Announcement np: SS OU Suspect Process, Round 12 - Monster Mash

[LoseToRU?]

In my opinion, it's entirely valid to argue that a mon's presence in a tier holds things together and that it balances out other mons. I don't think it's valid to say that this is the main argument for a mon to stay in a tier, especially when it's overly disruptive or straight up broken, but to say that a meta would shift to the worse and be exposed to new problems from a ban is valid

With all due respect, your opinion is not objectively correct.
How a mon works in a tier is irrelevant.
A lot of players claim that "Once we remove X mon then the tier falls apart!"

And it never does.

This is not something you should be factoring into your decision, whatsoever.

This is speculation, not a logical argument.
No one knows how a meta will be affected with really any certainty when a mon is added or removed.

This is decided by the meta itself and time to adjust.
It isn't up to you as a player to speculate.

And again, the tried and true method is that if for some reason another mon becomes a problem and remains a problem even after time for a meta to settle, then we cross that bridge when we come to it.

Experienced players who have seen dozens of suspect tests know this.

 

[Baloor]

This is a disappointing post. I expected more from such a player.

"If we ban X then X will be broken" is actually not an argument.
It never has been or ever will be a valid argument in any suspect test.
It's about as valid as an argument as how a mon will do in Ubers if we ban it from OU

When factoring in if a mon is unhealthy for a meta, this has never and again, will never be a relevant perspective.

I'm personally undecided as of now- but those who vote should not be voting based off this post- whatsoever.
It's not a valid reason to vote ban or no ban, either way.
This poster knows better, hence my disappointment.

This player also knows better than to go off on a tangent about boots and regen as a misdirect.. very irrelevant.

"X is the real problem- look at X instead!" is AGAIN, not a valid argument in a suspect test.

If a mon becomes a problem once another mon is banned, then we cross that bridge when we come to it.
That's how it's been and always will be.

I realize this is a respected and talented player who I personally like, so it's kinda awkward for experienced players to call them out like I am now, but this is not something other players should be parroting and regurgitating- this is a very bad take.

I'm sorry Storm, but this is not a precedent we can established.
Posts like this give players, especially newer ones, the wrong sort of mindset for future suspect tests.

I will gather more thoughts specifically on Mel and post those thoughts at a later date.

However, after conferring with other experienced players and OU room leaders who agree with me about this particular post and how damaging it is to the way we conduct suspect tests, I find it imperative to reply to this thread with the above information.

P.S
After posting I just noticed the post above mine:

"If you insist on ban, I think you should consider the terrible problems caused by Weavile"

The ripple effect of Storm's post has all kinds of people confused on how we suspect mons.
I'm not going to go through more posts because I don't want to cringe at those who parrot this invalid and irrelevant logic.

I've never seen a post do more damage to how we conduct suspects.. wild this came from such a respected and talented player.
Very disappointing.

Bro relax it’s a game about pixelated pets that we make fight each other

 

[LoseToRU?]

Bro relax it’s a game about pixelated pets that we make fight each other

This is a classic line from a 13yo who chills in Lobby and is hard stuck in random battles at 1450- sounds weird coming from esteemed user Baloor.
Let's pray his little cousin Tyler logged into his account.

But anyway, I've been talking to some ppl since this post and another invalid argument is how this is the end of a meta or w/e.

Suspect tests exist in a vacuum.
We are not here to foresee the future or factor in anything else.

You take a mon, compare it to the meta, factor in all it's sets, analyze its checks (if any lol) and discuss its impact on the tier.
You then post objective data in the form of calcs if possible.

That's essentially it.

I can't stop ppl from voting ban or no ban for literally any reason they want. (mon looks cool keep it)
But for those of you who actually want to take proper logic into such an important process of this game we play, then please understand the way we conduct suspect tests.

 

[Storm Zone]

Okay this is the final post i will be making on this suspect for those who obviously missed my main point, my main point was we're testing the wrong pokemon, melmetal is good because of its amazing bulk yes, and its power, but its not even worth bringing up for a suspect test to me, its A rank at best, not even S, and it has i would say dozens even hundreds of counter measures, especially in a knock off metagame, u knock it off and chip it so easily, the offense of the meta, blaziken, volcarona , chomp, lando, specs pult, urshifu, melmetal doesnt even get much opportunity to get in cause the stuff it comes in on chips it too, and finally the main point that people missed, i listed a number of threats that i believe is more unhealthy and banworthy than melmetal:

1. heavy-duty-boots: this item has ruined this entire metagame, it has forced endless battles with regen spam, ridiculously buffed all flying, bug and fire types, especially volcarona, zapdos and dragonite, just to name a few.

2. Torn-t: boots messed up the entire metagame already, and regenerator with it is just unfair, and on a fast pivot like torn, i believe this could have possibly been quickbanned before even cinderace.

3. Weavile: only reason people havent looked into weavile is because of triple axel miss, so it gets to stay imo, but this will always be more banworthy than the somewhat underwhelming melmetal.

4. Toxapex: a pokemon that is incredibly restricting, that people unconsciously prepare for it so much that they don't see that its a problem, dont believe me? Those who were around before, who remembers how big of a threat specs keldeo was before toxapex existed, it was top tier in ou, look at the tier it went to after pex was introduced, it is nothing short of a miracle that they have not looked into this pokemon

5. regenerator: probably next to magnet pull as an extremely restrictive ability, that needs to be nerfed, i believe a regenerator clause is in order.

Again i state, defensive unhealthy tools need to be looked into aswell, not just offensive unhealthy tools, and its almost delusional at this point to think that balance/stall players were favored for years, and ive been around to see it ive had hundreds of dms asking me why they never test the defensive pokemon, gets brought up in the ou room and on smogon posts every day. im the most active user on the site since 2013 so i would pick up on these kinds of things.

Funny how people disregarded the post after my first point and misinterpreted as "broken checks broken", I NEVER SAID broken checks broken was my argument, it was more like "healthy pokemon checks healthy pokemon but if that "healthy pokemon" , unfairly gets booted from the tier, then that other healthy pokemon will become broken, nothing wrong with having healthy counters, if u ban a pokemon's HEALTHY counters, of course it would be broken. Completely missing my point that melmetal is healthy and isnt even worth a ban conversation and is way less deserving of a ban than these other problems i stated above.

And lastly, yeah my guy berunka, that post hurt you bro haha, you trashed my post to oblivion, atleast put constructive criticism and contribute/state opinions on the suspect rather than just trashing my post and this goes for everybody who disagreed with something i said.

 

[LoseToRU?]

Okay this is the final post i will be making on this suspect for those who obviously missed my main point, my main point was we're testing the wrong pokemon, melmetal is good because of its amazing bulk yes, and its power, but its not even worth bringing up for a suspect test to me, its A rank at best, not even S, and it has i would say dozens even hundreds of counter measures, especially in a knock off metagame, u knock it off and chip it so easily, the offense of the meta, blaziken, volcarona , chomp, lando, specs pult, urshifu, melmetal doesnt even get much opportunity to get in cause the stuff it comes in on chips it too, and finally the main point that people missed, i listed a number of threats that i believe is more unhealthy and banworthy than melmetal:

1. heavy-duty-boots: this item has ruined this entire metagame, it has forced endless battles with regen spam, ridiculously buffed all flying, bug and fire types, especially volcarona, zapdos and dragonite, just to name a few.

2. Torn-t: boots messed up the entire metagame already, and regenerator with it is just unfair, and on a fast pivot like torn, i believe this could have possibly been quickbanned before even cinderace.

3. Weavile: only reason people havent looked into weavile is because of triple axel miss, so it gets to stay imo, but this will always be more banworthy than the somewhat underwhelming melmetal.

4. Toxapex: a pokemon that is incredibly restricting, that people unconsciously prepare for it so much that they don't see that its a problem, dont believe me? Those who were around before, who remembers how big of a threat specs keldeo was before toxapex existed, it was top tier in ou, look at the tier it went to after pex was introduced, it is nothing short of a miracle that they have not looked into this pokemon

5. regenerator: probably next to magnet pull as an extremely restrictive ability, that needs to be nerfed, i believe a regenerator clause is in order.

Again i state, defensive unhealthy tools need to be looked into aswell, not just offensive unhealthy tools, and its almost delusional at this point to think that balance/stall players were favored for years, and ive been around to see it ive had hundreds of dms asking me why they never test the defensive pokemon, gets brought up in the ou room and on smogon posts every day. im the most active user on the site since 2013 so i would pick up on these kinds of things.

Funny how people disregarded the post after my first point and misinterpreted as "broken checks broken", I NEVER SAID broken checks broken was my argument, it was more like "healthy pokemon checks healthy pokemon but if that "healthy pokemon" , unfairly gets booted from the tier, then that other healthy pokemon will become broken, nothing wrong with having healthy counters, if u ban a pokemon's HEALTHY counters, of course it would be broken. Completely missing my point that melmetal is healthy and isnt even worth a ban conversation and is way less deserving of a ban than these other problems i stated above.

And lastly, yeah my guy berunka, that post hurt you bro haha, you trashed my post to oblivion, atleast put constructive criticism and contribute/state opinions on the suspect rather than just trashing my post and this goes for everybody who disagreed with something i said.

The thing is, your points 1 through 5 literally do not matter when it comes to Melmetal and its place in the meta.

You could literally just say: "melmetal is good because of its amazing bulk yes, and its power, but its not even worth bringing up for a suspect test to me, its A rank at best, not even S, and it has i would say dozens even hundreds of counter measures, especially in a knock off metagame, u knock it off and chip it so easily, the offense of the meta, blaziken, volcarona , chomp, lando, specs pult, urshifu, melmetal doesnt even get much opportunity to get in cause the stuff it comes in on chips it too"

and then be done with your post.

None of that other stuff matters when it comes to X mon's place in a meta.

Gen 8 has been and continues to be one of the worst metas of all time, but I don't want this kinda logic to creep into the inevitable suspects of future gens.

Please just stick to relevant reasons about why you want Mel to stay and leave out the invalid perspectives and subjective theories.

I would love to see these thoughts compiled in a Gen 8 post-mortem- not here.
We could talk about what ruined this gen for days and all of it would be interesting- but this isn't the correct place.
(Personally I think your overlooking specs Pult and how restrictive it was to the already restrictive building process, but that's just a random thought.)

I also have a lot to say about this gen and where it went wrong, but you're confusing newer players on how we do suspect tests.
-
EDIT:
After speaking with SZ we are on the exact same page. I don't know what he puts up with as a respected voice in this community and we can agree to disagree on how relevant other mons are when it comes to a suspect.

Basically- gen 8 was bad. We all feel that. If gen 9 is as lackluster and as messy as this one I can't do that for another 3+ years. My original semi-cringe worthy rant comes from a place of love and fear lol. I don't want some goofy broken mon ruining next gen after surviving a suspect due to players worried that X mon will be broken next if we do.
But really, the right decision is usually made and the suspected mons usually get what's deserved, so I guess I need to relax a little.

And although I say suspects should exist in a vacuum, this is truly a unique situation. We're at the end of a really subpar gen that no one really wants to dissect anymore. Any sort of ripple may indeed make gen 8 somehow worse, and we're all just exhausted with it at this point.
I'll be voting NO BAN.
Mel is a mess, there are some stupid calcs I could post, but this entire meta has been a boring, sloppy, mess.
It's whatever at this point.

 

[Wraks]

Just got reqs, but this is one of the few OU suspects I have observed where I am still feeling split (leaning towards no ban though).

That being said, since I have nothing much to contribute myself and many of the points made here have become redundant, I would be curious to know the opinion of individual OU council members on Melmetal, and am interested to read their reasoning. I remember in older suspect tests, often one of the first posts in the suspect discussion forum would be reserved for OU council member blurbs, and I always enjoyed reading those perspectives (also they tend to be both more concise and more informed than the average post here lolololol). As far as I know, Ausma is the only council member who has explicitly stated their opinion one way or the other in this forum so far (Thank you for that! (and sorry if I missed someone else)), and if someone else from the council would like to share how they would vote I welcome it.

 

[Arkm]

Okay this is the final post i will be making on this suspect for those who obviously missed my main point, my main point was we're testing the wrong pokemon, melmetal is good because of its amazing bulk yes, and its power, but its not even worth bringing up for a suspect test to me, its A rank at best, not even S, and it has i would say dozens even hundreds of counter measures, especially in a knock off metagame, u knock it off and chip it so easily, the offense of the meta, blaziken, volcarona , chomp, lando, specs pult, urshifu, melmetal doesnt even get much opportunity to get in cause the stuff it comes in on chips it too, and finally the main point that people missed, i listed a number of threats that i believe is more unhealthy and banworthy than melmetal:

1. heavy-duty-boots: this item has ruined this entire metagame, it has forced endless battles with regen spam, ridiculously buffed all flying, bug and fire types, especially volcarona, zapdos and dragonite, just to name a few.

2. Torn-t: boots messed up the entire metagame already, and regenerator with it is just unfair, and on a fast pivot like torn, i believe this could have possibly been quickbanned before even cinderace.

3. Weavile: only reason people havent looked into weavile is because of triple axel miss, so it gets to stay imo, but this will always be more banworthy than the somewhat underwhelming melmetal.

4. Toxapex: a pokemon that is incredibly restricting, that people unconsciously prepare for it so much that they don't see that its a problem, dont believe me? Those who were around before, who remembers how big of a threat specs keldeo was before toxapex existed, it was top tier in ou, look at the tier it went to after pex was introduced, it is nothing short of a miracle that they have not looked into this pokemon

5. regenerator: probably next to magnet pull as an extremely restrictive ability, that needs to be nerfed, i believe a regenerator clause is in order.

Again i state, defensive unhealthy tools need to be looked into aswell, not just offensive unhealthy tools, and its almost delusional at this point to think that balance/stall players were favored for years, and ive been around to see it ive had hundreds of dms asking me why they never test the defensive pokemon, gets brought up in the ou room and on smogon posts every day. im the most active user on the site since 2013 so i would pick up on these kinds of things.

Funny how people disregarded the post after my first point and misinterpreted as "broken checks broken", I NEVER SAID broken checks broken was my argument, it was more like "healthy pokemon checks healthy pokemon but if that "healthy pokemon" , unfairly gets booted from the tier, then that other healthy pokemon will become broken, nothing wrong with having healthy counters, if u ban a pokemon's HEALTHY counters, of course it would be broken. Completely missing my point that melmetal is healthy and isnt even worth a ban conversation and is way less deserving of a ban than these other problems i stated above.

And lastly, yeah my guy berunka, that post hurt you bro haha, you trashed my post to oblivion, atleast put constructive criticism and contribute/state opinions on the suspect rather than just trashing my post and this goes for everybody who disagreed with something i said.

How on earth is torn-t more ban worthy than lando-t?

None of things u have named are even close to being ban worthy as Landorus is.
I don't understand why are we having this debate about Melmetal when Lando-T is roaming free.

I barely see anyone using it over corviknight as their go to steel type because of it's meagre special bulk and weakness to EQ.

 

[sh0shin]

probly cuz torn t has infinite longevity. but that's for another thread.

 

[Candice]

I've started playing SS right after the Kyurem ban. And I've played continuously since, so it has been a year and I've have done lots of game (altough not trying as hard as I was back in BW). This gen was a lot of fun, thank you for the Dynamax Ban, that was the best thing that could have happened to this gen.

So yeah, I've run into many Melmetal sets (the unfamous Sub+Iron Defense set) and each has their merits. Altough I Have to agree that I don't really like to play against the protective pads ones. Since This mon is just so easy to chip with Rocky Helmet...
All you have to do is to make sure this item won't get removed and you're all good. And that's not tricky.
I always thought Mel was alright, good but not broken at all.

Then, the Twave+protective pads set appeared, and that one, I gotta say, is rather annoying. I don't know what has gone through my head but I thought Scizor could be a nice counter to Mel and that set proved me how wrong I was. My Scizor Got flinched to death. It was the only time I tried using Scizor and I deleted the team right after that. Scizor is just not fit for OU anymore, sadly (unless for HO maybe).
And.... the same thing happened to my Corviknight a few games after that one and I was like, ok this is not so much fun anymore. Maybe this Pokemon is OP after all ... So I was actually on the fence of wanting this thing banned.

But then I just sat back, relaxed and thought that is was ok after all. Who's never been haxed to death by twave + flinch ? This reminds me of the old days when some more broken stuff to abuse Yellow Magic were allowed and guess wat ? It's ok. It's just rng. It doesn't make Mel broken because it doesn't mean this will always work. No one does really rely on that to win.

Melmetal sure is tanky, but it does not have the ability to sweep an entire team or to be an answer to stop many threats.
It does have the 4th move syndrome after all. and I would say the item syndrome as well.
Letfies is cool but you get chipped by Rocky Helmet. Protective pads is cool but you don't get any recovery and you won't get to switch many times to tank some moves. Band is cool but who goes into Ferro straight up ? Yeah that's right, just Superpower my fighting resist switch.
And the sure the sub does gets some opportunities to set up but you can just sac something to break the sub and bring something back to kill it since you know its moveset.

The only thing I think is broken this gen is Knock Off's power. That's all. Overall this gen is well balanced.

Oh and let me follow up that Storm Zone post about Toxapex. I'll just say a quick thing about this mon.
It is funny how this little thing completely overshadowed many good Pokemons. Since it was introduced, so many water pokemon were no viable anymore : because Toxapex either outclasses them or just shuts them down. And the fact that it gets Regen didn't make things better.

Anyway, I'll just say what I came here for : I'll be voting NO BAN.

Have a nice day !

 

[bdt2002]

Hey, guys. I just have a quick question while I'm going through my Forums notifications. Coming from the lens of a more casual player who wants to know more about how these tests are actually conducted, let's say that the quote-on-quote "wrong" outcome is the one we get, depending on the user's voting preference, of course. This is purely just a genuine question I have for whoever's in charge of these. What's stopping the moderation councils of each respective generation from holding re-suspects after the current generation has concluded? Whether or not this is good evidence for or against a Melmetal ban is beyond my level of knowledge, but I have noticed a significant number of users cite the fact that Scarlet & Violet is so close to release as a reason for their opinions and/or voting choices. (I could have sworn I typed this part before I hit "Send" or whatever, but I guess I forgot to mention that in situations like these, the health of any given metagame before and after its "discontinuation" could always end up being better or worse than it was beforehand with the bans put in place.)

Since my last post or two here, I had realized that there were still plenty of holes in favor of my initial argument for banning Melmetal (and technically for future suspects also), so I want to try and look at this from as non-biased and as educated a viewpoint as I can. Thanks for any help/answers in advance :)

 

[coral fan]

Hey, guys. I just have a quick question while I'm going through my Forums notifications. Coming from the lens of a more casual player who wants to know more about how these tests are actually conducted, let's say that the quote-on-quote "wrong" outcome is the one we get, depending on the user's voting preference, of course. This is purely just a genuine question I have for whoever's in charge of these. What's stopping the moderation councils of each respective generation from holding re-suspects after the current generation has concluded? Whether or not this is good evidence for or against a Melmetal ban is beyond my level of knowledge, but I have noticed a significant number of users cite the fact that Scarlet & Violet is so close to release as a reason for their opinions and/or voting choices.

In my last post or two here, I had realized that there were still plenty of holes in favor of my initial argument for banning Melmetal (and technically for future suspects also), so I want to try and look at this from as non-biased and as educated a viewpoint as I can. Thanks for any help/answers in advance :)

i think this is possible but by suspecting pokemon before the generation "ends", a lot more people will still be interested in the current generation's meta so the suspect will get more participants so the vote will better reflect the thoughts of the community as a whole, instead of a smaller sample of "older-gen players". Re-suspect tests do happen to older gens - like how a Baton Pass re-suspect test happened last year for Gen 3 - but they're less likely to happen and get support compared to the current generation formats.

 

[Smashburn]

Hey, guys. I just have a quick question while I'm going through my Forums notifications. Coming from the lens of a more casual player who wants to know more about how these tests are actually conducted, let's say that the quote-on-quote "wrong" outcome is the one we get, depending on the user's voting preference, of course. This is purely just a genuine question I have for whoever's in charge of these. What's stopping the moderation councils of each respective generation from holding re-suspects after the current generation has concluded? Whether or not this is good evidence for or against a Melmetal ban is beyond my level of knowledge, but I have noticed a significant number of users cite the fact that Scarlet & Violet is so close to release as a reason for their opinions and/or voting choices.

In my last post or two here, I had realized that there were still plenty of holes in favor of my initial argument for banning Melmetal (and technically for future suspects also), so I want to try and look at this from as non-biased and as educated a viewpoint as I can. Thanks for any help/answers in advance :)

Yes, a few players have been citing the upcoming arrival of Scarlet and Violet as part of their reasoning. However, those claims have no real grounding. The reality is that Scarlet and Violet are simply an upcoming release, nothing more. There is no right or wrong outcome, only what reasonable progress is being made through this suspect test.

Although it's fair to recognize that the upcoming games could take away from the popularity of the format, we still have a month before that happens and it stands that this fact isn't really a reason to vote in one direction or another. The only reasonable concern to come from this suspect is how players weigh whether to ban Melmetal or not, and as part of that what kinds of consequences are included for the metagame as a whole.

For myself, I think Melmetal is reasonably balanced in the metagame and doesn't present a huge problem. Its flaws are inherently obvious and it provides a unique defensive and offensive role in the metagame. There is little reason to touch it in my eyes beyond very personally tailored bias.

 

[Empress Mobile]

u say this but there should be a clear exception for end of the gen suspects.

there is a reason we saw no bans in oras or sm once they were done, and only bans in past gens were sleep, dugtrio or gems that were obviously broken/not competitive. this wasnt because those tiers were magically just perfect right at the end of gen, but because any suspect would need an extraordinary support from a playerbase that doesn't care enough about it anymore. they are all settled for what was already working okay, and ss should probably do the same for melmetal that has a realistically big change in the tier if it goes away that could make things much worse.

Idk if I'm following here. This would essentially be equivalent to the Mega Sableye ban in ORAS in terms of timing. This had a massive effect on the metagame. I don't know why you say that no one cares or that everyone agrees on the appropriate course of action. There is clearly no consensus on this which is why there's a suspect test. I'm a bit confused as to what people are thinking will happen if Melmetal is banned. But that is totally irrelevant anyway. The only thing that matters is whether it's broken. I'm leaning no myself, though I can see the pro-ban argument.

 

[Prethia]

This is a disappointing post.

"If we ban X then X will be broken" is actually not an argument.
It never has been or ever will be a valid argument in any suspect test.
It's about as valid as an argument as how a mon will do in Ubers if we ban it from OU

When factoring in if a mon is unhealthy for a meta, this has never and again, will never be a relevant perspective.

I'm personally undecided as of now- but those who vote should not be voting based off this post- whatsoever.
It's not a valid reason to vote ban or no ban, either way.
This poster knows better, hence my disappointment.

This player also knows better than to go off on a tangent about boots and regen as a misdirect.. very irrelevant.

"X is the real problem- look at X instead!" is AGAIN, not a valid argument in a suspect test.

If a mon becomes a problem once another mon is banned, then we cross that bridge when we come to it.
That's how it's been and always will be.

I realize this is a respected and talented player who I personally like, so it's kinda awkward for experienced players to call them out like I am now, but this is not something other players should be parroting and regurgitating- this is a very bad take.

I'm sorry Storm, but this is not a precedent we can established.
Posts like this give players, especially newer ones, the wrong sort of mindset for future suspect tests.

I will gather more thoughts specifically on Mel and post those thoughts at a later date.

However, after conferring with other experienced players and OU room leaders who agree with me about this particular post and how damaging it is to the way we conduct suspect tests, I find it imperative to reply to this thread with the above information.

P.S
After posting I just noticed the post above mine:

"If you insist on ban, I think you should consider the terrible problems caused by Weavile"

The ripple effect of Storm's post has all kinds of people confused on how we suspect mons.

Actually your post is very disappointing and is a perfect example of logical fallacy.
Antiquity is not desirable. Just because something was not accepted as a valid argument does not mean the argument itself is not valid.
"The way" you conduct suspect tests are stupid. When you want to test removing a pokemon the FIRST thing you need to think is whether removing that pokemon makes another mon/set of mons problematic. The goal is to have a healthy meta. Especially when it comes to smogon "We will cross that bridge later" is not reassuring in the slightest (looking at you toxapex, should also be clefable but not the point of post). Even if it was reassuring, you would force people to play in a super unhealthy meta for some time.

If you are actually somewhat good at battling and understand the game instead of spamming the same fat core every game and banning everything that threatens your core, you CAN predict what will happen next when certain mons are gone, I already made another post about this so I won't repeat myself on that.

Few Games picked-up from forum tours a terrible example. Despite what you may want to believe highest form of competition/skill expression/oppresive teams exist in the ladder as some people like me either don't have the time/ don't want to hang out in the forum.

As Storm said, literally every team that is built, starts with the question how do I beat pex (and actually clef) Anything good offensively that can threaten this while being a mon one would like to use (instead of a strange superpower Nidoking set) seems to get banned restricting the ways of breaking these cores. You have destroyed a meta that has skill expression/variety because you were sad to lose when your defensive mons couldn't cover you when you played wrong for 3 turns in a row. If you misplay 3 turns in a row you deserve to lose. The way you decide to ban everything good offensively, make it so that you can get away with playing terribly (especially due to regenerator, hdb and remaining offensive mons having much worse stats)

When I was playing GEN8 (I guess 2 years ago), even before all the bans to offensive mons, top 50, had around 35.40 players who use either complete stall or so called "semi stall" with 4-5 extremely fat/stall mons with a revenge killer/ditto. I think in top 50/30/10 there were 2 of my accounts that have HO, Storm and his alt that plays comps other than full fat, and 2-3 more players. By banning everything you cannot deal with, you created a meta so centralizing and stale, everyone who is actually good at the game got bored and left.
Your way of evaluating the game is even when you missplay for a long time, if your defensive mons cannot get you out of the pickle, that means the offensive mon is broken and it should be gone. If you cannot deal with Melmetal in this meta, you deserve to lose that means you played terribly.

Since the start of gen 8 mons(afaik) the mons with offensive presence that are banned (right or wrong)
Kyurem(both versions, even Kyurem-black had tons of counterplay as I stated in my previous post),
Phero,Genesect, Lando-i, Shifu,Naga, Cinderace, Magearna, Darm-Galar(not sure if it was gen8 tbh), Spectrier

Defensive mons that are banned: _______________

Also defensive mons unlike offensive ones have synergy with each other especially thanks to regenerator/recovery and hdb unlike the offensive ones. So 2/3 mons in combinations can make the meta incredibly centralizing/cover each others weaknesses perfectly. Since we have 6 slots, the more fat a team has, the more synergy it creates.

If your OU council consists of a guy who is hard stuck 1800/1900 only playing the pex-clef core (this was back when I was playing, no idea about the current status) and your leader has the most uninformed takes ever, it is unavoidable that your "balancing" will be terrible.

If I, as a player who likes offensive oriented teams, have to outplay you 10 times in a game just to have a small shot at winning, there is definitely something wrong with balancing.
If I, as a player who despise defensive teams, but can still easily beat one of high ladder players the first time I play a half-meme fat/stall team I don't have any idea about, while the guys who spams fat in high ladder cannot beat 1600s with my team, there is most likely something wrong with balancing as it favors the one style too much. (Just because you won't believe , I am sadly putting some screenshots-link)
[Gen 8] OU replay: Steez Ibanez vs. Prethia - Pokémon Showdown (pokemonshowdown.com)

Since most of the ladder spams the pex/clef(or whatever it is rn) fat core, they vote ban against anything they are having difficulty to deal with. Your teams shouldn't be able to deal with everything anyway, that's what makes the game unbalanced/too centralizing. As long as you ban the pokemons the same way, only one-type of mons will be banned aka mons with offensive presence that threatens your fat core. Why? Because ladder is dominated people who want to shut off their brain and let their fat tank everything no matter how many turns they misplay. If ladder was dominated by people who played my style then it would be pex and clef who would be gone because those people would experience how oppresive those two were with their infinite amount of movesets and even ability in Clef's case.

Even though I left the game, I am writing this because you as a council and community have successfully made the better players or even mediocre players with different style than yours bored/quit the game because of your inability to deal with things you don't use. It is sad because this could be a great tier with lots of fun using the best battling/team-building software I am aware of. Now I am playing a game with gen7 movesets/gen 5 mons because it is actually interesting to teambuild and not all the battles feel the same.

Again, antiquity is bad. How you suspect the mons so far has been TERRIBLE. The way you decide to ban the mons is equally terrible. I know you won't but it is never too late to change your attitude. Instead of having a council mostly sharing one style of play/ letting ladder decide democratically which again is dominated by fat, you should pick representatives for each style. Otherwise you will also scare away the few different/interesting people who remained with you.

 

[okispokis]

As Storm said, literally every team that is built, starts with the question how do I beat pex (and actually clef)

Um, no? Pex is definitely something you have to account for in the builder, but as someone who has built a fair few OU teams this gen I can attest that beating Pex isn't usually my first step in building a team; I start with a Pokemon I want to use, then slot in something later than can handle Pex among other things. And it's not like slotting a Pex answer on your team is much of an ask; sure, I personally feel it was problematic during IoA, but now we have Garchomp, Lando, Koko, Lele, Taunt Fini, Taunt Heatran, and Dragonite back among other things, all of which can naturally scare Pex at worse and delete it at best. And, save for maybe Lele, you notice nobody is seriously demanding for any of these guys to be removed from the meta.

You have destroyed a meta that has skill expression/variety because you were sad to lose when your defensive mons couldn't cover you when you played wrong for 3 turns in a row.

Ah, this old fallacy. You do know that this whole suspect is happening because of the survey, right? It's not like a handful of elites got together one day and said, "fuck it, we're gonna trick people into banning this"; a good portion of higher-level players felt Melmetal deserved a look, and while I may be anti-ban, there are legit reasons to at least look at Melm, as highlighted at the start of this thread. Also, your claim that those who made this decision all run the same fat core religiously feels a bit tenuous given you don't really provide any evidence this is the case (or at least relevant evidence since your only replay is from two years ago and seemingly not on the ladder since there's no point calc at the end). I could just as easily argue the problem is that you just don't want to use offensive mons that can actually break these walls reliably.

By banning everything you cannot deal with, you created a meta so centralizing and stale, everyone who is actually good at the game got bored and left.

Even though I left the game, I am writing this because you as a council and community have successfully made the better players or even mediocre players with different style than yours bored/quit the game because of your inability to deal with things you don't use

Now, I would honestly agree that I feel the singles meta for Gen 8 is stale, however this is not because of whoever you're directing this at, but rather a consequence of how on a general mechanical level Singles has barely changed over the last two gens; functionally, SS is just XY but with a few new mons and a bunch of old things gone (plus one significant new item).

But what I wanna talk about here, and what motivated me to write this post, is the second sentiment. You say all the good players have left, so um- what exactly are you implying about all the players who stayed? To be blunt, I find this sentiment highly disrespectful; it's one thing to be dissatisfied with the state of the meta and not want to play, but to insinuate those who do stick with this tier are not good players is completely uncalled for and dismisses any effort those players have put into what they do. Stall is definitely not the most involved style, but even as a stall hater I would never say piloting one takes no skill; you do still have to carefully predict what your opponent is going to do to not sacrifice momentum.

Since the start of gen 8 mons(afaik) the mons with offensive presence that are banned (right or wrong)
Kyurem(both versions, even Kyurem-black had tons of counterplay as I stated in my previous post),
Phero,Genesect, Lando-i, Shifu,Naga, Cinderace, Magearna, Darm-Galar(not sure if it was gen8 tbh), Spectrier

Defensive mons that are banned: _______________

Okay, the reason defensive mons are rarely banned is because it is inherently harder to quantify something being overpower defensively versus offensively. With all of the Pokemon you list, many of them were obviously restrictive on builder due to their ability to tear through teams barring certain options (Spectrier forcing up Blissey usage, non-HO teams needing Mandibuzz to stave off Darkshifu, Toxapex restricting Cinderace's moveset). For something defensive to be broken, it needs to limit options enough to warp the tier in an unnatural way, which Pex does not do, as can be seen in how many Pokemon, including offensive Pokemon, are able to check it and/or pressure it.

Also defensive mons unlike offensive ones have synergy with each other especially thanks to regenerator/recovery and hdb unlike the offensive ones.

What are you talking about? If you mean in the sense that they don't cover each other defensively- that's not the main point of offensive mons? And also this point is patently not true. For starters, there is such a thing as tanks, stuff like Buzzwole and Heatran, who pack useful resistances and the ability to work both offensively and defensively; as in, they can cover weaknesses of offensive teammates. And if you mean offensively, yes Pokemon can have offensive synergy. If they couldn't, Hyper Offense as a playstyle would be practically unviable and commonly struggle against one or two select mons.

Can we just stop with this mentality that stall will always be broken if it has the slightest shred of serious viability? Yes, Toxapex and Clefable are annoying, but on some level mons like this are important for a healthy meta; if your offensive team struggles to deal with them, that probably means your offensive team has issues and you might want to tweak it a bit. Every team is going to have problem match-ups, yes, but if these guys are really such a nuisance for you, just build around them! You don't have to rely on one mon per team to break this core, but you can still do so with say, Magnezone or Heatran. If you're going to argue stall is a serious problem, at least come up with a better argument than the same talking points that have already been debunked a hundred times over.

 

[Moyashi]

I was settled on a noban stance (Still am btw) and wasn't planning on commenting anymore, but one thing I want to comment on that I saw while reading some posts...

"The way" you conduct suspect tests are stupid. When you want to test removing a pokemon the FIRST thing you need to think is whether removing that pokemon makes another mon/set of mons problematic.

With no intent to be rude... Why should we think in this way? The purpose of a suspect is to analyze and discuss their impact and whether we find it to be overwhelming and negative to the tier. Melmetal is something generally not seen this way of course, if you go by responses in this thread, but for example if we consider something like... Early SM MegaMetagross. Some expressed concerns that banning it would make other pokemon (such as Lele) too much to handle. Are you saying that suspect should have considered those concerns, despite megameta being a problem itself?

If you are actually somewhat good at battling and understand the game instead of spamming the same fat core every game and banning everything that threatens your core, you CAN predict what will happen next when certain mons are gone, I already made another post about this so I won't repeat myself on that.

Sorry is this insinuating anyone playing balance/stall doesn't understand the game? As for bans, those mons that have been banned hurt the game as a whole. Not just defensive teams.

As Storm said, literally every team that is built, starts with the question how do I beat pex (and actually clef) Anything good offensively that can threaten this while being a mon one would like to use (instead of a strange superpower Nidoking set) seems to get banned restricting the ways of breaking these cores. You have destroyed a meta that has skill expression/variety because you were sad to lose when your defensive mons couldn't cover you when you played wrong for 3 turns in a row. If you misplay 3 turns in a row you deserve to lose. The way you decide to ban everything good offensively, make it so that you can get away with playing terribly (especially due to regenerator, hdb and remaining offensive mons having much worse stats)

I'm not sure resorting to personal insults (calling people bad for using certain mons or playing certain styled) is the way to go if you want to be heard. Come on now. As far as considering Clef and Pex, sure. You need to have a solid answer. But this is true of any relevant top tier pokemon. And it really isn't like the tier isn't full of options to handle these two, without even considering lower tier options.

By banning everything you cannot deal with, you created a meta so centralizing and stale, everyone who is actually good at the game got bored and left.
Your way of evaluating the game is even when you missplay for a long time, if your defensive mons cannot get you out of the pickle, that means the offensive mon is broken and it should be gone. If you cannot deal with Melmetal in this meta, you deserve to lose that means you played terribly.

Not that long ago we saw fun innovations like Rilla+Blaziken. We have pokemon thought to be forgotten like RotomW and Gastrodon making late gen comebacks as great pokemon. Tyranitar made a comeback and defied expectations by proving the worth of its CB sets, even giving new life to sand which previously was thought to have almost completely fallen out. The metagame has issues, but to disingenously claim that the previous bans of mons who were warping and unhealthy is the reasons for those issues is just...

Since the start of gen 8 mons(afaik) the mons with offensive presence that are banned (right or wrong)
Kyurem(both versions, even Kyurem-black had tons of counterplay as I stated in my previous post),
Phero,Genesect, Lando-i, Shifu,Naga, Cinderace, Magearna, Darm-Galar(not sure if it was gen8 tbh), Spectrier

Defensive mons that are banned: _______________

KyuB didn't have much reasonable counterplay. And the reason defensive mons haven't been banned is because... There isn't any that are at this point. Pre Crown Tundra you could've made some cases for ones like Pex, though the meta had started to adapt to it iirc. It's much harder to identify how a defensive pokemon can be broken or unhealthy because the qualities that make them so are less obvious. Take Mega Sableye in ORAS. It suffocated tactics for breaking defense and had an arguably restrictive dominance on the hazard game. It enabled its own defensive partners too well and was difficult to punish without specific pokemon.

For Gen8, we have TornadusT, who is an excellent pivot and defensive presence but also provides valuable utility in defog and makes progress with knock off and even toxic. But it isn't unbreakable or even THAT bulky. Slowbro/Slowking/Glowking all leverage their bulk to come in, soak hits and fire off future sights, or in Glowking's case, launch difficult to switch into attacks. But regular slowtwins are status prone and Glowking can be overwhelmed depending on the set and good play from the opponent. Toxapex is resilient and has obnoxious to switch into attacks, but reliance on status to pressure foes makes it passive and it has questionable matchups against many common pokemon from Zapdos to Lele to Volcanion to Heatran, and even sometimes isn't always perfect into Weavile which it is meant to check.

If your OU council consists of a guy who is hard stuck 1800/1900 only playing the pex-clef core (this was back when I was playing, no idea about the current status) and your leader has the most uninformed takes ever, it is

Adhoms and not an argument?

If ladder was dominated by people who played my style then it would be pex and clef who would be gone because those people would experience how oppresive those two were with their infinite amount of movesets and even ability in Clef's case.

Leaving aside that Clef isn't even THAT common at high ladder right now (usage even dropped off steeply from August to September. Steep relative to its August (#2 in usage at high ladder) vs September (#10 in usage at high ladder), I don't get this matter of fact "i'm right and if you played as I did, you'd see thay" attitude. It's plenty fair to not like certain pokemon and find them hard to deal with, but you dismiss anyone who disagrees as "bad" or someone who plays fat/stall and thus can't see, which comes across as self aggrandizing and doesn't help discussions.

I just want to end with this: you're more than welcome to feel how you feel. Everyone has ideas on how to improve the meta. But belittling ithers who don't agree, assigning them the label of "fat/stall player" and calling them bad or boring is unproductive, narrow minded and is never going to make any of those players interested in listening. There are plenty of great, creative players here.

 

[Arkm]

probly cuz torn t has infinite longevity. but that's for another thread.

no it doesn't. Pure flying is a bad type defensively and there are many electric types in OU who one shot it.
79/80/90 is pretty mediocre bulk for an OU mon and it's OHKOed by a lot of neutral attacks after some chip damage.

 

[pika pal]

To chime in for a few sentences on the "what happens after" concern, both in terms of post-Gen testing and if a Melm-less Metagame will also have problems with stuff, I think this is missing the Forest for the Trees.

Let me grant that a Meta without Melmetal but with Weavile will be unhealthy or poorly balanced (I would say it's not but the point fails to hold up even if I grant it): This has no bearing on the goal of this Suspect, which is to answer the question of "Is the Metagame with Melmetal in it one that we consider in line with our tiering/competitive goals?" If the post-Melmetal game has problem mons that were checked by Melmetal, that does NOT inherently make this Meta desirable; at most it is preferable/lesser-of-two-evils to that, but if this one is not good, we don't strictly want to sit in this one either. To argue that Melmetal should stay not necessarily because the current game is good, but because the theoretical game after would be worse, does not contribute to the goal of what is being tested.

Full Disclosure: I have not made Reqs, would vote "Don't Ban" if I did, but think this argument is fallacious and makes the "Don't Ban" position look worse in discussion.

 

[Arkm]

To chime in for a few sentences on the "what happens after" concern, both in terms of post-Gen testing and if a Melm-less Metagame will also have problems with stuff like Weavile, I think this is missing the Forest for the Trees.

Let me grant that a Meta without Melmetal but with Weavile will be unhealthy or poorly balanced: This has no bearing on the goal of this Suspect, which is to answer the question of "Is the Metagame with Melmetal in it one that we consider in line with our tiering/competitive goals?" If the post-Melmetal game has problem mons that were checked by Melmetal, that does NOT inherently make this Meta desirable; at most it is preferable/lesser-of-two-evils to that, but if this one is not good, we don't strictly want to sit in this one either. To argue that Melmetal should stay not necessarily because the current game is good, but because the theoretical game after would be worse, does not contribute to the goal of what is being tested.

Full Disclosure: I have not made Reqs, would vote "Don't Ban" if I did, but think this argument is fallacious and makes the "Don't Ban" position look worse in discussion.

What? Weavile is nowhere close to overpowered. It has a plethora of checks and counters. The only reason it's used in OU because it being the only good ice type(to check Lando-T). In gen 9 unless it gets something craazy like tough claws it's going to UU.

 

[sh0shin]

bro stop bringing up irrelevant mons and points for a second we talking melm

 

[Nish the Great]

What? Weavile is nowhere close to overpowered. It has a plethora of checks and counters. The only reason it's used in OU because it being the only good ice type(to check Lando-T). In gen 9 unless it gets something craazy like tough claws it's going to UU.

people are using weavile bc its a really good offensive mon with a limited set of true counters. Its kinda close to being broken, but checking lando isnt really why its good.

 

[altostrato]

restricting

I completely agree with you on your Heavy-Duty Boots and Regenerator points. However, I believe that by banning defensive cores such as Heavy-Duty Boots or a Regenerator Clause, we will allow Melmetal and other offensive cores such as Tapu Lele to become overpowered in the tier. We need to find a healthy balance between defensive and offensive cores in the metagame, and I believe that ban Melmetal, which will pave the way to banning these unhealthy defensive cores.

 

[2weed]

I completely agree with you on your Heavy-Duty Boots and Regenerator points. However, I believe that by banning defensive cores such as Heavy-Duty Boots or a Regenerator Clause, we will allow Melmetal and other offensive cores such as Tapu Lele to become overpowered in the tier. We need to find a healthy balance between defensive and offensive cores in the metagame, and I believe that ban Melmetal, which will pave the way to banning these unhealthy defensive cores.

You believe there is enough time in this generation to ban melmetal and run suspects on the defensive mons?

 

[stainedMorph!]

You believe there is enough time in this generation to ban melmetal and run suspects on the defensive mons?

The generation will not be current, however it will continue to exsist and be an optional metagame. Mons have been banned like 5 years after a generation ended. Needless to say, there will still be suspect tests.

 

[xray]

Actually your post is very disappointing and is a perfect example of logical fallacy.
Antiquity is not desirable. Just because something was not accepted as a valid argument does not mean the argument itself is not valid.
"The way" you conduct suspect tests are stupid. When you want to test removing a pokemon the FIRST thing you need to think is whether removing that pokemon makes another mon/set of mons problematic. The goal is to have a healthy meta. Especially when it comes to smogon "We will cross that bridge later" is not reassuring in the slightest (looking at you toxapex, should also be clefable but not the point of post). Even if it was reassuring, you would force people to play in a super unhealthy meta for some time.

If you are actually somewhat good at battling and understand the game instead of spamming the same fat core every game and banning everything that threatens your core, you CAN predict what will happen next when certain mons are gone, I already made another post about this so I won't repeat myself on that.

Few Games picked-up from forum tours a terrible example. Despite what you may want to believe highest form of competition/skill expression/oppresive teams exist in the ladder as some people like me either don't have the time/ don't want to hang out in the forum.

As Storm said, literally every team that is built, starts with the question how do I beat pex (and actually clef) Anything good offensively that can threaten this while being a mon one would like to use (instead of a strange superpower Nidoking set) seems to get banned restricting the ways of breaking these cores. You have destroyed a meta that has skill expression/variety because you were sad to lose when your defensive mons couldn't cover you when you played wrong for 3 turns in a row. If you misplay 3 turns in a row you deserve to lose. The way you decide to ban everything good offensively, make it so that you can get away with playing terribly (especially due to regenerator, hdb and remaining offensive mons having much worse stats)

When I was playing GEN8 (I guess 2 years ago), even before all the bans to offensive mons, top 50, had around 35.40 players who use either complete stall or so called "semi stall" with 4-5 extremely fat/stall mons with a revenge killer/ditto. I think in top 50/30/10 there were 2 of my accounts that have HO, Storm and his alt that plays comps other than full fat, and 2-3 more players. By banning everything you cannot deal with, you created a meta so centralizing and stale, everyone who is actually good at the game got bored and left.
Your way of evaluating the game is even when you missplay for a long time, if your defensive mons cannot get you out of the pickle, that means the offensive mon is broken and it should be gone. If you cannot deal with Melmetal in this meta, you deserve to lose that means you played terribly.

Since the start of gen 8 mons(afaik) the mons with offensive presence that are banned (right or wrong)
Kyurem(both versions, even Kyurem-black had tons of counterplay as I stated in my previous post),
Phero,Genesect, Lando-i, Shifu,Naga, Cinderace, Magearna, Darm-Galar(not sure if it was gen8 tbh), Spectrier

Defensive mons that are banned: _______________

Also defensive mons unlike offensive ones have synergy with each other especially thanks to regenerator/recovery and hdb unlike the offensive ones. So 2/3 mons in combinations can make the meta incredibly centralizing/cover each others weaknesses perfectly. Since we have 6 slots, the more fat a team has, the more synergy it creates.

If your OU council consists of a guy who is hard stuck 1800/1900 only playing the pex-clef core (this was back when I was playing, no idea about the current status) and your leader has the most uninformed takes ever, it is unavoidable that your "balancing" will be terrible.

If I, as a player who likes offensive oriented teams, have to outplay you 10 times in a game just to have a small shot at winning, there is definitely something wrong with balancing.
If I, as a player who despise defensive teams, but can still easily beat one of high ladder players the first time I play a half-meme fat/stall team I don't have any idea about, while the guys who spams fat in high ladder cannot beat 1600s with my team, there is most likely something wrong with balancing as it favors the one style too much. (Just because you won't believe , I am sadly putting some screenshots-link)
[Gen 8] OU replay: Steez Ibanez vs. Prethia - Pokémon Showdown (pokemonshowdown.com)
View attachment 460160

Since most of the ladder spams the pex/clef(or whatever it is rn) fat core, they vote ban against anything they are having difficulty to deal with. Your teams shouldn't be able to deal with everything anyway, that's what makes the game unbalanced/too centralizing. As long as you ban the pokemons the same way, only one-type of mons will be banned aka mons with offensive presence that threatens your fat core. Why? Because ladder is dominated people who want to shut off their brain and let their fat tank everything no matter how many turns they misplay. If ladder was dominated by people who played my style then it would be pex and clef who would be gone because those people would experience how oppresive those two were with their infinite amount of movesets and even ability in Clef's case.

Even though I left the game, I am writing this because you as a council and community have successfully made the better players or even mediocre players with different style than yours bored/quit the game because of your inability to deal with things you don't use. It is sad because this could be a great tier with lots of fun using the best battling/team-building software I am aware of. Now I am playing a game with gen7 movesets/gen 5 mons because it is actually interesting to teambuild and not all the battles feel the same.

Again, antiquity is bad. How you suspect the mons so far has been TERRIBLE. The way you decide to ban the mons is equally terrible. I know you won't but it is never too late to change your attitude. Instead of having a council mostly sharing one style of play/ letting ladder decide democratically which again is dominated by fat, you should pick representatives for each style. Otherwise you will also scare away the few different/interesting people who remained with you.

Wow, this post is truly embarassing. I think you should reconsider the way you talk to people and accept that there are valid opinions that are not similar to yours (funnily that is exactly what you are saying to others, but don't seem to actually care about yourself).

First of all, we seem to have a very different thought process related to suspect tests. I have played more than enough metas to know that the meta is ALWAYS shifting and it is close to IMPOSSIBLE to predict what which ban will cause and how the meta will develop. If you are that good that you can predict everything correctly, then you should play more again and be considered the GOAT, but I don't think you are. Your old posts and replays from 2020 mean nothing and say close to little - they are just weird flexes.

I can see that you start building a team by having to cover Toxapex, I build quite a lot and I don't. But maybe that is just a different approach. I don't struggle covering Toxapex in my builds at all. However, I'm not criticizing your takes (that I strongly disagree with), I'm criticizing the way you discuss here.

Furthermore, your criticism towards the OU council is just cheap. These players have proven themselves and deservedly are in their positions. If you care this much, then why don't you put in the effort to do it yourself instead of being on your high horse and talking down to others for having a different opinion. But of course it is easier to criticize than actually putting in the effort by yourself.

Yep, I guess after all the only thing we agree on is DNB on Melmetal.