I will rain lels all over you and you will drown in them
You have once again ignored the point I was making. You say that no pokes are broken in 1v1 right now because "they have a wide range of available counters", my point was that a lot of these "available counters" are other banworthy pokes.Ok, I feel I need to make a big post because there's been a lot of posts and ban proposals recently along the lines of "this meta's banlist differs from other metas, let's fix that" or "let's change this meta so that its balance is closer to that of standard tiers", which I honestly think is a big mistake. So rather than argue with every suggestion that inevitably pops up to replace the last, I'm going to take this opportunity to discuss 1v1 Tiering Philosophy instead.
The big thing about 1v1 is, well, you pick a pokemon and that's it. Being able to counter a set is the same as being able to check it. And while pokemon need to work well together to counter all the common sets you're likely to see, there isn't the same level of coherence between members of a team - from what I've found there's no such thing as running only stall pokes because it's more effective than running two stally mons and an offensive set. The reason all members of an OU team may follow the same playstyle is that otherwise momentum will be lost, different mons will need different amounts of support, and the team won't be greater than the sum of its parts. In 1v1, however, this is not the case.
So I'd argue that OU's reasons for banning or not banning a pokemon may well be different to those in 1v1, to the same extent as DOU having a different set of requirements. Because of this, I'd like to look at the very basic reasons for banning, and try to work out a coherent method to follow in 1v1 such that the right mons end up banned or not banned.
Let's start at the top: We don't want this to be AG 1v1. The idea of tiering is that we play with the common pokes, not the "hugely OP ones" such as m-ray or p-don that Game Freak seemingly designed to be OP, rather than the more standard mons. And if this isn't a good enough reason for you, my other two reasons are: a) having such powerful mons would likely decrease variety of viable pokemon and b) it simply wouldn't be as fun. The question, then, is where to draw the line in terms of what pokemon seem definitely broken, seem will definitely reduce the number and variety of viable pokemon and strategies, and will make the game less fun.
A good starting point might be OU's preliminary banlist or the Battle Spot bans, both of which are pretty similar. And to be honest, it's not that far from 1v1's current banlist. Aside from the blaziken ban and ignoring nintendo's bans (like mew or zygarde) that aren't based on competitive reasons, there aren't that many differences. Note I'm not necessarily saying this is a good place for the meta to be at - OU's certainly changed a lot
and BSS starts with BS for a reasonbut from that point on, I'd argue there needs to be a clear and coherent reason in favour of a ban, rather than against.
So what's a good or bad reason for a pokemon to be banned? Bans exist such that a) the metagame is balanced and b) there are a wide variety of pokemon sets and strategies available while teambuilding. However, I've already explained that playstyles don't really happen as much in 1v1 - you might ban something in OU if it auto-bets any and all stall, but this isn't anywhere near as good a reason in 1v1 where running stall on two thirds of your team doesn't in any way restrict the other third. Just because a pokemon beats all stall mons doesn't mean you're limited in terms of available strategies, at least to a large extent. Moreover, there are a wide range of sets and strategies that are most certainly usable in the current metagame. Offensive sets such as choiced sets, setup sets, or simply powerful mons like Zard Y are definitely viable. Stally sets, such as Charm Chansey and even PP stall mons are certainly usable. Other kinds of sets such as subseed whimsicott or sub/encore/disable alakazam, while gimmicky, are still usable. Therefore, I'd argue that the only reason to ban a pokemon in the current metagame would be for balancing purposes.
So at what point is a pokemon broken? This is where definitions will always become a little fuzzy, however I honestly don't see that any of the current S-rank pokemon are broken. Every one of them has a wide range of available counters, whether it be Porygon-Z countered by Chansey or Mega Salamence losing to Iron Defense Deoxys-D.
So in summary, what I'm trying to say is that the meta is in a very good place right now. We simply don't need to shake it up in the way some of these changes would do, and in fact were we to design the metagame from scratch I'm pretty sure this is what we'd end up with in any case - after all, that's basically what I've just done.
There's just one change to the metagame that I'd recommend. Unban Blaziken.
Secondly, you have brought up the playstyles argument again. I don't remember if I said this last time as well, but for 1v1 we need to consider individual pokes rather than compare with how OU incorporates playstyles and look at a 1v1 "team" and say "well you have the option of not using these pokes that are outclassed in one of your 3 slots, so there's no problem at all". Like I said, if something got banned from OU it's a strong indication of the poke being too strong for the rest. So going back to my point, we have pokes in 1v1 right now that are holding back a lot of pokes, and these problem pokes are being justified because they are kept in check by other problem pokes.
Like regarding "Mega Salamence losing to Iron Defense Deoxys-D", I think that Deoxys-D is another poke that should be banned from 1v1. It was banned from OU because of easy hazard stacking thanks to its massive bulk and ability to take hits.
In 1v1 it's much more of a problem than that. It has 90 base speed Taunt, 160 defenses, Pressure, and it has access to Counter and Mirror Coat. Here are some of the most common sets used:
- Item: Leftovers / Kee Berry / Maranga Berry
- EV's: 252 HP, 252+ Speed, 4 whatever defense
- Counter, Mirror Coat, Recover, Taunt
2. PP stall with Taunt
- Item: Leftovers / Chesto berry / whatever
- EV's: 252 HP, 252+ Speed, 4 whatever defense
- Iron Defense, Amnesia, Recover / Rest, Taunt
3. PP stall with Mud-Slap / Flash
- Item: Leftovers / Kee Berry / Maranga Berry / Chesto Berry / Mental Herb / whatever
- EV's: 252 HP, 252 Def/SpD, 4 whatever defense
- Iron Defense / Amnesia / Taunt, Iron Defense / Amnesia / Taunt, Rest, Mud-Slap / Flash
Good luck breaking through those defenses using anything other than extreme offense. Wanna take another approach? Outsped and taunted on most relevant answers. And Pressure is just another slap to the face. And the Mud-Slap set is one of the most uncompetitive sets I've ever come across playing 1v1. Even if you bring Taunt, you're gonna be missing those Taunts soon enough and also your Taunt PP is 16 now. And if you do manage to get a Taunt off while facing a set without Taunt, the Deo-D can still (once brought down to struggle when Taunted) use struggle 3 times and then outspeed and use Rest, while having Pressure and PP stalling you at the same time.
I wasn't intending to delve that deeply into why Deoxys-D should be banned when making this post, but it seems like I had a lot to say right off the bat, obviously there's more to be said and discussed regarding this poke.
I think there should be more discussion about Blaziken before a potential suspect test. Are you convinced already that a suspect to unban is justified? I know I have more to say and some calcs to do for example. And regarding Mega Salamence, are you saying that Mega Salamence wouldn't be broken if Blaziken was allowed too?Right now I'm thinking a 3 in 1 suspect for Blaziken, Mega Blaziken and Mega Salamence. The reason is that Blaziken and Salamence affect each other. If Mega Salamence is banned, for example, and then we have a Blaziken suspect, it would be more dangerous as it has one less counter.