web could also be considered to be dominating the metagame in my hypothetical, or do you believe that some usage is required for something to be dominating?
Building on my previous statement, it would be great if we could get some tournament players to chime in on why they don't use stall more often or why they believe stall is not the best pathway to winning much of the time.
Okay fine, I’ll admit I was grumpy and regardless of the logic thing, you don’t even think it’s important and agree with the premise which is a perfectly valid opinion.
If you have strong evidence that Ambipom or pikachu crushes tournament players’ build then yes I would suspect the 0.001% usage Pokémon (exaggerating I didn’t check).
Usage is not viability. Viability is determined through hard work and analysis like what Esche is pushing us to do and what you started to think about in that last point I quoted.
Okay fine, I’ll admit I was grumpy and regardless of the logic thing, you don’t even think it’s important and agree with the premise which is a perfectly valid opinion.
If you have strong evidence that Ambipom or pikachu crushes tournament players’ build then yes I would suspect the 0.001% usage Pokémon (exaggerating I didn’t check).
Usage is not viability. Viability is determined through hard work and analysis like what Esche is pushing us to do and what you started to think about in that last point I quoted.
as a proud nuer i can tell you that this is not really true unless you're talking about tournament usage, which while more indicative of what is "meta" pertains to an entirely different meta compared to the ladder. usage is usually only reliable for the top 20 or so mons and even then some of the shitmons can get through the cracks. there is certainly some correlation between the two ideas you're addressing, and maybe i'm interpreting what you mean by "closely" too harshly. some clarification would be cool
as a proud nuer i can tell you that this is not really true unless you're talking about tournament usage, which while more indicative of what is "meta" pertains to an entirely different meta compared to the ladder. usage is usually only reliable for the top 20 or so mons and even then some of the shitmons can get through the cracks. there is certainly some correlation between the two ideas you're addressing, and maybe i'm interpreting what you mean by "closely" too harshly. some clarification would be cool
Understandably, I can see where you're coming from. Outside of tournament usage, high Glicko usage stats tend to also correlate a bit closer with perceived viability since these stats are immediately reflective of the choices high-level players, such as the ones posting in this thread or playing in Smogon tournaments, make in teambuilding. I think 1760 Glicko is a better marker of getting a rough picture of viability since it takes into account the team-building decision choices of 1760 Glicko players who do not participate in Smogon tournaments.
EDIT: As a point given to pif I guess, I will concede that sometimes usage stats will understate the true strength of a playstyle. Stall isn't a popular playstyle because of overall longer game times, so its representation is more muted here. Quagsire and Pyukumuku sitting at 40th and 58th place in usage doesn't speak to the strength of the playstyle; however, this may have been due to the fact that the Weather suspect took up over half of August and pretty much invalidated stall for most of that time.
Looking at the last three months of 1760 Glicko usage data, Blissey has consistently been in top 10 usage while Alomomola (another key stall component currently up for debate) sits consistently in top 30. Since Stall is a fringe defensive playstyle (much like how HO is a fringe offensive playstyle), Stall is a bit more prevalent than it should be.
I've been lurking on this site since late oras, but I never really bothered to sign up and join the discussions. Usually there's a lot of enthusiastic UU players that discuss suspects/drops etc. in detail, so I never really felt the need to add a lot to it. But this particular discussion sparked my interest, so let me bring up a few points, that IMO are worth noting:
I'm generally of the opinion that stall has a lot of options atm and I feel like a big reason as to why so many different stall builds are possible, is Mega-Altaria. MAlt provides a lot for a defensive team due to its excellent typing and bulk, checking, or soft checking, huge nuissances to stall like Crawdaunt, Infernape, Terrak, some lati variants etc. On top of that it can be used as a secondary defogger which makes winning the hazard war a lot easier, or even run other support options like heal bell. Now I dont want to imply, that any stall needs Altaria to function, there have been plenty of stall builds that florish without relying on the fluff monster, but a lot of them do in fact use it, and it makes stall considerably harder to prepare for IMO. Take a look at pif's team paste for example, 6 out of his 10 stall builds (I excluded the last 2, cause more balance-ish teams) make use of MAlt.
I'm aware UU recently decided to suspect MAlt and a large majority voted "no ban", but I feel like the discussions largely revolved around Altaria's offensive options, without really taking the more defensive archetypes into consideration. Now look, I'm not saying MAlt can't be dealt with from a defensive standpoint, there are definitely mons that can check it (although it's a prime example of mons that can work around its checks fairly easily lol), but its pretty scary offensive capabilities coupled with the utility it provides to more defensive playstyles make me think that the tier would be better off without it.
I've been lurking on this site since late oras, but I never really bothered to sign up and join the discussions. Usually there's a lot of enthusiastic UU players that discuss suspects/drops etc. in detail, so I never really felt the need to add a lot to it. But this particular discussion sparked my interest, so let me bring up a few points, that IMO are worth noting:
I'm generally off the opinion that stall has a lot of options atm and I feel like a big reason as to why so many different stall builds are possible, is Mega-Altaria. MAlt provides a lot for a defensive team due to its excellent typing and bulk, checking, or soft checking, huge nuissances to stall like Crawdaunt, Infernape, Terrak, some lati variants etc. On top of that it can be used as a secondary defogger which makes winning the hazard war a lot easier, or even run other support options like heal bell. Now I dont want to imply, that any stall needs Altaria to function, there have been plenty of stall builds that florish without relying on the fluff monster, but a lot of them do in fact use it, and it makes stall considerably harder to prepare for IMO. Take a look at pif's team paste for example, 6 out of his 10 stall builds (I excluded the last 2, cause more balance-ish teams) make use of MAlt.
I'm aware UU recently decided to suspect MAlt and a large majority voted "no ban", but I feel like the discussions largely revolved around Altaria's offensive options, without really taking the more defensive archetypes into consideration. Now look, I'm not saying MAlt can't be dealt with from a defensive standpoint, there are definitely mons that can check it (although it's a prime example of mons that can work around its checks fairly easily lol), but its pretty scary offensive capabilities coupled with the utility it provides to more defensive playstyles make me think that the tier would be better off without it.
I agree strongly with this. Altaria gone opens up alot of room for typical stallbreakers like crawdaunt and haxorus to do damage and limits the amount of options stall has. Since it already has been deemed suspect worthy because of its offensive prosess, maybe another suspect where both its offensive and defensive capabilities are taken into consideration will produce a different outcome (aswell as the playerbase's wish to nerf stall ofc)
Mega-Altaria has already been suspected. I definitively don't understand why we should suspect it again.
While its offensive presence was the main reason of its suspect, people also talk about how good it was as a defensive threat. It make no sense to suspect it again.
It was barely two months ago, the metagame didn't really change since July. Plus the vote occured and we decided to keep Mega-Altaria..
