Stealth Rock

What do you mean by "only by a small margin"? If something's broken, it's broken. There aren't different amounts of brokenness. If something is broken then it needs to be banned or at least questioned.

It's true that something is considered broken even if it is only slightly broken. But, wouldn't you be pressed to ban something like Darkrai before, say, Wobbuffet? There are priorities when it comes to banning, and that is what I meant by what I said.

We didn't handle it at all for the past four years, that's the thing. We barely addressed Stealth Rock at all, if anything we tried to avoid it. The reason for this thread is so that it gets the attention it deserves this Gen and we don't go another four years without doing anything about it. If it's decided that Stealth Rock doesn't deserve a test then so be it, but we can't just continue pretending it doesn't exist.

Yes, maybe the subject didn't earn enough attention. But isn't that why we should be considering banning other things first simply because they are more important? If SR was that broken, it would have been mentioned a lot more than it is and was, but this didn't happen.


happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I feel compelled to point out the "perennial issue" of an SR test. The results of the test would indicate that the metagame is very different, regardless of whether or not it is "broken". What conclusions could we possibly draw from a SR-less "test" to determine if it's broken? What information would be gained to help either side, other than "it has a large impact"? Especially considering everyone against its ban is basically saying that just because it has a large impact doesn't mean its broken... and everyone for it would just say "look at how much changed obviously that means it's broken".
People just have this bizarre idea that there is some "limit" to how influential a particular move can be before just being considered "broken" automatically, with zero regard to whether the game is actually more or less deep or enjoyable without it. If the ability to switch Pokemon were attached to a move, and every single team absolutely 100% had to have at least one Pokemon with that move, these people would say that that move is broken even though the strategic options created by the ability to switch are obviously immense, and completely integral to the way we play Pokemon in actuality.

The fact that many of us view Stealth Rock as this sort of "alien" thing that mysteriously invaded in 4th gen (but was completely absent before then) doesn't say anything about its brokenness, no matter how much impact it has on the game. Neither does the fact that it's a "move" that doesn't have a very "move-like" level of influence on the game. Now okay, if you think that there is innate merit in removing all elements in Pokemon that we happen to view as "alien plus influential," go ahead and make that argument. Likewise, if you think moves should just inherently all have a similar amount of strength for some weird aesthetic reason or something, go ahead and say that. Don't come in here and try to argue that either of those things say anything about the move's brokenness, though. They just don't, and it's an absurd argument.

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I strongly disliked the effect SR had on the fourth gen Lv. 100 metagames, since it made clever switching much less effective, and would have liked to see it tested then. Not to mention the effect it had on the lead subgame.. The fact that getting SR up was often seen as worth losing a Pokemon for says a lot. However, from experience, it's not anywhere like as bad in Gen 5. There are far more ways to deal with it around and currently it seems to have much less of an impact even if it does go up, partly thanks to all the great new Pokemon who resist it.


Have a nice day
is a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
The main issue I have with SR is that it makes bad types worse and good types better. Fighting is already the best offensive type in the game, what does it need the bonus rock damage with every attack for. Ground and Steel would already be on almost every team without the added bonus of taking less damage than everything else every time they switch in.

And are flying types really that much better than everything else that they need this huge nerf to be balanced? Not to mention Ice and Bug, which might actually squeeze into OU in a couple of cases, were they not punished with this enormous burden.

Note that in CAP in order for a 4x sr weak poke to be usable, they had to invent a trait specifically to deal with SR.

In dp at least, this move is a huge restriction on what you can or cant use effectively.. Try and post a team in the RMT forum with two SR weak pokes and no spinner and see what comments you will get.. It's the first thing people think about..

Having said that, and it probably ended up sounding stronger than I intended it to, I have no idea how we would go about testing SRless pokemon..

Have a nice day.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)