• If you haven't picked up SPL merchandise yet, this is your last chance! SPL designs will be unavailable when playoffs start on March 9th.

Resource ORAS OU Viability Ranking Thread V4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Talking about CB Entei vs Poison Heal Gliscor, I want to underline the fact that if Gliscor doesn't switch-in, it can easily click Roost to stall all the 8 PP of Sacred Fire which is the strongest move Entei can use towards it and ultimately win. If Gliscor runs Protect in place of Acrobatics (I don't really know why this move is shown in the calculator), the situation is even worse for Entei.
While that's true, why would Entei stay in on a Gliscor that has a free switch? Entei can't OHKO it, and Gliscor has Earthquake to hit Entei. Besides that, I was talking specifically about can switch-in, aka what can counter Entei, which any gliscor lacking protect (Which isn't even listed on any of the sets in the analysis) cannot do. I was not listing what can beat it given a free switch-in, as CB Entei is generally a wallbreaker, which are all prone to being revenge killed anyway, and where a free switch-in often means it KO'd the previous pokemon. You could have said the exact same thing about Azumarill, which can revenge kill with it's CB set after rocks, but would never directly switch into Entei.
 
Here is my opinion on the current slate.

Latios A+ > S: Latios is a good Pokemon, sure. But it just isn't an S Pokemon. I can leave a match, and say, win or loss, that the S Pokemon got a kill or was supportive. Latios I really can't. Sucker Punch sends it Mars and back, with Knock Off and Darkspam as common as ever, I don't think it is Latios time to shine.

Kyurem-B A > A-, Mega Gyarados A > A-,
and Mega Metagross A+ > A-:
I lumped these three together, one, to save time, and two, in my eyes are in similar situations. All three are strong, physical attackers that can wreck havoc. However, they each have their issues. Kyurem is slow and doesn't have access to reliable, physical Ice-STAB. Gyarados eats up a Mega slot and while is good, just isn't WOW THAT'S GOOD, and MegaGross eats up a Mega slot, has a bad accuracy on it's STABs, and has weaknesses to Dark and Ground. I could see MegaGross and Gyarados dropping, but Kyurem's undeniable power should keep it in A+.
 
You are missing the point of my entire post, the post was not about bringing up Latios to S rank or Tornadus-T, I just used both as examples to illustrate the mindset we have towards "S Rank". The fact is that S rank holds this almost godlike status within the Viability rankings despite the fact that arguably none of the Pokemon in S rank are truly worthy of this rank outside of maybe one (Clefable, which is a tenuous argument at best). If I was arguing for Latios I would have brought up examples, meta game knowledge and matchups, its pros versus' its weakness' rather then trying to shift the discussion towards a meta discussion regarding the position of S rank and what it actually does. Do not focus on the fact that I have Latios as being something that would move up (it is very arguable that it is S rank worthy though despite the prevalence of pursuit but that is for another post). Right now S rank is almost a pointless rank that exists just to create hollow arguments of what belongs where when in reality a lot of the arguments in this room are extremely subjective rather then based on the objective qualities of these Pokemon.
This wasn't an attack on you - a number of people have brought the S rank discussion up and used it as a basis for Latios discussion and in fact the whole S rank parameters thing came up as a result of bad Latios arguments. You made a number of good points yourself on the S rank thing, and my main point was the fact that if this S rank shift is to take hold (which I don't see any reason for but thats neither here nor there), it needs to be discussed specifically and separately, without using "if this changes, X pokemon will move up/down" as any kind of bearing on the discussion.

I guess the bottom line (which is more generally aimed rather than being aimed at you in any way) is that I don't think that re-thinking S rank is really relevant to the placement of anything atm anyway because if we're not discussing based on the current understanding of S rank, the whole process becomes a bit meaningless if it's not applied to everything. Changing the parameters of a rank isn't ever a reason to move a mon, and probably just demonstrates that the mon probably shouldn't be moved... Like, if M-Sab and ZardX aren't S rank, they should move down, the definition of S rank shouldn't be re-thought just to justify keeping them there. In the same vein, a mon can't be the reason to change it... if it changes sure shifts will happen to reflect it but thats irrelevant to the current discussions.
 

Mannat

is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Won SPL Predictions
MegaGross eats up a Mega slot, has a bad accuracy on it's STABs, and has weaknesses to Dark and Ground.
I have to disagree with you here as tornt has a 70% accuracy on its main STAB move and is a solid A+ mon tetering on the edge of being S rank, eating up a mega slot isnt really an argument for a mega dropping unless another mon fills the same role that it does, and its regular form, the closest possible match to gross, just doesn't since the regular form cant do shit to anything with GK and is seriously lacking in power compared to megagross as well as having a shit speed tier, so it can't wallbreak without the aid of a life orb, which isnt the best thing ever since its speed and effective attack stat are so much lower than its mega forme. Hilariously enough, megagross can check weavile and bisharp since it lives any of their unboosted STAB moves and responds with killing with hammer arm and grounds are worn down really easily, so the weaknesses that you listed aren't too big a deal (and please dont use megagross as your sole dark check pls). A bunch of recent metagame trends stop gross from being S like chomper and lando rising in usage, but its traits as a wallbreaker/sweeper are too valuable to drop it below A+ imo.
 
I have to disagree with you here as tornt has a 70% accuracy on its main STAB move and is a solid A+ mon tetering on the edge of being S rank, eating up a mega slot isnt really an argument for a mega dropping unless another mon fills the same role that it does, and its regular form, the closest possible match to gross, just doesn't since the regular form cant do shit to anything with GK and is seriously lacking in power compared to megagross as well as having a shit speed tier, so it can't wallbreak without the aid of a life orb, which isnt the best thing ever since its speed and effective attack stat are so much lower than its mega forme. Hilariously enough, megagross can check weavile and bisharp since it lives any of their unboosted STAB moves and responds with killing with hammer arm and grounds are worn down really easily, so the weaknesses that you listed aren't too big a deal (and please dont use megagross as your sole dark check pls). A bunch of recent metagame trends stop gross from being S like chomper and lando rising in usage, but its traits as a wallbreaker/sweeper are too valuable to drop it below A+ imo.
I can see where your coming from, sure. But Tornadus-T doesn't spam Hurricane, while MegaGross's main spammable STABs have accuracies lower than 95, if I'm correct. I do see your point though.
 

Mannat

is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Won SPL Predictions
I can see where your coming from, sure. But Tornadus-T doesn't spam Hurricane, while MegaGross's main spammable STABs have accuracies lower than 95, if I'm correct. I do see your point though.
yeah but the difference in between 70 and 90 is huge, and if your main argument for dropping it is the fact that its STABs miss about as many times as ancientpower kicks in, then lol. I can understand that keeping it from S rank, because the accuracy issues can cause it to lose games that it otherwise would have won, but it is still a really consistent mon that does well vs most mons in the meta rn bar a few checks and counters.
 
yeah but the difference in between 70 and 90 is huge, and if your main argument for dropping it is the fact that its STABs miss about as many times as ancientpower kicks in, then lol. I can understand that keeping it from S rank, because the accuracy issues can cause it to lose games that it otherwise would have won, but it is still a really consistent mon that does well vs most mons in the meta rn bar a few checks and counters.
I agree. But I just feel it is on par with the A-Pokemons than the A+s.
 
Regarding the S rank discussion, since I did see it mentioned in the OU room a couple of days ago:

First off, even this thread is very unclear about what a rank is. We know inherently what something ABOVE S rank is (Example, Aegislash, or prior gens' ttar) but the defining borders between tiers are legitimately only comparable by related mons. This leads that obviously the most difficult to describe is S rank because there are the fewest mons to compare to and often because these are the 'top dogs' of the tier, their power levels are a bit hard to compare to others. IE, Aegislash again. Currently, Clefable is this quintessential Godmon that anything compared to it just doesn't quite compare. The relative power level of clef is really really hard to compare to anything else right now because Clef is one of, if not THE, best mon in tier (as a sweeping assertion). Sableye-M just came back from a suspect test, so it too is at the very least powerful. It is also meta-defining. If anything, ZardX, which is a perpetually great mon, is the 'weakest' of the three having seen the meta set against him a little more but still stay relevant and powerful. His sheer power and great set-up move is hard to compare to anything else offensively. As a sweeper, he also used to be the best in OU. He has other really good sets in his setup wisp set and old stall set, so there is some versatility there that keeps him unpredictable (+Double mega and all).

But saying "Zard X is our low bar and you must be this tall to ride the S rank rollercoaster" is not really a good description. Could we do it historically? Probably not... Not without having perfect hindsight into WHY something was so good at the time (Azumarill, Venusaur-M, Latios, Keldeo are all past S rankers, right? Most of them sit A+, but the subtle distinctions from then and now is summed up as meta shifts). We can't exactly quantify the differences in power. Reasonably and the way this thread seems to have worked is towards the first option. This option only works if there are mons that permeate each ranking to be compared to. To have a good grasp of where one tier ends and where the next begins, we must actually have good baselines in the tops and bottoms of each tier. That simply doesn't exist in S rank.

I don't really care if we lower the bar, however the current itteration of what exactly an S rank mon has needs a better description. While how that is solved is at the end of the day up to the runners of the thread, it is important for any continuing discussion as the last pages on Torn-T/Latios have shown. Lacking any structure, the ambiguity would persist and guess what, you'll never have a clear and defined 'S rank mon' unless it is completely above and beyond our expectations for what should exist in said category.

As of now, the most spelled out strategy IS to lower the bar. There are more intensive options such as describing the description of an S rank mon not in terms of 'best' or subjective-ridden 'outstanding' nonsensical lexical bullshit but rather actually giving an example of what is expected: "An S rank utility mon can be expected to have a statistical probability of x% to perform the utility duties presented to it in situations where it is given a neutral match-up on the field. It is expected to handle x% of it's own counters and can also be expected to take on x% of threats that it will commonly face." This is the hard and fast only way you will develop a true gateway to a tier. You might say this is an unfair way to categorize a tier but at the end of the day we are playing a numbers game.

Or we could brush it off as unimportant. Personally, this option is ridiculous as any relevant discussion only exists between set parameters understood by both parties but hey, I'm sure someone will think it's a fine idea.
 
Last edited:

DennisEG

Civil Engineer
is a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Mega Gyarados: A -> A- . I dont think Mega Gyara is that bad right now to drop rank, i was use it recently and yes is hard to set up sometimes depending on the set. You can run dual stab + Sub and DD but limit the coverage move make Gyarados more a circumstantial sweeper, i found more useful the DD + 3 attacks which make it more a late game sweeper. Have a nice typing overall, great ability before and after mega evolv, the speed tier isnt than good but still A rank imo. Also force some 50/50 because when mega evolv change typing so the opponent might have some super effective move only if mega evolv or viceversa.
 

Martin

Alisa Bosconovitch Main
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
If there is a case where nothing is "saint level" (not quite GSC Snorlax or BW T-tar but still a cut above everything else in the tier) then there shouldn't be an S rank. On the flipside, S rank doesn't need an influx of mons because at that point it stops being S and starts being the "A+ premium club". The thing that really bugs me about this tier (from a VR standpoint) is this: there is only one "saint ranking" mon in the tier atm (Clefable) but to drop everything in S barring Clefable would feel out of place due to the other S ranks feeling a cut above everything in A+. If we assume that Torn will rise (which it probably is tbh), our S rank consists of four pokemon. Those can be split into two groups: definite S ranks (Clefable) and borderline S ranks (Tornadus, Charizard, Sableye). Now, for a situation like this one, I feel there are actually a large number of solutions, but I also feel like every single one is flawed in one form or another. I am going to list what I personally feel (you have every right to disagree on any of these and I won't retaliate/defend any single one) are potential routes to go down (in hide tags to save space):
Pros:
  • Doesn't cause any confusion
  • Saves us re-defining the parameters for something to be S
Cons:
  • Current parameters are shaky at best
  • Doesn't accurately show the state of the metagame
Pros:
  • Shows that Clefable is the best mon in the tier
Cons:
  • Not an accurate representation of the viability of the current S ranks
Pros:
  • Shows that Clefable is a cut above the other S ranks without lowering the other S ranks to the level of the current A+ Pokemon
Cons:
  • Will lead to over-inflation of S
  • Exasperates the issue regarding over-inflation of the upper rankings
  • Not a very accurate
Pros:
  • Shows Clefable is better than the rest of S without risking rank inflation
Cons:
  • Difficult to justify due to the low number of Pokemon
  • Nothing is like P-Don or GSC Snorlax in comparison to rest of the tier to the point of warranting this
Pros:
  • Helps with the issue of overall rank deflation
  • Makes S ranks barring Clefable dropping more warranted
  • Reduces the "it worked in this very team-specific situation so it must be good" syndrome that parts of the VR currently see (e.g. Shaymin)
Cons:
  • May lead to mons currently in D which are good/influential enough to warrant having a ranking (namely Meloetta, Jellicent, Shedinja and Blissey, and more debatably Honchkrow and Chandelure) to end up getting de-ranked
  • Leads to confusion due to mass rank re-shuffling
Pros:
  • Helps with the extreme inflation seen in the upper rankings
  • Makes S ranks barring Clefable dropping more warranted
Cons:
  • Leads to confusion due to mass rank re-shuffling
There are probably a load of solutions I missed too, and these all have ramifications beyond just what I listed in the cons section of each. Honestly I think the latter option is the best course of action, but lots of people will probably disagree with me on that so I won't comment or defend too much. What does everyone else feel that the best way to go about sorting these rankings out is? There are honestly issues that will need addressing at one point or another, and until they do the situation with the S and A+ ranks which is currently being talked about will not sort itself out.
 
While that's true, why would Entei stay in on a Gliscor that has a free switch? Entei can't OHKO it, and Gliscor has Earthquake to hit Entei. Besides that, I was talking specifically about can switch-in, aka what can counter Entei, which any gliscor lacking protect (Which isn't even listed on any of the sets in the analysis) cannot do. I was not listing what can beat it given a free switch-in, as CB Entei is generally a wallbreaker, which are all prone to being revenge killed anyway, and where a free switch-in often means it KO'd the previous pokemon. You could have said the exact same thing about Azumarill, which can revenge kill with it's CB set after rocks, but would never directly switch into Entei.
Ok, Choice Banded Entei is not stopped by Defensive Gliscor, so what? Despite having a strong STAB with 50% chance to burn, Entei is forced out or revenge killed by many pokemons and being a Fire type means you are weak to SR and not having Levitate means that TSpikes and Spikes will hurt you ===> its attacks are strong but you can easily outspeed it and revenge killling it. As Fire type it has to compete with Charizard, Heatran, Talonflame, Volcarona, Mega Houndoom and Victini, so there isn't much room for Entei in a team. I have to be honest and I think that Rotom-H is worthy of C+ rank due to its good amount of threats it checks despite the horrid SR weakness but it is immune to Spikes but even the microvawe oven suffers competition from Rotom-W.
===> Entei stays in C rank (in my opinion) because it isn't worthy of B- rank considering the popularity of Earthquake users which outspeeds this legendary.
 
Last edited:

bludz

a waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Rankings are fluid with the metagame. So are ranks. We don't need to do some major overhaul of what S rank means. It's simple: S rank mons are the best in the tier, enough to be recognized as separate from A+. Rankings are naturally subjective so we can only define them so rigorously.

The key here is how S rank is evaluated in the current state of the metagame. I made a post in the metagame discussion thread regarding my thoughts on this. It just so happens that (IMO) because of an offensive shift, fewer threats stand out as dominant. Trying to fill up S rank to balance some preconceived notion of how the rankings should look will result in an inaccurate ranking list. This is why we pay no heed to comments on A+ being overinflated, and why there won't be some overhaul of S rank so we can pidgeonhole pokemon such as Latios into our new definition.

I agree Clefable stands out even above Sableye and ZardX. But both of these pokemon are absolutely at the top of OU imo as the best utility mon and most dangerous setup sweeper. Torn could fit in for its versatility and other positive attributes but we have dropped that discussion for now. Of course if you disagree with these or the rankings of other pokemon feel free to make a nomination.

I don't think the overhaul S rank discussion is misinformed or coming from a bad place. But I wanted to post my thoughts on why I don't think it should happen.
 
sup

A- --> A
so yeah starmie really deserves to move up. It's one of the two most viable spinner in the tier, while also having great power packed behind it while having a nice set using natural cure as a offfensive status sponge. with an influx of tankchomp and defensive landorus-t as the prime stealth rock setters in the tier, starmie really thrives as it naturally beats them and gives it plenty of opportunities to remove hazards while simultaneously being able to offer extreme offensive pressure against offensive teams, which btw is all you pretty much see on the ladder now, gives it an excellent standing currently in the metagame as an offensive hazard remover with enough splashability to near always be a viable choice on teams. oh and it fits hazard stack teams more nicely than defoggers which is pretty great right now
 
Rankings are fluid with the metagame. So are ranks. We don't need to do some major overhaul of what S rank means. It's simple: S rank mons are the best in the tier, enough to be recognized as separate from A+. Rankings are naturally subjective so we can only define them so rigorously.

The key here is how S rank is evaluated in the current state of the metagame. I made a post in the metagame discussion thread regarding my thoughts on this. It just so happens that (IMO) because of an offensive shift, fewer threats stand out as dominant. Trying to fill up S rank to balance some preconceived notion of how the rankings should look will result in an inaccurate ranking list. This is why we pay no heed to comments on A+ being overinflated, and why there won't be some overhaul of S rank so we can pidgeonhole pokemon such as Latios into our new definition.

I agree Clefable stands out even above Sableye and ZardX. But both of these pokemon are absolutely at the top of OU imo as the best utility mon and most dangerous setup sweeper. Torn could fit in for its versatility and other positive attributes but we have dropped that discussion for now. Of course if you disagree with these or the rankings of other pokemon feel free to make a nomination.

I don't think the overhaul S rank discussion is misinformed or coming from a bad place. But I wanted to post my thoughts on why I don't think it should happen.
At the very least, the definition given for S-rank by you: "It's simple: S rank mons are the best in the tier, enough to be recognized as separate from A+."

Is utterly subjective. Sure, we're debating but there needs to be some form of parameter to said debate. This is exactly the point I was trying to make: It is literally impossible to determine if something is S-rank unless it exceeds all expectations in our current system. I could probably make a fairly convincing argument that we could drop ZardX to A+ if I felt like it. The issue is, what do I use to say "This is quantifiable and is not what we look for in an S rank mon" without having a structure for what IS expected? In that point alone, my argument will never sway users with an opinion on the subject because everything I can say is subjective or based on the current state of the 'metagame'.

And the metagame itself doesn't define a basis of 'rank'. It defines what is 'good' or 'great' but again we are back to subjective terms that do not lead to us having a clear and defined divide between S and A+, currently caused by the lack of sample size in S. As I stated, get a bigger sample size or come out with a criteria list of what defines said rank. If you have any other creative solutions, go ahead. It really isn't even necessary for lower ranks outside of them serving as a reference to S's criteria, because the sample size in said ranks is large enough for us to have reliable comparisons.
 
Rankings are subjective no matter how you try to quantify it. Common sense is the parameter. Saying something is walled by an irrelevant threat is an example or a shitty parameter, which comes back to common sense. Aj youve been here for a bit as have I and ask yourself after reading the vomit inducing discussion that took place, do you really want to be making more criteria so people will just take those out of context and spin it into some idiotic discussion. Sorry but you guys are blowing this whole S thing way out proportion when oras is filled with a lot of good mons as you can see from the quantity of the A ranks. Within 10 comments the thread got sidetracked from nomd to changing S. Your idea of objectivity will not work and sorry i have to be the bearer of bad news. Thats the nature of the OU forum and the game. It would be nice to move on now.
 

Subjugator

Banned deucer.
Why can't we implement S-? A+ is heavily crowded, and some of them seems to stick out more than others.
In a way, I would say that A+ kinda is S-. A+ Rank Pokemon have S-Rank qualities, but require a little more support or have minor flaws that keep them from S Rank. I would imagine that S- Rank would have similar guidelines.
 
Rankings are subjective no matter how you try to quantify it. Common sense is the parameter. Saying something is walled by an irrelevant threat is an example or a shitty parameter, which comes back to common sense. Aj youve been here for a bit as have I and ask yourself after reading the vomit inducing discussion that took place, do you really want to be making more criteria so people will just take those out of context and spin it into some idiotic discussion. Sorry but you guys are blowing this whole S thing way out proportion when oras is filled with a lot of good mons as you can see from the quantity of the A ranks. Within 10 comments the thread got sidetracked from nomd to changing S. Your idea of objectivity will not work and sorry i have to be the bearer of bad news. Thats the nature of the OU forum and the game. It would be nice to move on now.
It won't work because you aren't willing to implement it. I believe the opposite effect would be more likely, where discussion would be opened and closed far easier. Structure in what is required is already used ad nauseam in Smogon's forum system, from what threads are allowed in each tier to what sets are used in the Smogdex. All for the purpose of a focused discussion on relevant topics. Pokémon are expected to have a quantifiable use to be deemed viable in a tier and a great deal of verbiage and discussion has been put forth to structure it so that the conversation steers towards specific aspects. Implementing a structure of definition for each tiers would give you a reason to say "We won't entertain X mon to Y rank because criteria Z". In many ways, this reduces any of the outside noise that isn't relevant. It is very hard to spin context anymore than it already is where we're spinning the significance of a damn letter that has no context behind it as of right now besides the mons denoted in each letter's tier.

Yeah, I've been reading and participating in various ranking threads since the beginning of XY. The level of 'vomit inducing discussion' has not changed. Remember the structure of debate that occurred in the Mega Gengar/Khan threads? It wasn't explicitly spelled out to the masses what was being discussed. Anything discussed in large part by players of different skill levels will go to shit without a unifying structure. This is the same aspect that exists in any form of debate from religion to politics to the viability of a pokémon in the current metagame. I don't see what's so difficult for the group of mods for this thread to lay out a criteria that isn't ridden with subjective terms.

This isn't a sudden problem that just came up. Maybe because I'm starting to participate again and now see a clear and evident problem did I bring it up but this hasn't been the only time such an issue has existed, nor would it be the last. If you don't want it discussed here I completely understand. However, pretending that the discussion with specific users completely missing the point of a mon or overstaying a conversation that could long since be answered is a one time deal is wrong. There are ways to solve it that WOULD NOT require re-positioning the current placement of mons in tier which is why I'm surprised to have seen such opposition specifically from the group running this thread. The clarity and context would do nothing but aid intelligent discussion in the future and allow for easier moderation decisions.
 
It won't work because you aren't willing to implement it. I believe the opposite effect would be more likely, where discussion would be opened and closed far easier. Structure in what is required is already used ad nauseam in Smogon's forum system, from what threads are allowed in each tier to what sets are used in the Smogdex. All for the purpose of a focused discussion on relevant topics. Pokémon are expected to have a quantifiable use to be deemed viable in a tier and a great deal of verbiage and discussion has been put forth to structure it so that the conversation steers towards specific aspects. Implementing a structure of definition for each tiers would give you a reason to say "We won't entertain X mon to Y rank because criteria Z". In many ways, this reduces any of the outside noise that isn't relevant. It is very hard to spin context anymore than it already is where we're spinning the significance of a damn letter that has no context behind it as of right now besides the mons denoted in each letter's tier.

Yeah, I've been reading and participating in various ranking threads since the beginning of XY. The level of 'vomit inducing discussion' has not changed. Remember the structure of debate that occurred in the Mega Gengar/Khan threads? It wasn't explicitly spelled out to the masses what was being discussed. Anything discussed in large part by players of different skill levels will go to shit without a unifying structure. This is the same aspect that exists in any form of debate from religion to politics to the viability of a pokémon in the current metagame. I don't see what's so difficult for the group of mods for this thread to lay out a criteria that isn't ridden with subjective terms.

This isn't a sudden problem that just came up. Maybe because I'm starting to participate again and now see a clear and evident problem did I bring it up but this hasn't been the only time such an issue has existed, nor would it be the last. If you don't want it discussed here I completely understand. However, pretending that the discussion with specific users completely missing the point of a mon or overstaying a conversation that could long since be answered is a one time deal is wrong. There are ways to solve it that WOULD NOT require re-positioning the current placement of mons in tier which is why I'm surprised to have seen such opposition specifically from the group running this thread. The clarity and context would do nothing but aid intelligent discussion in the future and allow for easier moderation decisions.
Yeah this isn't the place to really go on discussing this with everyones two cents. PM ranking team if you're so inclined and moderator decisions are actually quite easy if you saw the actual posts that stayed or were deleted by moderators so nothing much to elaborate on that when it's not related to whatever point at hand but ok then.
 
Ok, Choice Banded Entei is not stopped by Defensive Gliscor, so what? Despite having a strong STAB with 50% chance to burn, Entei is forced out or revenge killed by many pokemons and being a Fire type means you are weak to SR and not having Levitate means that TSpikes and Spikes will hurt you ===> its attacks are strong but you can easily outspeed it and revenge killling it. As Fire type it has to compete with Charizard, Heatran, Talonflame, Volcarona, Mega Houndoom and Victini, so there isn't much room for Entei in a team. I have to be honest and I think that Rotom-H is worthy of C+ rank due to its good amount of threats it checks despite the horrid SR weakness but it is immune to Spikes but even the microvawe oven suffers competition from Rotom-W.
===> Entei stays in C rank (in my opinion) because it isn't worthy of B- rank considering the popularity of Earthquake users which outspeeds this legendary.
1. You again went off on a tangent about how easy it is to revenge kill when I was stating how difficult it is to switch into. There are many pokemon in the A - A+ ranks that are prone to being revenge killed, such as Keldeo, Hoopa-U, Zard-Y, Gardevoir, etc. due to their low speed, but are nearly impossible to switch into, leaving "It's easy to revenge kill" as a rather poor argument.

2. I already acknowledged it's shortcomings with hazards and lack of defensive utility in a previous post.

3. I never nommed it to move up, I even said it needed more discussion about what has changed for it to move up. All I did was point was point how hard it is to switch into.
 
upload_2016-1-7_16-54-42.png
Amoonguss to B+: Agree
I think Amoonguss is more than deserving of this, it's a good defensive pivot with good utility (spore and clear smog) and a solid switch-in to Keldeo and non-BD Azu, without taking a mega-slot like Venu. Still highly outclassed by Venu and is pretty passive with its best attack to hit things with being giga drain, but it has a solid niche in a 100% chance to put something to sleep (bar grass-types, but why you would switch a grass type into Amoonguss bar Venu is beyond me.)
upload_2016-1-7_17-5-28.png
Kyurem-Black to A-: Disagree
Despite its awful defensive typing and barely passable speed stat, Kyurem-B is still a force to be reckoned with, with unresisted coverage in Bolt-Beam along with Earth Power and HP fire if you wanna catch them scizors ',:) LO hits very hard and scarf can net some surprise K-Os and still deal massive damage with Outrage. Overall Kyurem-B is still a powerhouse that despite its shortcomings is nearly impossible to switch into and deserves its A ranking.
upload_2016-1-7_17-12-38.png
Tornadus-Therian to S: Disagree
Even with it might be a great offensive pivot with AV and a good stallbreaker with the Taunt LO set, Torn-T still falls short of the S ranking due to Hurricane. Despite what many people might say, Torn's best STAB attack and most spammable move being about as accurate as focus blast (and we all know how much that moves likes to hit ;-;) is a huge issue for it. This is an issue none of the other current S-rank mons struggle with, and it really kills Torn. It also has power issues. While LO Hurricane can hit pretty hard, it still struggles to net 2HKOS against bulky mons like Clef, and the AV set doesn't get any better, only barely OHKO-ing Keld and 3HKO-ing Hippo and Slowbro, the kind of mons it would ideally switch into and beat. Overall Torn is a great momentum grabber and stallbreaker that has a few shortcoming that stop it from obtaining the coveted S-rank.
 
I agree with crawduant going from b- to b. Its swords dance aqua jet combo is pretty good, although azumarill somewhat outclasses it because of belly drum. The point is, its resisted by less pokemon than both bullet punch and ice shard and its adaptability gives aqua jet give it a base power of 80 then a super effective hit 160. But also, it has hyper cutter so it’s not walled by common intimidaters such as Landorous-T. Its adaptibility dark-water STAB combo allows it to check common threats such as metgross, talonflame, and Landourous T along with some less common but still potent threats such as mega slowbro and latios.
 
I agree with crawduant going from b- to b. Its swords dance aqua jet combo is pretty good, although azumarill somewhat outclasses it because of belly drum. The point is, its resisted by less pokemon than both bullet punch and ice shard and its adaptability gives aqua jet give it a base power of 80 then a super effective hit 160. But also, it has hyper cutter so it’s not walled by common intimidaters such as Landorous-T. Its adaptibility dark-water STAB combo allows it to check common threats such as metgross, talonflame, and Landourous T along with some less common but still potent threats such as mega slowbro and latios.
I'm not disagreeing with Crawdaunt moving up (i don't really care if stays or does move up tbh), but your post has a lot of inaccuracies. First off Hyper Cutter isn't viable on Crawdaunt at all, when Adaptability is such a sweet ability. Like, -1 Atk Adaptability Crabhammer does the same as Hyper Cutter Crabhammer. Also while Crawdaunt forces out all of the mons you mentioned, it can't switch into any of them minus Mega Bro, and Daunt still doesn't like switching in on Scald. (lol like everything else w/out a water immunity)
 
Just asking: Is discussion on Mega Manectric still allowed right now or has council already decided? It wasn't included in the last slate, but there was some discussion around it and I think it may've been overlooked. (I'd tag one of the council members, but I once again forgot how to tag users).

On another note, I agree with Starmie going to A. Analytic makes switching out from this thing extremely risky, as the opponent will find themselves taking a boosted move (worst-case scenario being Hydro Pump) that itself is likely LO-boosted. It's one of the best offensive Spinners as well, which makes Starmie extremely valuable on offensive teams. I don't have much else to say, but I do believe it's good enough for A.

Latios should remain A+. I simply don't believe it to be good enough to be S-Rank, not when it's got such an exploitable typing and its main STAB of Draco Meteor only forces it to switch even more often. Latios is an amazing Pokémon with a great balance of power, speed and bulk on top of being extremely versatile, but I don't quite think it's got the same level of versatility or splashability as, say, Clefable, which is now pretty much the gold standard for S. Keep A+.
 
1. You again went off on a tangent about how easy it is to revenge kill when I was stating how difficult it is to switch into. There are many pokemon in the A - A+ ranks that are prone to being revenge killed, such as Keldeo, Hoopa-U, Zard-Y, Gardevoir, etc. due to their low speed, but are nearly impossible to switch into, leaving "It's easy to revenge kill" as a rather poor argument.
"It's easy to revenge kill" is generally a poor argument but not in this case in my opinion due to the fact that (a) Entei should run Adamant nature to use Extremespeed which is one of its most useful moves and (b) it rus Choice Band (or at least Life Orb) to have the maximum damage output possible ===> you know that Entei reaches 299 Spe.
3. I never nommed it to move up, I even said it needed more discussion about what has changed for it to move up. All I did was point was point how hard it is to switch into.
The heavy damage output combined with the utility of Sacred Fire is why it is C+ and not lower and, in my opinion, nothing has changed for this legendary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top