-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
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 have 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.
Last edited:
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
A lot of viability ranking confusion comes from the fundamental error in ranking singular mons in the first place. I have been extremely confused myself as to why people hate on Golem so much as well. But it comes down to (probably) this. Take the classic Starmie/Chansey/Lax/Egg/Tauros/Rhydon team. Rhydon just is better on this team. So if you are playing with teams like this, it makes sense to say "Rhydon is just better than Golem." But with certain other teams that want an electric poke check but also fast paced, leverage gaining plays, Golem makes more sense and is "just better than Rhydon." I (un-rigorously) began making a tier list of teams earlier in this thread. A tier list of teams is probably much harder to make, but simply beginning that project, I think, would be better than viability ranking lists of singular pokemon.
Also, while we're talking about hated on pokemon, Lapras is good. Thank you.
Also, while we're talking about hated on pokemon, Lapras is good. Thank you.
Last edited:
Yes. This is also near universal outside of very specific structures.
More Damage output + more bulk = better pokemon 90% of the time. Golem is still v slow and doesnt have the greater attack that rhydon has, forcing it to explode in a lot of situations. When you have a rock you really want longevity with it and golem rly doesnt have that.
This isnt a situation of "Theyre both great and tier lists suck bc fsr golem is low" and rather "Rhydon is better than golem 90% of the time."
Yes. Hence the fact it is in C3. Not lower D (or below.)
i actually like this take -> golems edge over rhydon is more present in less viable teams therefore golem is a lot worse even if pound for pound its not that much worse. thats what I read this as, anyways
a tier list of teams is an extremely productive way to view and evaluate a metagame imo.
the main golem issue that i see come up a lot is that it often wants to explode before zapdos actually comes out, making you weaker to zapdos than you would a rhydon preserved most of the game, but i think the other important golem trait is fearlessly smashing into snorlax -> body slam paralysis isn't so terrifying when you can rip an explosion! the takeaway from this is that an aggressive golem lets me preserve my own lax/chansey, which then makes me able to deal with a zapdos in the back anyways. just my perspective on the pokemon anyways.
tldr: i agree in spirit with some things said and i think golem is pretty usable
This is actually how most people probably think, and it portrays exactly what I was referencing in my post. So, just to repeat myself: the misconception that Rhydon is simply better comes from the ubiquitous use of a structure tailored to Rhydon. Your language betrays this. For example, emphasizing "longevity," which is something Rhydon wants (some of them even use rest), whereas Golem wants to kill things (explosion is the opposite of rest). Or how you said, "Forcing it to explode." Your Golem should want to explode. It's not a last resort like being forced to use agility when your Zapdos is paralyzed and it's your last poke and you need to make the comeback. You're using Golem, because it has explosion. You want to use it. Explosion, btw, has more damage output than any move Rhydon has.
Other things which are important to note. Explosion kills a slightly damaged Tauros (Explosion kills at 75-89). Meaning, Golem can take a blizzard and kill a slightly damaged tauros, Rhydon cannot. Golem can take an ice beam from Chansey and then kill, Rhydon cannot. Golem can take a psychic from Alakazam and then kill, Rhydon cannot. And many other cases like this. You don't necessarily want to end up in these head to heads, but in a game where one, from time to time, is forced into a corner, these are very important differences that have saved me from losses.
Last edited:
Bro, Substitute allows to not only beat Stoss Chansey, but also to execute my favorite strategy, fishing for Para. A paralyzed team vs Rhydon is already screwed, if they can't even move, they are finished.
Which only matters vs rhydon.
Mons is not 1v1s.
Wrong. Its the 4th move which commonly gets swapped out. Leer/Rest/Rock Slide.
And it is ONLY a 1 to 1 because u only beat zapdos and rhydon who wont let u kill it until late game (uve alr boomed.)
Great post! One thing. A dead golem isnt beating zapdos.
Think its a bit more than the defense
Rhydon Substitute: survives Seismic Toss
Golem Substitute: does not do this
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Starmie: 143-169 (44.2 - 52.3%) -- 17.7% chance to 2HKO
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Chansey: 354-417 (50.3 - 59.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
Golem Earthquake vs. Starmie: 128-151 (39.6 - 46.7%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
Golem Earthquake vs. Chansey: 314-370 (44.6 - 52.6%) -- 22.7% chance to 2HKO
Exploding my permanent Zapdos wall to kill something and let the Zapdos obliterate me does not seem more appealing than these calcs
What is the argument here, that Golem and Rhydon should be evaluated in a vacuum and we should pretend Thunder Wave isn't a move other Pokemon click in RBY to support them? I guess Tauros and Snorlax are bad against Chansey because to beat it they need it paralyzed.
"If you get a KO with Rhydon I get to deal 15% to your Exeggutor and then switch out" is not the argument for Golem's viability you think it is
it's also not just those two ranges. more examples:
Golem Earthquake vs. Tauros: 119-141 (33.7 - 39.9%)
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Tauros: 133-157 (37.6 - 44.4%)
for a common example line where this matters,
2 Tauros Body Slams is 53.8 - 63.4%
so if you do the classic bull war Slam Slam and now you're in a hyperbeam mindgame, and you catch the hyperbeam with your Rock:
Golem's odds to kill the Tauros with EQ are abysmal (total roll 87.5-103.3), Rhydon's are nearly 50% (91.4-107.8)
Golem Rock Slide vs. Exeggutor: 97-114 (24.6 - 29%)
Rhydon Rock Slide vs. Exeggutor: 108-127 (27.4 - 32.3%)
chipping golem down takes a while longer - you're also gonna be mixing in bodyslams and earthquakes realistically over several entries, but golem very realistically will need 1 more entry to break it a lot of the time. of course there are infinitely many ways this can play out and it's virtually impossible to come up with a concise example of this damage difference mattering, but just because you can't calculate those scenarios a priori doesn't mean that they won't happen in game.
also the way the numbers line up against Snorlax is comical:
Golem Earthquake vs. Snorlax: 150-177 (28.6 - 33.8%) -- 0.5% chance to 3HKO
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Snorlax: 169-199 (32.3 - 38%) -- 97.1% chance to 3HKO
The point is not missing any one specific roll, the point is all of these rolls combined, and infinitely many more practical game situations where you will need that extra 5% for one reason or another. It's not going to be a single calc to demonstrate the difference, but rather it's the incalculable number of scenarios that you're not going to be able to draw up while theorymonning, but will very practically happen to you in games. Rhydon is just meaningfully much more efficient at trading in these ways; Golem wants to explode because it's really not good at doing Rhydon's job of EQing things over and over. It CAN try, when the situation is good enough for it, but otherwise just wants to peace out and 1 for 1.
Stats matter a lot, it's not just moves and types. And there's no clear and easy way to explain why and how much each stat matters on each Pokemon, cuz the reason is like 30 different calcs each time. So it's moreso a feel you build from playing and running into all of these scenarios and noticing "wow, I only barely hit that roll, lesser stats would've killed me there". or "wow, I was 1% off, if this mon was stronger I'd have hit it". Over and over and over until you really fine tune yourself to be perceptive to all this stuff.
With Rhydon/Golem specifically, because one of the desired duties is precisely getting to click like 8+ of your EQ PP over a long stretch of turns, punching and punching and punching, the stat differences are amplified. A Rhydon that only clicks 1 EQ before dying probably wishes it were a Golem who clicked Explosion instead. But most Rhydons have ambitions for much more than that, and when that works out as desired, Rhydon is miles better and it's not close
Golem Earthquake vs. Tauros: 119-141 (33.7 - 39.9%)
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Tauros: 133-157 (37.6 - 44.4%)
for a common example line where this matters,
2 Tauros Body Slams is 53.8 - 63.4%
so if you do the classic bull war Slam Slam and now you're in a hyperbeam mindgame, and you catch the hyperbeam with your Rock:
Golem's odds to kill the Tauros with EQ are abysmal (total roll 87.5-103.3), Rhydon's are nearly 50% (91.4-107.8)
Golem Rock Slide vs. Exeggutor: 97-114 (24.6 - 29%)
Rhydon Rock Slide vs. Exeggutor: 108-127 (27.4 - 32.3%)
chipping golem down takes a while longer - you're also gonna be mixing in bodyslams and earthquakes realistically over several entries, but golem very realistically will need 1 more entry to break it a lot of the time. of course there are infinitely many ways this can play out and it's virtually impossible to come up with a concise example of this damage difference mattering, but just because you can't calculate those scenarios a priori doesn't mean that they won't happen in game.
also the way the numbers line up against Snorlax is comical:
Golem Earthquake vs. Snorlax: 150-177 (28.6 - 33.8%) -- 0.5% chance to 3HKO
Rhydon Earthquake vs. Snorlax: 169-199 (32.3 - 38%) -- 97.1% chance to 3HKO
The point is not missing any one specific roll, the point is all of these rolls combined, and infinitely many more practical game situations where you will need that extra 5% for one reason or another. It's not going to be a single calc to demonstrate the difference, but rather it's the incalculable number of scenarios that you're not going to be able to draw up while theorymonning, but will very practically happen to you in games. Rhydon is just meaningfully much more efficient at trading in these ways; Golem wants to explode because it's really not good at doing Rhydon's job of EQing things over and over. It CAN try, when the situation is good enough for it, but otherwise just wants to peace out and 1 for 1.
Stats matter a lot, it's not just moves and types. And there's no clear and easy way to explain why and how much each stat matters on each Pokemon, cuz the reason is like 30 different calcs each time. So it's moreso a feel you build from playing and running into all of these scenarios and noticing "wow, I only barely hit that roll, lesser stats would've killed me there". or "wow, I was 1% off, if this mon was stronger I'd have hit it". Over and over and over until you really fine tune yourself to be perceptive to all this stuff.
With Rhydon/Golem specifically, because one of the desired duties is precisely getting to click like 8+ of your EQ PP over a long stretch of turns, punching and punching and punching, the stat differences are amplified. A Rhydon that only clicks 1 EQ before dying probably wishes it were a Golem who clicked Explosion instead. But most Rhydons have ambitions for much more than that, and when that works out as desired, Rhydon is miles better and it's not close
This. So few people talk about this when theorymonning, and so many people theorymonning don't even understand that this is where it all starts. This should always be the foundation of your theorymonning. You acquire an embodied understanding of all these scenarios in game, and then you can flesh out this acquired understanding in words and numbers on forums or else where. Attempting to do this process backwards always leads to erroneous thinking.
Maybe you should, they all outspeed Golem which is pretty useful
Dude is explosion like the best move in the game for you? You don't NEED a mon with explosion to win in RBY. Even if you did there are other mons that can put the pressure of explosion on mons without having to give up half the reason they are on the team to begin with. Rhydon can just sit there and do damage and live just long enough to put in work while still being a zapdos counter. To get ANY use out of golem that would do more than don you have to
A. Kill zapdos
B. Win another 1v1
C. Explode on a mon
And tbh all that work is just not worth it with this kind of meta, maybe if zapdos wasn't as oppressive as it is now golem could see more use. As of late, however, I just don't see how golem is better than don.
I took a break from playing this game for a few months, but I've played a little on the ladder recently, and saw a player (most likely Cholaski himself) using a variation of the Cholaski team that had all the ice pokemon on it besides Dewong and it dawned on me, "Holy shit, that's how he made the team." He most likely just wanted to make a team that had all the ice pokemon, and thought, "Wow, this actually kinda works," and then just fine tuned from there. The number one thing you realize of course is that Zapdos wrecks your team, so of course you then put a rock on it. Then why not have Tauros. And Chansey is an obvious special wall. Whoa.
Like many, I feel like my skills in actually playing the game have more or less peaked, so the only thing left to really improve for me are my team building skills, so stuff like this is very interesting to me. I want to make new teams that raise the ceiling of this game and give me a new edge, yet it is always so difficult in knowing where to start. I guess the kernel of any new team is simply what interests you, what pulls you in, what concept do you really feel like exploring? And then just fine tuning from there with logical reasoning.
Like many, I feel like my skills in actually playing the game have more or less peaked, so the only thing left to really improve for me are my team building skills, so stuff like this is very interesting to me. I want to make new teams that raise the ceiling of this game and give me a new edge, yet it is always so difficult in knowing where to start. I guess the kernel of any new team is simply what interests you, what pulls you in, what concept do you really feel like exploring? And then just fine tuning from there with logical reasoning.
I've said this elsewhere before, but my favorite player, for a long time, has always been Beelzemon 2003. He has been playing many different gens for a very long time, and he is so good. He refuses to use anything standard. He is easily good enough to be number 1 on the gen 1 ladder at any given time with a high gxe next to his name, but you'll never see him there, because he prioritizes experimenting with different teams that no one else uses over consistent wins. And like I said, that is what I'm focused on the most now, and team building, in my opinion, is a much harder skill to cultivate than learning to play optimally and consistently with the standard given teams.
Hmm, this is an interesting approach, and though I don't dispute that understanding a meta and how to counter top threats is a huge component of teambuilding, I read this post as implying that this is the primary goal of teambuilding which doesn't sit right with me.
As I see it, at the core of every team is a strategy progressing towards a win condition, and your primary goal when teambuilding is to facilitate that strategy. Countering top threats is a core part of that approach, but it's not everything. I think if you only prioritise countering top threats you risk creating teams that lack a cohesive direction, and are less than the sum of their parts.
The other thing I'll point out is that "sub-optimal" pokemon and/or team structures aren't nearly as far behind "optimal" ones as you might think, in large part due to the fact that deviating from perceived optimal play has its own advantages. If you're using a less used strategy, you're basically always going to have a superior understanding of what it takes for you to win than your opponent, because you've thought it through and tested it, whereas they seldom see it or they might flat out not know what to do (in extreme cases). This is especially compounded by being able to manage information. And lastly, if you only stick to what's "optimal", it's very difficult to truly innovate and challenge the meta