Salamence - The Face of The Next Suspect, or Merely OU's Strongest Dragon?

[Ulevo]

why giving Salamence a suspect test would be a BAD THING?

Did you ever consider time to be a factor? Or that those who are involved in the PR don't want to waste time testing suspects that don't fit the characteristic because of the work involved?

there is no clear-cut arguments that unequivocally show one way or another, which means a test season for it would be valuable.

Is it not the responsibility of the community to provide clear cut arguments on theorymon proposing why Salamence fits the Uber characteristics so that it may be treated as a suspect?

We don't just go around assuming Pokemon are suspect for the sake of testing. If you fail to provide concise arguments for Salamence's status as suspect, you fail to give reason why it should be tested.

Just a minor point; the pokemon on the whole is nominated, not just the set. Part of the argument for Salamence-as-Uber is that he can do both sets equally well and they are not both covered by the same "counter". That's part of what makes Salamence (allegedly) fit the Offensive characteristic, not because it had the one set that does.

Many Pokemon lack counters or checks due to the versatility of their sets. If you want to nominate Salamence on these factors, then why are we not arguing over Gengar or Infernape here? This is not relevant anymore.

Dragon Dance Salamence is the only Pokemon that might even have a chance at placing the Pokemon itself in to suspicion because the amount of Pokemon capable of surviving a 2HKO and retaliating are limiting to only Steel types with that particular set.

Building a team of 6 pokémon who beat Mence one-on-one so it will NEVER EVER setup, aside from the very definition of overcentralizing, is yet another mentality that can unban literally everything.

We do not play 1v1. We play 6v6. You have to keep the consideration of your whole team in mind when dealing with any threat, and Salamence is not an exception. Pokemon are not placed in Ubers or left OU based on whether or not a particular Pokemon can stop them 1v1. Your statements are very loosely grounded, and aggravatingly so.

If you're not countering it and you're not revenge killing it, just how are you planning to defeat Salamence?

Status. Explosion. Resisting Outrage/Choiced move and retaliating. Forcing switches and wearing it down via entry hazards. Priority. There's a plethora of ways to remove Salamence from a battle that many of you just seem to conveniently ignore.

@J-man,
You just gave half a dozen of examples to Luke's case. Mence has only two true revenge killers, and both of them can be trap killed. Crucial difference.

Um, which ones would those be? Scizor and Metagross? Because I could have sworn that Dragonite, Weavile, Mamoswine and Lucario existed in OU. My mistake then.

I also thought for some reason that Shed Shell was a usable item on Steel Types. I guess I was mistaking there as well.

Last time I checked, the "use the obscure counter!!!" argument didn't save a pokémon's skin from the suspect test, or else we would have a metagame full of ScarfSuicunes and ScarfCresselias countering Chomp.

Hell, we are agreeing over the fact that Mence makes players use bizarre extreme tactics to not be swept by it. I'm not saying that Mence is uber because of that (even if it IS my personal opinion), I'm saying that it makes Mence a deserver of the test.

And what is it exactly that prevents a player from dealing with Salamence the way they might any other OU threat?

 

[Deaga]

Status. Explosion. Resisting Outrage/Choiced move and retaliating. Forcing switches and wearing it down via entry hazards. Priority. There's a plethora of ways to remove Salamence from a battle that many of you just seem to conveniently ignore.

Every single one of those is revenge killing (well, except for status, which doesn't really kill anything, but makes it a lot easier to do so). You gotta let something die in order to switch something else into Salamence, unless you're facing someone stupid enough to try DDing in the face of Mamoswine or something.

 

[Nida]

Another thing that people are forgetting: Mence doesn't come in on a wholly ignorant foe. Mence doesn't automatically get free turns, and Mence isn't walking into a vacuum; there's usually a strategy already rolling by the time Mence hits the scene, unless someone's playing a crazy lead set.

A good player will be expecting the possibility of Mence every turn. Just as they expect the possibility of Gengar, or Swampert, or Blissey, or whatever the opponent might have hidden. It's the nature of prediction. You either play conservatively and run the risk of getting hit hard because of your timidity, or you play boldly and run the risk of leaving yourself open at the flank to an opposing strategy. It doesn't matter whether that opposing strategy is Mence or something completely different. Good players recognize that the opponent will do whatever is most advantageous given the information available, plus or minus a little mindgaming, and thus they formulate their strategies accordingly.

 

[Ulevo]

Every single one of those is revenge killing (well, except for status, which doesn't really kill anything, but makes it a lot easier to do so). You gotta let something die in order to switch something else into Salamence, unless you're facing someone stupid enough to try DDing in the face of Mamoswine or something.

And why is that again? Last time I checked I was able to switch in Steel Pokemon just fine.

 

[Objection]

Yeah, generally I find that Salamence don't use Earthquake or Fire Blast off the bat unless there's already a steel-type in.

 

[Warped Worlds]

Here is another good point. If Mence was broken, wouldn't Stall be running Mence to defeat other stall teams? No they do not.

Also, Gengar has the hidden ability to block Rapid Spin, and is able to 2HKO any of the Rapid Spinners at worst. It can also stop a Lucario sweep, something that Latias simply cannot do. More info against your logic on why Latias is "god" Sebastian. It is more info as well, that other revenge killers do not suck.

 

[Aura Guardian]

This thread is devolving into theorymon (sadly, not the user), so can we please get back on topic? As Indigo said, there is significant feeling that Salamence is uber, so can anyone show why giving Salamence a suspect test would be a BAD THING?

As of this post, more than 55% of those who voted on the poll say that, no, Salamence is not a suspect.
EDIT: Or, rather, not Uber.

 

[IcyMan28]

As of this post, more than 55% of those who voted on the poll say that, no, Salamence is not a suspect.
EDIT: Or, rather, not Uber.

The fact that about 34% feel that it does deserve a Suspect Test makes it a moot point. And this thread isn't about Salamence as an Uber, its about Mence as a suspect.

This thread is devolving into theorymon (sadly, not the user), so can we please get back on topic? As Indigo said, there is significant feeling that Salamence is uber, so can anyone show why giving Salamence a suspect test would be a BAD THING?

I believe it was mentioned that there must be significant theorymon in favor of a pokemon being suspect for it to be considered as such (somewhere in the PR thread, I think).

 

[Ulevo]

I believe it was mentioned that there must be significant theorymon in favor of a pokemon being suspect for it to be considered as such (somewhere in the PR thread, I think).

Yes, this is true. However, I see a lot of random conjecture as opposed to concrete theorymon backed up on statistical data. Many posts are highly misinformed, irrelevant, or wrong entirely.

 

[Aura Guardian]

The fact that about 34% feel that it does deserve a Suspect Test makes it a moot point. And this thread isn't about Salamence as an Uber, its about Mence as a suspect.

While I feel Salamence is not Uber, and thus does not need a test, I do recognize that a test would, indeed, settle suspicions about whether Mence is or is not Uber.

 

[Game Freak201]

While I feel Salamence is not Uber, and thus does not need a test, I do recognize that a test would, indeed, settle suspicions about whether Mence is or is not Uber.

A test may be able to do that, but one has to realize that a suspect is only recognized when solid theorymon is backing up the claim. Using words such as 'powerful' and 'unpredictable' along with posting damage calcs will not work.

 

[Objection]

A test may be able to do that, but one has to realize that a suspect is only recognized when solid theorymon is backing up the claim. Using words such as 'powerful' and 'unpredictable' along with posting damage calcs will not work.

And, tbh, damage calcs of Salamence vs. wall are only really convincing if the wall has max EVs in HP and the relevant defence, plus the relevant boosting nature, simply because the wall has the ability to do that. I'm stating this because this was used against me when I was arguing that CAP9 would be broken.

 

[Ulevo]

The bottom line is that, unlike other Ubers, it is not unreasonable for a player to attempt to deal with Salamence in standard play.

Kyogre is countered by Ludicolo. That does not mean Kyogre does not fit the Uber characteristics. Gengar does not have a counter, but this does not mean we should treat Gengar as a suspect.

Ho-Oh has exploitable weaknesses in the form of Stealth Rock and Rock type attacks. This does not mean we should be advocating Ho-Oh for OU. However, this doesn't mean that this is irrelevant when considering a Pokemon's status, such as with Salamence's weakness to Stealth Rock.

What all Uber Pokemon have in common with each other is that a player is incapable of reasonably dealing with them in standard play, regardless of methods used to retaliate, niche or cookie cutter. Posters in this thread have yet to prove anything indicating this to be the case with Salamence, and have just blabbed about Salamence's strong points, not how or why these particular traits make him a suspect.

 

[MrIndigo]

We don't just go around assuming Pokemon are suspect for the sake of testing. If you fail to provide concise arguments for Salamence's status as suspect, you fail to give reason why it should be tested.

One problem, to some extent, with this argument (and the reverse) is that if you provide conclusive evidence that a Suspect is required (or not required), you're essentially making the test a moot point, because you'd already have the conclusive evidence that it is Uber (or not Uber).

The only evidence that you really need for a test is circumstantial or prima facie. Anything in depth is what the test itself is for.

Also, the argument posted elsewhere that "We shouldn't just test things because we can because it creates work for the PR guys".

With all respect for the work done by the admins and such at Smogon who do a marvelous job; this is not really a valid argument unless there's something else more pressing that needs testing at the same time. Part of the responsibility of being an administrator of rules for ANYTHING is that you have to be constantly vigilant to problems within your system, and testing is a primary part of that, because it sets precedent and generates dedicated information for analysis, as well as reflecting the opinions of the competitive battling community.

Given that the ONLY purpose of adding house rules (like tiers, clauses, etc.) is to maximise the enjoyment for the maximum number of players, any sizable interest in changing a particular reflects a prima facie need to change the rule.*

Dragon Dance Salamence is the only Pokemon that might even have a chance at placing the Pokemon itself in to suspicion because the amount of Pokemon capable of surviving a 2HKO and retaliating are limiting to only Steel types with that particular set.

Not a cogent argument, as I've said already in this thread. A pokemon can conceivably have multiple playable sets that do not of themselves render the pokemon Uber under a clause, but the fact that the variety (assuming that each one cannot be countered/checked by the same responses) exists could render the pokemon invalid. You don't consider Salamence in a vacuum, but you don't consider the individual sets in a vacuum either. (Not that I'm arguing Salamence does this here).

Um, which ones would those be? Scizor and Metagross? Because I could have sworn that Dragonite, Weavile, Mamoswine and Lucario existed in OU. My mistake then.

Weavile loses to essentially the rest of the metagame, so it's not a great one to cite as a usable foil.

Dragonite and Lucario can't kill with ExtremeSpeed without setting up themselves (and both are OHKOd) or unless Salamence has already taken significant damage, which is not always the case given the number of methods of removing or blocking Stealth Rocks.

Mamoswine is fine, and a couple you didn't mention are Froslass (used as a Lead/Spiker/Spinblocker etc.) and a couple of other Sharders popular on Hail teams.

I also thought for some reason that Shed Shell was a usable item on Steel Types. I guess I was mistaking there as well.

It's only a one-shot, and it also reduces the power of the wielders significantly. It's an option, but not a particularly amazing one.

(EDIT: Also, good last post, Ulevo.)

*This leads me to another discussion point: What, if anything, do you believe is a more pressing issue to be tested than Salamence?

Examples: Pokemon Clause, Sleep Clause, Evasion/OHKO Clauses, other pokemon?

 

[Stylish Interval]

While it's derailing from the thread, I think basically most of the clauses are set in stone aside from OHKO.

It takes a lot of luck for one to work, and it can work as a last resort effort move that can help turn tides and such, or it can cost the game if you miss. Those kinds of things are pretty cool and would be awesome to see in use, although they might be too much.

Also Ulevo, you've basically covered a lot of what I've wanted to say but didn't know how to say/tried to say and (wo)man you're awesome opossum.

EDIT: STUPID MACHAMP HAVING NO GUARD

 

[Game Freak201]

One problem, to some extent, with this argument (and the reverse) is that if you provide conclusive evidence that a Suspect is required (or not required), you're essentially making the test a moot point, because you'd already have the conclusive evidence that it is Uber (or not Uber).

The only evidence that you really need for a test is circumstantial or prima facie. Anything in depth is what the test itself is for.

Also, the argument posted elsewhere that "We shouldn't just test things because we can because it creates work for the PR guys".

With all respect for the work done by the admins and such at Smogon who do a marvelous job; this is not really a valid argument unless there's something else more pressing that needs testing at the same time. Part of the responsibility of being an administrator of rules for ANYTHING is that you have to be constantly vigilant to problems within your system, and testing is a primary part of that, because it sets precedent and generates dedicated information for analysis, as well as reflecting the opinions of the competitive battling community.

Given that the ONLY purpose of adding house rules (like tiers, clauses, etc.) is to maximise the enjoyment for the maximum number of players, any sizable interest in changing a particular reflects a prima facie need to change the rule.*

I would like to show you a post made by Tangerine.

The points are the following which "I obviously haven't made clear enough in other Stark Mountain posts over and over again... which no one has read apparently

• Suspects are decided not because "we feel like it" but on solid theorymon. There needs to be significant evidence that the removal of the suspect would lead to a more "improved game"
• The characteristics is a framework that you can use to make the argument. That is all they are, it is something that needs to be considered in every argument specifically because one of the characteristics are always involved on every Pokemon.
• Nearly every argument given on Stark or elsewhere is a listing of traits and "what it can do", but fails to go beyond that in "why that matters in the game". Why does it matter? Why can't you tell us if it's so significant? How does Salamence hurt the game (see first point), and see how reachzero approached them (although he didn't quite finish but that's okay). No one cares how much damage mence can do or how fast it is or how hard it is if you can't tell anyone how exactly it damages the game.
• You fail to show me how strong salamence is since all you're telling me is what it can do. What does this mean? How dangeroous is this? How do teams normally deal with it and how does this affect competitive play, and in what way?
• The counter arguments DO matter, yes they can be applied for any Uber, but the point you and phil have yet to argue the significance of Mence in play and how it affects a significant portion of the teams and players in the metagame. All you say is "It can do this" "it can do that"... so what? I can hype up any random Pokemon too! The point is that if you dont show significance or if you dont show exactly how it's damaging to the game without a solid theory of how the game is played you're going to draw yourself into a slew of counterarguments and you'll be too busy answering them instead of actually juicing up your arguments (which is inefficient and another "mistake" phil made)
• Complete the frigging arguments please, no one cares if it is so fast and hard to revenge kill and it has so much power behind it, they're all fluffy words with no real significance behind them until you are able to define what they mean in terms of the game. Unless of course game is literally "the person who uses Salamence wins" or "this is all that matters in the game, nothing else even matters" and what not, it's a very one dimensional shallow set of traits that don't mean anything unless you piece it together with the game.
• The reason why I refuse to give a complete argument on either side is because defining the game and the direction of the game is not my business, but the players (which the players apparently can't put into words).

Most of what's in this quote sums up what the pro-Suspect party's argument and what is needed to improve it.

*This leads me to another discussion point: What, if anything, do you believe is a more pressing issue to be tested than Salamence?

Examples: Pokemon Clause, Sleep Clause, Evasion/OHKO Clauses, other pokemon?

Though this is unrelated, there has been talk in PR about testing those clauses.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Tangerine fails to realize (or rather fails to recognize) that there is no way to "give evidence," with words, that mence does or does not hurt the metagame. It's even more impossible to do it with numbers, because damage percentages (or whatever fact statements you could make) also do not define "damage" or "benefit" to the metagame. He asks people to "show significance" but doesn't specify how significance is shown. The thing is it can't be shown, because "is bad for the metagame," or "is good for the metagame" are unprovable opinion statements.

The only real way an argument is significant or not in this case, is if it manages to persuade the person who reads it. Whether 1 person or another is persuaded or not, is all completely subjective.

This is why what's really important is not "good theorymon," since what makes an argument good or not good is also completely subjective. What's really important is the collective opinions of the players, because that is the only thing that these arguments can change.

In which case, it is a question of "if we feel like it." You can't define or prove "good theorymon" or "positive/negative affect on the metagame." The only thing you can prove is (or in this case measure) are the inclinations of the players, and it is consensus that will ultimately push for or against a suspect test.

 

[haunter]

I felt like posting just to say that I completely agree with the above point. Theorymon can't prove anything. Every person of average intelligence can make a point in favour of their side on whether Salamence should be tested as a suspect or not, or whether it should be moved to ubers or not. It's just a matter of point of views.

I, for one, believe that having no counters and being able to 1-2hko every Pokemon in its tier is enough to, at least, test Salamence. On the other hand, someone else may think that being weak to SR and taking damage from sandstorm and usually life orb makes it not that hard to counter. We have 3 uber characteristics to observe when deciding the tiering of a Pokemon and, despite that, there's still an inescapable subjective component in every suspect test that we have.

The point is: in this thread you're supposed to discuss about your experience with Salamence and to share your thoughts about whether we should have a suspect test for it or not. Don't try to make an universal evaluation criterion as it's largely pointless.

 

[neverender1862]

Even though Salamence is a powerful threat, I don't think that it fully merits being Uber. For one, a lot of factors do hinder its abilities, i.e., the presence of Stealth Rock, vulnerability to Sandstorm, not to mention that (correct me if I'm wrong) the effective sets rely on Life Orb to boost its power, which effectively shortens its life span the longer it stays on the battle field. Status, revenge killers, and its quad weakness to Ice can effectively hinder Salamence's abilities.

All I'm saying is that Salamence has a lot of qualities that can be exploited in order to stop it in its tracks. If those qualities aren't present, then it can (and possibly will) be banished to Uber. But those qualities are there, like it or not. And IMO, it's enough to keep it in OU for a long time, because its power is balanced by these negative qualities.

I am, however, open to the idea of Salamence being up for Suspect testing. But unless the arguments against it being an OU Pokémon are irrefutable, or at least deserving of a test, then I want Salamence to remain in OU, because it deserves that spot.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Even though Salamence is a powerful threat, I don't think that it fully merits being Uber. For one, a lot of factors do hinder its abilities, i.e., the presence of Stealth Rock, vulnerability to Sandstorm, not to mention that (correct me if I'm wrong) the effective sets rely on Life Orb to boost its power, which effectively shortens its life span the longer it stays on the battle field. Status, revenge killers, and its quad weakness to Ice can effectively hinder Salamence's abilities.

Effective sets with Leftovers can be run on stall teams (I have found that Leftovers + Roost is rather effective), so no, the effective sets do not all need Life Orb.

 

[cantab]

Indeed, Salamence can be highly effective without Life Orb. I've found Lum Berry useful given the most common way my opponents have seemed to stop it is status.

However, with Orb, it does lose the raw offensive power. That means more things can safely switch in, or survive a hit to revenge kill. I still think the Orbed sets are the biggest threat.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Indeed, Salamence can be highly effective without Life Orb. I've found Lum Berry useful given the most common way my opponents have seemed to stop it is status.

However, with Orb, it does lose the raw offensive power. That means more things can safely switch in, or survive a hit to revenge kill. I still think the Orbed sets are the biggest threat.

... on offense, I assume. My leftovers argument was for Defense, thus meaning that switchins would find a new wall switched in.

 

[neverender1862]

My leftovers argument was for Defense, thus meaning that switchins would find a new wall switched in.

I did say, "to boost their power." I was specifying for offensive sets. Sorry if it was too vague.

Anyway, this thread already exists. http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64977

I don't want to junior mod, so I'll stop there. ...

 

[Ulevo]

One problem, to some extent, with this argument (and the reverse) is that if you provide conclusive evidence that a Suspect is required (or not required), you're essentially making the test a moot point, because you'd already have the conclusive evidence that it is Uber (or not Uber).

No. The whole point of constructive theorymon is to create a hypothesis, not a conclusion. It is, after all, based on theory. The suspect test itself is the test of that theory.

Also, the argument posted elsewhere that "We shouldn't just test things because we can because it creates work for the PR guys".

With all respect for the work done by the admins and such at Smogon who do a marvelous job; this is not really a valid argument unless there's something else more pressing that needs testing at the same time. Part of the responsibility of being an administrator of rules for ANYTHING is that you have to be constantly vigilant to problems within your system, and testing is a primary part of that, because it sets precedent and generates dedicated information for analysis, as well as reflecting the opinions of the competitive battling community.

So what? Are you suggesting that if I get enough people on the "Ban Blissy, it's bad for OU" bandwagon without any reasoning as to why this may be problematic, we need to test Blissey? Because it is their job?

The only time tests should be proceeded with is when the community has proven that their may in fact be a problem. Anything else is merely time consuming. How do you do this? Well, I'm sure you know the answer to that.

Not a cogent argument, as I've said already in this thread. A pokemon can conceivably have multiple playable sets that do not of themselves render the pokemon Uber under a clause, but the fact that the variety (assuming that each one cannot be countered/checked by the same responses) exists could render the pokemon invalid. You don't consider Salamence in a vacuum, but you don't consider the individual sets in a vacuum either. (Not that I'm arguing Salamence does this here).

That's odd, I could have sworn we only had an Offensive, Defensive, and Support characteristic. I wasn't aware there was a characteristic that defined a Pokemon Uber based on move pool or variety.

If you're trying to argue that one single set cannot place a Pokemon to Uber status, you can look no further than Wobbuffet and Yache Garchomp.

Weavile loses to essentially the rest of the metagame, so it's not a great one to cite as a usable foil.

On the contrary, I believe Weavile is a great Pokemon to cite. Weavile has one of the highest Base Speed stats in all of OU, a very respectable Base Attack stat, and two very good STAB attacks. It has access to Pursuit, and Priority as well. How you came to that conclusion bewilders me.

Dragonite and Lucario can't kill with ExtremeSpeed without setting up themselves (and both are OHKOd) or unless Salamence has already taken significant damage, which is not always the case given the number of methods of removing or blocking Stealth Rocks.

So we're allowed to base our assumptions on the fact that Salamence has already used Dragon Dance, thus the need for a priority user is paramount, however we conclude that Lucario and Dragonite have not? And since when was a OHKO or 2HKO even necessary? Last time I remember, Dragon Dance Life Orb Salamence was the set that took the most amount of damage out of any of the sets used, and relying on a high powered priority move to do the job regardless if it OHKO or 2HKO isn't all that important.

Mamoswine is fine, and a couple you didn't mention are Froslass (used as a Lead/Spiker/Spinblocker etc.) and a couple of other Sharders popular on Hail teams.

I failed to mention Donphan as well, which is the only other notable candidate that I can see, as the other Pokemon either linger in UU, or are specialized to Hail Teams.

However I find it interesting that you would point these options out while at the same time degrading the use of Weavile in OU.

 

[Acritter]

Okay, let's try for a more concrete example. Salamence is switched in (from a death or into an EQ is irrelevant). You have out a Pokemon that can't do much to it (say, Gliscor taunting a wall and following up with EQ). What do you do? You could switch in a Sharder, a Steel-type, or a ScarfLatias or Scarfgon (not saying all of these are on your team, just that in building your team you chose one of them as a Salamence check). There are four main moves it could use (assuming the DD build, which according to the November statistics has a 50% prevalence): Earthquake, Dragon Dance, Outrage, Fire Blast. If they use Earthquake, they can OHKO your Sharder and Steel-type but not your Scarfs, if they DD they can bash up your Steels (and sometimes Scarfs), if they Outrage your Sharders and Scarfs are gone, if they Fire Blast they can kill the Steels and Sharders but barely scratch your Scarfs. You can suicide the Pokemon you have out, of course, but that puts things into revenge-killing territory, which has already been discussed. If both players have no information, it's really a crapshoot as to what will happen. However, if the Salamence player has already scouted out your check, then you can be in serious trouble, as they can then pick whatever move is difficult to impossible for you to counter. If they kill your check, then you're pretty fucked, unless you have two or more checks (which could be deemed excessive, although many checks serve multiple purposes). Even if your switch-in goes perfectly, and Levitate eats the incoming EQ, you can still be screwed because there's nothing stopping Salamence from just switching out. Salamence can come in later, after the threat has been neutralized, and sweep with ease. Finally, and this is the nastiest thing of all, all of this guesswork with switch-ins and predictions is based on only 50% of all Salamences. If the player has something not DD, then your cunning psychoanalysis of the opponent's character is thrown out the window. Pure strength isn't going to be what makes Salamence uber, unpredictability might. See Mew for more details.

Oh, and for the record, I don't completely think Salamence is uber. I find it usually very powerful, but not impossible to deal with. My own 'mence is Specs, and although it is always an MVP on my team, it's never been unstoppable.

That's odd, I could have sworn we only had an Offensive, Defensive, and Support characteristic. I wasn't aware there was a characteristic that defined a Pokemon Uber based on move pool or variety.

Well, there goes my respect for you. Mew: it's a Pokemon without great stats, but a movepool to put- well, anything but Smeargle to shame.