Announcement np: SS OU Suspect Process, Round 10 - Royals

[TailGlowVM]

Scarf is a very common item that Zama-C can't run, which I feel you should keep in mind. You also mentioned Hawlucha. Thing about that mon, it usually runs a terrain seed, which boosts a defense stat, so it's always harder to stop than you think it will be. Granted, you'll usually use a seed that boosts defense and not Sp.Def, which doesn't really help in the specific case you mentioned, but it's still worth noting. There are probably better examples you could have used for a frail sweeper...

I used those examples because they were the ones the previous poster used, so I wanted to explain how they differed from Zamazenta-C. As for Scarfers, yes, there are some, but how many good ones do we have, and do all of them actually win 1v1? Several, like Kartana, must lock into exploitable coverage moves to do it.

 

[NinjaEmboar]

Except were testing Zama-C which can only be used with rusted shield, Zama-H is still banned.

Also as for my experience with Zama-C itself well it works exactly like i expected... which is meh. Its two big problems was its bad movepool and forced item slot. It has severe 4mss with its most common set being Howl, CC, Bash and Wild Charge. Ice Fang can be used to hit lando and chomp harder or other coverage moves such as Crunch for Aegislash or Fire Fang for Scizor but defying from the main set leaves you walled by more mons. Its wishes it can have an actual item slot for things like lefties/band to mitigate chip/boost its power but otherwise Zama-C is only compatible with rusted shield. As for offense well others manage to cover its matchup with it better than i can and its not the no.1 offense killer that most people fear about. So as a result we have a pokemon with Arceus base stats but one that needs a huge amount of team support in order to work and its biggest contribution on a team is as a k-off/trick absorber. So if actually have time to get recs i will vote UNBAN.

I completely agree. A +2 Wild Charge doesn't even break through a def-invested Slowbro (Kanto ofc). Zama-C is definitely not as crazy as a lot of people claim it is. If it had SD, then it'd be different, but it's limited to Howl which takes more time to set up. Plus, Specs Regieleki does pretty good damage to it and outspeeds easily. There are so many ways to deal with Zama-C beyond the ones I just mentioned. It's powerful, but not game-breaking.

 

[Miyami~~~]

My final thoughts on Zama-C are about the same as the first: It's completely fine, and the only reason it's being posited for a ban at all is due to new toy syndrome and people not being prepared for it yet. I'd like to use this post to talk about some things I've seen in regards to Zamazenta-Crowned, both on ladder and arguments in this thread:

1. Defensive teams are more hype than substance.
Despite what a lot of people are saying here, and how it does directly benefit from wish support, semi-stall or full stall with Zama-C isn't really any better than those team styles without Zama-C. While its bulk is certainly impressive, it doesn't really do much of anything on those teams. Usually, you'll switch it in, have it take a hit, then your opponent does whatever they want while you limply hit into their team or click rest and have to be healed again. In my experience using and playing against those kinds of builds, Zama-C was always the weakest component, not the strongest, because it offers nothing to these teams besides an HP sponge when the slot could've been used for a mon that is also fat but actually moves the game forward. It also puts pressure on these teams to constantly heal it, which is different compared to most modern stall teams where everything can recover and this can lead to predictable lines of play, which is something stall really doesn't want.

At the end of the day, Zama-C on defensive teams is nowhere near the end of the world. It doesn't really do anything for the team style that it didn't already have access to, and it won't automatically vault stall to the top tiers of the meta. You're more likely to find Zama-C on offensive teams as a damage sponge than stall.

2. Offense is already adapting to it.
And no, I'm not talking about running something like Vaporeon or Exploud. Besides Volcorona, which Zama cannot touch without another teammate doing most of the heavy lifting for it (and despite people saying Volc on your team makes the stall matchup unwinnable, which is just blatantly false given how volc teams are structured specifically around killing Blissey), Pokemon such as Victini and Aegislash are seeing a rise for their ability to check Zama (Crunch isn't a move people run on it, before somebody brings this up) while still being solid offensive Pokemon with variable sets for whatever your team needs. Helmet Lando-T and Chomp also work as checks as neither of them are OHKO'd by Ice Fang, and despite what some people would claim, SD chomp is still very useful on these kinds of teams. Additionally, Tapu Lele + Hawlucha cores have skyrocketed on offensive teams as they're two frighteningly strong breakers/sweepers that Zama-C doesn't want to switch into directly, which allows them to make progress vs the rest of the team and eventually clean up later. As for pokemon people predicted would be killed off completely by Zama-C, that... hasn't really been the case for a lot of them. While Bisharp is an unfortunate casualty, Rillaboom and Scizor both provide a ton of team support that makes them too valuable to simply stop existing, both commonly run U-Turn and like to click it, and Rillaboom in particular already ran fighting moves on SD Sets for quite some time to hit mons like Ferrothorn or Heatran. Weavile can fit Low Kick onto its SD sets, which at +2 is solidly favoured to OHKO through dauntless shield (98% chance with rocks, 75% chance without), and with adamant being the preferred nature on Zama seemingly Weavile looks to be mostly fine. Low Kick isn't even just for Zama, as it lets it OHKO things like Ferrothorn and Tyranitar that it otherwise would've had to gamble with Triple Axel for.

While offense is still probably Zama-C's best matchup, it doesn't really do anything to it that other anti-offense mons don't already do. There's a variety of checks to it and teams are already being restructured to accommodate it without losing any of their potency, since there's plenty of Pokemon that prevent Zama-C from directly switching into them while still being strong everywhere else, and enough offensive answers to switching into it as well.

3. Most importantly, it doesn't do anything that other things in the tier didn't already do to a degree.
Well yes, something this fast and bulky is new, in terms of how people have "broken" it, it's not anything the tier does not already have. Just about any physical breaker can be broken with the combination of Wish and Future Sight, or even future sight alone. The only reason Zama-C looks so fearsome right now is because it's new and therefore everybody's using it. On the other hand, the fact that it requires that much team support to actually break teams properly is more indicative of its problems than its strengths to me, especially since it's not even unique in that role as things like Melmetal and Urshifu-R can accomplish the same thing. While neither of them are as fast as Zama-C, Zama-C's lacking power means that despite its speed, it often has to take a hit to kill things, even stuff like Ferrothorn which you'd think it could OHKO freely.

Even if it did mythically constrain offense, that's not anything new to OU. Sets like SD Taunt Gliscor 6-0ed stall cleanly in ORAS OU, and it was still allowed in the tier despite a dramatically better matchup vs that team style than Zama-C's offensive matchup. What makes Zama different? That it's against offense and not stall?


Overall, I have yet to be convinced by arguments that Zama-C is unhealthy or broken. It benefits massively from new toy syndrome right now as everyone adjusts to it, but adjustments are being made very quickly, and its hit-taking abilities are pretty overrated and severely limited by the amount of team support it requires to do that all game, at which point you basically have to build your entire team around it just to get results that a lot of other top Pokemon can do much more easily. If it's allowed in the tier, which it should be, I don't see it being any higher than A- on the viability rankings - a far cry from what all the theoryers in the thread say.

 

[Pais]

I'll share my opinion about this suspect.
https://pokepast.es/c399c0416231c8f3

If anyone wants to do the suspect, feel free to use this team.

I've done the suspect the day 1 and I've seen anyway a lot of people that want to unban zamazenta-c. But I don't think to be honest it should be unbanned. I guess people want this mon unbanned because the metagame right now is centralized around dark types like weavile and bisharp.... anyway I don't think that this pokemon can make healthier the metagame. It's true that it reduces the amount of offensive threats but it makes stronger the few mons able to revengekill itproperly (It's still a mon really hard to 1hitko). Except some check like zapdos, volcarona or buzzwole I don't think that other mons mentioned in this thread are good long term answers. Be real, I've seen people mentioning victini as check, a mon without recovery that really suffers cheap damage. Or people that think Toxapex and Slowbro are good answersonly because they have a 30% to burn. Most of the times Zamazenta-C is able to break its common checks. The only benefit I find from Zamazenta-C is that it makes unviable as fuck pokemon like Weavile, Bisharp but it also reduces the amount of other viable HO threats since this mon has a great speed and it's able to revengekill a lot of offensive threats. Also it makes stronger pokemon like Dragapult that are already really good. This means that we are in a point in which every viable offensive threat is really fast and so hard to revengekill sometimes. Also I've seen teams like the John W's one doing really well in ladder as a proof of future sight+zamazenta-c archetype to be problematic (zamazenta-c is not the best abuser of it, but it's still a good one also because of the typing), and so this unban would not nerf a really centralizing archetype of teams like the fsight king based ones. I also think that a possible unban of zamazenta-c would make stall more problematic to face, and also the ladder is a proof of that. I don't see any long terms benefit from this unban, I think this pokemon restricts team building a lot, also from the moment its checksare not always viable and also because you can't fit everytime a volcarona/zapdos in your team. Just enjoy the current meta lol, it's not this bad compared to the zamazenta-c one. For these reasons I'm going to vote ban

(edit: if you think the metagame rn is centralized around HO dark types, ghost types, fsight etc. it does not mean you'll fix it with unbanning another broken mon that will centralize anyway the meta.)

 

[Baloor]

I have yet to make a decisive call on zamazenta myself, while im leaning to keep this thing in ubers, maybe my viewpoint will do a complete 180 by the time voting comes around. theres been a couple of good posts in this thread for both sides (john ws, imas, clones in particular) and multiple people have echoed my current thoughts on the mon so theres not really a need for me to go into detail with what I think. However, there seems to be a lot of random posts (as well as ou room discussions) that are incredibly laser focused on "ZAMA CANT BREAK X POKEMON, ITS BAD" which is a insanely misinformed opinion for a few reasons. We've well established that this pokemon is not very amazing offensively, while it can get through a lot of its checks if you set up a couple of howls or have previous chip on its checks, Zama isnt going to get through a fucking buzzwole lmao the immediate power is just not there. People seem to forget just because a mon isnt a offensive monster doesn't mean its balanced in the metagame, which i think is a notion created by newer players due to us not having a test like this in a long time. Citing these 1v1 scenarios to support why you think Zamazenta should be OU is absolutely hilarious and a reach, you have 5 other pokemon for a reason. In addition things like fs-port and wish pass balance teams are really strong with Zamazenta which almost makes up for most of its short comings in most of these scenarios people are coming up with.

On that note I think the conversation should be more shifted towards; how will zamazenta impact the metagame around it? how do different playstyles react to its existence and will the meta shift in a healthy direction when compared to the one we currently have? (which thankfully we have started)

I see a lot of people talking about how the meta just hasnt adapted to zamazenta and it might be fine when it adapts agaisnt it. Which is a fine point, yeah. Although, need I remind you that we adapt against threats all the time, its bound to happen, but it doesn't automatically mean the meta we'd be playing in is healthy. See the dracovish meta, we adapted against it to the point where there was no point running the mon, however, the metagame wasnt healthy cause it was such an extreme adaptation. This may seem like a insane comparison to some, but its the best example I could pull out of recent history. i think ima has a great post where his main point isnt really "well we will adapt agaisnt it" and rather he thinks that unbanning zama will result in more building creativity. Which I think is a great take and all, however, we dont know if that actually will happen due to Zama's best counterplay being pretty generic balance.

With that said we can assume the most likely evolution we would see is these fatter playstyles becoming a lot more prevalent, due to offensive builds in general having a harder time with zama than balance does. I think the shakeup that a lot of pro-unbanners are wishful of will just not happen. As I see it right now I think its a lot more probable we gravitate towards fatter playstyles and I dont consider a metagame heavily relied on fat exactly healthy or fun at all. This would in fact be the exact opposite of what the pro-unbanners want as that discourages variety and we'd probably only see rises in a few pokemon that perform particular well in these playstyles with zama in the tier. Unbanning something as centralizing as Zamazenta for the sake of change seems really drastic and I think there will likely be better steps we can take if we're serious on wanting to "shake things up". As evident from this post im currently pro-ban with Zamazenta, however, im a bit less set on that opinion than most people. Considering almost everything we're going off of at the moment is theorticals im open to change my opinion the more I play and read about the mon. pls stop badposting.

 

[Myzozoa]

The recent posts by anti-ban posters simply assert and then repeat the assertion that the metagame will adapt, but they can't say how such adaptations will occur outside of a few niche sets and people running rocky helmet on many more pokemon. They say nothing about the impact of Zama-C for offense only admitting that it shits on all currently popular physical sweeper startegies in the tier (besides... "SD aegislash") and promising 'new pokemon will be found' to break strategies based around deploying Zama-C to stop set-up. The lack of any substantive argument here gives me no reason to think there is anything promising here outside of a metagame where wish-teleport and future sight balanced strategies are more dominant, with using set-up moves relegated to a few niche pokemon like Diggersby and Polteageast, and 'cancer' pokemon like hawlucha.

In the best case scenario match-up fishing becomes twice as bad, where if you think your opponent is unlikely to bring Zama-C you can risk bringing HO and blowing through their unprepared balance team. Or you can hedge on your opponent not bringing offense and bringing some balanced crap and slapping volcarona on to your team to fish for a burn and a free win. What's being rewarded there? Abusing a U-turn chain with volc and rilla/shifu? I guess. I don't really see that as involving as much long-term thinking as is available to offensive players currently, instead it involves managing 50-50 type situations, which I would not say is particularly attractive.

Our current metagame is alleged to 'not reward anything', but thus far the support or exegesis for this claim is largely non-existent. It does not take no skill to break a landorus-t, zapdos, corviknight, unaware boots clefable core with physical heavy offense.

Other posters make the dreadfully (truly it is literally a scary claim to me, because I want to believe other people actually care about maximizing skill) misguided claim that this tier needs a free switch in to knock-off, this is often accompanied by some frankly ignorant hand wringing about pokemon that I rarely saw on the ladder, especially at the high end, even before this test (bisharp and weavile, neither fit on any common archetype).

Knock-off is a move, a game of skill is decided by the moves each player makes, and not solely about team match-up 5D-rock-paper-scissors. This is a generation I would dare say is defined by the omnipresence of heavy duty boots. Put 2 and 2 together, the lack of knock-off switch-ins is a feature not a downside of our metagame.

I am not saying the metagame will be unplayable with Zama-C, but I do think the metagame that will emerge will reward skill less than our current metagame.

 

[Nonashinygyrados]

I have yet to make a decisive call on zamazenta myself, while im leaning to keep this thing in ubers, maybe my viewpoint will do a complete 180 by the time voting comes around. theres been a couple of good posts in this thread for both sides (john ws, imas, clones in particular) and multiple people have echoed my current thoughts on the mon so theres not really a need for me to go into detail with what I think. However, there seems to be a lot of random posts (as well as ou room discussions) that are incredibly laser focused on "ZAMA CANT BREAK X POKEMON, ITS BAD" which is a insanely misinformed opinion for a few reasons. We've well established that this pokemon is not very amazing offensively, while it can get through a lot of its checks if you set up a couple of howls or have previous chip on its checks, Zama isnt going to get through a fucking buzzwole lmao the immediate power is just not there. People seem to forget just because a mon isnt a offensive monster doesn't mean its balanced in the metagame, which i think is a notion created by newer players due to us not having a test like this in a long time. Citing these 1v1 scenarios to support why you think Zamazenta should be OU is absolutely hilarious and a reach, you have 5 other pokemon for a reason. In addition things like fs-port and wish pass balance teams are really strong with Zamazenta which almost makes up for most of its short comings in most of these scenarios people are coming up with.

On that note I think the conversation should be more shifted towards; how will zamazenta impact the metagame around it? how do different playstyles react to its existence and will the meta shift in a healthy direction when compared to the one we currently have? (which thankfully we have started)

I see a lot of people talking about how the meta just hasnt adapted to zamazenta and it might be fine when it adapts agaisnt it. Which is a fine point, yeah. Although, need I remind you that we adapt against threats all the time, its bound to happen, but it doesn't automatically mean the meta we'd be playing in is healthy. See the dracovish meta, we adapted against it to the point where there was no point running the mon, however, the metagame wasnt healthy cause it was such an extreme adaptation. This may seem like a insane comparison to some, but its the best example I could pull out of recent history. i think ima has a great post where his main point isnt really "well we will adapt agaisnt it" and rather he thinks that unbanning zama will result in more building creativity. Which I think is a great take and all, however, we dont know if that actually will happen due to Zama's best counterplay being pretty generic balance.

With that said we can assume the most likely evolution we would see is these fatter playstyles becoming a lot more prevalent, due to offensive builds in general having a harder time with zama than balance does. I think the shakeup that a lot of pro-unbanners are wishful of will just not happen. As I see it right now I think its a lot more probable we gravitate towards fatter playstyles and I dont consider a metagame heavily relied on fat exactly healthy or fun at all. This would in fact be the exact opposite of what the pro-unbanners want as that discourages variety and we'd probably only see rises in a few pokemon that perform particular well in these playstyles with zama in the tier. Unbanning something as centralizing as Zamazenta for the sake of change seems really drastic and I think there will likely be better steps we can take if we're serious on wanting to "shake things up". As evident from this post im currently pro-ban with Zamazenta, however, im a bit less set on that opinion than most people. Considering almost everything we're going off of at the moment is theorticals im open to change my opinion the more I play and read about the mon. pls stop badposting.

Nice post , not stuck on an opinion, but expressing why you believe it should stay ban

 

[TPH]

I take back what I said in an earlier post, like Baloor said I haven't really made up my mind about the situation atm. While not broken on its own, I feel the fact that it single handedly (with a bit a team support) stops trick and knock off spam. However, I feel beating it isn't a problem for any kind of team. People argue that HO can't beat it reliably, but thats kinda horseshit, as it runs stuff such as volc, and a bulky ground with helmet. Speaking of horses, its nothing like spectrier in the regard that it has only a few counterplay measures, as most bulky waters and birds already present in the metagame do decent at worst against it.

My general consensus on this is I find I enjoy playing both metas equally, both I find are still somewhat healthy, and don't care whether its banned or not. However, at this moment, while still thinking, I'm leaning Unban.

 

[Sultan]

As someone who mostly plays offense, I find the argument that Zama (prefer this abbreviation over Zam to avoid confusion with Alakazam) would completely destroy offense a little rich. Zama isn't even the most threatening Pokémon to offense right now. Hawlucha, for instance only needs one turn of setup to be threatening, outspeeds basically everything after Unburden, and only really requires a Terrain setter to work. Compare that to Zamazenta, who needs multiple boosts to be threatening, is still outsped by a number of threats (including most scarf users), and requires Future Sight and Wish and possibly more support to be at its best. Thus, I find Hawlucha to be significantly more threatening than Zama to offensive teams. Now, they aren't a perfect comparison, for instance Hawlucha is unlikely to put in any work at the beginning of the game, but how much better Zama is at that is arguable due to its vulnerability to chip damage. I also find it interesting that many measures people use to keep Hawlucha at bay, such as Zapdos and Slowbro, are also effective against Zama. Currently, I am leaning towards unban, though I am unlikely to earn reqs.

 

[hmsa2012]

During the suspect test so far, I've been 50/50 on whether Zama-C should be allowed in OU. Yes, it lacks the upfront tools make itself "broken" in the short-term, but the main problem is that the metagame is far too new to consider its lasting effects. Due to its massive bulk, this mon somewhat invalidates many offensive threats and rely on zama getting chipped to death from taking prior damage before (rocks only 3% so rocky helmet might be the new "or old" wave to get this thing off. Zama does have a decent pool of checks, but that would obviously depend on what moveset it's running. I've been using just straight up 4 attacking moves over howl, and its versatility is nice, but often times it doesn't do much because its either taking hits for its teammates or just killing weakened mons since opponents have to guess what 4 moves it has. Perhaps just being a stonewall with good offensive and speed stats might be overbearing to the point everyone has to bring something to hard deal with it (Volcarona being the main one so far). It can bypass offensive teams with wish+teleport and future sight cores with zama to deal with its checks, but it isn't relatively common right now because metagame is still too new to judge based on that statement. I am starting to like the use of zama + lele as an offensive cores since the majority of steels have to worry about CC or wild charge and lele can take advantage of zama's checks.

Then again, hindsight is 20/20. We can all be wrong and it's okay. Nearly everyone said that something like spectrier was not gonna be good cuz of its shallow movepool, only to then be banned because everyone had to bring in darks/blisseys to deal with it. Obviously these are two different demons, but you kinda get the point. Iffy right now as to what I think about zama.

 

[Ruparajan gaming]

Things to note
-Zama-C does not have a very good move pool.
-Zama-C has awesome bulk and stats, I feel we should test it with teams that have screens and wish support.
-It cannot use any item.
-Maybe, Zama-C can be used in the rest-talk set. ( Currently testing it out with rest-talk+Wish support.)
-Next, it struggles to wall breakthrough toxapex which is seen once/twice in 2 battles.
Another thing is that you might want to see this vid before the decision.

 

[Empress Mobile]

Obviously the problem isn't that Zama-C is broken. I don't really get the posts that say it's underwhelming in practice. It performs exactly as everyone predicted it would. A fast, bulky wallbreaker with weaker coverage moves, vulnerability to chip, and lack of access to items. Nothing new has emerged from seeing it "in practice" that we weren't aware of from seeing it "on paper". It has the same issues that cause it to be unviable in Ubers but is able to take advantage of the significantly weaker OU tier. The strategies it enables both in countering it and team building with it are already absurdly common in the metagame like FS and Grassy Terrain. Even though it's not fair to say it invalidates HO, it's definitely fair to say it centralizes the metagame towards BO and stall. Those arguing for an unban should at least keep that in mind, not point to how it's underperformed expectations (which, given the mixed expectations leading up to its unban, it hasn't).

 

[Pais]

Things to note
-Zama-C does not have a very good move pool.
-Zama-C has awesome bulk and stats, I feel we should test it with teams that have screens and wish support.
-It cannot use any item.
-Maybe, Zama-C can be used in the rest-talk set. ( Currently testing it out with rest-talk+Wish support.)
-Next, it struggles to wall breakthrough toxapex which is seen once/twice in 2 battles.
Another thing is that you might want to see this vid before the decision.

Sorry bro, but this is not a good argument since this video was made months and months ago when the meta used to be different threats that were able to deal better with Zamazenta-C. And also the movepool is not terrible since it has the moves it needs to make progress in the game.

 

[lovelylunarlady]

Obviously the problem isn't that Zama-C is broken. I don't really get the posts that say it's underwhelming in practice. It performs exactly as everyone predicted it would. A fast, bulky wallbreaker with weaker coverage moves, vulnerability to chip, and lack of access to items. Nothing new has emerged from seeing it "in practice" that we weren't aware of from seeing it "on paper". It has the same issues that cause it to be unviable in Ubers but is able to take advantage of the significantly weaker OU tier. The strategies it enables both in countering it and team building with it are already absurdly common in the metagame like FS and Grassy Terrain. Even though it's not fair to say it invalidates HO, it's definitely fair to say it centralizes the metagame towards BO and stall. Those arguing for an unban should at least keep that in mind, not point to how it's underperformed expectations (which, given the mixed expectations leading up to its unban, it hasn't).

So I don't really agree with a couple things here, and I'm a new user so apologies if anything is off.

1. I wouldn't really call Zamazenta a wallbreaker at all. What walls does it even break past besides something like Clef? It can 2 hit KO some walls with a howl boost but, it's not really breaking them without it. Even with howl, Slowbro, Toxapex, Corviknight, Skarmory, Hippowdon, Tangrowth, and Zapdos are all walls Zamazenta struggles to break. If anything, I'd say those walls win against Zamazenta more often than not though that is set dependent in some cases. Most of those mons just chip out Zama with recoil, helmet, whirlwind, or status. You already mentioned the chip damage part though. Honestly I see it just as an Offense mon and MAYBE an HO stop.

2. With seeing it in practice, I do think the player base learned what Zama can actually do in a game to game basis. Which is important, it gives people the ability to form their own opinions on it to decide if it's good or bad for the meta. After using it for 100+ games, I honestly think it's worse than people give it credit for. Without practice I honestly would've thought it's broken. I really don't think it's good when people try and use it as a wallbreaker as I mentioned already. I think it's good on stall with wish/heal bell support and on screens offense. On Balance, there's better choices imo like Urshifu-R or Melmetal since they hit harder without set up. All these ideas formed from actually using Zamazenta.

3. This is my biggest point that I disagree with here and that's Zamazenta forcing certain styles. Zamazenta is centralizing because it's being suspect tested. People want to use it to form their opinions on the mon. If it gets unbanned (which I think it should be) I for sure see it fizzling out of popularity. Then other styles like HO can return, and that's implying that Zamazenta somehow makes HO fall off. Honestly, with this whole argument about Zama invalidating HO I'm 50/50 on. Volcarona can turn it into set up fodder and get it burned but there's other posts that can give a better idea of Zama and HO.

That's all, doubt I'll be able to get reqs to vote on Zama but I think it'd be fine in the meta.

 

[ant4456]

Sorry bro, but this is not a good argument since this video was made months and months ago when the meta used to be different threats that were able to deal better with Zamazenta-C. And also the movepool is not terrible since it has the moves it needs to make progress in the game.

Also that the creator of the video themselves said that they made the video as a meme and that the Pokemon in question is likely broken.

 

[Blanca Weiss]

And also the movepool is not terrible since it has the moves it needs to make progress in the game.

I like to point that this statement false as this is not the case. Zama's movepool is one of the reasons why it was complete shit in UBERS and a factor on why he could be ok in OU in the first place. First lets look at the moves that it does have. Its most common set is howl+3 attacks consisting howl itself, CC and two of Bash/Wild Charge/Ice Fang. You know there is something wrong with you when you have to rely on FUCKING HOWL in order to do decent damage. I couldn't remember any other mons having to rely on howl (or meditate lol) in order to set up. Both CC and Wild Charge undermines its defenses they cancels out Dauntless Shield and lowers its Spd/has recoil and Ice Fang low BP. Which leaves Bash as the only common move it has that has no downsides. There are other coverage moves such as Crunch/Psychic or Fire Fang or even Play Rough to hit more specific targets but doing so leaves you walled by even more things. Even at +1 it struggles to 2HKO its defensive checks so it doesn't really make progress and it needs multiple boosts in order for it to be threatning.

For something with high defensive stats it support movepool is even worse. The only good utility moves it has is dual screens and since it can't hold Light Clay Regieleki, A-tales and snarl are superior screen setters. Its only recovery move is Rest but Zama is already strapped for moveslots as is and without sleep talk it requires cleric support (though at least both bliss and clef can also provide wish support).

This thing wishes it could have at least one of Body Press, SD/Bulk Up or an actual recovery move in order for it to be good. I could go on and on about its other flaws but i'll probably save it on anothe post.

 

[Complicating]

Having started laddering in the suspect test a bit, theorymonning, and watching other battles, I think I can reasonably say Zamazenta-C is really just fine for OU meta in its current state. In theory, I see it competing a bit with Melmetal for a spot on teams as they have a similar role to an extent. Melmetal can hold items, with banded variants posing a much greater immediate offensive threat compared to Zamazenta and benefits from wish supporting pokemon similar to Zamazenta. Unable to hold an item is both a curse and a blessing for the shield puppy. I think more of a curse because I want to hold leftovers for that passive recovery or have Assault Vest to be a mega tank or just hold a choice band for immediate damage output. I think the Howl variants definitely have 4mss. One coverage move is sorely missed on those sets, though I personally think that Close Combat+Wild Charge+Ice Fang give you the best choice of coverage in tandem with Howl as Behemoth Bash is really most useful for Clefable, Tapu Lele, and Tapu Koko. So regardless of what you do with howl, you will find yourself missing out on coverage for something. I have looked at Metal Burst on a more defensive set with Max HP. Either running rest+2 attacks or 3 attacks+Metal Burst. I have not tested it, but if Zamazenta joins the OU tier, I might try it out. I feel such a set would absolutely require wish support to really be effective however.

Aside from theorymonning, having used Zamazenta and watched it being used I think it to be rather... Unspectacular. Is is good? Absolutely. Is it broken? No, not really. When played well, it does exactly what you want it to do. But it can't just do what you want it to do straight out of the gate. Rocky Helmet chip goes a very long way with this pokemon too. It does not fit on all types of teams either. Though it does fit on most types from what I have seen. Even having used it myself, there are some cases where I wish it was just a melmetal so it could break certain pokemon more immediately such as Toxapex via EQ or Thunder Punch. It just depends on matchup of course.

tl;dr: Zamazenta-C is a great pokemon. Not broken for OU. Will be voting to unban when/if I get reqs

 

[Empress Mobile]

So I don't really agree with a couple things here, and I'm a new user so apologies if anything is off.

1. I wouldn't really call Zamazenta a wallbreaker at all. What walls does it even break past besides something like Clef? It can 2 hit KO some walls with a howl boost but, it's not really breaking them without it. Even with howl, Slowbro, Toxapex, Corviknight, Skarmory, Hippowdon, Tangrowth, and Zapdos are all walls Zamazenta struggles to break. If anything, I'd say those walls win against Zamazenta more often than not though that is set dependent in some cases. Most of those mons just chip out Zama with recoil, helmet, whirlwind, or status. You already mentioned the chip damage part though. Honestly I see it just as an Offense mon and MAYBE an HO stop.

2. With seeing it in practice, I do think the player base learned what Zama can actually do in a game to game basis. Which is important, it gives people the ability to form their own opinions on it to decide if it's good or bad for the meta. After using it for 100+ games, I honestly think it's worse than people give it credit for. Without practice I honestly would've thought it's broken. I really don't think it's good when people try and use it as a wallbreaker as I mentioned already. I think it's good on stall with wish/heal bell support and on screens offense. On Balance, there's better choices imo like Urshifu-R or Melmetal since they hit harder without set up. All these ideas formed from actually using Zamazenta.

3. This is my biggest point that I disagree with here and that's Zamazenta forcing certain styles. Zamazenta is centralizing because it's being suspect tested. People want to use it to form their opinions on the mon. If it gets unbanned (which I think it should be) I for sure see it fizzling out of popularity. Then other styles like HO can return, and that's implying that Zamazenta somehow makes HO fall off. Honestly, with this whole argument about Zama invalidating HO I'm 50/50 on. Volcarona can turn it into set up fodder and get it burned but there's other posts that can give a better idea of Zama and HO.

That's all, doubt I'll be able to get reqs to vote on Zama but I think it'd be fine in the meta.

Actually you raise a great point, that it really is more of a tank than a wallbreaker. Though there are certainly some walls it can make quick work of with good prediction, those obviously being the specially oriented ones. It can also put pressure on some physical walls with team support and good prediction. I don't really agree with your second point. While I think there may have been some debunked speculation in one direction or the other, its good and bad matchups are generally as predicted. I probably shouldn't have used the word "exactly" in my first post. And I think I generally agree with your last point, and should clarify what I was meaning to say in the first post. I think Zama-C contributes to the increased dominance of already centralizing archetypes, potentially in an unhealthy way. I will say I'm a bit more split in my assessment than I was a few weeks ago. So in that way, seeing it in the tier has changed my opinion a bit.

 

[Trashuny]

I do not think adding Zamazenta-Crowned to OU is a good idea. If you only play balance or stall, chances are you don't think is an issue, but I think it will be hard for offense to be consistent if Zamazenta was allowed. I don't want to play a tier where offense is gimmicky, because I really doubt offense can adapt to Zamazenta naturally.

 

[Obsidian297]

I do not think adding Zamazenta-Crowned to OU is a good idea. If you only play balance or stall, chances are you don't think is an issue, but I think it will be hard for offense to be consistent if Zamazenta was allowed. I don't want to play a tier where offense is gimmicky, because I really doubt offense can adapt to Zamazenta naturally.

Could you give examples of Offense failing to adapt to Zama?

Every person who has actually played with and against Zama has said repeatedly that Offense isn't that deterred by Zama and that it has far harder matchups. Plus, Volc, who is on a bit of a surge in usage, is a great answer against Zama.

 

[mimer]

irregardless of anything relating to zama's actual viability I feel emphasis should be given predominantly to how its presence in ou, even if shown to be containable as evidenced by pretty much everything said above, still warps the meta exclusively through its presence to the extent of greatly affecting the viability of entire playstyles like HO, and if this meta should be chosen above what SS represents in a zamaless meta.

there are an insane amount of things to mention but note zama's legitimate uniqueness in characteristics relative to literally everything else in ou, mostly through its linearity. zama feels like an RBY pokemon magically telepored to SS minus the crits in its relative lack of customisability, its inability to use items makes it limited in how it can be potentially expressed or personalised for its team, meaning the opponent can ev a pokemon in the knowledge that with exception of zama's move coverage it can assure itself of being a check or counter to all zama's. for example a pokemon can be ev'd to outspeed jolly 252 zama and know it can revenge kill it without having to consider zama being scarfed and so can plan immediately from team preview with that knowledge. also as you all know zama's movepool further enforces this as its status moves are nonexistent except screens which it is terrible at using and howl lol, and so zama's potential sets are limited to does it have howl (which it unfortunately usually should) and what coverage moves it has. or resttalk but I am assuming that terrible due to zama's already kinda terribleness at swinging momentum and so making up the lost turns. finally correct me if I'm wrong but I think for evs 252 atk 252 spe adamant or jolly entirely outclasses any other variant due to zama's otherwise passiveness and so making it even more linear.

the point of all this is zama is in the unique position of having very exact matchups with everything, which considering how entirely broken zama is in a meta that isn't prepared for it in the exact and only ways all zama variants can be beaten, means zama forces the meta around itself and limits moveset/teambuilding varieties. not that this is inherently bad, BW ou is very linear in team choices and that tier is great, but this is a very different metagame to what would be old SS. the volc or defensive zap or pex has inherent significance in every game because if zama appears they're necessary to not have every single variation of zama cause significant damage. it isn't even a meta varied for different kinds of zama because they're all so similar, even spectrier has more variety with specs or wisp or nplot or whatever, it's just the same kinds of pokemon every match so this highly unvariable zama just doesn't win. the same pokemon with the essencially same sets/ev spreads for it. the only reason zama is even considered for ou is because it's so linear and if it wasn't it would just be banned, but allowing zama in allows the consequences of having a very powerful very linear pokemon in a meta. I don't think the problem is if zama is containable but if it is right for SS ou to change so radically. I know people have mentioned it affecting the meta to such an extent before in the thread but I don't think it's been emphasised enough

 

[Pais]

I like to point that this statement false as this is not the case. Zama's movepool is one of the reasons why it was complete shit in UBERS and a factor on why he could be ok in OU in the first place. First lets look at the moves that it does have. Its most common set is howl+3 attacks consisting howl itself, CC and two of Bash/Wild Charge/Ice Fang. You know there is something wrong with you when you have to rely on FUCKING HOWL in order to do decent damage. I couldn't remember any other mons having to rely on howl (or meditate lol) in order to set up. Both CC and Wild Charge undermines its defenses they cancels out Dauntless Shield and lowers its Spd/has recoil and Ice Fang low BP. Which leaves Bash as the only common move it has that has no downsides. There are other coverage moves such as Crunch/Psychic or Fire Fang or even Play Rough to hit more specific targets but doing so leaves you walled by even more things. Even at +1 it struggles to 2HKO its defensive checks so it doesn't really make progress and it needs multiple boosts in order for it to be threatning.

For something with high defensive stats it support movepool is even worse. The only good utility moves it has is dual screens and since it can't hold Light Clay Regieleki, A-tales and snarl are superior screen setters. Its only recovery move is Rest but Zama is already strapped for moveslots as is and without sleep talk it requires cleric support (though at least both bliss and clef can also provide wish support).

This thing wishes it could have at least one of Body Press, SD/Bulk Up or an actual recovery move in order for it to be good. I could go on and on about its other flaws but i'll probably save it on anothe post.

Bro you are completely wrong since you are comparing OU and Ubers together and since you forget that Ubers meta is centralized to different kind of threats that can't be checked from Zamazenta-C. Also the argument of the terrible movepool is really absurd since it has a bolt beam coverage, 2 really good stabs and also howl. Ye howl is not like swords dance but it does not change a lot since this mon as already a good atk and can break a lot of OU common mons. People who say that it can't break other mons should play more games or they just have built terrible teams lmao. As every mon it has weaknesses but those can be covered so easily.
Also I've seen a really stupid argument, not from you but from people who say that the metagame will adapt. Guess what guys, meta always adapts, meta can adapt also if there is an arceus in the meta. Every meta obv will adapt around its threats. Remember when we had dracovish?? Obv the meta adapted with everyone using 1 water absorb user in the team. Obv dracovish was more broken, we know, but it won't change so much if we'll use a zapdos/defensive volca in every team. Also future sight strats are able to check common ground checks of Zama-C that a lot of times struggle to beat down Zama-C. Consider that you can pair Zama-C with stuff like Rillaboom to be more covered from ground types (grassy terrain +1 boost in def) or stuff like koko-slowking to have basically a free win most of the times.

 

[Obsidian297]

Also I've seen a really stupid argument, not from you but from people who say that the metagame will adapt. Guess what guys, meta always adapts, meta can adapt also if there is an arceus in the meta. Every meta obv will adapt around its threats. Remember when we had dracovish?? Obv the meta adapted with everyone using 1 water absorb user in the team. Obv dracovish was more broken, we know, but it won't change so much if we'll use a zapdos/defensive volca in every team. Also future sight strats are able to check common ground checks of Zama-C that a lot of times struggle to beat down Zama-C. Consider that you can pair Zama-C with stuff like Rillaboom to be more covered from ground types (grassy terrain +1 boost in def) or stuff like koko-slowking to have basically a free win most of the times.

Here's the thing, if drops somehow, it will be extremely overcentralizing, similarly to , which caused every team to have a water immunity, in the form of absolute garbage like and , or , which mandated every team to have a Ghost resist in the form of mediocre mons or or even spdef .

What's the difference with ? It is no where as OP or threatening as or . Offence teams have adapted to and and have retained their effectiveness. and are great on Offensive and BO teams. On top of this, , which is used as a defensive pivot in offensive teams, beats fairly effectively. Of course, offence and balance will have to shift to include a fighting resist, but that really isn't a hard type to resist or be flat out immune to, and so many more resist Fighting and aren't garbage. Plus, as BehemothBash gimps coverage so much that many Fairies can check it

I don't see an issue with the argument you think is stupid, whatever you think does, it isn't that effective

 

[Pais]

I missed the part where that's my problem

You still don't understand my point. I've said Zamazenta-C is not a joke to cover so it results centralizing. Enjoy using mons that should count on 30% burn or a static zapdos or flame body volca in every team.

 

[Obsidian297]

I missed the part where that's my problem

You still don't understand my point. I've said Zamazenta-C is not a joke to cover so it results centralizing. Enjoy using mons that should count on 30% burn or a static zapdos or flame body volca in every team.

I can see words, but I find no meaning. I'm so sorry I don't have crayons to make you see why Zama isn't broken or even centralising

You don't need that 30% to beat Zama nor do you need to have those mons. Chomp does well against Zama and Lando can ruin set up. Where's the chance there?