-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Stealth Rock in the OU Metagame
- Thread starter Evil Hamster
- Start date
IMO, that doesn't exactly work the same way as Ranevski's argument, since Stealth Rock doesn't care which two Pokemon are out/what you're planning to switch in. My point being that it would be a more correct analogy if (for example, bear with me here) Stealth Rock only damaged Pokemon when the Pokemon that laid the rocks was currently on the field. But that's not how it works.
*resumes lurking*
*resumes lurking*
Everything is just "an addition to the metagame". Some of these additions are broken and banned, but until the point where we ban Stealth Rock, none of the things so far being labeled as "the right choice" are actually the right choice at all. It's a weak argument.
The clarification you're using here could be applied to Spikes just as easily as Stealth Rock. Perhaps I could switch my Expert Belt Deoxys-E in on one of your attacks, live and sweep your team... but oh, you had one layer of Spikes on the field and my Deoxys died instead.
Now, while Spikes don't affect all Pokemon and they take longer to set up to their maximum potential, one layer of them can still restrict my ability to switch freely - to make "right choices" - in exactly the same way Stealth Rock stops you switching in your Charizard willy-nilly.
If "restricting your ability to switch" can be applied to all the entry hazards (and weather!) and "It punishes me for making the right choices" is wrong, then that particular argument isn't valid. Arguments focused on SR limiting usable Pokemon in a variety of ways/SR keeping certain Pokemon in check are for more convincing.
Look at my argument for how recovery isnt that useful to the user who posted that it was, also it makes it into the wrong choice, because suddenly gyarados isnt a safe heracross counter, as you lost a shitload of you're health just switching into a move, you should have taken pity damage from, it also limits you're switch ins etc, also get that stupid earthquake argument out of here it doesnt apply here at all.
No, it doesn't. It is the wrong choice, there's no "makes it into the wrong choice" about it. If you're not factoring SR in to your choices - which you should be, given that right now it's a valid part of the metagame - then they're not the right choices at all. You can't just say "Switching Gyarados into Heracross should always be a good choice" even though other factors in the game mean it isn't a good choice, and I don't know why anyone would think their own opinion of what should be able to switch in to what is an even remotely valid argument for banning something. If Gyarados can't stand up to SR and Hera's Close Combat, then Gyarados isn't a solid Heracross counter and unless we ever do ban Stealth Rock, simply stating that it "should" be a Heracross counter is entirely hollow.
SubVersion, you're taking what I'm saying out of context (which is understandable at the size of this thread.)
First and foremost I have stated that I don't think banning SR is the solution. Secondly you just reached the crux of what I (along with some others) have been saying over and over. We're not saying it's bad that it prevents switching. We're not saying that it's bad that it changes the way you play a bit or a lot. Most people are focusing on the fact that it's ease (one turn setup then affects every switch each turn) along with it's blatant type discrimination 25-50% dmg on switch in) is what makes it over-centralizing.
You don't have to agree with what I'm saying but at the moment you're arguing against statements we're not trying to make :S.
Again I think that SR is a problem but I think that banning it isn't really a good option.
First and foremost I have stated that I don't think banning SR is the solution. Secondly you just reached the crux of what I (along with some others) have been saying over and over. We're not saying it's bad that it prevents switching. We're not saying that it's bad that it changes the way you play a bit or a lot. Most people are focusing on the fact that it's ease (one turn setup then affects every switch each turn) along with it's blatant type discrimination 25-50% dmg on switch in) is what makes it over-centralizing.
You don't have to agree with what I'm saying but at the moment you're arguing against statements we're not trying to make :S.
Again I think that SR is a problem but I think that banning it isn't really a good option.
I don't see how you weren't making that statement when you said "Being punished for making the right choice does not a competitive metagame make". All I'm pointing out is that the "right choices" you claim you're being punished for are not actually the right choices at all.
Perhaps in a theoretical future metagame where Stealth Rock is banned these would be the right choices, but in this metagame they're not, hence why you're being punished for them in the same way you'd be punished for making any other poor decision in a battle.
Please don't tell me I'm "arguing against statements we're not trying to make" when that is completely untrue and you know it. No amount of context makes the quote above any more valid.
Perhaps in a theoretical future metagame where Stealth Rock is banned these would be the right choices, but in this metagame they're not, hence why you're being punished for them in the same way you'd be punished for making any other poor decision in a battle.
Please don't tell me I'm "arguing against statements we're not trying to make" when that is completely untrue and you know it. No amount of context makes the quote above any more valid.
You're making sense, SubVersion, but you have to admit that such a tried and true gaming mechanic such as SWITCHING OUT is hard to outright label as "wrong!" Yes, there is the weighing of options and risk/reward to consider, but before Stealth Rock I don't believe it was ever such a universally difficult task.
Yes, Spikes were there -- Toxic Spikes follow closely in their footsteps in that both aren't terribly easy to fully set up. They seem to be a more "balanced" threat in that they can be more reasonably neutralized by Rapid Spin.
Just like Garchomp doesn't have a tried and true solution and thus causes a lot of centralization, so does Stealth Rock, since there is no true response to it. Rapid Spin still works, sure, but just like Garchomp, scaring it away is not the same as dealing with it for real. Granted, Garchomp poses a much more substantial threat in general.
Call me butthurt over the rock-weak Pokemon getting shafted, and you wouldn't be too far off. But can you blame me?
I play around the rocks like everyone else, but I'd like it if I didn't have to.
Yes, Spikes were there -- Toxic Spikes follow closely in their footsteps in that both aren't terribly easy to fully set up. They seem to be a more "balanced" threat in that they can be more reasonably neutralized by Rapid Spin.
Just like Garchomp doesn't have a tried and true solution and thus causes a lot of centralization, so does Stealth Rock, since there is no true response to it. Rapid Spin still works, sure, but just like Garchomp, scaring it away is not the same as dealing with it for real. Granted, Garchomp poses a much more substantial threat in general.
Call me butthurt over the rock-weak Pokemon getting shafted, and you wouldn't be too far off. But can you blame me?
I play around the rocks like everyone else, but I'd like it if I didn't have to.
A lot of things make switching out to certain Pokemon "wrong", though. I'd argue that if you're switching Gyarados in on Stealth Rock + Heracross CC, then it isn't the act of switching that's wrong, it's the Pokemon you brought in.
The only time switching out against Stealth Rock is "wrong" in and of itself is if the Pokemon you're switching out/switching in cannot enter the field without dying to it (ie. switching a 20% Weavile out with SR on your side of the field, or switching in a 20% Gyarados on SR), but again, the same thing could be said (albeit to a lesser extent) for Spikes/Toxic Spikes/Sandstorm/Hail, and also, that argument is more in line with the whole "SR makes certain Pokemon unplayable" argument than it is with the "I'm being punished for making the right choice" argument. And really, the only thing I've been saying since my first post in this topic is that these are, in fact, not the right choices. Nothing else.
As ANinyMouse said, when we say "being punished for making the right choice" we meant "what should still be the right choice" in our opinion.
As I said you don't have to agree with us. It's your prerogative to think it's a helpful addition no different than any other. But likewise it's my prerogative to state my own opinion.
Again my point is: I do not believe that something as switching in and out to solve bad match-ups should be taken away by a biased-effective one turn setup with permanent effect and little in the way of practical counters.
EDIT: Just saw your most recent post; Things like Roar play with switching things in and out. Spikes/TSikes also. Non of these to the level of power that SR does though, which is where my beef lies. It's not the sole fact that it messes with the switching mechanic. It's the 'biased, perma-based, few-pokes-with-rapid-spin, best-to-play-pokes-with-rock-resist'-way it does it.
As I said you don't have to agree with us. It's your prerogative to think it's a helpful addition no different than any other. But likewise it's my prerogative to state my own opinion.
Again my point is: I do not believe that something as switching in and out to solve bad match-ups should be taken away by a biased-effective one turn setup with permanent effect and little in the way of practical counters.
EDIT: Just saw your most recent post; Things like Roar play with switching things in and out. Spikes/TSikes also. Non of these to the level of power that SR does though, which is where my beef lies. It's not the sole fact that it messes with the switching mechanic. It's the 'biased, perma-based, few-pokes-with-rapid-spin, best-to-play-pokes-with-rock-resist'-way it does it.
What metric can you possibly use to decide what is the "right choice" other than what actually is the right choice?
I mean, perhaps you'd like to switch a pokemon weak to ground into a common Earthquake user. Perhaps to you, intuitively, this seems like the right choice. Perhaps we should ban Earthquake to facilitate that choice. Or perhaps we should just accept that your choice is not, in fact, the right choice.
I mean, perhaps you'd like to switch a pokemon weak to ground into a common Earthquake user. Perhaps to you, intuitively, this seems like the right choice. Perhaps we should ban Earthquake to facilitate that choice. Or perhaps we should just accept that your choice is not, in fact, the right choice.
It's not about what is the right choice. It's about what should be the right chioce. There was a time when it was the right choice. He is clearly stating a preference for the way that it was before SR. Just because something has changed, doesn't mean that the change is for the best. Do any of you really believe he switches his pokemon into SR KO's because it used to be the right choice? I'm sure that he plays this metagame appropriately, but would prefer some sort of change or elimination of SR.
"Bingo" was his name-o.
Why exactly should people who play the game the way it was designed be punished because of Ranevski's personal opinion? Why should anything besides "Stealth Rock is harmful towards the metagame, here's why" be considered a valid argument in any way whatsoever? That is what SubVersion seems to be getting at: I don't personally agree with the arguments that Stealth Rock should be banned because it centralizes the metagame, but at least those arguments mean something.
I didn't address anything about valid arguments. Although, he did say why he felt that SR was harmful. I just couldn't understand why there was so much conversation about what is actually the right choice, when it was clear that he had only stated a preference.
Currently, I say that if it is a choice between ban SR or not, it's a mandatory choice. SR is the only entry hazard for nongrounded pokemon, it has to stay. If possible, I would reduce 50% damage to 25. Since that is almost certainly never going to happen, I say SR must stay.
And I've been explaining why this is wrong since I started posting in this topic. Who are you - or anyone else, for that matter - to decide what should or should not be "the right choice"? Because what "should" be the right choice in your opinion is something you've dreamed up entirely based off of a currently non-existent form of the metagame. The fact is, in the metagame we have, with what Game Freak gave us, certain things are not "the right choice" in certain situations. It is ludicrous to suggest that some things "should" be the right choice, when clearly - right now - they're not. And that's what I've been saying since the start; If you want a metagame where your Gyarados can always counter Heracross then that's great, but it's no more valid than me wanting the metagame to somehow change so I can counter Garchomp with my Weavile. Nothing "should" be the right choice if the in-game mechanics make it absolutely not so, and if it's your opinion that certain things should counter other things even though they don't... Well like I said originally, that's a very weak argument.
FastHippo said:
So what? There was a time when Blissey walled every special attacker in the game without breaking a sweat, so are you honestly telling me that switching Blissey in on, say, NP/Aura Sphere Togekiss "should" be the right choice because it used to be that way? Even if I prefered the metagame "that way", is it a valid reason now for me to campaign for the banning of NP/Aura Sphere Togekiss? No.
The crux of everything I've been saying is: These are not the right choices, and "should" not be the right choices. They may become the right choices in a future metagame where SR is banned, but right now they're not and saying they should be is a hollow statement. It just isn't a legitimate anti-SR argument.
Of course it is legitimate. The NFL had instant replay. They got rid of it. They brought it back. Why? Because, they decided that their game was better with it than without. If someone prefers playing without SR over with it, that is a legitimate argument. You don't have to find it persuasive, but it is legit. After all of the "valid arguments", isn't that what it boils down to, preference? Don't you prefer having SR over not having it?
No. Just... no.
You can't just say "In the game of Pokemon, Gyarados should always counter Heracross", when that is clearly not the case. You cannot use this to seriously argue that Stealth Rock is having an adverse effect on the metagame. One single person's opinion on what they like/dislike is not a valid argument under any circumstances. Sure, prove Stealth Rock makes too many Pokemon non-viable. Prove that it limits strategies, play styles, or whatever. But don't use "I don't like it" as your argument because it's a worthless one. I don't like Blissey, shall we consider banning her?
It does not boil down to preference. It boils down to whether Stealth Rock has an adverse effect on the metagame. If it does, it may be banned. It will not be banned just because some people think X should counter Y for no apparent reason other than "in my mind, it should".
Wow okay, this is kinda getting ridiculous. If we really need to spell out what some of us are trying to say that much I guess I have to because you clearly still aren't getting it.
Leading off with this because it is a clear example of where I am coming from. If I lose you with anything I say refer back to the above.
I think this is taking things way too far. You're trying to say that I have no way of scientifically measuring whether something makes SR broken/unbroken and you're absolutely right, of course I don't. If I had one, we'd all have one, and there would be no need for discussion. Using the Eq is example because is way overboard. I don't think comparing that to say, switching in a flyer to take a fighting move, is anywhere near fair. You don't know me but I can tell you I'm not a complete retard that thinks EQ is unfair because it nullifies my Heatran as a 'counter' to ground moves. Can we please not bother with these asinine examples, it just clutters the thread.
All I'm saying is that in my experience, for reasons I have repeatedly said (ease of use, difficulty to remove, biased effect, perma-duration, etc) I believe SR to be overpowered.
They are the same argument. Why you think we're trying to say anything different is beyond me. Noone is saying "Stealth Rock should be banned because I don't like it and that's my personal feeling". Everyone's argument against it is precisely "Stealth Rock is harmful to the metagame and I think it's because <insert personal crutch>". Mine is that I think by having a move (of which it is the only form) that punishes certain types, but not others, unbalances the nature of the type against type metagame. I think it does this so much so that combined with it's ease to setup, permanent duration, and difficulty/sacrifice to remove over-centralizes the metagame to the point where it is not healthy for it.
I find it (honestly) truly amazing that you can so adamantly argue using certain tools without seeing their counter-argument. Firstly can we for the love of all that is good please stop saying things 'shouldn't be banned for simply for preference'. I don't honestly believe anyone who bothers to post on Smogon is naive enough to think that 'posting an opinion based entirely on preference with no tie logic at all' is a good idea.
In the same vein can we drop the batshit-retarded argument of 'who is this guy/who are you to make that call'. Please go back and quote where I have ever said anything as obnoxious as an "I am the world and we should do things my way I am not open to discussion on this because I am me and therefor right" attitude. I am nobody. I am just 1 one of many people who play the game of pokemon. My opinion is not worth any more than any other users on Smogon. I am stating my reason(s) for my thoughts and feelings. This is a discussion board. I could post "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?!" at every single post. I don't because it's unproductive. I assume along with the practically everyone else, that the person stating their opinion understands that it is their sole opinion, one of many, being thrown out into the world. Its purpose is to promote discussion and feedback of said view, hopefully by people specifically with other views, in the attempt to gain more knowledge. Please can we let go of the "that isn't your call to make" banter. I know that. I'm fairly sure that everyone on Smogon knows that. That is the entire reason that we have forums.
Do not say deal with it because it's a metagame shift and it's happened. Do not say Swapping ina a flying type to take a fighting move is now a bad choice because SR is down and that's that. By that insane logic we should all pack Mewtwo. Kyogre and friends annihilate the vast majority of the cast, but they were added, so deal with it. I cannot stand (or understand) some of these ridiculously close-minded statements about 'SR makes swapping Gy a bad option now. Let's not discuss this further. Let us not intelligently debate the pro's and con's of this. Let us just accept it for what it is and deal with it. Rocks hurt. Don't swap in anything that get's hurt by it. Deal with it.' I think we all know Rock's hurt Flying and Fire types. I think we all use them less because of this. I don't think anyone is stubbornly still swapping them in and out often 'hoping' that they don't take the damage. We are discussing whether the current metagame, influenced largely by SR, is healthier than a game without it.
I am not saying SR shouldn't hurt flyers because "In my deranged mind, it shouldn't. I'm not trying to argue that "Steel/Fire types should be able to come in on EQ and not take quad damage." I am not stating SR is detrimental for no reason other than "the personal vibe I receive from it".
I am saying that I think SR is too (discriminately) powerful. So much so that it plays with the (previously) underlying mechanics of the game, in such an adverse way that I do not see it as progression and rather see it stifling our options.
DISCLAIMER: In case the above has not made it clear, do not respond to this with "it changes the metagame deal with it". Please give reasons about why it does so in a non-detrimental way! Some of the earlier examples, namely the ones about it keeping certain things from running rampart, are the intelligent discussion this thread so badly needs back. Saying the pro's outweigh the cons is good! Saying that you don't see the cons as cons for <insert logical reason> is good! And in case you all missed it the first 3 times - I am against banning SR. I think that it is a powerful issue which hurts the current metagame, but I do not see banning it as the right option to take.
Leading off with this because it is a clear example of where I am coming from. If I lose you with anything I say refer back to the above.
I think this is taking things way too far. You're trying to say that I have no way of scientifically measuring whether something makes SR broken/unbroken and you're absolutely right, of course I don't. If I had one, we'd all have one, and there would be no need for discussion. Using the Eq is example because is way overboard. I don't think comparing that to say, switching in a flyer to take a fighting move, is anywhere near fair. You don't know me but I can tell you I'm not a complete retard that thinks EQ is unfair because it nullifies my Heatran as a 'counter' to ground moves. Can we please not bother with these asinine examples, it just clutters the thread.
All I'm saying is that in my experience, for reasons I have repeatedly said (ease of use, difficulty to remove, biased effect, perma-duration, etc) I believe SR to be overpowered.
They are the same argument. Why you think we're trying to say anything different is beyond me. Noone is saying "Stealth Rock should be banned because I don't like it and that's my personal feeling". Everyone's argument against it is precisely "Stealth Rock is harmful to the metagame and I think it's because <insert personal crutch>". Mine is that I think by having a move (of which it is the only form) that punishes certain types, but not others, unbalances the nature of the type against type metagame. I think it does this so much so that combined with it's ease to setup, permanent duration, and difficulty/sacrifice to remove over-centralizes the metagame to the point where it is not healthy for it.
I find it (honestly) truly amazing that you can so adamantly argue using certain tools without seeing their counter-argument. Firstly can we for the love of all that is good please stop saying things 'shouldn't be banned for simply for preference'. I don't honestly believe anyone who bothers to post on Smogon is naive enough to think that 'posting an opinion based entirely on preference with no tie logic at all' is a good idea.
In the same vein can we drop the batshit-retarded argument of 'who is this guy/who are you to make that call'. Please go back and quote where I have ever said anything as obnoxious as an "I am the world and we should do things my way I am not open to discussion on this because I am me and therefor right" attitude. I am nobody. I am just 1 one of many people who play the game of pokemon. My opinion is not worth any more than any other users on Smogon. I am stating my reason(s) for my thoughts and feelings. This is a discussion board. I could post "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?!" at every single post. I don't because it's unproductive. I assume along with the practically everyone else, that the person stating their opinion understands that it is their sole opinion, one of many, being thrown out into the world. Its purpose is to promote discussion and feedback of said view, hopefully by people specifically with other views, in the attempt to gain more knowledge. Please can we let go of the "that isn't your call to make" banter. I know that. I'm fairly sure that everyone on Smogon knows that. That is the entire reason that we have forums.
Do not say deal with it because it's a metagame shift and it's happened. Do not say Swapping ina a flying type to take a fighting move is now a bad choice because SR is down and that's that. By that insane logic we should all pack Mewtwo. Kyogre and friends annihilate the vast majority of the cast, but they were added, so deal with it. I cannot stand (or understand) some of these ridiculously close-minded statements about 'SR makes swapping Gy a bad option now. Let's not discuss this further. Let us not intelligently debate the pro's and con's of this. Let us just accept it for what it is and deal with it. Rocks hurt. Don't swap in anything that get's hurt by it. Deal with it.' I think we all know Rock's hurt Flying and Fire types. I think we all use them less because of this. I don't think anyone is stubbornly still swapping them in and out often 'hoping' that they don't take the damage. We are discussing whether the current metagame, influenced largely by SR, is healthier than a game without it.
I am not saying SR shouldn't hurt flyers because "In my deranged mind, it shouldn't. I'm not trying to argue that "Steel/Fire types should be able to come in on EQ and not take quad damage." I am not stating SR is detrimental for no reason other than "the personal vibe I receive from it".
I am saying that I think SR is too (discriminately) powerful. So much so that it plays with the (previously) underlying mechanics of the game, in such an adverse way that I do not see it as progression and rather see it stifling our options.
DISCLAIMER: In case the above has not made it clear, do not respond to this with "it changes the metagame deal with it". Please give reasons about why it does so in a non-detrimental way! Some of the earlier examples, namely the ones about it keeping certain things from running rampart, are the intelligent discussion this thread so badly needs back. Saying the pro's outweigh the cons is good! Saying that you don't see the cons as cons for <insert logical reason> is good! And in case you all missed it the first 3 times - I am against banning SR. I think that it is a powerful issue which hurts the current metagame, but I do not see banning it as the right option to take.
The biggest problem of SR isn't the type discrimination; Flying deserves punishment for being immune to the other entry hazards and very few, if any, pokémon of the other types would see any significant increase in use without SR in the metagame. It's not the single-turn setup -- Spikes does the same damage with one turn of setup, albeit SR does about the same "average" as two layers accounting for weaknesses/resists, and regular Poison deals equal-or-better damage to Toxic over the first three turns anyway.
The big deal with SR is... everything and their mother ****ing learns it! Spikes and TSpikes both belong to a fairly exclusive group of pokémon, as much as its primary counter in Rapid Spin is exclusive. Stealth Rock is a TM learned by every Rock, Ground, Steel pokémon around and a slew of other random crap like uber (Celebi), Blissey, and Deoxys too. SR is so effortless to set up that why shouldn't everyone use it? SR takes up one moveslot on the zillions of things that learn it, to use Spikes or TSpikes requires taking up one team slot choosing from the five or so viable OU pokémon that learn one of them.
And SubVersion is a smart dude.
Toxic Spikes are plenty potent enough with just one layer, if anything what makes them a lesser threat is the ability to instantly remove them with a [grounded] Poison-type rather than only Rapid Spin. That said, grounded Poisons in standard play aren't very common.
The big deal with SR is... everything and their mother ****ing learns it! Spikes and TSpikes both belong to a fairly exclusive group of pokémon, as much as its primary counter in Rapid Spin is exclusive. Stealth Rock is a TM learned by every Rock, Ground, Steel pokémon around and a slew of other random crap like uber (Celebi), Blissey, and Deoxys too. SR is so effortless to set up that why shouldn't everyone use it? SR takes up one moveslot on the zillions of things that learn it, to use Spikes or TSpikes requires taking up one team slot choosing from the five or so viable OU pokémon that learn one of them.
And SubVersion is a smart dude.
Toxic Spikes are plenty potent enough with just one layer, if anything what makes them a lesser threat is the ability to instantly remove them with a [grounded] Poison-type rather than only Rapid Spin. That said, grounded Poisons in standard play aren't very common.
Yes, umbarsc, but now the question becomes: "How many good options are we willing to remove before the game is no longer enjoyable or competitive". If a game boils down to making choices that hurt you either way, it is neither enjoyable nor very competitive (especially in a game of information management like Pokemon where lots of things are hidden to the player). If you are making choices early on that will always force you to lose while there is still a ton of unknown data, it turns everything into a random guessing match where actual skill in the game can be undermined because there is no "best move", only "bad moves". Even an unskilled player can win when every move is a "bad move".
The answer, quite simply, is to factor Stealth Rock when building a team. Have some other way of dealing with Heracross other than a Pokemon that lacks recovery and takes 25% when switching in automatically.
This may or may not cause centralization (the team-building aspect), but does it cause too much centralization?
This may or may not cause centralization (the team-building aspect), but does it cause too much centralization?
It absolutely centralizes, as the tired Gyrarados-countering-Heracross example shows. With Stealth Rock, your options for counters to certain types of threats are vastly limited. This is a fact.
No, good sir, the question is much more simple.
There is centralization. Is it enough to consider a Stealth Rock clause?
We should be testing this instead of wasting time.
No, good sir, the question is much more simple.
There is centralization. Is it enough to consider a Stealth Rock clause?
We should be testing this instead of wasting time.
No, we should be deciding whether or not the centralization it causes is a bad thing, ie, "is the current metagame too centralized?" If we decide that it isn't, then there is no problem and therefore no need for testing of any kind. If we decide that it is, then we have to choose a culprit that both a) certainly causes centralization of some kind, and b) would allow us to best preserve the manner in which we play the game strategically, assuming we were to ban it. Then we would go through all of the obvious testing phases on whatever that culprit is decided to be, and if we end up banning it, the problem should be solved and nothing else would need to be banned.
Basically what I'm saying is, Stealth Rock may or may not fulfill my "requirement a" listed above. I mean, on the one hand, some people hate that you can no longer switch Gyarados into Heracross or whatever, and some pokemon would become a lot more viable without Stealth Rock bothering them. But the fact still remains that Stealth Rock also brings a lot of options to the table as well, for instance, a "sweeper offense" team can be built to take full advantage of Stealth Rock with an Azelf/Aero lead instead of trying to do as much damage as possible from turn one. But that's besides the point, because even if I were to argue that it didn't centralize, everyone would just scream "well that's what the testing is for!" which I agree with.
My point is that Stealth Rock could never hope to fulfill "requirement b" and so therefore there is no reason to even consider testing, let alone banning Stealth Rock. With everyone saying how influential Stealth Rock is on the game (without actually giving any non-centralization-related arguments as to how that's a bad thing), you are basically admitting that removing Stealth Rock would rape the game as we know it, hard. "Well that's just the price we have to pay for decentralization," yeah sure, if the game right now is too centralized then that's a kind of valid line of reasoning. But right now we're looking at a metagame where Garchomp is present, has statistics backing up his centralization of the metagame, and where banning him won't cause a shakeup any worse than "a more defensive metagame" or "Salamence, Gyarados and Lucario will take his place," as many have argued. If banning Garchomp both solves the problem and keeps the metagame intact, why should we even be looking at Stealth Rock?