Resource Simple Questions, Simple Answers Thread (read the op before posting a thread)

astroshagger said:
Does psychic terrain alakazam have any viable potential or is it just a blatantly worse lele?
Click to expand...

It is a pretty bad use of your turn. The reason why Lele is so good is because it summons it 'for free'. Moreover, Alakazam has access to calm mind, a better way to use its turn for setup, so the reasons to use psychic terrain on Alakazam are absurdly niche such as boosting your damage and outplaying Bisharp in the same turn.
 
How SW looks like right now? I guess pinsir, bisharp and mimikyu still staples, and kartana is probably used over celesteela as the z-move user, what else? Teams with araquanid need a Rocker or rely on magic coat? Blace looks nice, but how to fit everybody in one team?
 
If I'm running Celesteela as a pivot on rain, would the best spread be similar to the onsite one? It says it's got some SDef for Specs Lele HP Fire but I'm thinking that's irrelevant if I'm already running rain. Max HP/Def also seems appealing to better deal with Hawlucha/Kart/Bulu. Thoughts?
 
min min said:
If I'm running Celesteela as a pivot on rain, would the best spread be similar to the onsite one? It says it's got some SDef for Specs Lele HP Fire but I'm thinking that's irrelevant if I'm already running rain. Max HP/Def also seems appealing to better deal with Hawlucha/Kart/Bulu. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I see what you're trying to achieve with Celesteela on Rain but I don't think it's that great of an idea. Rain doesn't really have enough team slots to fit pivots and usually just runs Ferrothorn and 4 offensive mons because Ferrothorn checks some problematic mons for Rain and can provide the most role compression in a single slot. If you insist on using Celesteela then use a mixed defensive variant, you can find the spread in its analysis.
AOJ said:
Can someone pass me the most standard/used version of a Tapu Lele + Mega-Zam team ?
Click to expand...
As far as I know there isn't a standard Lele Zam team that has been used succesfully in tours but here's a recent rmt that utilized that core and peaked #1 on the ladder if that helps, should be good enough http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/usum-psyspam-offense-peaked-1-by-btb-ayevon-2100-elo.3623157/
 
What's time timeframe for the next OU suspect? Is there anything on the docket? Will Dawn-Wings ever be tested? (I'm aware it's probably broken,it gets Z-Earth Power and Brick Break and Rock Polish and Trick Room to power through its "counters")
 
Last edited:
sorry if this is a dumb question, but is it possible to create (not replace the current one) a viability rankings with the subranks ordered by viability, instead of alphabetical order? It would help especially in the lower ranks like B+ and B because they have a large amount of pokemon, and it would help differentiate pokemon that have similar roles in the same rank.
 
Squawkerz said:
sorry if this is a dumb question, but is it possible to create (not replace the current one) a viability rankings with the subranks ordered by viability, instead of alphabetical order? It would help especially in the lower ranks like B+ and B because they have a large amount of pokemon, and it would help differentiate pokemon that have similar roles in the same rank.
Click to expand...
I expect that it would be extremely difficult to actually order these rankings by viability, since differences are pretty small and thus the orders would be in constant flux, if anyone could agree on where they go. As they stand, every Pokémon in a rank should be considered equally viable as other mons in the rank, with differences between them being negligible. In theory, if any were substantially better or worse they would be in other ranks (though that’s often not the case as you’ve described). Ideally it would be like you describe but it’s simply not feasible.

That said, the viability rankings are never said to be perfect. They’re meant to be a rough estimate, and indeed that’s what they are.
 
I just read the OU tiering policy framwork, and I have several questions.
If Shadow Tag reduces the battling skill component too much via removing smart switching and reducing the ability to assess risk, these should be mentioned when stating Shadow Tag is uncompetitive, broken, or unhealthy.
Click to expand...
In a case like this, why would we need to suspect shadow tag? Why not just change the definition of "skill" to not include smart switching and assessing risk?
This [uncompetitiveness] can be match up related; think the determination that BP took the battling skill aspect out of the player's hands and made it overwhelmingly a team match up issue, where even with the best moves made each time by a standard team often were not enough.
Click to expand...
In a case like this, why can't players just change the definition of "standard team" to include checks against baton pass teams?
Examples [of brokenness] are mostly Pokemon and include strong Ubers like Kyogre, Groudon, and Arceus. These aren't necessarily completely uncompetitive because they don't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use these Pokemon and both probably have a fair chance to win. They are broken because they almost dictate / require usage, and a standard team facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage. These examples limit team building skill.
Click to expand...
Why does OU allow these Pokemon in generations 1-4? I understand that the first 2 generations had little diversity, so maybe there always had to be some literally over-used Pokemon, but was that true all the way through Generation 4?
 
sumwun said:
I just read the OU tiering policy framwork, and I have several questions.In a case like this, why would we need to suspect shadow tag? Why not just change the definition of "skill" to not include smart switching and assessing risk?

In a case like this, why can't players just change the definition of "standard team" to include checks against baton pass teams?

Why does OU allow these Pokemon in generations 1-4? I understand that the first 2 generations had little diversity, so maybe there always had to be some literally over-used Pokemon, but was that true all the way through Generation 4?
Click to expand...

1)

Removing smart switching and assessing risk from the definition of skill removes nearly all of what makes skill, skill. Smart switching and assessing risk are the two most important components of in-battle skill; it doesnt make any sense to remove those two from the definition.

2) The countermeasures for baton pass are incredibly specialized and lack utility outside of the baton pass matchup. If the definition of a standard team included reliable, long-term countermeasures to Baton Pass, then there would be very few good Standard teams that also were competent in other matchups. This significantly inhibits diversity if a standard team carried baton pass countermeasures (hence why most didnt).

3) I don’t understand your question - none of those three mons are legal in any generation of OU, even generations 1-4.
 
DerekG said:
anyone have a link to a place that i can learn how to get a good IV Ash-Greninja?
Click to expand...
Ash-Greninja has set IVs at 20/31/20/31/20/31 and is only available from the Pokemon Sun and Moon Demo.

sumwun said:
I just read the OU tiering policy framwork, and I have several questions.In a case like this, why would we need to suspect shadow tag? Why not just change the definition of "skill" to not include smart switching and assessing risk?In a case like this, why can't players just change the definition of "standard team" to include checks against baton pass teams?Why does OU allow these Pokemon in generations 1-4? I understand that the first 2 generations had little diversity, so maybe there always had to be some literally over-used Pokemon, but was that true all the way through Generation 4?
Click to expand...
Hi sumwun,

The tiering policy framework was set up to help guide us on what changes we should make to create a healthy, fun metagame. In general, changing the definitions within this framework to retain Pokemon/abilities that go against its core values defeats the reason of creating it in the first place.

In particular,
In a case like this, why would we need to suspect shadow tag? Why not just change the definition of "skill" to not include smart switching and assessing risk?
Click to expand...
Skill, at its base level, is a differentiation from luck. A more skillful player by definition seeks to amass advantage over the base luck of a game. In Pokemon, primary ways to do this are to switch smartly and to assess the risk involved between a number of different plays. Allowing elements in our game which significantly detract from those abilities inherently detracts from a player's ability to amass an advantage over luck in Pokemon, and simply removing those aspects from our definition of "skill" would make our definition less descriptive of the game.

In a case like this, why can't players just change the definition of "standard team" to include checks against baton pass teams?
Click to expand...
This is a much better question—why shouldn't players simply respond to the meta? Within the matchup, if you have a baton pass check/counter, you win, and if you don't, you lose. This seems like it would be true for most Pokemon—if you lack a Tapu Koko check, you would lose to the matchup. However, within games, there tend to be plays you can make or risks you can take to mitigate the weakness. Real matchup issues are highlighted against teams like stall or baton pass—if you don't have answers, you lose against a competent player on team preview. Against baton pass in particular, you don't have the opportunity to make plays or take risks to mitigate your disadvantage. The checks to baton pass are also very specialized and lack much use outside of simply checking baton pass teams (in comparison to Pokemon that are good against stall, like Tapu Lele, which have use against a number of team styles), which causes them to be pretty much useless in other matchups, causing teams that carry checks against baton pass teams to be significantly weaker against other teams and cascading the matchup issue.

Why does OU allow these Pokemon in generations 1-4? I understand that the first 2 generations had little diversity, so maybe there always had to be some literally over-used Pokemon, but was that true all the way through Generation 4?
Click to expand...
I assume here you're asking why do Gen 1-4 OU allow Pokemon that dictate/require usage. You're right on the dime for the first 2 generations, with such little diversity, there had to be some literally over-used Pokemon (i.e. the top 4 Pokemon in gen 1 getting 80-94% usage because there just don't exist enough viable alternatives). For gens 3-4, this problem doesn't seem as prevalent (Skarmory, Swampert, Gengar getting ~45% usage with ttar at 68%, and breloom, starmie, heatran in gen 4 getting all around 40% usage, with ttar at 64%). This drops at gen 5 because of hidden abilities bringing alternative weather-based archetypes to sand in politoed as a rain setter. I don't play gen 3 or gen 4, so I can't say for sure, but my guess is the general playerbase feels these Pokemon do not meet the criteria of "dictating / requiring usage, and a standard team facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage." (You can compare these numbers to a modern-day required Pokemon, Primal Groudon in Ubers with 81% high-ladder-weighted usage).

Hope I helped.
 
Last edited:
Agithos said:
what's a good core for TR stakataka
Click to expand...
TR stakataka can work as a cleaner on bulky offensive teams, so you can core it with good bulky offense mons like Tapu Bulu, or you can go for a full Trick Room team with mons like Alolan Marowak
 
What's the current legality of Baton Pass (completely banned, no speed passing, etc.)? Also, is there a place where I can find a comprehensive OU ruleset?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top