Gen 1 RBY OU Viability Ranking - Mark II

Btw, is there a 2nd ranking for Gen 1 OU in stadium?
I reckon something like Jolteon would be pretty insane there, though it still lacks physical bulk ofc.
 
I consider mons I put in the same rank with same (more or less) viability, only exception would be egg who could be S-. Starmie is very good, but it isnt without flaws and it's always gonna be walled by something (surf tbolt lead is used quite a lot recently, but if this keeps going people can just switch egg t1, especially if they dont have jolt/zap and so they arent that afraid of rhydon)

Zapdos' spl wasnt the best, i agree, but to me this mon is still amazing and the strongest offensive rby mon bar tauros, rhydon is literally mostly used to beat this beast

Rhydon is very good as well ofc, but boltbeam chans and reflect ib lax becoming more popular doesnt help (especially the former, the latter has been used much for 2 years or so), as well as mega drain egg, who will never hit a rhydon, but it allows egg to recover hps vs starmie and so becoming harder to break for rhydon
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKT

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I would be interested in a teammates analysis of Moltres (and arti for that matter) from SPL, because it seemed like it wasnt just being dropped into a standard lineup most of the time.

To me Moltres is textbook C grade---It passes, but only barely. Only when the rest of the team is pulling a lot of the weight that Moltres wont. And Moltres actually hits some of its really crappy accuracy attacks.

And Arti is much the same, less luck dependant but with that comes a lower bound on its potential.

Too often with these guys you are waiting for the perfect moment to unleash them, but it just never arrives. They are all out attackers that dont break stall without stacks of luck.

Slowbro on the other hand is a badass. It can sweep, it can spread status, it can check Tauros as well as anything in the game. It breaks stall, it breaks offence. It needs a little luck, but not as much and not as often as the birds do. It definitely sucks against Victreebel, but even then it will still carry its weight as a check for physical attackers.

And man, I am getting tired of defending Golem. He's no Rhydon, thats for sure, but he definitely isnt 4 grades worse..
 
Are zapdos and lapras really in the same tier as starmie and zam? Seems strange to me to put two Pokémon that can be easily counterpicked and really only do one thing in the same tier as two Pokémon that are splashable on any team and are much more dynamic in what they can offer.

To me starmie and Zam should be in their own tier as they’re not 100% necessary like the big 4 on non-wrap teams, but they’re splashable on any team and are more consistent than everything else.

I think zapdos and lapras belong in a tier below with things like rhydon Jynx slowbro cloyster gengar etc. Pokémon that only do one or two things or are good Pokémon but are at risk of being counterpicked.
 
I believe the issue being addressed is more of a technical question than a discussion in itself.
Noone in the entirety has argued that Lapras or Zapdos may be better as or in the same class as Alakazam and Starmie.
It's just a fact that Alakazam and Starmie are a bit below the Big4 but better than the rest of the ou pokemon because of respective reasons (not going to elaborate on this). Zapdos and Lapras may arguably be better than a few Pokemon of the B rank although it's definitly not the entirety of them seeing as Rhydon has more impact on the metagame right now than Lapras has. Stuff like this is debatable.

Following this process of thought it's literally only about the question of adding + and - ranks or not since you can't distinguish the strengths of these pokemon enough with just the "either a or b". The hosts should make a decision if adding these will be helpful to the RBY VR or if the opposite is the case. A clear decision regarding this case should solve most of the latest discussion posts.
 
I think OU only has 3 tiers. The big 4, then a tier for starmie and zam, and the final tier for all the OU fillers like rhydon zap bro and second tier leads like jynx and gengar.

I would include Pokémon like victrebel and cloyster there too. They’re clearly as good as other filler mons, just a bit less common.

If you want, you can have a tier below for fringe Pokémon that aren’t OU but can work eg. kingler dodrio clefable.

To me the tiers are pretty clear cut. Only Pokémon I’m not sure of is Venusaur, whether it would be considered OU or in the fringe tier.
 
I like Alexander's ranking. The only changes I would make to it is Star>Zam>Don>Zap in A+ and maybe some minor rearrangements like Jolteon below Victreebel. I am not sure where I would rank Lapras. I didn't like to use it much personally in the recent past but having it so low seems a bit odd.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Here is my list, ordering within tiers is just the order that I remembered them.

S+:
Tauros

S:
Chansey
Snorlax

A+:
Exeggutor

A:
Starmie
Alakazam

A-:
Zapdos
Rhydon

B:
Jynx
Gengar
Golem
Jolteon
Slowbro
Victreebel
Cloyster
Lapras

C:
Moltres
Articuno
Dragonite
Persian
Hypno

I think this is as much useful information you can pack into such a list. If you dont think this info is especially relevant then you could squash grades.

Tauros stands alone because its the only thing that simply should be on every team. Chan and Lax you definitely can and probably should drop from time to time.

But its still pretty safe to assume the S guys are going to be on every team. Which is why Eggy isnt an S.

The two psychics are next, there is clearly a usage gap between them and anything else.

Zapdos and Rhydon are the next most commonly used. This has been consistent in the last WCOP, SPL and the current ROAPL. These two also are the point at which, you basically need to have a team using each of the pokemon above this line (or a close substitute, eg. Golem) or its really gonna hurt you.

Then you have group B. These are the things that you can more or less just slot into any team and they'll work. I dont think it really helps anyone to try to separate these guys. Plus the usage data gets pretty weak by this point.

C then is stuff that works, but you'll have to work at it a lot.
 
Here is my list, ordering within tiers is just the order that I remembered them.

S+:
Tauros

S:
Chansey
Snorlax

A+:
Exeggutor

A:
Starmie
Alakazam

A-:
Zapdos
Rhydon

B:
Jynx
Gengar
Golem
Jolteon
Slowbro
Victreebel
Cloyster
Lapras

C:
Moltres
Articuno
Dragonite
Persian
Hypno

I think this is as much useful information you can pack into such a list. If you dont think this info is especially relevant then you could squash grades.

Tauros stands alone because its the only thing that simply should be on every team. Chan and Lax you definitely can and probably should drop from time to time.

But its still pretty safe to assume the S guys are going to be on every team. Which is why Eggy isnt an S.

The two psychics are next, there is clearly a usage gap between them and anything else.

Zapdos and Rhydon are the next most commonly used. This has been consistent in the last WCOP, SPL and the current ROAPL. These two also are the point at which, you basically need to have a team using each of the pokemon above this line (or a close substitute, eg. Golem) or its really gonna hurt you.

Then you have group B. These are the things that you can more or less just slot into any team and they'll work. I dont think it really helps anyone to try to separate these guys. Plus the usage data gets pretty weak by this point.

C then is stuff that works, but you'll have to work at it a lot.
I’d argue that chansey is just as irreplaceable as tauros. Tauros sometimes gets dropped on wrap teams and sometimes gets replaced by Persian, who is an overall worse Pokémon but situationally better at times. Alakazam is the only Pokémon that comes close to doing what chansey does.
 
I'd like to argue for Sandslash to be added to C tier for "it works, but takes some effort". It fills the same slot as Rhy/Gol, admittedly cannot be used to sponge normal type moves, but can safely switch in on, SD, and OHKO them, especially well if it can be switched into a RhyGol rock slide. After that a seemingly unimpressive but functionally very useful speed tier, good attack after SD with STAB quake, and much less OHKOs to worry about (only really STAB Hydro Pumps and Blizzards) mean it can sweep pretty well, as crucial outspeeds and 2HKOs lead to it only really fearing starmie, tauros, slowbro and ice types(all major metagame threats i know, but a paralyzed/hurt tauros will lose, and starmie will still take a big chunk.) Its sweep is usually stopped by a tauros crit/clean up or starmie wall, but it can wreak havoc to a team unprepared, and is usually pretty useful otherwise. Not anywhere near top tier, but has a useful and legitmate role, and good synergy with Zapdos.
 
I don't agree with Rhydon and Zapdos being above Starmie. Recently Zapdos has actually been used relatively less, most likely due to the increased presence of Rhydon. Meanwhile, Starmie's usage has soared alongside Rhydon. So I think Starmie should replace Zapdos at the top of A+ rank.

Other than that, I love this tier list, it's insane XD. It reflects how much rby has shifted recently


Edit: I also forgot to mention that the increased presence of rest Jolteon as a 6th spot mon is unfavorable for Zapdos. That, alongside the heightened presence of Rhydon, makes it difficult for Zapdos to get momentum going
Pretty much this. It's my opinion that Starmie is 5th best in the game after big 4.

I was going to originally post my entire list but asides from what Maya Chansey said, I mostly agree with Alexander.
 
Last edited:
I think this is as much useful information you can pack into such a list. If you dont think this info is especially relevant then you could squash grades.

Tauros stands alone because its the only thing that simply should be on every team. Chan and Lax you definitely can and probably should drop from time to time.

But its still pretty safe to assume the S guys are going to be on every team. Which is why Eggy isnt an S.

The two psychics are next, there is clearly a usage gap between them and anything else.

Zapdos and Rhydon are the next most commonly used. This has been consistent in the last WCOP, SPL and the current ROAPL. These two also are the point at which, you basically need to have a team using each of the pokemon above this line (or a close substitute, eg. Golem) or its really gonna hurt you.

Then you have group B. These are the things that you can more or less just slot into any team and they'll work. I dont think it really helps anyone to try to separate these guys. Plus the usage data gets pretty weak by this point.

C then is stuff that works, but you'll have to work at it a lot.
I generally disagree with the line of reasoning in this post, simply because although usage is an indicator of viability, it does not totally represent viability. Don, for instance, I believe would see inflated usage for the reason you mention- you generally want to have a team with it to avoid being predictable in your teambuilding choices. Also I'll add that counterpicking in and of itself does not weigh upon a pokemon's viability, because it doesn't address how easy the mon is to fit on a team nor how effective it is in actual play, merely its position in the context of building multiple teams, which is really far removed from the core issue and I don't even think it's a criteria that could consistently be applied.

I think OU only has 3 tiers. The big 4, then a tier for starmie and zam, and the final tier for all the OU fillers like rhydon zap bro and second tier leads like jynx and gengar.

I would include Pokémon like victrebel and cloyster there too. They’re clearly as good as other filler mons, just a bit less common.

If you want, you can have a tier below for fringe Pokémon that aren’t OU but can work eg. kingler dodrio clefable.

To me the tiers are pretty clear cut. Only Pokémon I’m not sure of is Venusaur, whether it would be considered OU or in the fringe tier.
I think this would miss a huge amount of detail. Jynx isn't anywhere close to performing on the same level as something like Zap. I mean sure, Zap has hard counters, but these aren't that big of a deal in that it's honestly not that hard to play around GolDon and eliminate them before Zap enters play. It's certainly not enough of a drawback to be ranked alongside a pokemon that consistently does one thing before dying

Also I'd put Venu in the fringe. Although it does have its niche over Bel, it's still mostly within Bel's shadow and lacks a lot of valuable tools
==============
Broadly speaking I think PP's VR is most accurate, js
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I generally disagree with the line of reasoning in this post, simply because although usage is an indicator of viability, it does not totally represent viability. Don, for instance, I believe would see inflated usage for the reason you mention- you generally want to have a team with it to avoid being predictable in your teambuilding choices. Also I'll add that counterpicking in and of itself does not weigh upon a pokemon's viability, because it doesn't address how easy the mon is to fit on a team nor how effective it is in actual play, merely its position in the context of building multiple teams, which is really far removed from the core issue and I don't even think it's a criteria that could consistently be applied.
I am curious about how you define viability and why counterpicking is not a factor. To me the viability of a pokemon represents the extent to which it increases my chances of winning games, and counterpicking and being really difficult to counterpick against absolutely helps me win games. Also Zapdos and Rhydon are trivially easy to fit into any team. Psychic + big 4 + Rhydos is an effective team in any combination.

But to clarify my post a little, I am not solely basing things on usage. For instance Starmie's usage has been consistently ahead of Alakazam's in recent tournaments, but I think that's a quirk of the current state of the metagame and not really indicative of a meaningful difference in viability.

So my position is that Rhydon and Zapdos's usage reflects their better viability over the pokemon I listed as Bs. Part of that is because of their impact on counterpicking, but part of that is that they are just better than the B grade mons. Eggy gets dropped more than the other big 4 because Eggy is not as good as the other big 4s. Eggy gets used a lot more than Mie or Zam because Eggy is better than Mie and Zam. And Mie and Zam are used more than Zapdon because they are better.

Like, I could rank the S and A grade mons in a line from best to worst (Tauros > Chan > Lax > Eggy > Zam > Mie > Zap > Don), then its just a question of where you place the grades. I am picking the places that are supported by usage stats and what is practical info for people trying to learn to build teams.
 
Eggg only gets dropped for worse grass types. I don’t see why having two grass types is an issue when plenty of teams have two Pokémon weak to the one type or weak to one Pokémon.

They play nothing a like at all. One is a bulky sleeper with a ground resist that normally doesn’t use grass stab. The other two are sleepers with no defensive utility with great grass STAB and sweeping potential.
 
I am curious about how you define viability and why counterpicking is not a factor. To me the viability of a pokemon represents the extent to which it increases my chances of winning games, and counterpicking and being really difficult to counterpick against absolutely helps me win games. Also Zapdos and Rhydon are trivially easy to fit into any team. Psychic + big 4 + Rhydos is an effective team in any combination.

But to clarify my post a little, I am not solely basing things on usage. For instance Starmie's usage has been consistently ahead of Alakazam's in recent tournaments, but I think that's a quirk of the current state of the metagame and not really indicative of a meaningful difference in viability.

So my position is that Rhydon and Zapdos's usage reflects their better viability over the pokemon I listed as Bs. Part of that is because of their impact on counterpicking, but part of that is that they are just better than the B grade mons. Eggy gets dropped more than the other big 4 because Eggy is not as good as the other big 4s. Eggy gets used a lot more than Mie or Zam because Eggy is better than Mie and Zam. And Mie and Zam are used more than Zapdon because they are better.

Like, I could rank the S and A grade mons in a line from best to worst (Tauros > Chan > Lax > Eggy > Zam > Mie > Zap > Don), then its just a question of where you place the grades. I am picking the places that are supported by usage stats and what is practical info for people trying to learn to build teams.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that Don/Zap are difficult to fit onto teams, nor did I mean to say that usage is your only criteria, just that it seemed to play a large role.

For me viability is simply the question of "how good is this pokemon?". I guess that gets at more of a match to match performance, rather than the context of multiple tournaments, especially team ones where people regularly scout. Tbh when I mentioned the ease with which something fits onto teams I didn't put too much thought into it and I think I was off-base in terms of what I would normally think is important, instead falling into the trap of parroting the most commonly used definitions. In any case, being an anti-counterpick pokemon seems to me like it signifies that something's different to other things, but doesn't actually speak to how it performs in battle. An example would be that when Don plummeted in popularity following Crystal's discoveries and people were using Golem to avoid counterpicks instead, I don't think anyone would've argued that Golem performed on the same level as something like Lapras, despite it being important back then in covering counterpicks.

I also think that identifying a mon as being necessary to avoid counterpicking is something that is specific to RBY 1U, thanks to teams being largely homogeneous, with the most common candidates for the main point of differentiation happening to fall into groups that have starter-esque interactions (or yomi or scissors-paper-rock or w/e). On top of that, there are clear-cut best options for electrics and rocks, while waters is a little more ambiguous since although Star is clearly the best overall, a lot of that is due to its viability as a lead and I think it's a lot closer as a 5th slot mon. I don't think this can be applied to other tiers and especially not other generations, where you have to have a mix of stall/balance/offense teams to avoid being counterpicked, but all of those teams have a wide array of possible solutions. Consequently, I don't think it's possible to identify any given pokemon as being necessary to avoid being counterpicked. I think VR threads should be consistent in their purpose, and implementing criteria that are specific to a tier kinda undermines that

Actually I'm pretty sure I've thought through all of this before and developed some clarity in terms of my personal definition, but tbh I just kinda forgot my conclusions and lines of reasoning. I might have to look back through my old posts on PP for that.
 
Haven't played consistently in awhile but based off what I've seen I'm in almost full agreement with Hip's list. Mostly everything as it stands is correctly placed IMO. I might split up the B tier into +/- but I haven't played enough recently to make small calls with those 'Mons (other than I'd say Victreebel to B- or possibly even C because I've never liked it lol). Regardless, the OP hasn't been updated in almost three years so I feel like there should at least be some starting point to go from that's more recent and I think Hip's list is that starting point that discussion should go from.
 
Just want to say I think Venusaur should be the cut-off for OU. Victrebel and Cloyster are a lot more common now, so the superior speed over bel can matter in a lot of battles.

I consider Saur OU because at this point it’s a tier above options like sandslash or dodrio, both in terms of quality and how often you’ll see them.
 
Soooo anyway as far as the bottom rankings go, I think Dugtrio, Gyarados and the entirety of E rank should be removed from the list as they're simply unviable. However, I suspect some people will disagree on Dug/Gyara, so I'll focus on E rank. The best way to describe these pokemon is that they have some traits that don't look bad. This does not mean that they are remotely viable, and calling them "very mediocre", saying that they are "rarely worth using" is honestly just misleading- they should never, ever be used. The threshold for being ranked shouldn't be having a positive trait or two, it should be actually being viable, if only slightly. Having one or two traits that might seem semi-appealing does not necessarily outweigh numerous, gaping weaknesses, and that description can be applied to every single pokemon in E rank. Like I don't see how there's any justification for stuff like Electrode ever being used.

I would genuinely rank Raticate ahead of all of them- at least Rat had some notable tournament results within the past five years (basically During Summer, who was active 2015/16, was able to perform well while using it a lot and was willing to vouch for its viability. I'm not aware of any similar usage for Dug/Gyara or any of E rank)

Wait wtf Aero is on the list but not Porygon? That's nuts.

Should just use PP's rankings tbh
 

tjdaas

this guy rly slapped some letters together huh
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
So because McMeghan and vapicuno have started a new way to analyse viability rankings, I wanted to try it for a metagame whose VR has been very old (at least here on smogon) and has a decent sized playerbase. I have asked 21 rby'ers to send in their rankings and 15 of them have send them to me, which are Sceptross, HML am, Djokra, The Idiot Ninja, roudolf13, Alexander., Heroic Troller, Hipmonlee, Disaster Area, Enigami, Kaz, Maya Chansey, ErPeris, Lusch and FriendOfMrGolem120! Thank you!

Without further ado, here are the new Viability Rankings (how the subtiers are made, will be explained below):
S Rank: Reserved for Pokemon which pose a very significant offensive or defensive threat, consistently harming or walling the opposing team. The roles these Pokemon can fulfill are crucial, if not mandatory, for RBY teams and these Pokemon are the best at their certain roles.
S- Rank:
A+ Rank: Reserved for Pokemon that are outstanding in the RBY metagame. These Pokemon pose a signifigant offensive or defensive threat to most teams. If these Pokemon have flaws, they are often outshown by their strengths.
A Rank:
A- Rank:
B+ Rank: Reserved for Pokemon who are very good in the RBY metagame, yet are somewhat inconsistent. These Pokemon may have flaws, but they have positive aspects which makes them stand out, making them valuable members of a team.

B- Rank:


C Rank: Reserved for Pokemon that have solid niches in the RBY metagame, but nonetheless are generally inconsistent. These Pokemon have definite flaws, but may have positive aspects which can make them worth using.



D+ Rank: Reserved for Pokemon that are mediocre in the RBY metagame, but are decent enough to pose a threat at times, usually out of surprise. These Pokemon have a small niche in the metagame and are often not worth using.
D Rank:
D- Rank:

You can consult all the datas by clicking HERE.

Some explanations, informations, etc:
  • I stole most of the format from Roro and Vapicuno's posts, so give them a like!
  • Important: As roro said in the original post, he has decided to remove outliers out of the equation for the final ranking. That means I did not take into account the highest and lowest individual ranking for each Pokemon in their average (if multiple people were an outlier, I removed only 1 instance so sorry Sceptross and The Idiot Ninja!)
  • The document contains two pages one with the outliers and one where i removed the outliers until porygon because at that point half of the playerbase stopped ranking.
This second group ranking's statistics:
  • Only HML am had the top 10 correct, although in a different order.
  • Outliers didn't really matter that much in the end, but I still removed them just to complete.
  • The Idiot Ninja was the only one to rank starmie over exeggutor, where Hipmonlee was the only one to rank Alakazam over Starmie.
  • For all intended purposes both Rhydon and Zapdos and also Victreebel and Cloyster are ranked almost exactly the same.
We can already see some big gaps between certain groups of mons appear, but lets also use the Vapicuno method to make it more clear. I encourage all of you to read his post, where he explains his method in a nice and clear way. So, in the two plots below one can find a graph where the average is plotted per mon (orange dots) for both the datasets. The standard deviation is also plotted, which is signified by the black error bars. The bolded black line shows if a mon is overestimated or underestimated, where underestimated means that they have a numerically lower rank than their average and overestimated is the other way around. So, a mon whose average is 11 but is ranked 9, is underestimated. This means that everything below the bolded line are overestimated mons and everything above underestimates. This is important to consider, because a shift from overestimate to underestimate will tell us that there is a (sub)tier shift.

With Outliers


Without Outliers


At the bottom left, we can see 3 mons with Tauros being the lowest one followed by Snorlax and Chansey (The Big 3). Then we see 3 mons that have almost no Standard deviation and have almost integer ranks, which are Exeggutor, Starmie and Alakazam. After those 3, we meet Zapdos and his hard counter Rhydon with almost the same average and SD. After this we see a big gap, so these will for sure be the S and A ranked mons. Tauros, Chansey and Snorlax are all part of S rank, whereas Exeggutor finds itself in S-. Starmie populates A+, whereas his psychic brother Alakazam finds himself in A. Zapdos and Rhydon finish the A rank in A-.

Now that we know what is considered A tier, lets move on to the B tier mons. Here we first meet 4 mons that only differ by 0.5 in their average (Victreebel, Cloyster, Jynx and Lapras) and these will be A+. Then there is Jolteon followed by Slowbro and Gengar in A, although the difference between these are much larger especially between Jolteon and the other two. After this we move into C-Rank mons, which is just one rank with Golem, Articuno, Moltres, Dragonite and Persian. In D-rank we find Porygon (D+) and a lot of mons that only few people have ranked so I'll only include Hypno, Sandslash, Kingler (D) and Pinsir (D-) because a significant amount of players have still ranked them.

To me, these results appear reasonable. We have seen in SPL 10 that Exeggutor can be more easily dropped than the other Big 4 members and some teams function significantly better without an Eggy. We can also see that Starmie is a class apart and that zam is worse, but still better than the rest. We can also see that people also value Slowbro and Gengar less than they used to and that Vic and Cloy have been on the rise.

Because I'm not the most experienced RBY'er out there, I would appreciated if some of you can give some feedback if these ranks are correct or not. Also if you want to send in your own rankings, you can pm me here or on discord to tjdaas#5961 and I'll see if I can add them. If you have any questions, you can ask them as well! Also, sorry if I made a mistake here and there.
 

Amaranth

Formerly The Idiot Ninja
is a Pre-Contributoris a Past SPL Champion
Cool data. Shocked at how nobody else thinks Exeggutor is worse than Starmie, you should all watch more SPL10 Nails games. Also surprised by the amount of people who rank Zam above Rhydon. I also think ranking Lapras over Cloyster is criminal and everyone who did so should be permanently banned from ever playing RBY again.

Despite disagreeing with a lot (and I mean a lot) of things in how people voted the ending result is still a fairly accurate list. Good work tjdaas
 
haven't played on a consistent basis in quite some time but everything seems reasonable I guess (from what I remember Victreebel seems high and Golem seems low but I guess that's just the meta)

however I'm posting because I've literally never seen Porygon used other than by low ladder scrubs, anyone have some good Porygon replays?
 
^- Here's a couple I saved from last year, I've regularly played tournaments with it and won plenty of games, but I mostly have competed in Pokemon Perfect tournaments, so that's probably a factor in why you haven't seen it (I've spammedused it a lot). I even somehow managed to get Porygon an outrageously positive winrate in the RBY Invitational (an invite only tournament of high level RBY players) on Pokemon Perfect. There was a bit of luck behind that though, and I think the meta has turned against Pory somewhat since last year. Victreebel jumping from a rare sight to OU threat is the biggest one, the primary Pory team I've used with success has an absolutely terrible matchup against it. I've got some adaptations in mind that might solve for that, but I haven't been able to see how they fare yet.

Porygon getting D+ is a huge surprise, I rated it higher than the other Ds mostly just because I personally use it and do well with it more often than the other Ds, but didn't expect others to put it above most the Ds too. As much as I love it, D+ I think is a bit much for it, though if the rest of the players filled in their D ranks, I'd expect Porygon to be brought down to the level of the other Ds, and Kanga among others wouldn't be left out due to not being listed enough.
 
Hello RBYers,

First, thank you tjdaas for being the first to adopt this method of evaluating VRs. I'm glad that it worked out to be something sensible, and I'm also happy that some of you find discoveries in the VRs and that they are generating discussions. As the person who devised the graphical method, I am really interested in understanding what people think of the following questions:

What insights have you personally obtained from looking at the new VRs compared to the old ones? Any surprising discoveries? Anything that has helped you understand the current metagame better? Please do share whether you are an experienced, intermediate or new RBYer!

For example, although I am not an RBYer myself, I find the exactness of the splitting of subtiers very interesting - Exeggutor, Starmie and Alakazam are in single-mon subtiers, while the Zap-Rhydon tier only has two mons, reflecting very concrete viability differences at the top. If I start playing RBY and have to sack something during a game, it tells me I might be better off sacking Zap rather than sacking Starmie. That's something I wouldn't have thought from previous VRs as they are in the same tier. Would you generally agree with this sentiment?

You guys probably have discussions already on a discord server or something, but your comments here will be helpful for the wider smogon community in evaluating this methodology for their own tiers too!
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top