OU RBY OU Discussion Thread

[Believer of GXE]

"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

If you swap exeggutor is met with a range, it swaps into either body slam, rock slide or earthquake or is out swapped to either my jynx or starmie, or is vs my Chansey.

The difference is if it was golem instead of Rhydon being the main difference in calculus. Golem should cause enough calculatory differences in the opponents ability to understand if that if I didn't use explosion and they thought I could of, is the difference between the offset of why if it that it was a Rhydon instead that it would be easier to estimate what move that the Rhydon player would of made without being more wrong for the difference...despite the damage or 7% defensive buff.

 

[Amaranth]

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

 

[Believer of GXE]

The question is whether golems 1% Spd + explosion offsets +20atk and +7% defense of Rhydon...I think it does IMO, although I do regard them as very similar, I don't think they are often regarded to how close they are in actual competitive value, it shouldn't be the difference between A tier and C tier....or whatever they are, whichever one of them is the other should be always within one half letter grade of the other. How do you regard them as more than one half letter grade of each other? Because Rhydon can get some KO's that golem can't should be often offset by the chip damage incurred during the course of most games, because golem and Rhydon should most often be facing things with slight chip damage, and that chip damage isn't calculated when looking at calculator stats .

The grade letter difference between the two should be closer in grade quality.

Such as of one of them is currently B tier, the other should be either B+ thru B- but not more than that...

 

[Leader of the Rockets]

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.

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.

 

[Noglastica]

If I went with stats I would use all the legendary birds.

Maybe you should, they all outspeed Golem which is pretty useful

 

[Botfly123]

The question is whether golems 1% Spd + explosion offsets +20atk and +7% defense of Rhydon...I think it does IMO, although I do regard them as very similar, I don't think they are often regarded to how close they are in actual competitive value, it shouldn't be the difference between A tier and C tier....or whatever they are, whichever one of them is the other should be always within one half letter grade of the other. How do you regard them as more than one half letter grade of each other? Because Rhydon can get some KO's that golem can't should be often offset by the chip damage incurred during the course of most games, because golem and Rhydon should most often be facing things with slight chip damage, and that chip damage isn't calculated when looking at calculator stats .

The grade letter difference between the two should be closer in grade quality.

Such as of one of them is currently B tier, the other should be either B+ thru B- but not more than that...

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.

 

[Leader of the Rockets]

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.

 

[Leader of the Rockets]

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.

 

[Lillilee]

i'd be curious to hear a further elaboration on why you feel teambuilding is a more delicate and challenging skill to cultivate than mastering optimal plays using the standard teams, leader of the rockets.

 

[Believer of GXE]

i'd be curious to hear a further elaboration on why you feel teambuilding is a more delicate and challenging skill to cultivate than mastering optimal plays using the standard teams, leader of the rockets.

Teambuilding often leads to standard teams to counter other teams with though, I use Snorlax because you use Chansey, I use exeggutor, because you use Snorlax, Chansey or Tauros, I use Chansey because you use Chansey, Alakazam, starmie....I use Tauros because it's the best thing....teambuilding 101 is based off what I perceive that my opp will use, and what my opp will use is based off of usage rates ... Both sides end up using similar teams because of thoughts like these, and they aren't wrong, but in order to use sub optimal material, I would then have to play better more frequently to make up for the material difference in value....I.E. a queen in chess is 8 points and a rook is 5...I would really have to play a rook far more often than my opp to make up for the material difference in ability.

 

[Ortheore]

Teambuilding often leads to standard teams to counter other teams with though, I use Snorlax because you use Chansey, I use exeggutor, because you use Snorlax, Chansey or Tauros, I use Chansey because you use Chansey, Alakazam, starmie....I use Tauros because it's the best thing....teambuilding 101 is based off what I perceive that my opp will use, and what my opp will use is based off of usage rates ... Both sides end up using similar teams because of thoughts like these, and they aren't wrong, but in order to use sub optimal material, I would then have to play better more frequently to make up for the material difference in value....I.E. a queen in chess is 8 points and a rook is 5...I would really have to play a rook far more often than my opp to make up for the material difference in ability.

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

 

[Leader of the Rockets]

i'd be curious to hear a further elaboration on why you feel teambuilding is a more delicate and challenging skill to cultivate than mastering optimal plays using the standard teams, leader of the rockets.

Well, on one hand, it's true in a statistical sense. There are far many more people in the game's history that learned to played optimally, and far fewer people who actually made a team that actually mattered to the meta or was even just good. On the other hand, it's true, because it necessarily has to be. As Amaranth was saying earlier, the knowledge we have of the game obviously comes from our experience playing it (that's where it starts anyway), and the experience only matters to the extent that you know what is happening and why it is happening. If you don't, then you gain only frustration as opposed to knowledge from the experience. So, you have to be good at the game before you can gain the knowledge you need to make any meaningful contribution in the team builder. So, competent team building, by definition, is a higher order operation.

Some people will disagree with this, and say, "But I totally get why someone would arrange a team in such a way, and I'm not that great at the game." And I'd just say we, one, probably have different standards for understanding a team and all its functions, and two, creating something and then understanding it afterward are two very different things and the former is much harder than the latter.

 

[Leader of the Rockets]

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

I can't be the only one to fantasize about what would happen if someone rich with way too much time on their hands ever offered up a 10 million dollar prize pool in a pokemon gen 1 tournament and marketed the crap out of it to get as many players as possible to enter, and gave everyone like a year to prepare. I've always wondered what strategies would be used, and I came to the conclusion that it'd probably be this. It would probably be trying to exploit the element of surprise as much as possible. Playing the standard teams would, ironically, be too risky.