Lower Tiers ORAS NU Viability Rankings

[Threw]

I played 3 ladder games a few hours ago so I think I'm overqualified to share my opinion in this thread

Definitely agree with Omastar moving down. The defensive set is actually awful and its job is done better by literally any other Rock-type - having both hazards isn't a good niche, just a case of excessive role compression that rarely works out. This calc (252 Atk Life Orb Tauros Earthquake vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Omastar: 146-174 (42.5 - 50.7%) -- 43.8% chance to 2HKO after Stealth Rock and Leftovers recovery) speaks for itself as far as its use as a check for Normals. Frankly this in conjunction with its use on rain would probably only merit a B rank at best, because it's an outclassed set + a niche set, but straight up weatherless SS is the best way to use Oma and is still very threatening with the proper support. That said, it's absolutely a B+ set at best because this meta is so saturated with potential revenge killers as well as things that straight up blank Water/Ice/Electric coverage - Lanturn, Ferro, Gastro, etc. Being outsped by Scarf Rotom is especially awful. Fun set though, and you can experiment with the item which is cool - I've tried Shuca, Chople, WH, Wacan, and Mystic Water with varying success.

Anyway, in short, supporting Omastar -> B+

Vileplume is insanely good; in fact, it's actually the best Fighting resist hands-down, as reliable recovery + no rocks weakness + neutrality to EdgeQuake gives it an edge over every other Poison- and Flying-type in the tier. One of its biggest advantages, perhaps even better than its access to Sleep Powder and its ability to reliably answer Malamar with Worry Seed, both of which literally EVERY team appreciates, is its sky-high SpA, which even uninvested has some serious damage output and makes it so very few things can set up on it comfortably. Finally, the amount of status Plume manages to spread between Effect Spore, Sludge Bomb, and the aforementioned Sleep Powder can let it cripple entire teams solo. The fact that it can punish physical attackers without needing to run Rocky Helmet is pretty phenomenal. Even with Garbodor being so common, Fighting-types will always be dominant in this tier, so it only makes sense to respect the mon that handles them the best and still maximizes all the pluses of being a Grass-type.

So, Plume -> A-

 

[Disjunction]

Klinklang
B- ==> C+
Disagree

As much as I know Klinklang isn't favourable in this meta I don't think it is fair to place it amongst the C-Ranks of the VR. I think Klinklang brings a very relevant niche by the fact that Shift Gear, boosting attack to +1 and speed to +2, essentially means that it out speeds the entire scarfed metagame in one setup. Nothing else in the tier can even go toe to toe with Klinklang in terms of speed apart from Shell Smash Barbaracle, which is touch and go with faster scarfers in the tier such as Scyther. This is no such a problem with Klinklang, once it sets up, you can guarantee no speed control is taking it out. Secondly, Klinklang has been favoured with recent metagame shifts, such as the usage of Specs Mesprit in the last few months and very recently the rise of SpDef Knock Off Clefairy, both of which are excellent support tools so that Klinklang can actually beat the likes of Steelix. In Clefairy's case, once a standard Steelix's leftovers are knocked off, Klinklang can proceed to win 1v1 with Magnet Rise, Shift Gear and Gear Grind. Another argument has been made about the dominance of fighting types in the NU Tier, but fighting types have a huge problem getting past an S Rank Pokemon in Garbodor, and where all fail to OHKO Klinklang with their priority. In the case of Hitmonchan, you fail to OHKO with LO Mach Punch until 60%-70% not to mention the complete shutdown of momentum going for a move like Mach Punch requires you to do. Hariyama and Gurdurr both don't have reliable recovery and are as a result easily weakened, so I don't buy the fighting types make Klinklang shit argument. Finally, I wanted to highlight the sheer utility klinklang has as an offensive check to certain pokemon. It provides key flying, grass, psychic, normal and ice resist where teams will often struggle to provide backup cover for. Klinklang can be a very proficient backup cover to these types in certain builds that might not be able to house all of those resists naturally such as offense. (Also, use magnet rise people, ground types no longer check you)

tl;dr: klinklang is speedy at +2 with shift gear (rip offense), recent metagame trends have been in its favour (specs mesprit, clefairy), all of the relevant fighters dont have reliable recovery so can be weakened easily, and it has a ridiculous number of resists that are extremely useful from a teambuilding perspective.

I don't have a lot of time to respond, so I'm going to do my best to keep this quick.

Your counterargument as to why it shouldn't drop has not necessarily addressed the reasons why I felt it deserved a drop in the first place. To be specific, the existence of a plethora of checks that make it unusable in most matchups. Yes, it becomes quite fast when it uses Shift Gear and I doubt anyone would question that, but the main issue is that it can't break most of its common checks and that there are a LOT of common checks. My original post only listed a few, so a better list of checks would be as follows: Garbodor, Rotom, Rocky Helmet Xatu, Gurdurr, Weezing, Gastrodon, Steelix (assuming no Magnet Rise), Ferroseed (assuming Magnet Rise), Miltank, Barrier Musharna, HP Ground/Fire Vileplume, Pelipper, Poliwrath, Torterra, Quagsire, Gourgeist, and so on, not listing the plethora of Pokemon that check it offensively by preventing it from setting up (note: most offensive teams.)

On top of that, I highly disagree that the existence of Garbodor makes running Fighting-types as checks to Klinklang, namely as offensive ones, irrelevant. You can't say that DD Rhydon isn't a good offensive check to Tauros because of the existence of Bronzor because it's still threatening to Tauros, despite not being to knock it out from full. Additionally, the popularity of Garb only hurts Klinklang's viability because of a widespread, popular answer to this mon. And to provide an argument against the point of "losing momentum" by having to click Mach Punch, you could easily say the reverse about Klinklang needing to switch. Neither side is "losing momentum" by either making the safe play or predicting the opponent because both of them are relevant plays to make.

I'll give you that Klinklang has a host of useful resistances and can fill a great niche. Against offensive teams, Klinklang's typing really lets it shine by finding more setup opportunities than what is normal nowadays. However, it's not as if Klinklang is able to single-handedly crush hyper offensive (note the hyper considering bulky offense has a great matchup against it) teams by itself either. Priority, spikes, garb, and an over-reliance to get over +1 in the late game puts Klinklang at a disadvantage as well. You have to preserve your own momentum against an extremely pressure-heavy team archetype to set up for a Klinklang sweep against hyper offense, and I think this can be said for just about every speed-boosting sweeper. Klinklang trades the full-game utility (most) of these mons have for its resistances and is left with only an average potential for late-game.

 

[Shadestep]

Simisage is a beast and I completely agree with it moving up. Most things have already been said but I think B- would be a fine place for it. Immediate Grass Power is something not many Pokemon are capable of putting out, and Simisage has some absolutely sick coverage moves, allowing it to nail Charizard and Vivillon, which is huge for it. Besides being able to hit both Zard and Vivillon, it still has room for other coverage moves like Superpower and Gunk Shot. Gunk Shot is sick because you can hit both Fire-types and other Grass-types with its coverage, unlike Lilligant, which has to pick between one of them (HP Rock or HP Fire). It also has a dope speed-tier which allows it to Revenge-kill Jynx, Kangaskhan, Rotom, etc. Unlike most of the other C-ranks, it doesn't need that much support and can function pretty well on its own. Just make sure you have a decent switch-in to Garbodor / Weezing on your team and you'll be fine (Xatu is on 90% of most teams anyways so that won't really be a toughie).

 

[QueenOfLuvdiscs]

Simisage been a god for ages. Knew it was only a matter of time before people realised it. Move up
Also Klinklang needs a shit ton of support if it's gonna do anything relevant. Just put this with the other trash.

 

[pancake]

I'm neutral about Simisage's rise in rankings, but I think it should be blacklisted from discussion because of the sheer debate on whether it should rise or not.

Lol? Are you being ironic? The Simisage discussion is not the type of discussion that gets a mon blacklisted. Vanilluxe was blacklisted because the discussion of whether or not it should rise was getting very heated and didn't really matter much. At this point, more people are discussing where Simisage should rise to rather than whether it should rise. Finally, regs like us can't make a decision on whether mons should be blacklisted from discussion; only the VR council can.

I'd emphasize not doing one-liners in this thread, not specifically to you, but I've seen a lot of one-liner VR posts recently ^^

 

[yogi]

I just want to add to what pancake said and say that a lot of discussion on whether a mon should rise or drop is actually good, because it helps the council/mods get a bigger public opinion on the matter. Vanilluxe was blacklisted, same as before, because the discussion wasn't going anywhere, it was a back-and-forth argument that wasn't going to be resolved; with the same or similar points being brought up and the discussion about the mon being stale.

 

[Punchshroom]

Yeah lemme be the one to clarify that the more recent Vanilluxe discussion was pretty civil and the only reason it was blacklisted this time around was because I inadvertently broke one of Kiyo's conditions, so that one is fully on me. Even though the argument I brought up that time was obviously focusing on Glalie (which a decent amount of people seem to agree with me in terms of its rank) more so than ice cream, but I digress.

So I see some conflict regarding Simisage's rank, between C, C+, and up to B- (a whole jump in rank). The deciding factor for me would be to discern how well Simisage fares against the rest of the tier, as well as taking into account its competition. While Simisage certainly has the Speed and coverage to distinguish itself, I find Simisage doesn't really manage to 1v1 enough of the tier to my liking: most of Simisage's neutral matchups risk it taking a ton of damage if not get KOed should it fail to OHKO the foe. This can present a bit of an issue when Simisage's most powerful & consistent attacks, Leaf Storm and Superpower, can be pivoted around, and it makes Simisage slightly more hit-and-run than it would like to be, which is also problematic when you consider Simisage's rather limited switch-in opportunities. I mean sure, if you can pit Simisage in favorable matchups then it can start punching in some holes, but this can be applied to most of the offensive Grass-types in the tier, and Simisage isn't a particularly exceptional Grass-type breaker either. I feel Simisage slots in better with the rest of the C+ Grass-types that we have.

Speaking of C+ Grass-types, Trevenant is soooo bad. It's slow, weak to a ton of shit, most of the few mons it wants to check can hit it hard with some coverage move they pack, and is usually just an outright defensive liability to your team. It's hardly a good spinblocker either since most of the relevant spinners can whoop its ass, so you'd much rather have pretty much any other Ghost do the job. While Trevenant's offensive coverage can be annoying to deal with sometimes, it's incredibly reliant on Wood Hammer to do reasonable damage, which in turn easily subjects it to Pursuit. Even one of its only niches, Natural Cure, is not put to good use since if it gets Scald burned on the switch, it's going to pose far less of an immediate threat so its purpose is diminished. Anything else Trevenant wants to pull is held down by the aforementioned flaws, and a Trevenant that's not immediately attacking is put into a much more disadvantageous position (Sub Trevs get pierced by sound moves, Trick Room Trevs get sniped by priority, both can't really even begin to set up safely on much). C+ is way too good for Trev, and at a glance I can't really recommend Trev over any of the C Ranks either, and some of the C- Ranks even.

 

[enzobro16]

I just want to add to what pancake said and say that a lot of discussion on whether a mon should rise or drop is actually good, because it helps the council/mods get a bigger public opinion on the matter. Vanilluxe was blacklisted, same as before, because the discussion wasn't going anywhere, it was a back-and-forth argument that wasn't going to be resolved; with the same or similar points being brought up and the discussion about the mon being stale.

Ah, but I think Simisage should stay where it is, (maybe a rise to C) since it has among the lowest and most inconsistent damage output out of any viable offensive grass type:
It lacks a triple digit attacking stat, unlike most other offensive grass types in NU, barring Ludicolo. Sure, its more generous speed tier lets it run modest, but then it meets its grave at the hands of faster threats such as Ayroar and archeops. To make matters worse, it can't reliably sweep with choice specs or choice band because its strongest attacks, superpower and leaf storm drop its attacking stats (as mentioned many, many times before), so it can only stay in for so long, and entry hazards, status ailments, poor defenses make this worse. Therefore, to negate these stat drops, Simisage has to sacrifice attack power and run a White Herb. Lastly, Knock Off greatly damages Simisage and knocks away its power boosting item.

That being said, if you disagree, show me some results to back up your opinion (a notable replay of an NU Simisage Sweep).

 

[pancake]

Ah, but I think Simisage should stay where it is, (maybe a rise to C) since it has among the lowest and most inconsistent damage output out of any viable offensive grass type:
It lacks a triple digit attacking stat, unlike most other offensive grass types in NU, barring Ludicolo. Sure, its more generous speed tier lets it run modest, but then it meets its grave at the hands of faster threats such as Ayroar and archeops. To make matters worse, it can't reliably sweep with choice specs or choice band because its strongest attacks, superpower and leaf storm drop its attacking stats (as mentioned many, many times before), so it can only stay in for so long, and entry hazards, status ailments, poor defenses make this worse. Therefore, to negate these stat drops, Simisage has to sacrifice attack power and run a White Herb. Lastly, Knock Off greatly damages Simisage and knocks away its power boosting item.

That being said, if you disagree, show me some results to back up your opinion (a notable replay of an NU Simisage Sweep).

"It lacks a triple digit attacking stat" > flawed logic

second of all, I think you are discounting a ton of Simisage's upsides, and it really looks like you haven't used it much, especially because you note that you need to run White Herb, which you don't. The main thing going for Simisage is its speed tier; 101 outspeeds a ton of notable threats in this meta such as Rotom and Mesprit. Furthermore, Simisage's unique coverage differentiate it from other offensive Grasses in NU. While I don't have any "Simisage sweep replays," what makes a mon good is NOT that it can sweep teams. Simisage's wallbreaking abilities are really is why it deserves a higher rank, and while the rank it goes to is debatable, I support at least a C+ simisage, because it's certainly as good as (if not better than) Trevenant as an offensive Grass type.

 

[Disjunction]

Hey guys!

Maybe you've felt the same way at one point or another, but for a long time I've felt as if there were some underlying problems at the core of the Viability Rankings. Subjective placements due to a lack of real reference in scaling, strange rank inflation, and bickering that ends up going around in circles -- all for the sake of representing what Pokemon are good in the tier. However, after a certain point in a tier's development I really feel as if the viability rankings don't do this job efficiently at all. We rank Archeops over Clefairy as if to say Archeops is an inherently better Pokemon despite these two being chosen for completely different reasons.

That's why I've recently brought up this idea of abolishing our current system of ranking Pokemon with the VR council for when SM NU comes out in several months' time. Personally, I believe we should be evaluating Pokemon based on their specific set of traits they can bring to a team. A system I've proposed that a lot of the VR likes is one where we have a list of areas in which we judge a Pokemon. There have been a couple of suggestions on what areas could be evaluated, but a simple version could look like this:

Jynx Offensive: S / Defensive: C- / Utility: B+

In this system, we're comparing Pokemon's specific qualities to one another (much like a report card) instead of ranking them based on subjective performance. This system is still able to portray which Pokemon are dominating the metagame, allows for plenty of room for discussion, and better represents why you would choose one Pokemon over another for your team.

However, the Viability Rankings are ultimately a community-driven project. How any individual feels is less important compared to that of the community, so I've drawn up a strawpoll in an attempt to get an idea on what you guys feel about the current system.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11520330/

If you have any questions about the poll, feel free to vm me on smogon or pm me on ps. If you voted for the fourth option and have a great idea to replace the current system, feel free to message me or any of the VR council members to bring it up for discussion.

Thanks!

E: I've gotten a few questions already since making this post and a lot of them have to do with "How will the list continue to be organized under this new system?" The short answer to that question is I don't know yet. However, I can tell you that we won't just use some arbitrary system of listing the Pokemon down the list. I've considered using usage stats, averaging a Pokemon's total score, and even something simple like alphabetical order, but this is mostly an issue that is still in need of being discussed.

We're mostly interested in whether or not we should spend the time hashing out the smaller details of this system, such as organizational methods and criteria, or not. If the interest from the community is there then we'll move forward, but I mostly wanted to get the proof of concept out there for people's discretion.

Oh, and a disclaimer: the mod team and VR Council are more than likely holding the right to overturn anything I might want to do here. I don't want to come across as misrepresenting what I'm allowed to do!

 

[Josh]

Current system is fine imo, viability rankings are ultimately resources for new players and in all honesty your system seems like it would confuse people. There's a reason most high level players generally ignore vrs.

That said, what you suggested might be a cool side project. I really feel like the current vr system is good enough and needs to stay, but there's no reason another thread can't be made to work on this or something similar. http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/oras-ou-sets-viability-ranking-thread-v6.3585155/ a thread like this might also be cool for nu

BTW drop Trev it's so shit rofl

 

[Disjunction]

Current system is fine imo, viability rankings are ultimately resources for new players and in all honesty your system seems like it would confuse people. There's a reason most high level players generally ignore vrs.

That said, what you suggested might be a cool side project. I really feel like the current vr system is good enough and needs to stay, but there's no reason another thread can't be made to work on this or something similar. http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/oras-ou-sets-viability-ranking-thread-v6.3585155/ a thread like this might also be cool for nu

BTW drop Trev it's so shit rofl

Why do you believe the new system would be more confusing than what we have right now? You're right -- high level players ignore VRs because they understand that, while some Pokemon are inherently more consistent than others, you can't just compare two Pokemon and say that one is better than the other. Good players build with the knowledge of how to structure a team based on what their needs are, not what Pokemon is at the highest end of the viability rankings. With the right maintenance, the system I've proposed has the potential to represent this in a clear manner for new players far more efficiently than the old system.

Back when I was a mod, there was discussion about set viability rankings and most of us at the time agreed they were not much different from regular viability rankings and accomplished next to nothing. It had the same problem -- you're trying to rate sets that do different things on the same scale which ends up misrepresenting why you would use the mon.

FWIW I also agree trev is dong.

 

[Josh]

Like, so Jynx is S offensively, C- defensively, B+ in utility? That's already confusing. Ranks are basically just to show the best mons in the metagame, the second best mons in the metagame, and so on. High level players ignore the vrs because they know what things are effective and what things beat common builds, and no thread will ever be able to show that. These resources are targeted at newer players, not skilled ones. It is much easier to just show new players that Garbodor, Jynx, Mesprit, and Tauros are the best mons in the metagame, and the stuff in A+ is not as good but is still really good, and so on. The entire point is so new players know the pool of stuff to be putting on teams and what things they need to prepare for. Sure, you can break it up, but looking at Jynx as an S rank threat vs looking at Jynx as an S rank offensive mon and a C- defensive mon is just going to confuse them when the thread doesn't even have a viability based order (you suggested stuff like alphabetical).

If you could post a sample of your system with at least like 10 mons that would also help.

 

[yogi]

Well, if you wanted to do it like that, you could always make 3 seperate lists.

 

[Disjunction]

Like, so Jynx is S offensively, C- defensively, B+ in utility? That's already confusing. Ranks are basically just to show the best mons in the metagame, the second best mons in the metagame, and so on.

I agree, one of the main focuses of the Ranks is to indicate the levels at which a Pokemon can perform. However, in the current system, we're functioning off of a completely arbitrary system for that. Personally, I don't feel as if Garbodor is any more consistent or threatening at its job than, say, Samurott and yet the list reflects Garbodor as a Pokemon that is inherently better. Additionally, the current list lacks a large component a lot of new players will be looking for: why are these Pokemon where they're at? Sure, my method doesn't perfectly outline why a Pokemon is graded the way it is, but at least a new player will know Vileplume is a decently powerful defensive wall with some kind of utility just by glancing through the list. New players currently have no idea Magmortar has defensive merit with AV or that Sliggoo has a variety of offensive options available to it by glancing through the list.

It is much easier to just show new players that Garbodor, Jynx, Mesprit, and Tauros are the best mons in the metagame, and the stuff in A+ is not as good but is still really good, and so on. The entire point is so new players know the pool of stuff to be putting on teams and what things they need to prepare for.

"Best mons in the metagame" is hard to represent and even harder to explain, in my opinion. For example, Garbodor is currently an S-Rank mon because it fills a lot of defensive niches for a team and provides impressively consistent Spikes support. However, how is this roll anymore consistent than what, say, Mega Audino does, which is act as a blanket check for a lot of offensive mons, provide Wish/Heal Bell support for defensive teams, and provide a wincon with Calm Mind? Mega Audino is a great Pokemon and Garbodor is a great Pokemon, but, somewhere along the way in the development of this list, a handful of people just said "mm, but I think Garbodor does it better," despite both Pokemon being relevant and worthy of consideration in the builder.

Garbodor
Offensive: B- / Defensive: A / Utility: S

Mega Audino
Offensive: A- / Defensive: S / Utility: A

From looking at this, you get at least a vague idea of what to expect from these Pokemon.
"Oh, Mega Audino looks like it's really obnoxious to break down. I better be prepared with some Poison- or Steel-types."
"Garbodor doesn't look too strong, but it looks like it's pretty bulky and has something that could really annoy my team."
I think it's better that we send messages like this to new users instead of "Garbodor is one of the most insane Pokemon right now!! Watch out!! Also here's 20 more mons that you should also look at but they aren't as important for some reason."

Sure, you can break it up, but looking at Jynx as an S rank threat vs looking at Jynx as an S rank offensive mon and a C- defensive mon is just going to confuse them when the thread doesn't even have a viability based order (you suggested stuff like alphabetical).

I never ruled out the possibility of ranking via viability, I'm just saying it's hard to accurately represent viability. I've brainstormed some ideas and, while they're fresh and prone to being a little iffy, I can list them here:

1. Alphabetical
2. Usage stats
3. Alphabetical but include tags for ctrl f searches on specific niches
4. Place mon in ranking of their highest ranked category. Simisage of Off B+ / Def C / Utl D would be B+
5. Make grades number based and add mon to the rank associated with their average
6. Add "Relevance" criteria that is voted on by people or controlled by council

My personal favorite is #3, although it does not fix the problem of listing mons by "important to keep in mind in builder" which I will always agree is an important aspect of teambuilding. #5 could be a nice middle-ground solution, but it is subject to misrepresenting Pokemon like Tauros and Jynx that will be exceptional and meta-shaping in one category, yet lacking in the others.

If you could post a sample of your system with at least like 10 mons that would also help.

I'll do some ranks off the top of my head that people might disagree with, but should hopefully represent any future list well in concept.

Tauros
Offensive: S / Defensive: C / Utility: C+

Jynx
Offensive: S / Defensive: C / Utility: B+

Mesprit
Offensive: A+ / Defensive: A- / Utility: A+

Garbodor
Offensive: B- / Defensive: A / Utility: S

Archeops
Offensive: A+ / Defensive: C / Utility: B-

Lilligant
Offensive: A+ / Defensive: C / Utility: B-

Magmortar
Offensive: S / Defensive: B+ / Utility: C+

Rhydon
Offensive: A+ / Defensive: A- / Utility: B+

Rotom
Offensive A / Defensive: A / Utility: A-

Samurott
Offensive A+ / Defensive C- / Utility: C

To be honest, my ideal list is one where you can differentiate between offensive capacities. Mega Audino, for instance, has a lot of capacity for sweeping, but not for wallbreaking. Additionally, I like the idea of tags so a new user can see "Oh! Archeops has a B- in utility probably because it can use Taunt pretty effectively!" My ideal list would look something like this

Garbodor
Immediate Power: B- / Sweeping Potential: D / Defensive: A / Utility: S
tags: Fighting-type check, Mega Audino check, Normal-type check Spikes, Toxic Spikes

Well, if you wanted to do it like that, you could always make 3 seperate lists.

I've had people suggest this as well, and I don't like the idea. I'll just quote something I said earlier in a pm.

Is there a significant enough difference between having one list of mons and three specific lists of mons? It seems to me that the latter would invite users to nominate more obscure Pokemon to fill in the gaps. The former is a better representation of a mon's level of viability because you're displaying its qualities all at once. For instance, you would have to search through three separate lists just to see that Magmortar has a fair amount of defensive merit, low utility, and high offensive power

Sorry for long post I don't know self-restraint.

 

[Josh]

Well, one problem I see right off the bat is you have Mega Audino as a better mon than Garbodor. Both one S and A but Audino has a- and Garbodor has a b-, and yet Garbodor is the s rank and Audino is the A rank. Based on your system you're arguing Garbodor isn't as good as Mega Audino and saying they should switch places on the vr, OR that utility is more important than defensive. And I guess that you're suggesting not to rank in order of viability so this wouldn't matter but it doesn't change the fact that the basic interpretation of that analysis is Mega Audino > Garbodor which is not the case so even the example seems flawed. Maybe I'm just not understanding? I feel like you're trying to make the vr more than its supposed to be; a basic resource and guideline. What is nice is listing what each mon does and that's why clicking them should link the analyses imo like other tiers do. And again, what you posted doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea but it belongs as a side thread to the main vr from my pov.

 

[Disjunction]

Well, one problem I see right off the bat is you have Mega Audino as a better mon than Garbodor. Both one S and A but Audino has a- and Garbodor has a b-, and yet Garbodor is the s rank and Audino is the A rank. Based on your system you're arguing Garbodor isn't as good as Mega Audino and saying they should switch places on the vr, OR that utility is more important than defensive. And I guess that you're suggesting not to rank in order of viability so this wouldn't matter but it doesn't change the fact that the basic interpretation of that analysis is Mega Audino > Garbodor which is not the case so even the example seems flawed.

The intent in expressing things this way is to show that each Pokemon is unique. Mega Audino is not better than Garbodor, but it can do a different set of things that makes it more appealing in some cases and vice versa.

And again, like I said, I'm not suggesting we don't rank in order of viability. It's a viable option to go along with my system to allow players to see in an easier way what they need to prep for and why. My only concern is how to represent ordered viability in the new system because, to me, the way we've been ordering viability is subject to severe misrepresentation.

Maybe I'm just not understanding? I feel like you're trying to make the vr more than its supposed to be; a basic resource and guideline. What is nice is listing what each mon does and that's why clicking them should link the analyses imo like other tiers do. And again, what you posted doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea but it belongs as a side thread to the main vr from my pov.

My argument is the VR is a terrible guideline to follow and provides new players with a warped view of what the tier and teambuilding are like. This is my solution. I'm not going to pretend it's perfect, but there is a significant number of people who have responded to the poll who think the VR needs changed, if not at a small scale.

 

[Plaessy]

Tbh, I feel like there is no reason to change the vr system, it's simple, thus easy to understand. What you could do is to add links to their sets, so that peeps will get the idea what they are capable of doing and what they are not.

 

[yogi]

The reason I don't like mons being ranked based on offensive, defensive and utility sets is that most don't have these sets to show why they were put there. There's no defensive set(s) for it. Giving them all ranks based on things they maybe could do but can't actually feasibly pull off really wouldn't be the way to run it in my honest opinion.

 

[Threw]

At first I was very on board with this idea, but I have to reluctantly admit that Josh and Plaessy make good points. For as long as analyses have been around, they have been the way to familiarize oneself with what threats do in a metagame. Essentially, analyses exist to tell new players what threats do, while the VR tells users how well they do them. By reading both of these resources, it's rather easy to glean that Tauros is overwhelmingly incredible offensively and poor at everything else, simply because its only analysis set is a single offensive one. By reading Mesprit's analysis, one can tell it's S-rank due to its ability to do almost everything exceptionally well because it has a ridiculous number of analysis sets, etc.

Here's where this relationship falls short: Garbodor has a defensive Spikes analysis set as well as an offensive one. At first glance, there is no reason for a newer user to believe that the offensive one is any worse than the defensive one, as while we try to order sets by how good they are, the relative difference between the viability of each set is far from readily apparent. While offensive Garbodor is certainly viable, I think we can all agree that the defensive set is miles better, but the difference in viability between Specs and Scarf Mesprit is less pronounced. This is where a sets VR would fill in the gaps.

Back when I was a mod, there was discussion about set viability rankings and most of us at the time agreed they were not much different from regular viability rankings and accomplished next to nothing. It had the same problem -- you're trying to rate sets that do different things on the same scale which ends up misrepresenting why you would use the mon.

I disagree with this. I really don't see how it's easier or more helpful to consider the viability of all of a Pokemon's sets and come up with a single value(s) (what we do now/only would do to a slightly lesser extent with your system) than to judge the viability of individual sets. Specs Mesprit is simply more effective at its intended job than is defensive Mesprit, and I think this information is extremely important to share with new players. I believe that separating a mon into its individual sets, in conjunction with discussion between users familiar with the metagame - a small sets VR council - can produce a ranking system that is just as if not more accurate than the regular VR. That said, I think an entire new thread is overkill, so I've thought up a compromise.

I believe that simply adding to this regular VR in small letters below every mon a ranking for each of their sets on the linked analysis actually accomplishes everything we could hope to and that I've discussed so far.

So it would look like this:

S

Garbodor
(Defensive: S, Offensive: A)


Now consider the view of a new player entering NU once we've added this resource. The first thing they do is check the VR to get a general idea of what's good and what isn't. Upon doing so, they have an immediate idea of how good the sets they're about to see in the linked analyses are, so that they can know what these Pokemon do best that truly earns them their ranking. "Oh," they say in grateful astonishment, "I had been planning to build using Garbodor's offensive set, but I can see now that the defensive set is far superior, and I should only use the offensive one for specific purposes. What helpful information!"

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

 

[tmacbalanced]

A lot of these posts make a good amount of sense and I like the thought process a lot of our community has. Thanks guys for sharing. I want to give my opinion on this too because, this all seems very interesting and I think I can add something useful to all this.
I feel like the viability ranking is meant to be shown what are the most premiere threats in the current metagame at hand. Now, I have never considered garbador as a threat, just an annoyance; reason for that being is because of how it's good at pressuring teams with the support it can bring to a team. Garbador isn't captain fatty for stall and its not captain rush for offense but, it is the premiere spiker of the tier due to it's bulk and how its not so passive offensive wise. So, being S rank because of that always seemed like a bother to me, no hate on garbador by the way haha. I feel like being more specific on what it's roles are makes more sense and giving a pokemon a ranking for each set or a ranking for each style makes sense too.
A pokemon like mega audino in A rank made no sense to me, defensively it's S rank/ offensively it's A- rank/ and utility wise it's A- rank in my opinion. So to me, I always wondered why is it not ranked higher when it's grades are so good? Other people have even said it's an awesome pokemon that should not be slept on or else you'll get swept or crippled. But, after reading these posts it makes sense. Mega Audino is a threat in it's own right but, its not as immediate as others are even though its grades are better. It fits on about every playstyle this is true, it's just that people are going to worry more about the more immediate threat like garbador with it's rocky helmet, spiking, and poisoning gunk shots, as well as, Tauros being able to dish out a shit ton of damage to most of the tier while being fast at the same time.
To me, the viability ranking shows what is the more immediate threat that you should being worrying about while also showing how well it does it's main job. Getting more specfic could solve some problems, no doubt about that. That's why I think there should be a community vote on how the sun and moon ranking should look like. This let's us all know what's good for the community rather than what WE think is good for the community. Rather than guess, let's just ask so we can KNOW.
Why not just have a seperate thread and have certain members present their viability ranking systems and let the people vote which one they think is more practical that way for sun and moon we will look like the freshest tier out there.

 

[Alonsoforever]

I don't like the new method proposed. As if we didn't have enough to argue, now we nominate for offensive viability, then for defensive... It would feel messy in the thread and less simple to read.

 

[Mazz]

I don't have much of an argument here, and just wanted to add something that might be overlooked. Sets are traditionally listed on an analysis in decreasing order of viability (best to worst). There's no apparent measure of viability between them (which Threw refers to iirc) but the implied differentiation of viability is there. Personally I think expressing the viability of individual sets is better left to a word-of-mouth thing; new users can see specific sets being used to varying degrees of success in tours and their respective replays, or it's something they can pick up on ladder, in PS! discussions, etc.

As an example, I look at the OU Sets VR from time to time and I generally don't know what to do with the information unless I'm looking for an effective sweeper, wallbreaker, or pivot. Ranking defensive sets is harder to do, since you usually approach those Pokemon with specific needs in mind. Therefore you only differentiate between defensive Pokemon, and (in the case of NU) subjectively comparing the defensive utility of Garbodor to its offensive output or that of another Pokemon is kind of moot. It's like having a combined threatlist of offensive and defensive Pokemon and ranking them alongside each other: there's a ton of information to be had but it's not generally effective information (ie: how useful is the notion that something like Scarf Mespirit is better/more viable than Spikes Garbodor?).

 

[Threw]

I don't have much of an argument here, and just wanted to add something that might be overlooked. Sets are traditionally listed on an analysis in decreasing order of viability (best to worst). There's no apparent measure of viability between them (which Threw refers to iirc) but the implied differentiation of viability is there. Personally I think expressing the viability of individual sets is better left to a word-of-mouth thing; new users can see specific sets being used to varying degrees of success in tours and their respective replays, or it's something they can pick up on ladder, in PS! discussions, etc.

I'm not a fan of the notion that we leave it to word-of-mouth. If it's common knowledge among people experienced with the tier that a certain set is better, waiting for it to be brought up on PS! won't help the vast majority of people become familiar with the metagame. If we're actually trying to help new users, I feel it's our responsibility to share as much as we can about what works and what doesn't and put it out in the open for everyone to see whenever they're able. Not everyone is interested in analyzing tour game replays or studying ladder trends (neither of these are super reliable anyway fwiw).

As an example, I look at the OU Sets VR from time to time and I generally don't know what to do with the information unless I'm looking for an effective sweeper, wallbreaker, or pivot. Ranking defensive sets is harder to do, since you usually approach those Pokemon with specific needs in mind. Therefore you only differentiate between defensive Pokemon, and (in the case of NU) subjectively comparing the defensive utility of Garbodor to its offensive output or that of another Pokemon is kind of moot. It's like having a combined threatlist of offensive and defensive Pokemon and ranking them alongside each other: there's a ton of information to be had but it's not generally effective information (ie: how useful is the notion that something like Scarf Mespirit is better/more viable than Spikes Garbodor?).

I think you're overblowing the subjectivity of ranking defensive Pokemon. We can definitely accurately determine how influential and effective these defensive mons are based on how threatening/relevant the offensive Pokemon they check are and how reliably they check them. The comparison between offensive and defensive sets on mons isn't any more subjective than the regular VR either; to use the Garbodor example, I can definitively say that the utility and defensive capabilities it brings to the table are much more significant than any ability the offensive set has to lure in Rhydon and catch Xatu off-guard and the like. The point of adding these set rankings would be less for the purpose of comparing Scarf Mesprit to Offensive Garbodor and more to compare Scarf Mesprit to Specs Mesprit. I agree that comparing any one set from two different Pokemon is useless if they have completely different roles, but if someone is using it that way, it's a mistake on their part. For the most part, the only two relevant relationships are "Mon A to Mon B" and "Mon A Set 1 to Mon A Set 2". A "Mon A Set 1 to Mon B Set 1" comparison is generally a misuse of the resource. The only exception is that I should definitely be able to compare defensive Mesprit to defensive Vileplume and get an idea of which one I should try to use for my Fighting resist.

 

[Punchshroom]

Disjunction See the thing about your suggestion is that the VR is already pretty subjective in itself, and adding all these sub-categories just seems to add a lot of clutter and risk inciting rather pointless discussions about the mon's lowest ranks (why is Samurott C Rank utility and Tauros C+? Why is Lilli's defensive ranking so low at C? etc.) that need to be addressed / rebutted, and yet ultimately don't even amount to much regarding the Pokemon's overall ranking at the end of the day. Most of the better nominations talk about all the mon's qualities as a whole anyway, without the need to introduce sub-categories.

I get that giving newer players more information to work with is good, but this method just looks kind of messy and honestly seems like unnecessary "spoonfeeding". If newer players really want to learn more about what makes the Pokemon as good / bad as it is, they should probably put in their own extra effort and scour the analyses or role compendium and whatnot. Maybe a good start would be linking the analyses to the respective Pokemon, like what the Ubers VR did.

Edit:

First of all, to those of you suggesting we link to analyses, we already do that. You can click on the sprites and it'll link you to the analysis for that mon.

Ah see, if I missed that one-liner detail, what of newer players unfamiliar with the forums? The first step should be instead to make the links more obvious; I don't see why the names of the mons can't be linked as well.