Aight so, right now I am stuck in a hotel room since I have been traveling with family for pretty much the entire duration of July, so apologies if this response isn’t as in depth as it possibly could be. Also I am typing on my phone, because fuck my life the hotel I am at doesn’t have a viable outlet for my laptop charger and the bugger is dead. Nonetheless, before I do go into my little spiel, I want to cover the issues revolving around the absence of legacy player input as a discussion point.
First of all, I think using big tour names as a way of trying to prove a point with the general satisfaction of the playerbase a mute point. For one, it is commonplace for top players to maintain views that substantially deviate from the norm in regards to tier dynamics, with a prominent example being the aforementioned ABR’s placement of Mence at dead last in his ADV VR post, because they intrinsically view the metagame from a different lens stemming from their own philosophies and skillsets. But just because the average SSNL player thinks XYZ is broken while SPL player thinks it isn’t does not single handedly invalidate the potential presence of an unhealthy element in the metagame, and is an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint. The point of tiering is not to cater to the whims of a handful of elite players, but to promote the most competitive form of a metagame, especially given multiple SPL starter level players have shared sentiments in support of said tiering action.
Secondly, the vast majority of these legacy players don’t actively play the tier because they frankly don’t have to. It has been a long time since SM has been the current generation, and as with the vast majority of past generations, the top echelon of players often migrate to the subsequent generation, generally reserving these prior generations for trophy tours (Masters, Stours, SPL, WCOP, etc.). I don’t think it is fair to say the likes of Tricking or Soulwind have the same level of qualifications to judge the tier compared to an active player just based off of historic success. Legacy absolutely matters, but metagames are not static, especially one as naturally volatile as SM, with massive shifts in playstyles, tech options, and the revolution of multiple defensive pieces. Mind you in 2021, an era highlighted by the dominance of Psyspam, none of Cresselia, Dragonite, ZardX or Serperior had the relevance, let alone the presence, that they do now. The modern metagame has changed immensely within the span of five years, and I think it's a massive insult to the current active playerbase who play year-round to discard their viewpoint in favor of an old head who comes back for 2 months just to fill a slot in WCOP.
The biggest point I would like to mention in regards to the absence of player input from top players is the complete lack of change regarding the tier itself. Tiering action has always been highly contested in SM, with disputes over everything from Z-Moves, Magearna, Kartana, Tapu Lele, and even shit like MMaw all finding themselves on the chopping block at one point or another. Yet, the last time we had any sort of relevant tiering action was fucking Zygarde back at the tail end of 2018. I don’t blame any of these players for not giving enough of a fuck to make a post, given how the actual existence of this discourse stems from a discussion thread started by the ORAS head of all people. Cause what will actually change? I sympathize with those who have resigned to the tier remaining static because somehow the status quo precedes the possibility of positive change, because that is what I believed for the longest time. However, we are at the cusp of a potential survey that could fundamentally change the direction of the tier and denying that off the basis of a lack of nuance would be a disgrace. Even if nothing changes, let the suspect happen so we can at least have a result that reflects the sentiment of the majority of the playerbase.
With all that being said, given the unlikelihood of any really substantial posts preceding any of these suspects, there are a few points I would like to refute in favor of keeping Manaphy.
Yes, Manaphy is outplayable, but so is quite literally everything within the confines of a standardized metagame. SM is a tier defined by its surplus of offensive demons that share the same destructive potential as Manaphy, and all of which require attention and their own counterplay. All of ZardX, Lele, KyuB, Serp and countless others share the capacity to dismantle defensive structures with little effort and require intelligent piloting and in-depth tier knowledge to successfully stave off. However, none of these threats are able to completely bypass traditional counterplay to the degree in which Manaphy does. Hazards, phazing, status; all either permanently cripple or force the opposition to reposition, allowing you to swing momentum in your favor. Even Heal Bell + ZardX teams require a multitude of conditions to be met to allow safe entry of ZardX to function as a Stallbreaker while simultaneously being at odds with the rest of the metagame. All of these fail to properly answer Manaphy in the long term without prolonged sequences of correct turns because of its resilience. The Rest that is the so-called “differentiating factor” that also happens to pair with a mon that combines status-immunity and immediate wake up with Hydration, backed by bulk and defensive profile of mono-Water typing, all in tandem with the fastest snowballing setup move with no-drawback and the efficacy of the weather setter with arguably the lowest skill cap in the game.
A lot of arguments in defense of preserving Manaphy seem to isolate it as an individual threat without consideration of the context how polarizing it is as a threat as a cog on RAIN. And not just as a Rain threat, but as a blight on the builder within an already constrictive offensive metagame. We are not talking about +3 Manaphy and its ridiculous calcs as an individual threat, but how it meshes within the core of MPert, Gren and its supporting cast. I think it is very understated at how capable Rain is at bricking defensive counterplay by virtue of the presence of Manaphy alone. So what happens when the Rocks you need to check the Taunt Tornadus that otherwise cycles your defensive core happens to be on the “small subset of mons that Manaphy can enter on”, because role compression requires running Rocks on your Heatran? And what about the required entry into Toxapex on a Greninja that otherwise would tear you apart once transformed into Ash-Gren? What about that turn where you have to go Slowbro to prevent Pert from taking one? What happens if Leftovers got knocked off of Gastrodon because you guessed the Pelipper's set wrong? What happens if MLati isn't at full when it comes in on a +3 Manaphy? These are turns Manaphy and its teammates will generate constantly throughout the entire game's duration.
We are in a metagame where a large percentage of players option-select Rain as a catch-all to deal with the variety of offensive structures in the tier. Even if its usage or winrate isn't emblematic of a broken mon on the surface, the ramifications are palpable. Most defensive mons in the metagame HAVE to run specialized sets to deal with Manaphy, often at the cost of otherwise superior utility options that would otherwise fare better into the top threats of the metagame. It is in my opinion that the polarizing nature of Manaphy's in the builder alone, let alone its extensive applications beyond the Fat matchup (again, check its defensive calcs and how it matches up into top HO threats and the efficacy in which it is able to force KOs on key threats) are that indicative of an unhealthy presence in SM. I think banning Manaphy would allow players to have the flexibility necessary to handle the offensive onslaught of the current metagame while still maintaining the beneficial anti-cheese properties of Rain, without being as intrusive as a Serp or Drizzle ban, therefore allowing players to adjust for subsequent tiering action and creating a healthier metagame in the process.
Suspect Manaphy.
(Sorry for the grammatical errors or if I missed anything important, it is currently 1:27 AM and this is about as much text as I am willing to dump while buzzed. Now I am gonna go enjoy the rest of my vacation. Peace.)
First of all, I think using big tour names as a way of trying to prove a point with the general satisfaction of the playerbase a mute point. For one, it is commonplace for top players to maintain views that substantially deviate from the norm in regards to tier dynamics, with a prominent example being the aforementioned ABR’s placement of Mence at dead last in his ADV VR post, because they intrinsically view the metagame from a different lens stemming from their own philosophies and skillsets. But just because the average SSNL player thinks XYZ is broken while SPL player thinks it isn’t does not single handedly invalidate the potential presence of an unhealthy element in the metagame, and is an extremely narrow-minded viewpoint. The point of tiering is not to cater to the whims of a handful of elite players, but to promote the most competitive form of a metagame, especially given multiple SPL starter level players have shared sentiments in support of said tiering action.
Secondly, the vast majority of these legacy players don’t actively play the tier because they frankly don’t have to. It has been a long time since SM has been the current generation, and as with the vast majority of past generations, the top echelon of players often migrate to the subsequent generation, generally reserving these prior generations for trophy tours (Masters, Stours, SPL, WCOP, etc.). I don’t think it is fair to say the likes of Tricking or Soulwind have the same level of qualifications to judge the tier compared to an active player just based off of historic success. Legacy absolutely matters, but metagames are not static, especially one as naturally volatile as SM, with massive shifts in playstyles, tech options, and the revolution of multiple defensive pieces. Mind you in 2021, an era highlighted by the dominance of Psyspam, none of Cresselia, Dragonite, ZardX or Serperior had the relevance, let alone the presence, that they do now. The modern metagame has changed immensely within the span of five years, and I think it's a massive insult to the current active playerbase who play year-round to discard their viewpoint in favor of an old head who comes back for 2 months just to fill a slot in WCOP.
The biggest point I would like to mention in regards to the absence of player input from top players is the complete lack of change regarding the tier itself. Tiering action has always been highly contested in SM, with disputes over everything from Z-Moves, Magearna, Kartana, Tapu Lele, and even shit like MMaw all finding themselves on the chopping block at one point or another. Yet, the last time we had any sort of relevant tiering action was fucking Zygarde back at the tail end of 2018. I don’t blame any of these players for not giving enough of a fuck to make a post, given how the actual existence of this discourse stems from a discussion thread started by the ORAS head of all people. Cause what will actually change? I sympathize with those who have resigned to the tier remaining static because somehow the status quo precedes the possibility of positive change, because that is what I believed for the longest time. However, we are at the cusp of a potential survey that could fundamentally change the direction of the tier and denying that off the basis of a lack of nuance would be a disgrace. Even if nothing changes, let the suspect happen so we can at least have a result that reflects the sentiment of the majority of the playerbase.
With all that being said, given the unlikelihood of any really substantial posts preceding any of these suspects, there are a few points I would like to refute in favor of keeping Manaphy.
Yes, Manaphy is outplayable, but so is quite literally everything within the confines of a standardized metagame. SM is a tier defined by its surplus of offensive demons that share the same destructive potential as Manaphy, and all of which require attention and their own counterplay. All of ZardX, Lele, KyuB, Serp and countless others share the capacity to dismantle defensive structures with little effort and require intelligent piloting and in-depth tier knowledge to successfully stave off. However, none of these threats are able to completely bypass traditional counterplay to the degree in which Manaphy does. Hazards, phazing, status; all either permanently cripple or force the opposition to reposition, allowing you to swing momentum in your favor. Even Heal Bell + ZardX teams require a multitude of conditions to be met to allow safe entry of ZardX to function as a Stallbreaker while simultaneously being at odds with the rest of the metagame. All of these fail to properly answer Manaphy in the long term without prolonged sequences of correct turns because of its resilience. The Rest that is the so-called “differentiating factor” that also happens to pair with a mon that combines status-immunity and immediate wake up with Hydration, backed by bulk and defensive profile of mono-Water typing, all in tandem with the fastest snowballing setup move with no-drawback and the efficacy of the weather setter with arguably the lowest skill cap in the game.
A lot of arguments in defense of preserving Manaphy seem to isolate it as an individual threat without consideration of the context how polarizing it is as a threat as a cog on RAIN. And not just as a Rain threat, but as a blight on the builder within an already constrictive offensive metagame. We are not talking about +3 Manaphy and its ridiculous calcs as an individual threat, but how it meshes within the core of MPert, Gren and its supporting cast. I think it is very understated at how capable Rain is at bricking defensive counterplay by virtue of the presence of Manaphy alone. So what happens when the Rocks you need to check the Taunt Tornadus that otherwise cycles your defensive core happens to be on the “small subset of mons that Manaphy can enter on”, because role compression requires running Rocks on your Heatran? And what about the required entry into Toxapex on a Greninja that otherwise would tear you apart once transformed into Ash-Gren? What about that turn where you have to go Slowbro to prevent Pert from taking one? What happens if Leftovers got knocked off of Gastrodon because you guessed the Pelipper's set wrong? What happens if MLati isn't at full when it comes in on a +3 Manaphy? These are turns Manaphy and its teammates will generate constantly throughout the entire game's duration.
We are in a metagame where a large percentage of players option-select Rain as a catch-all to deal with the variety of offensive structures in the tier. Even if its usage or winrate isn't emblematic of a broken mon on the surface, the ramifications are palpable. Most defensive mons in the metagame HAVE to run specialized sets to deal with Manaphy, often at the cost of otherwise superior utility options that would otherwise fare better into the top threats of the metagame. It is in my opinion that the polarizing nature of Manaphy's in the builder alone, let alone its extensive applications beyond the Fat matchup (again, check its defensive calcs and how it matches up into top HO threats and the efficacy in which it is able to force KOs on key threats) are that indicative of an unhealthy presence in SM. I think banning Manaphy would allow players to have the flexibility necessary to handle the offensive onslaught of the current metagame while still maintaining the beneficial anti-cheese properties of Rain, without being as intrusive as a Serp or Drizzle ban, therefore allowing players to adjust for subsequent tiering action and creating a healthier metagame in the process.
Suspect Manaphy.
(Sorry for the grammatical errors or if I missed anything important, it is currently 1:27 AM and this is about as much text as I am willing to dump while buzzed. Now I am gonna go enjoy the rest of my vacation. Peace.)
Last edited:
