Stealth Rock in the OU Metagame

[ANinyMouse]

I hear you; your argument was well organized and well articulated. However, you do tend to get ahead of yourself.

You've brought Garchomp back into the argument! On top of if, you offer a double hypothetical situation.

IF Garchomp is banned AND IF that makes everything "perfect" then whoop-de-doo. See, thing is, if you get rid of Garchomp, the outcome of that action is easily predicted, and there are no apparent negative consequences, as the niche Garchomp fills himself is not very unique.

There is nothing like Stealth Rock.
There is nothing to take it's place.
Whether or not Garchomp stays in Standard play has NO BEARING on the consequences of this move.

Please stay on topic and realize that there is more than ONE potential issue with today's metagame that could use some attention.

 

[SubVersion]

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.

Ignoring for a moment that you chose to assume I'm a moron instead of, you know, actually refuting what I've been saying, I've already responded in full to that particular post of FastHippo's and pointed out why the reasoning is flawed. If you're going to use this as your opening statement then perhaps it would be wise to try explaining why it isn't as flawed as I (and Blame Game) made it out to be.

They are the same argument. Why you think we're trying to say anything different is beyond me.

Perhaps he got that idea from the multiple points in this thread where you've illustrated an as-of-yet unexplained belief that certain things "should" counter other things, or the couple of times you've mentioned "I'm being punished for making the right choice" which I'm not going to directly quote again.

Regardless of that, they most certainly are not the same argument. How can you honestly say that "Stealth Rock should be banned because it centralizes the metagame" and "Stealth Rock is broken because I can't use some things to counter other things anymore" are the same argument? Just because Gyarados can't reliably counter Heracross now doesn't suggest any form of centralization on its own. Likewise, saying that Gyarados "should" counter Heracross is merely an expression of personal opinion and not an argument relating to whether or not SR actually does centralize.

I can't get over the "Why you think we're trying to say anything different is beyond me" statement, because you're absolutely saying something different all over the thread and I could quote several instances where you've been arguing a different premise to the one you claim you're arguing here (even though you're actually not).

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.

Then why post stuff like "Being punished for making the right choice does not a competitive metagame make" or "when we say "being punished for making the right choice" we meant "what should still be the right choice" in our opinion" when neither of these statements have any logical backing? You certainly haven't demonstrated any particular reason why Gyarados "should" counter Heracross other than your own preference.

In the same vein can we drop the batshit-retarded argument of 'who is this guy/who are you to make that call'.

I'd like to ask the exact same thing of you. You cannot honestly use an argument "I, Ravenski, think Gyarados should counter Heracross, therefore Stealth Rock is broken" as any sort of legitimate argument. Using it suggests that your own personal preference matters in the grand scheme of things, when really, no individual's does. You need more legitimate reasoning than personal preference and so far, with regards to the "right choice" argument, you haven't provided any.

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.

But in the current form of our metagame, it is a bad choice and oh my God how can you not have understood this yet. Yes, we may find that Stealth Rock is broken and ban it. In that future metagame, this will become a better choice. But to try and say that it "should" be the right choice in the current metagame is completely flawed because it isn't. Saying it "should" be the right choice and using that as a reason to ban it (or whatever you want to do with it) seems to be completely ignoring the part where we decide whether Stealth Rock is actually broken in the first place. If we find it isn't broken, then yes, "that's that" and "deal with it". If it is, then you're in luck. But whether or not it's broken is completely independent of the fact that you - or anyone else - thinks something "should" be able to counter something else in their own ideal version of the metagame.

I do not see banning it as the right option to take.

Since you're chomping at the bit for "intelligent" discussion (believe me, I'm looking for the same thing), perhaps you'd like to explain any way to make these things into "the right choice" without banning Stealth Rock? As long as SR is around Gyarados is never a foolproof counter to Hera (he isn't anyway thanks to Stone Edge but I guess we can all ignore that for convenience), in which case it is never "the right choice", in which case I don't know why you originally said that it should be.

 

[ANinyMouse]

Perhaps he got that idea from the multiple points in this thread where you've illustrated an as-of-yet unexplained belief that certain things "should" counter other things, or the couple of times you've mentioned "I'm being punished for making the right choice" which I'm not going to directly quote again.

Pokemon should counter other Pokemon in general. If they cease to be able to, that Pokemon is banned.

No one else thinks Gyarados "should" counter Heracross, okay? At best it was a scarecrow to illustrate a point. At least, then I guess Ravenski thinks Gyarados should counter Heracross. And? Why do you take so much time and effort to rip him a new sphincter over such trivial matters?

This thread is to discuss Stealth Rock, not to endlessly go back and forth at each other's throats like dogs.

THIS is why I advocate the expediting of a testing period for a SR-less metagame: because it's blanketing effect on not only OU, but ALL of Pokemon, seems impossible to quantify AND, increasingly, to debate over. Some have argued that removing SR could help to balance Garchomp somewhat, yet how will we know unless action is taken?

Let's say two people on Shoddy might agree to quit using SR, for instance, and proceed to log all their battles together. They might find some interesting things, but since it's just two players, it isn't a clear-cut enough example of the metagame.





...Look, Smogon has a reputation among the ignorant for being "overly complicated" as it is. I see these TERRIBLE eye sore "Battle Leagues" popping up even yet all over blogs and YouTube and DeviantArt and Serebii forums... these people usually allow Double Team, OHKO and Wobbuffet, banning only "legendaries" and utilizing only Sleep, Self-KO (maybe), Species and (ugh) Item clauses. These people outnumber us easily. The sad thing is, they follow the cartridge closer than we do. And yet, that does not deter us. Sure, there's been discussions on testing out "their" metagame and re-balancing everything, but I can't say I'm a fan.

I like the way Smogon does things and I always have. In the end, I believe the game in it's raw state is flawed and not very diverse in a top-level competitive metagame. Most here do. That's why Deoxys-S is speeding his skinny ass all over Shoddy, Why Wobb isn't, and why I want Stealth Rock tested. When D/P increased the offensive capabilities of most things, things in turn seemed to (almost) even out... I don't know about you, but except for Garchomp, everything else seems to be running a lot smoother than in Advance, TO ME. I think it could get better, is all. I want to make sure we're not missing out on something.

 

[lilyhollow]

Whether or not Garchomp stays in Standard play has NO BEARING on the consequences of this move.

I disagree. Every single argument supporting a ban on Stealth Rock has boiled down to Centralization. We're not talking about Garchomp and Stealth Rock causing two different problems in the metagame here, we're talking about both of them contributing to the same problem. If Garchomp decentralizes the game enough so that we're happy, then there is no reason to look twice at Stealth Rock anymore because there have been no valid arguments that have been saying anything besides "Stealth Rock centralizes the metagame." "Stealth Rock is easy to set up"? That only becomes a valid argument when "which centralizes the metagame" comes after it. Same with "You can't remove it with Rapid Spin" and "it makes certain choices into wrong choices." Literally every argument I have seen so far has boiled down to "centralization," nothing more. Therefore, if banning Garchomp removes all of the problems that ban-supporters think he causes, he will also remove every reason to ban Stealth Rock.

If banning Garchomp doesn't fix our problems, then that's another story entirely. At that point I guess we would be justified in looking into a Stealth Rock test (to be honest, even then I would be highly skeptical, but whatever). So for now you can just look at my argument as "we need to test Garchomp first because if we do end up banning it, banning Stealth Rock will probably no longer be necessary."

 

[Ranevski]

Okay Sub, I'm not going to derail this thread with anymore crap. I don't mean this as a cop out, but you are free to see it that way. For the record I'd just like to state a few things and you can interpret them however you wish;

* I never actually thought of you as a moron, a lot of my last post wasn't actually directed at you. Some points indeed were, and yes some of them were me being perplexed at your train of thought, but honestly the majority of the most wasn't actually in regards to yours arguments.
* As AninyMouse said, get over the Gyra-Hera thing. I didn't even start it. It was a loose example. I don't get why you're riding this so hard. It's hardly the crux of the argument. I made a shadow tag example too. Why aren't you riding that?
* I do not mean this in a derogatory way, honest. But I assumed that you would draw the correlation between me saying "is the right choice" for such and such reasons of logic not feeling to "should be the right choice as it used to be and SR is the only thing in it's way" for such and such reasons of logic and not feeling. I think if you read back over the thread you will admit to yourself that you have done a lot of nitpicking over nuances which do not matter.
* The reason I haven't announced any other path of action is because I can't think of one. In the odd moments of my day be it on the train of where ever that pokemon pops into my head, I have struggled to think of any 'good' idea to address Garchomp and SR abundance, and the shrinking OU list. If I do come up with something I promise you'll I'll let you know. This is the exact reason why I'm against banning SR, and also keener to letting Dewless Latios down instead of banning Chomp. The reason I posted in this thread was to contribute my opinion that i think SR is clearly a derogatory factor to the metagame, but do not think that banning it (and letting loose the threats that it does keep down) is a good path to take.

Umbarsc understood my post fine, along with jr and everyone else. The thread moves on. My stance is not complex, I think you are just being nitpicky. I do not think of you as a moron, rather I just think that perhaps you have gotten a little too wrapped up in a word war and forgotten about the topic at hand. If you do not understand my point of view and really do wish to, I'm open to a discussion over PM's.


ANinyMouse; I tend to agree with everything you said in regards to Blame Game, however I think you are a tad amiss about Garchomp having no direct link. Is Garchomp the sole determining factor over whether SR is broken or not? Of course not. However is his usage, as THE biggest outcome of the current metagame, a large factor that will clearly be in some way linked to something as metagame-affecting as SR? Definitely. With Chomp gone I am fairly sure that the centralization caused by SR will still exist. But with SR gone I think there is a chance that centralization caused by Chomp may be dulled. Hence if we do bother to test, I think testing SR ban before Chomp ban is a good idea.

Aside: I'd rather ban Chomp than SR if it came down to it and I had to pick one. Moving another poke to Ubers just seems a lot more 'understandable' than adding another clause. Imo, of course.

 

[SubVersion]

Pokemon should counter other Pokemon in general. If they cease to be able to, that Pokemon is banned.

That's not the case at all. If it were, Garchomp would have been banned ages ago because nothing in the game can switch in on it safely.

* As AninyMouse said, get over the Gyra-Hera thing.

Gyara-Hera is just a nice illustration of "the right choice" argument using actual Pokemon examples. All the arguments I aimed at this pair are general arguments against your "right choice" statements.

But I assumed that you would draw the correlation between me saying "is the right choice" for such and such reasons of logic not feeling to "should be the right choice as it used to be and SR is the only thing in it's way" for such and such reasons of logic and not feeling.

...what

Umbarsc understood my post fine, along with jr and everyone else. The thread moves on. My stance is not complex, I think you are just being nitpicky. I do not think of you as a moron, rather I just think that perhaps you have gotten a little too wrapped up in a word war and forgotten about the topic at hand.

I understand it perfectly fine as well (as you seem to be implying I don't) and that's why I'm arguing against it, because I think it's wrong. That is what forums are for, and it is still completely centered around the topic at hand: Stealth Rock. I'm not "forgetting about the topic at hand" because I'm attempting to demonstrate perceived fallacies in your response to said topic.

 

[ANinyMouse]

That's not the case at all. If it were, Garchomp would have been banned ages ago because nothing in the game can switch in on it safely.

Gee, wonder who's been up for review lately? I wonder what EVERY DAMN THREAD IN STARK always boils down to these days? I WONDER what Policy Review decided is the most pressing issue to look into? Garchomp is not something people JUST NOW figured out might be a problem.

You are starting to get ridiculous, and I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

ANinyMouse; I tend to agree with everything you said in regards to Blame Game, however I think you are a tad amiss about Garchomp having no direct link. Is Garchomp the sole determining factor over whether SR is broken or not? Of course not. However is his usage, as THE biggest outcome of the current metagame, a large factor that will clearly be in some way linked to something as metagame-affecting as SR? Definitely. With Chomp gone I am fairly sure that the centralization caused by SR will still exist. But with SR gone I think there is a chance that centralization caused by Chomp may be dulled. Hence if we do bother to test, I think testing SR ban before Chomp ban is a good idea.

I was being a bit presumptuous, yes, but I was attempting to drive home a point, at some cost. It was mainly in response to this:

If banning Garchomp both solves the problem and keeps the metagame intact, why should we even be looking at Stealth Rock?

Because I, personally, see Stealth Rock as more than just "will it fix Garchomp?" That's a nice bonus if it happens, sure. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not prepared to argue what the 100% outcome of withholding SR would be on our game. I don't think anyone can, really. I mean, aside from, say, Double Team, nothing else really effects all the tiers at once. For instance, it's been suggested that SR should definitely be banned in NU since there is no feasible way to remove it with Delibird being the ONLY spinner there. To me, that makes a ton of sense. OU, though, is the main concern, the main focus for us all first and foremost; it represents our best balanced tier, forever under a scrutinizing gaze.

Whether I'm right or wrong, who can say? Battles decide the outcome, not theorymon. Even so, with SR gone, things have more room to breathe defensively. This logically makes sense, as SR represents a nigh-omnipresent element of passive damage. I think... it's the fringe benefits that I'm interested in; the little shifts in power that might not be obvious. I wanna know exactly what is being held back by this move, and if it is needed, in addition to anything else that's being thrown around.

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't think we should test anything on the basis that "it could fix something... who knows, that's what the testing's for!" I'm not really sure what banning Blissey would fully entail, there certainly seems to be a lot of decentralization to be had, maybe we should test Blissey to see if the metagame shifts into something nice and balanced. Oh, and Gengar too, I'm not exactly sure what Gengar is holding back at all but it'd kill me to know that we were leaving this stone unturned when he could be holding the whole metagame back for all I know! Using your logic, wouldn't we basically have to test anything that looks even remotely suspicious, "just in case it fixes a problem we don't even know exists" or "might improve things, who knows"?


As for NU, once again, nobody has even tried to make an argument as to how "only Delibird can spin it" makes it inherently unhealthy for that metagame. Considering that a NU tier hasn't even been formed yet, I'm not going to take any of that even mildly seriously.

 

[swordmaster789]

Imo, Stealth Rocks balances the game more than it unbalances, for a variety of reasons:

1) It provides more incentive to use pokemon that are resistant to it or take less damage from it, in turn strengthing certain pokemon. It gives a reason to use Flygon over Salamence, for example. And it brings Charizard closer to Typhlosion's level, sorta. Flying types used to be immuse to these field effects, like spikes, and now, they're vulnerable too. Rapid spinners = more important.

2) It weakens overpowered pokemon. Gyarados is weakened by it, and though it is still easily OU, it certainly does make it easier to take down. Same for salamence, yanmega, etc.

3) While plenty of pokemon get it, not all do... Thus, it provides more utility to pokes that could use it.

Reasons why it should not be banned anyway:

1) The pokes that are not overpowered that are weakened by Stealth Rocks have received nice compensation for that imperfection. Bug types now have very nice stab attacks, like bug buzz and x-scizzor. Most flying types get Roost. Fire types get will-o-wisp to survive better.

2) Simply put, GameFreak put it in... ... Stealth rocks is one of the many new features put in D/P, and they wouldn't include the move for no reason. It's an extremely significant part of the game, and removing it changes it completely. Testing D/P without stealth rocks to simply see if the metagame is improved doesn't help much, since Stealth Rocks contributes to what D/P is.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[IggyBot]

Imo, Stealth Rocks balances the game more than it unbalances, for a variety of reasons:

1) It provides more incentive to use pokemon that are resistant to it or take less damage from it, in turn strengthing certain pokemon. It gives a reason to use Flygon over Salamence, for example. And it brings Charizard closer to Typhlosion's level, sorta. Flying types used to be immuse to these field effects, like spikes, and now, they're vulnerable too. Rapid spinners = more important.

Stealth Rock doesn't give me any reason to use Flygon over Salamence. Salamence has high attack, higher SpA, Intimidate, and a well full of usful resistances. I don't think about using pokemon resistant to Stealth Rock, but it sure is a great bonus when they do.

2) It weakens overpowered pokemon. Gyarados is weakened by it, and though it is still easily OU, it certainly does make it easier to take down. Same for salamence, yanmega, etc.

And it strengthens other all ready overpowered pokemon, such as Garchomp, Lucario, Infernape ect. That argument goes both ways and basically holds no ground. It's obvious that Stealth Rock's effects go in both directions.

3) While plenty of pokemon get it, not all do... Thus, it provides more utility to pokes that could use it.

It's not like these pokemon are usless if Stealth Rock were banned. Bronzong, Swampert, Celebi, Jirachi, any other "support" pokemon you can think of does quite a bit more than just set up Stealth Rock.

Reasons why it should not be banned anyway:

1) The pokes that are not overpowered that are weakened by Stealth Rocks have received nice compensation for that imperfection. Bug types now have very nice stab attacks, like bug buzz and x-scizzor. Most flying types get Roost. Fire types get will-o-wisp to survive better.

Bug types getting new STAB attacks has nothing to do with the banning of Stealth Rock. Again, Flying types getting Roost has nothing to do with this discussion. And finally, Fire types getting WoW has nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, responding to this paragraph was a waste of my time, but oh well.

Going by your logic in the last paragraph, then sleep clause should also be lifted because it's "in the game". Quite frankly, I don't think using the excuse that GameFreak put it in the game should be valid, but that's just me.

 

[Kittymew]

IggyBot speaks the truth, and honestly if I had the power I would close this at this point...mods? There really isn't much constructive discussion left.

My advice: why not just leave it alone on ladder, and add an optional stealth rock clause for people who want to play a format without it?

 

[swordmaster789]

Stealth Rock doesn't give me any reason to use Flygon over Salamence. Salamence has high attack, higher SpA, Intimidate, and a well full of usful resistances. I don't think about using pokemon resistant to Stealth Rock, but it sure is a great bonus when they do.
-Well, if Stealth Rocks was removed, Salamence could switch in and out as easily as Flygon. I personally think about stealth rock weakness when I choose pokes on my teams...


And it strengthens other all ready overpowered pokemon, such as Garchomp, Lucario, Infernape ect. That argument goes both ways and basically holds no ground. It's obvious that Stealth Rock's effects go in both directions.
- Well, I can't argue with you on that. I didn't intend to make it sound like ALL fairly powerful pokes were weakened by it, but if it were removed, some would end up stronger.


It's not like these pokemon are usless if Stealth Rock were banned. Bronzong, Swampert, Celebi, Jirachi, any other "support" pokemon you can think of does quite a bit more than just set up Stealth Rock.
-yep.


Bug types getting new STAB attacks has nothing to do with the banning of Stealth Rock. Again, Flying types getting Roost has nothing to do with this discussion. And finally, Fire types getting WoW has nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, responding to this paragraph was a waste of my time, but oh well.
- Removing the rocks sorta breaks the balance... Essentially, I'm saying Greakfreak probably choose the moves available to pokes and such based on the knowledge that stealth rock would still be an active part of the game. Still conjecture, just putting my thoughts out there.


Going by your logic in the last paragraph, then sleep clause should also be lifted because it's "in the game". Quite frankly, I don't think using the excuse that GameFreak put it in the game should be valid, but that's just me.
- Well, you can't change the movesets of pokemon though. If a pokemon can learn a move, why should it be banned? On the other hand, you can change how a battle can be played out. So, sleep clause is viable. Pokemon games did have sleep clause before (thinking of Stadium games, don't know if any others had rules like that after that).

 

[IggyBot]

Double Team, Minimize and all OHKO attacks have been and are currently banned. Wrap was heavily discussed in RBY from what I understand as well. Individual attacks can, and have been banned before.

 

[lilyhollow]

Double Team, Minimize, and OHKO all have arguments for their being banned that don't stem from centralization: they all arguably decrease the influence skill has on the game. Stealth Rock has no such argument, or at least, not one that I've seen. Everything has boiled down to centralization, which isn't a unique problem to Stealth Rock.

 

[IggyBot]

The skill aspect HAS been applied to Stealth Rock in this very topic. The difference though, is that Stealth Rock isn't based on luck, and one could ALSO argue that you must include Stealth Rock when thinking about risk management. That's where the centralization argument has been taking over, because some players feel it has reached the point where you must think too much about Stealth Rock.

 

[swordmaster789]

Double Team, Minimize and all OHKO attacks have been and are currently banned. Wrap was heavily discussed in RBY from what I understand as well. Individual attacks can, and have been banned before.

Well, yeah, like Blame Game said, their banning(save wrap) was for completely different reasons. Wrap may have been debatable before, but Game Freak changed it completely in later gens. I'd hope(or even assume) that Gamefreak wouldn't make moves (it's 4th gen!) that we'd have to end removing ourselves. Changing a poke's moveset ourselves changes the game too much, imo. If it must be done, it must be done. But I don't see any utility in banning stealth rock, even for informational purposes.

And does having to "think too much about Stealth Rock" really that negative? Doesn't seem like much of a reason alone to ban it.

 

[lilyhollow]

The skill aspect HAS been applied to Stealth Rock in this very topic.

Not that I've seen.

When you look at a OHKO argument, it's something along the lines of "someone who uses OHKOs degrades the battle into a luckfest just by using it." It "inherently lowers skill" (and even then, it's going to be tested anyway...)


I think the only "no skill" argument I've seen was jrrrrrrr saying that teams unprepared for stealth rock will lose to teams prepared for stealth rock, and that "if Stealth Rock is down, every choice including Gyarados is a wrong choice to switch into Heracross so that switch no longer involves skill." Which just means, "I can't counter Heracross with Gyarados. I need to use something else, damn that centralizing Stealth Rock."

Other than that I literally haven't seen anyone argue that it seriously takes skill away from the game, if I'm wrong then I'd like to see one of these arguments.

That's where the centralization argument has been taking over, because some players feel it has reached the point where you must think too much about Stealth Rock.

I've been using this very argument for my own position because the more and more influential something becomes, the more that removing it from the metagame becomes a baaaad idea. I see Stealth Rock as pretty much a game mechanic; there's nothing that will sufficiently replace it if it's removed, and removing it would change the strategy of the game, significantly. So what if "Set up Stealth Rock" is often "step one" of my strategy during a match? How is that a bad thing, besides "well some people just don't want to do that!"

If you want to ban something that players "need to think about so much," you need a far stronger argument than "but I don't like thinking about it all the time," "it centralizes the metagame (just like pretty much everything)," or even "but look, it really does lower the amount of skill somewhat (see Evasion, plus this argument doesn't exist)!" Because maybe for some people "argh I hate having to plan around Stealth Rock," but for a lot of people, including myself, it's the exact opposite.

 

[Glen ^^]

It takes skill away from the game because, as long as you hit, it doesn't matter if they resist your assault.
For example, the dreaded Heracross vs Gyarados example. Why try and predict a Stone Edge if I can just fire Megahorn, since he'll take enough damage from the Rocks and from my attack no matter what?

 

[lilyhollow]

It takes skill away from the game because, as long as you hit, it doesn't matter if they resist your assault.
For example, the dreaded Heracross vs Gyarados example. Why try and predict a Stone Edge if I can just fire Megahorn, since he'll take enough damage from the Rocks and from my attack no matter what?

Yes, that is what jrrrrrrr pretty much said and I addressed that argument in my post just now.

I think the only "no skill" argument I've seen was jrrrrrrr saying that teams unprepared for stealth rock will lose to teams prepared for stealth rock, and that "if Stealth Rock is down, every choice including Gyarados is a wrong choice to switch into Heracross so that switch no longer involves skill." Which just means, "I can't counter Heracross with Gyarados. I need to use something else, damn that centralizing Stealth Rock."

 

[Glen ^^]

Oh, sorry.
Just understand what he tried to say now.

But well, sadly this "Something else" ranges from Gliscor to Nidoqueen :(

 

[lilyhollow]

Well that is possibly true, my point is just that it's a centralization argument, and not a "no skill" argument. *shrug*

 

[SubVersion]

Gee, wonder who's been up for review lately? I wonder what EVERY DAMN THREAD IN STARK always boils down to these days? I WONDER what Policy Review decided is the most pressing issue to look into? Garchomp is not something people JUST NOW figured out might be a problem.

You are starting to get ridiculous, and I'm beginning to think you're trolling.

Do not suggest I am trolling, ever. Especially when that accusation stems from complete incomprehension of the point.

Yes, Garchomp is a suspect Pokemon in the metagame right now and yes, a lot of talk revolves around him. That doesn't add any validity whatsoever to your statement "Pokemon should counter other Pokemon in general. If they cease to be able to, that Pokemon is banned". Any knowledgeable person around here can tell you flat out that this absolutely, 100% incorrect.

If Pokemon were banned because they cannot be countered (using Smogon's definition), then there would be no debate about Garchomp at all. In fact, I love how you seem to think the fact Garchomp is currently under debate actually helps your argument, because it actually does the exact opposite and destroys it. If everybody acknowledges he has no counters, and if your statement were even slightly true, then there would be no need for all these debates, surely?

Not only that, but Gengar, Lucario and Salamence would also be suspects if your statement was correct, because nothing can switch in on them with impunity. Nothing can come directly into any of these Pokemon with no risk to itself unless they know the set beforehand. Have any of these guys come under consideration for banning? No.

Lastly, the simple fact that Wobbuffet was tested at all blows your statement completely out of the water. He cannot be countered thanks to Shadow Tag. If a Pokemon being uncounterable was a legitimate reason to ban it, please explain why we even bothered testing Wobbuffet?

I honestly can't believe you'd be arrogant enough to accuse me of "trolling" even though it's clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Give me a break.

 

[Instinctive]

Seeing a lot of chomp in this discussion, I feel a need to say this: If no SR would make chomp less usable, and no Chomp makes SR more bearable, why not try each metagame for a month, then one without both, then have a vote to pick the one we like most?

 

[Mr.E]

I pick the one that bans neither. osnap

 

[lilyhollow]

What I mean is, you get rid of Chomp and other, weaker pokemon will jump up to fill a similar role. You get rid of Stealth Rock, and you have, what, Spikes?