-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
OU RBY OU Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Enigami
- Start date
Chansey is really good. One day I suspect Chansey will be even better. I think Lusch's current viability ranking is the most accurate one in regards to today's meta. Where he has Chansey is where I think Chansey should be today, though in the future I think Chansey will be much higher. So, I'm no Chansey hater. I'm bullish on Chansey. But as of now, regardless of that win rate, I do think it is unfair to reduce Chanseyless teams to "curveballs." If competent player X and competent player Y played a long session of "First to win 10 games," and one player HAD to use Chansey and the other player couldn't, I really don't think the Chansey player would have that much of an advantage.
And I still stand by my earlier point that, though Chanseyless teams don't trump Chansey teams, I do think that ultimately Chanseyless team users are building their strategies against very old team structures, and just by the very nature of that endeavor, i.e. forming new strategies against an opponent that doesn't see any need to change much, it leads to plateu. Because, ultimately, the chanseyless teams already work against their most popular target. I'm not saying dominate, I'm just saying they have achieved their goal in finding out how to win if played competently, and what would make Chanseyless teams evolve are new ideas that didn't go toe to toe with them, but destroyed them.
Stats Taken from RBYPL Week 1 Bo5 slot.
Code:
+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| Rank | Pokemon | Use | Usage % | Win % |
+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| 1 | Tauros | 32 | 94.12% | 46.88% |
| 2 | Snorlax | 28 | 82.35% | 46.43% |
| 3 | Exeggutor | 23 | 67.65% | 56.52% |
| 3 | Starmie | 23 | 67.65% | 47.83% |
| 5 | Chansey | 20 | 58.82% | 50.00% |
i hope it doesn't need to be explained why it's dangerous to take conclusions about the metagame as a whole from four bo5s where people hard prepped for each other lol
Despite what we think of Cless (I'm sick of spelling out Chanseyless, too long!), it does at least seem to have more room for growth. Just from field observation alone, whenever I'm using Cless, the structure feels like it makes sense when I'm playing against Chansey teams, yet when I face another Cless team... the games are fun... but doesn't it seem like the current Cless teams feel very arbitrary against one another? The games feel more... improvy. Ya know? It feels like very unexplored territory. There has to be more effective Cless teams that can be designed to destroy other Cless teams. That alone seems like, if not low hanging fruit, at least fruit we know is there and would be worth pursuing. So, if nothing else, Cless teams do have at least this avenue to explore. Ironically, it obvioulsy hurts them in end, unless this new unexplored design just so happens to also be just as effective against Chansey teams.
I was looking at the viability chart for this year on the first page. Golem is currently "D" rank, even though it has nearly every single quality Rhydon has. Which is at "A" rank itself. The difference between the two of them are the difference between "A" meaning it's great, and "D" meaning it's situationally niche of a use at best. How is this the difference of them? I can find myself using either of the two of them interchangeably nearly infinitely.
Why are they even compared to as similar if that's the true difference in performance?
Furthermore the traits that make Onix which is sitting at "F" rank, has Onix being more similar in Rank to Golem as Golem does to Rhydon. Golem IMO isn't closer to Onix than it is to Rhydon in comparable competitive quality.
TLDR: Golem is currently considered to be closer in similar competitive quality to Onix than Rhydon, by ranking standards. But my own personal experience using Golem leads me to believe it is closer in quality to Rhydon. It's also more often compared to Rhydon. So why is Golem closer to Onix than Rhydon in rankings?
Rhydon has higher attack allowing it to 2hko chansey and has more bulk, which ends up being worth more than explosion in the long run.
Not true. Onix is unranked. He doesnt have a tier.
1. Rhydon is B1, not A.
2. Assigning tiers hard definitions like this is just wrong. Every player is going to look at them differently. Giving a tier on the VR a hard definition like this is literally just getting yourself worked up over nothing. Its a tier list, which inherently gives things of similar quality the same rank, regardless of how close the things below it are to it.
If you want to use golem, do it. Its a really good mon and it fits great on teams like CloyGol or BroGol. This whole vr thing really means nothing besides golem not being as good as other mons.
If you want to get better ideally you use the better mons, but if you don't care and are content using the good but flawed ones, who are we to tell you no.
onix unranked so that argument piece doesn't make a lot of sense, but the big thing is rhydons superior physical attack lets it hit a clean 2hko on chansey and it puts a huge dent in starmie, whereas those two can fend off golem way easier. rhydon also busts past egg better, can fight lax better, etc. golem having explosion and a slightly higher speed tier is notable though! it's for sure usable and good at that. doing less damage to starmie especially is ultra bad though