np: UU Stage 6 - No Surprises

[shrang]

... Sand Stream is now offically banned from UU ...

Okay, I've been looking for this since I heard people saying that it was banned in UU. Shouldn't we actually have an announcement about this rather than it being stuck on some random post on page 15? Although I don't really play UU much at all, you'd think this sort of thing should be major news. It's been five days.

 

[kokoloko]

The official announcement will come when the official Smogon-supported battle server (as in, the PO server) bans Sand Stream. This will happen on July 1st.

Also, since Abomasnow / Snover was just released with Soundproof, the ban on those Pokemon will be replaced with a ban on Snow Warning. Not as exciting as getting to use Hippowdon without Sand Stream, but it's something!

 

[Jukain]

The official announcement will come when the official Smogon-supported battle server (as in, the PO server) bans Sand Stream. This will happen on July 1st.

Also, since Abomasnow / Snover was just released with Soundproof, the ban on those Pokemon will be replaced with a ban on Snow Warning. Not as exciting as getting to use Hippowdon without Sand Stream, but it's something!

I'm pretty sure sand is banned on PS!

 

[kokoloko]

No, bmelts banned it and unbanned the hippos acouple days ago. He just unbanned Snover / Abomasnow and banned Snow Warning instead, too.

 

[Heysup]

Just to make it clear, again, I did not want SS banned, but I do not completely agree with the sentiments of this post.

Centralization
How is Sand centralizing outside of preparing for Stoutland? With only 6% usage and the only sandstreamer being Hippopotas, I find it hard to believe that Sand teams are dominating the metagame. If Stoutland is the only overbearing factor in team-building, remove Stoutland, not an entire playstyle, which brings me to...

This has been brought up a million times before, sorry if I sound condescending or whatever.

If you want to look for whether something is centralizing or not, you look at the statistics of Pokemon that are being used besides the suspect. For a threat to be incredibly threatening and thus centralizing, it does not need high usage (eg. wobba, various gen 4 UU Pokemon, etc). If someone is centralizing the usage stats will show that the Pokemon being used all overwhelmingly are there to deal with the suspect in question.

For example, looking at May's statistics:

• You will see a shit load of Pokemon that can take an attack from Stoutland among the disproportionate number of Rocks/Steels/Ghosts. This is especially ridiculous: only like 2 Pokemon in the top 25 can't take an attack and the rest of those Pokemon are subpar to some of their counterparts otherwise. Most of those Pokemon are running suboptimal sets, such as Raikou.
• You see otherwise viable Pokemon who simply can't take a Return used lower than they probably should be (especially in the top 30-75).
• You see a lack of Pokemon who are dependent on stuff like Eviolite. You see a lack of Pokemon with Morning Sun / Synthesis (or that are currently only used with Rest).
• You see a lack of Pokemon that rely on Substitute.

I highly recommend you take a look at the stats with that in mind. You essentially stated the only statistic that does not matter.

Diversity
You do notice that to ban something is to prohibit the use of a particular Pokemon or strategy, effectively reducing the option available to the UU player? Unless what you banned puts a serious stranglehold on UU, banning would only lead to less diversity in a particular metagame. Reduced diversity is exactly what banning sandstream would do, since the metagame has effectively lost an entire playstyle for no good reason.

To illustrate some one have cited Raikou, Azelf, and Arcanine being limited by sandstream - Raikou and Arcanine were #9 and #10 in usage. Azelf was #28. Sandstream or no sandstream, they are dominant forces of UU that needs no external help from us. I've played with Azelf and Raikou in UU, and never have I felt that they were unusable due to sand. In fact removing sandstream would only increase their dominance in the UU metagame. And we would also lose a prized Sand Sweeper in Stoutland / Sandslash. How exactly is this diversifying?

To your first point, I merely have to refer to my response above. I mean, Stoutland alone already centralizes the metagame WAY more than taking away just one otherwise viable Pokemon and Hippopotas.

For your examples, Raikou and Arcanine are up there because they can deal Sandstorm Stoutland while performing other duties, but they are kept from using more competitively optimal sets such as SubCM Raikou.

The fact remains that there is nothing inherently broken about Sandstream. The ability summons a sandstorm, which damages non-Ground-, Steel-, and Rock-types, and increases Rock-types special defense by 50%. Neither of these effects are stifling UU. It does not provide a drastic advantage to the sandstream user; in the contrary, sand limit the sand user's options in teambuilding by the obligatory inclusion of Hippopotas and other Pokemon immune to sand in order to maximize their gain from the weather condition. A sand team is not inherently better than any other team, so why ban it?

I agree with this reasoning, but the senate members don't need to follow your philosophy and I think that's where you and the senate's decision have your main issue. You only see the valid philosophy as your own, and so far there is no rule saying that we have to use it (though I do agree with it).

Some of you have cited the passive damage to be a limiting factor in UU - but as I have shown in the diversity case, these Pokemon are not limited by sandstream. Regardless of Pokemon, SR, Spikes, or Toxic Spikes are far more debilitating to Sub and LO users than Sandstream, and players have many Pokemon to choose from to set these hazards; Sandstream only has Hippopotas. Substitute and Life Orb have their own risks and benefits, Sand makes their use more risky, but sand also have its own con (such as starting out every match 5 vs 6).

I'm sure you see the difference between SS and hazards. One needs to be used, one is automatic. You can Rapid Spin hazards away (not easy, but not too hard either) and one is bordering on permanent save a few good (but mostly gimmick) weather-users which are actually pretty well countered by auto-SS anyway. Last but not least, Sand Stream be used WITH Toxic Spikes, Spikes, and Stealth Rock. It is not one vs the other. Non-Sandstream hazard based teams can't use Sandstream so therefore this just shows that the extra 6% is always the extra 6%.

Again, how is this ban justified? Outside of Sand Veil, what real issues do you have with sand? kokoloko, you said that you believed that UU would be better without Sand from playing the PO UU ladder and theorymon. You need something more concrete than that, especially after the major shake-up from BW2. This council decision has just gimped Stoutland and Sandslash in exchange for no real gain. Arguably Stoutland and /or Sandslash may end up broken (or OU) due to the BW2 buffs, but we have to give them a proper playtest in UU - no theorymon; other mons received buffs, too. Even if one or the other (or both) end up broken, the problem lies in Stoutland / Sandslash / Sand Rush, not Sandstream. It's honestly that simple. There's no need to remove the benign part if you can just remove the tumor.

In our current case, there's no real "objective" or "competitive" stance to ban Sandstream outside of Sand Veil; everything else is just personal preference (which should not be used if you were to represent this competitive community) so in light of BW2 shake-up and the issues addressed, why not ban Sand Veil?.

PS: Whether to ban Sand Veil / Sand Veil + Sandstream is rather moot now, since Sandslash and Cacturne received their respective DW abilities and BW2 tutor moves - they are effectively the same ban.

I can't say I disagree with you but once again, the philosophy that we both agree with does not make it the "only valid philosophy" to abide by when banning. Kokoloko's is a liberal example, yes, but that does not make his vote any more or less valid as a senate member. If he wants to ban something, he can vote for it and give his justification for it based on the philosophy he has.

Hopefully this is the last post on this topic.

 

[Chou Toshio]

What the fuck Pocket? Tiering is all about personal preference... just saying... >_>

 

[Pocket]

Yea, I wasn't able to really express my thoughts out well on my previous post. Here are some points to consider:

1) I not only mentioned the usage of Hippopotas, but also the usage of Azelf, Raikou, and Arcanine, mons that were supposedly restricted by Sandstream. In reality, these 3 are dominating UU.

2) Substitute Raikou and Morning Sun Arcanine is one of the most common sets, showing up in more than a 1/3rd of Raikous and Arcanine used. Also Life Orb is the #1 item for many Pokemon, including Arcanine and Azelf. Sure, Sand hinders their effectiveness (you thought the opposing Sand player is playing Sand to make your life easier?) but they are apparently performing fine regardless.

2b) A "suboptimal" set is not suboptimal if it performs best in UU. Say a SubCM Raikou is shit due to sandstorm (apparently not) but Specs Raikou is the beast. Then Specs Raikou is not suboptimal, but is actually the optimal set.

3) People do not stuff bulky mons onto their teams because Stoutland is UU. Bulky mons are used over more fragile mons, because they can take hard hits and potentially dish hits back. Stoutland is not the only hard-hitter in UU. High usage of bulky mons =/= Stoutland is centralizing UU

4) If Stoutland is "overcentralizing," ban Stoutland not Sandstream. Why are you banning more than necessary? Would you ban Shell Smash because of 1 broken Smash Passer? In a similar vein, if Sand Veil is "uncompetitive," ban Sand Veil, not Sandstream, which is a perfectly competitive playstyle on its own.

5) You do realize that a person who is playing a sand team must sacrifice a slot for Hippopotas, essentially making it 5 vs 6 / a big restriction during team builds? Sure Sand + hazards > no sand + hazards in term of passive damage, but the non-sand team have an additional slot to accomplish more than just setting up sandstorm and laying rocks. That's a fair trade-off, imo.

6) Do you realize that changing the weather is a lot easier and advantageous than Rapid Spin (a move that makes you lose momentum and with low accessibility)? Rain Dance / Sunny Day users can not only change the weather, but shift the momentum towards their side by also powering up their offense.

7) There is nothing principally different about OU sand vs UU sand. Arguably OU sand is more centralizing, due to better Sandstreamers and Sand Abusers available than UU. It is absurd that the tier that have it easier to remove a perfectly manageable playstyle (sans Sand Veil and maybe BW2 Stoutland).

8)

What the fuck Pocket? Tiering is all about personal preference... just saying... >_>

Chou Toshio, I can be absolutely complacent like you and just go with the flow, but I care too much about the major tiers of Smogon to turn a blind eye on a decision based on faulty reasoning. This issue has brought up a problem of the current tiering system. Apparently, Haunter & co are discussing about the future tiering system, so if the UU council members are not going to do anything about this, I'll just bring it elsewhere.

Again, I understand that each council members have made their decisions, because they believed it's the best course of action for UU. However, good intentions does not always make it right (I am aware that this could go both ways). Even more, the council decision was far too divisive to go on with the ban. I would like to plea to please reconsider the ban. I do want to have faith in you guys.

 

[Psychotic]

@Pocket-Your opinion on tiering is different then mine, mine is a little different from every other council member. There are no explicit rules on how we or any of the other councils are required to vote. Until there is a rule that says, "you cannot vote to ban something because it will increase diversity," I will vote to ban pokemon or playstyles that put extreme limits on teambuilding and limit diversity, in this case sand. You can keep crying about the ban in this thread, but you have made your point countless times and you just cant seem to accept that there are other ways of doing things than your own.

On another note, we will be holding a sand-inclusive tournament in the near future, much like the Darkrai one currently taking place in Dream World. I would like to ban Sand Veil from this tournament as well, to see what the meta would be like if we had banned that instead.

 

[kokoloko]

Honestly I'm getting a little sick of your continued disregard to other ways of thinking, Pocket. You're being extremely narrow-minded by calling any reasoning that isn't in-line with yours "faulty". That's just blatant bullshit and I'm not going to allow that to take place as long as I'm in charge.

I thought I made it pretty clear that you're in no position to be talking about the discussions taking place among the senior staff regarding tiering. You do not have access to the forum where said discussions are taking place--I, on the other hand, do.

For all you know, your way of thinking could be currently being voted as outdated and not worth following anymore. I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but you have no fucking idea, so I would appreciate if you would stop talking down to the UU Senate as if we didn't know what we were doing.

This is the last post I'm going to allow on this subject. I told you over PM that I would consider your proposition and I'm still mulling it over. Now, if you'd be so kind as to not talk down to the senate again and actually play the metagame, I would appreciate it.

PS. Yes, you managed to piss me the fuck off. Congratulations.

 

[Conflict]

Just gotta say that Pockets post are way more convincing than kokolokos because they provide proper reasoning and dont just go on and rant about things which dont have any connection with the arguement. koko you come off way more as the person whos talking down to someone (hint: read the 2nd paragraph of your post before mine and youll see where i get this idea from). Just because you can read IS doesnt mean you are vastly superior to anyone. Thats the kind of elitist thinking that once gave Smogon a bad reputation but you were probably not around then so you wont know...

Id also like to refer everyone to Smogon's philosophy (part 2, midway through: Smogon attempts to avoid bans as much as possible—only when it becomes very apparent that a Pokémon is far too powerful to be in line with a balanced metagame is it banished permanently from the standard arena.), which aims to ban the least amount of Pokemon possible to achieve a balanced metagame. Therefore that should be a given considering that giving as many things as possible a chance to participate in a metagame is certainly a good thing.

I dont necessarily disagree with the SS ban but i dislike the new fad that people nowadays (started in late DPP) ban things based on if they 'like' or 'dislike' it. Not because its broken and overwhelms everything. The only 'really' broken Mon weve had on Smogon was Garchomp in the DP(P)-Era with usage well over 50% which further proved its brokenness. Since then weve always banned things to 'change' the metagame or 'decentralize' something not because it is necessarily broken. Id like us to go back to the old way of only banning the really broken things. Every gen/tier will without a doubt have a 'best' Pokemon or best strategy because a large community such as Smogon will find the strategy that performs well in most situations. Not to mention that a certain amount of centralization is needed for a metagame to establish and making one able to build teams accordingly. Centralization in itself is a good thing ebcause it gives us a clue what we are dealing with, it only becomes a problem when something makes you go way out of line (like carry 4 Grassmons to cover Pokemon 'Menacing Watersweeper) and thats when we should interfere, access the situation and properly deal with the suspect in question (i.e. if you need 4 checks vs one Mon on every team: Ban).

I also think that any mention of 'fun' or 'better metagame' should be avoided simply because they are highly subjective terms that can differ greatly from person to person. One should aim to ban on an objective basis - does suspect X force one to take enormous measrues to keep it in check or not.

tl;dr: Id like to remind everyone to ban the least amount of Pokemon possible.

Ps: I also dont understand why we cant consider Sand Veil as part of the Evasion clause and just supress its effect. Thats one part of Smogon philosophy i disagree with (the one that says we cant change/turn off abilites/items/etc. because it would alter the game and we wouldnt play Pokemon anymore). That would be the best solution not only for UU but fpr OU and all other tiers/metagames. Just make evasion abilities and items not work - essentially make them useless. Easy fix that would make everyone happy because we ban something that noone likes anyways (uncontrollable luckfactor, hax).

PPs: Id also like to make every person responsible on Smogon for any tiering contributions make aware of this post of mine and more importantly of Smogon's old and well defined 'banning philosophy'. Lesser banes allow for potentially more choices therefore it should be our aim to strive for the least amount of bans possible (and yes i personally was against a huge majority of the bans weve seen in BW OU/DPP OU and some other tiers).

 

[Pocket]

Psych071c, I am not arguing here, because I am not having my way. I am arguing, because you did not prove Sand increasing diversity in your paragraph. Since increasing diversity was the primary basis of your argument, then your lack of evidence questions the validity of this decision.

You mention Life Orb sweepers and Focus Sash leads. However, I just pointed out in my previous post that Life Orb sweepers are still effective regardless of Sandstream. Hazards, recoil, and sand damage reduces the longevity of these sweepers in exchange for more power. Competitive players who uses LO Sweepers deal with such residual damages, they do NOT ban them to make their lives easier.

And unless the opponent is leading with Hippopotas, Focus Sash Leads would not have their Sash broken. If the opponent leads with Hippopotas, the Focus Sash Lead has a free turn to set up Rocks and do whatever else it does. Hippopotas is no Tyranitar.

The rest of your paragraph talks about how Stoutland restricts team-building. Stoutland =/= hippopotas or Sandstream. Yes, by removing Sand you disable Stoutland, but you also removed Sandy conditions unnecessarily and severely nerf Sandslash without a proper test.

So no, Sandstream apparently does NOT decrease diversity. If anything banning Sand would be removing a playstyle that is "relatively easy to check" (according to you) and would be reducing the usage of Sandslash. Now Sandslash cannot perform optimally in UU without being proven broken.

If anything the loss of Sand would probably increase even more centralization, as the already dominant UU threats become even more dominant, and the metagame would revolve even more tightly around threats such as Raikou.

This is why this ban is so dubious to me - since it is backed by faulty reasoning.

In the other hand, I fully support the Sand Veil-less UU tournament to really gauge the performance of Sand / Sand Abusers without the extra evasion factor.

P.S.: You're wrong kokoloko - I 100% regarded the explanations you all have provided, and I am now providing perfectly logical counter-arguments, because you failed to convince me how banning Sandstream is better for the metagame than banning Sand Veil and / or Stoutland (Sand Rush).

P.P.S.: I agree with Conflict - if we want to promote diversity, "narrow bans" would provide more choices available to UU players, rather than everyone using the same Raikou and the same Scarf Flygon for the best results.

 

[kokoloko]

Just gotta say that Pockets post are way more convincing than kokolokos because they provide proper reasoning.
koko you come off way more as the person whos talking down to someone. Just because you can read IS doesnt mean you are vastly superior to anyone.

Not IS, its a subforum of PR. I'm not claiming superiority due to being able to see it. I'm claiming that I have access to information that Pocket does not. The reason I'm pissed off is because he is assuming that his way of thinking is "correct" when in fact, there is no correct way of thinking as of yet--since Smogon does not have a solid tiering philosophy for everyone to follow. This is currently being discussed in the hidden forum I'm talking about, and we're trying to come up with one.

Now do you understand why I brought it up? It was to prove a point (a point I had previously discussed with Pocket over PM, btw), not to claim superiority.

Id also like to refer everyone to Smogon's philosophy, which aims to ban the least amount of Pokemon possible to achieve a balanced metagame. Therefore that should be a given.

Again, this is outdated and currently being discussed in the forum I previously mentioned.

I dont necessarily disagree with the SS ban but i dislike the new fad that people nowadays (started in late DPP) ban things based on if they 'like' or 'dislike' it. Not because its broken and overwhelms everything. The only 'really' broken Mon weve had on Smogon was Garchomp in the DP(P)-Era with usage well over 50% which further proved its brokenness. Since then weve always banned things to 'change' the metagame or 'decentralize' something not because it is necessarily broken. Id like us to go back to the old way of only banning the really broken things. Every gen/tier will without a doubt have a 'best' Pokemon or best strategy because a large community such as Smogon will find the strategy that performs well in most situations. Not to mention that a certain amount of centralization is needed for a metagame to establish and making one able to build teams accordingly. Centralization in itself is a good thing ebcause it gives us a clue what we are dealing with, it only becomes a problem when something makes you go way out of line (like carry 4 Grassmons to cover Pokemon 'Menacing Watersweeper) and thats when we should interfere, access the situation and properly deal with the suspect in question (i.e. if you need 4 checks vs one Mon on every team: Ban).

This is your opinion and you're fully entitled to it. The fact that you think only Garchomp was banworthy during DPP screams that you're very conservative--which is fine, so long as you don't try to insist on pushing your belief upon the UU Senate when they have no real reason to think the same way. This is something Pocket seems to not understand.

I also think that any mention of 'fun' or 'better metagame' should be avoided simply because they are highly subjective terms that can differ greatly from person to person. One should aim to ban on an objective basis - does suspect X force one to take enormous measrues to keep it in check or not.

Broken is a subjective term as well.

tl;dr: Id like to remind everyone to ban the least amount of Pokemon possible.

According to who/what, exactly? Like I said, this is still being discussed.

Ps: I also dont understand why we cant consider Sand Veil as part of the Evasion clause and just supress its effect. Thats one part of Smogon philosophy i disagree with (the one that says we cant change/turn off abilites/items/etc. because it would alter the game and we wouldnt play Pokemon anymore). That would be the best solution not only for UU but fpr OU and all other tiers/metagames. Just make evasion abilities and items not work - essentially make them useless. Easy fix that would make everyone happy because we ban something that noone likes anyways (uncontrollable luckfactor, hax).

I... agree completely, but that is something I have very little influence over. This is also being discussed in that hidden forum I keep mentioning, btw.

I realize my previous post made me look like a complete douche, but I'm honestly fed up with people trying to push their beliefs onto the UU Senate as if it was a crime to follow a different philosophy.

-------------------

Pocket,

Chou Toshio, I can be absolutely complacent like you and just go with the flow, but I care too much about the major tiers of Smogon to turn a blind eye on a decision based on faulty reasoning. This issue has brought up a problem of the current tiering system. Apparently, Haunter & co are discussing about the future tiering system, so if the UU council members are not going to do anything about this, I'll just bring it elsewhere.

This is why this ban is so dubious to me - since it is backed by faulty reasoning.

You keep doing this. Having a different tiering philosophy =/= faulty reasoning.

You're failing to understand that no matter how hard you try to see our point of view, you will not. This is due primarily to two reasons: 1. You don't play UU nearly as often as us, and 2. You have a compltely different philosophy.

The fact that we voted like we did for a reason, remains true. The fact that you don't understand our reasoning is not enough for you to constantly nag us about it, especially when...

Again, I understand that each council members have made their decisions, because they believed it's the best course of action for UU. However, good intentions does not always make it right (I am aware that this could go both ways). Even more, the council decision was far too divisive to go on with the ban. I would like to plea to please reconsider the ban. I do want to have faith in you guys.

I told you over PM that I would consider your proposition and I'm still mulling it over.

Now, seriously. Stop beating a dead horse. I'm not going to move a finger until we are at least a couple weeks into the new metagame, but I promise you, I actually am considering your proposition. In fact, I already have something in mind to re-test the sand metagame with Sandslash and Superpower Stoutland. Be patient.

 

[Psychotic]

P.P.S.: I agree with Conflict - if we want to promote diversity, "narrow bans" would provide more choices available to UU players, rather than everyone using the same Raikou and the same Scarf Flygon for the best results.

This is one thing that I CAN agree with. But sadly, any pokemon that remains above the 3.4%(?) cutoff will remain banned no matter how well they would perform in UU and us senators can do nothing about this. I think testing some of these pokemon in the UU environment would be great for the tier, and many current OU pokes would actually help balance out UU.

Edit: To clarify, I am saying that I wish we had some form of suspect testing. Also, I will not be taking part in this argument anymore, it is pointless. Neither side will ever convince the other to change their mind.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Technically, whether one person has been convinced or not is rather unimportant...

Furthermore, suggesting that there is a "right" or "wrong" in tiering is again, really faulty logic. No matter what anyone would like to believe, tiering ultimately comes down to pure, human preference.

There are a lot of ways to think about tiering, and everyone involved is thinking about what they believe is best for the tier and its players. I think that's more than enough, and arguing too much over the "logic" of tiering in Pokemon simply becomes ridiculous.

For the record, I could go either way on the decision, but I frankly think that banning sand is the better decision overall.

edit:

On the other hand, "You've managed to piss me the fuck off" aren't the kind of words we should expect from a leader of the tier. >_____> The Council system only works if people have faith in the Council, so try to keep your cool Koko.

edit2: If sand stays banned, Imma run 4 swift swimmers lol

 

[Mew]

Not only Stoutland with friggin Superpower but also excadrill 1.5 without Steel typing in UU? diversity? Wtf is wrong with the people that want sand in UU.. Do they really need or like sand that much? Are they that unconsidering that they can't friggin understand it's only getting worse with the overpowering part?

I also can't understand the 5 vs 6 argument when using hippopotas.. It's still a pretty damn good wall on paper as well as in action. Maybe not hippowdon, but there's no better alternative really. It can even run the same damn defensive spread as its evo, effectively too. Sure taunt bait, sure xatu hard counters it, guys hippowdon would't do any different unless you're running a gimmick set. The fact remains it does get SS up, it does get SR up most of the time of you play it good, it can wall a physical attacker at times and it can also phase out boosters that get greedy or just need too much boosting.

I really get sick with the people pleading for unbanning sand, it's just a way to whine a lot, unless they use it themselves to great effect obviously.

Also maybe the fact not much ppl use sand is because everyone else prepares for it? I've personally seen a rise in Hitmontop/Machamp/Heracross usage which I think is because everyone expects Snorlax/Porygon2/Steel-types on the other team which will probably be there.

I think it's a good thing sand is banned, for all the fucking obvious reasons... Is sand really that fun to play Pocket (and other ppl who support him)? some pll actually said to run stuff like rain dance azelf... How far does this have to go really?

 

[Diatom]

To be honest, I think that sand stream was THE most atrocious thing in any metagame since Blaziken was banned. There are a few reasons for this:

The first reason: Stoutland. This pokémon made it so you HAD to run Rhyperior/Bronzong on your team, or you could risk getting swept. Most of its would be "checks" could be easily destroyed if they had taken even small amounts of prior damage. This pokémon severely limited diversity in teambuilding, and made heavy offense teams literally impossible to use. Now, some of you may say "ban Stoutland". However, Stoutland is not the only thing broken about sand.

The second reason: Sand Veil: When something makes CACTURNE of all things viable in UU, you know there's a problem. It should have been banned long ago under evasion clause, but it wasn't, so we were stuck with it. It can literally turn a game around, and there is absolutely NOTHING that a player can do about it. Sweeping with a Kingdra with 6 DDs? One Sand Veil miss against Cacturne and you are OHKOd by Sucker Punch after a SD. One Sand Veil miss against Gligar and you are now poisoned and have a ticking time bomb on your head. Now, you may say "ban Sand Veil", but there is even more broken stuff.

The third reason: the passive damage. "But it's only 1/16 of your HP" is what many people would say. However, that 1/16 can mean a LOT. Stealth Rock is only twice this, and look what it has done to the metagame. The fact that sand hits through substitutes, and even hits every TURN, not like Stealth Rock, which only hits once, makes stuff like SubCM Raikou MUCH worse than it should be; just by switching in and using one sub, it's already lost 3/8 of its health.

The fourth reason: there is no reliable way to remove it. Changing the weather loses even more momentum than using Rapid Spin does; as it does literally nothing else beneficial for your team, and it does no damage. To make it worse, Hippopotas is surprisingly bulky with eviolite, meaning it can switch in and change the weather again, WITHOUT having to use a move like Spikes.

Overall, there are so many issues with sand stream, that I don't know how it didn't get banned long ago, even before stuff like sun, which was nowhere near as broken.

 

[Heysup]

np: UU stage 6.5 - Circle Jerk

Can we all stop this absurdly hostile posting for the sake of posting? Yes, I'm going to rejoin this circle jerk of an argument but only in hopes we STOP without any concrete facts that suggest further action.

Pocket, we've heard what you have to say (at LEAST 10 different times using at least 3 different mediums) and I keep saying that I agree with your philosophy but I need to state the fact that no philosophy holds more weight than another (right now, though I'm sure we're going to find something out "soon"). You keep replying "well but I think mine's better". Then I keep restating the facts: "I agree but there is no one philosophy that holds more weight than another right now". Then you keep replying "well but I think mine's better". Then I keep replying .......yea you see how annoying that gets? If you get your way (which you could very well get) it's not going to be because you keep repeating yourself or if your argument is more valid. There will be a vote among "Tiering leaders" that is going to try and iron out a philosophy. I thought that was your goal (something that was already happening before you posted as I understand it)? If that was your goal, you'd have stopped posting....it appears to be more sound that your goal is merely to derail this thread and anger the staff, well, at least that's the only thing that's happening due to your posts.

Kokoloko maybe should have used some lighter words, but I mean he's not one to get angry easily.....and who can blame him this time, honestly. It's frustrating as all shit when someone who he (and others) have never seen play the metagame come in and preach his philosophy with no base whatsoever and ignore it like this.

I also don't blame you (Pocket) for at least pointing out what he feels is poor reasoning behind some of the votes but the senate has said all it can say explaining the validity of their votes.

I do wish that tiering discussion was in a transparent forum that not everyone can post in....I mean....at least TC's should be able to understand what's going on. It may solve problems if some of us have insight about what the tiering policy discussion is leaning towards. I guess that's for a different conversation.

Whatever. I think it would be worth it for all of us (badged and nonbadged, bolded and nonbolded, leaders and nonleaders) to take a bit of time before making more rash and possibly irrelevant posts about this topic unless you feel you have a new point to bring up. Not to stop all discussion on UU, but all discussion on this topic. The facts are these:

• Some people think SS is broken.
• Some people think SS restricts competitiveness in the metagame.
• Some people think SS isn't classically broken so it should not be banned.
• Some people, in addition to one of those 3 think Sand Veil should be banned anyway.
• The senate believed that "SS restricts competitiveness in the metagame" and so it's banned until there is a change in policy / a concrete policy made in the first place, but could possibly still remain after that.
• None of us (besides Kokoloko) really knows what the defined tiering policy is leaning towards, no one's opinion is a fact regardless of what they think right now.

With those facts in mind, let's wait for that result. Kokoloko is doing all he can to get results to us fast and planning to please everyone as best he can, though it's usually an impossible task.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Overall, there are so many issues with sand stream, that I don't know how it didn't get banned long ago, even before stuff like sun, which was nowhere near as broken.

Are you serious? Did you even play during the victini / vulpix era? >_____>

 

[Wrave]

I can't say that I am happy with no Sand in UU. Having played it since day 1 and ranked as high as 12 on the ladder. I get that it can be overcentralizing but I think Sand Veil maybe more the issue. Same as the Hail dispute. Snow Veil was instant brightpowder.

Sand is manageable (which is why after I got to 12, my ranking fell off a cliff) if you know its weaknesses.

Also getting rid of Sand will cause all of the Pokemon it made viable fall into the pits of nowhere. Don't get me wrong Choice Band Stoutland still hits like a truck but it has weaknesses that were overcome by Sand Rush.

Also as someone pointed out Sand is not dominating usage like some have said.


Oh and don't get me started on how broken Sun was. Still gives me nightmares.

 

[SOMALIA]

Sand has been banned from UU...that's all there is to it. Instead of dwelling on the past like fools, I suggest we change the subject. Like Chou Toshio said, I think there is going to be alot of dual screen+several swift swim sweepers like how it is was in gen 4 uu

 

[Mew]

Has anyone used Rhyperior with Superpower yet? A CB set sounds pretty interesting to me, but I haven't had the chance to test it yet and I'd like to know what others think it could do.

 

[SJCrew]

Rhyperior has always had Superpower. Some people used it in the Chansey era alongside Choice Band specifically for taking her out, since Leftovers variants would just get walled. There are only a couple of old gen Pokemon to my knowledge that newly receive Superpower, as it was already a tutor in Platinum and HGSS, and Flygon is one of them.

EDIT: No actually, it's just him.

 

[Mew]

Rhyperior has always had Superpower. Some people used it in the Chansey era alongside Choice Band specifically for taking her out, since Leftovers variants would just get walled. There are only a couple of old gen Pokemon to my knowledge that newly receive Superpower, as it was already a tutor in Platinum and HGSS, and Flygon is one of them.

EDIT: No actually, it's just him.

Weird that it doesn't show up in its moves section then.. But isn't Superpower a very good move on a CB set over Megahorn (or in the fourth slot)? First of all improved coverage, also more reliable and even after the attack drop it's still damn strong.

 

[jamashawalker]

Weird that it doesn't show up in its moves section then.. But isn't Superpower a very good move on a CB set over Megahorn (or in the fourth slot)? First of all improved coverage, also more reliable and even after the attack drop it's still damn strong.

Actually no. Everything rhyperior needs to 2hko or Ohko can be done by megahorn, stone edge or EQ. The only poke i can see tsuperpower reliable for is porygon2. Adding superpower only lowers rhyperiors coverage in UU

 

[Mazz]

Actually no. Everything rhyperior needs to 2hko or Ohko can be done by megahorn, stone edge or EQ. The only poke i can see tsuperpower reliable for is porygon2. Adding superpower only lowers rhyperiors coverage in UU

I see three moves there. Adding Superpower doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. When Chansey drops, it'll be handy for it to already be using it anyways, no? It's kinda useful for Snorlax too.

Honestly, what's Aqua Tail actually hitting on this thing? Hippopotas? Gligar? Opposing Rhyperior? Stone Edge'll do more to Gligar anyways because it's a neutral hit and STAB, Hippopotas is just goddamn bulky anyways, and wont be used seeing that Sand Stream got banned, and Rhyperior loses to Earthquake, which gets STAB and Super Effective. With a higher Base Damage too. Fire-Types are dealt with either Earthquake or Stone Edge, as are Rock-Types. Its for Ground-Type coverage, and there's only like 7 in the whole tier, and only 1 needs Aqua Tail to do any considerable damage to it (Flygon = Megahorn hits harder, Nidoking/queen = Earthquake, Claydol = Megahorn, Gligar = Stone Edge). Hippopotas won't be seen in UU much more anyways, so why not?