-
The moderators of this forum are Finchinator, Ruft, ausma, 658Greninja, kd458, FayaWizard, Srn, TPP, and viivian.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
“Just stop running balance and run offense instead lol”
try making an actual constructive comment please instead of one that entirely misses the point of why these mons are in contention for being looked at due to the strain they have on building and gameplay. Especially because the Pokémon in question have a lot of depth to what makes them so problematic. Not just “hits too hard”, but too versatile.
Complaining about any of these when their counter play is far more widespread across multiple Pokémon and playstyles while they are also doing good things for the tier is just silly. Gambit is the only one who gets a half pass because of its natural power but Zama has plenty of counter play which keeps it from auto sweeping teams and Raging Bolt is nowhere remotely close to an issue, let alone broken.
Btw what do you all think of? I think it’s high key top 5 Pokémon in OU. Fat Tera fairy. Dd with hurricane. Encore. This is better sweeper than roaring moon now if you ask me
not even remotely close to top 5. Good Mon does good things for the tier, but nowhere near impossible to stop or difficult to account for.
I gotta be rude here - I think you haven't read enough of the discussion to be slinging passive-aggressive stuff like that.
5. (...) glowking is all over the place, it's true, but the fact that it needs to be all over the place isn't healthy or good, and kyurem is definitely one of the factors in that. (...)
I trimmed some posts to avoid bloating, and there are some mentions of Alomomola being checked after Waterpon because it becoming braindead is of course an issue (which after reading the discussion I'm still on the fence, but leaning toward a DNB for now because of predictability and how it still follows the rules of other sweepers)
Divine right wtf
edit: i fucked up some of the quoting oops
Defaulting to offense or HO and accepting that balance is less good indicates an unhealthy metagame.
All three off the guys you want gone have reliable counterplay and bring important defensive merit to the tier as well. The two you're fine with have significantly less counterplay and are significantly more variable in their ability to pick and choose checks.
A team being poorly constructed and having flaws as a result is different than an entire playstyle being weakened significantly due to the presence of one or two problematic mons. Mocking people about things you seem to not be aware of isn't cool
Btw what do you all think of
Dnite is cool, offers unique defensive roles as well as being a setup sweeper with useful utility that at the same time is definitely not problematic. Very healthy mon, wouldn't say top 5 but definitely a good mon.
I mean we knew Kyu was gonna get better with volc gone, I voted ban personally and don't regret it because I felt as though we were getting rid of the worse of 2 evils but what CTC is saying is true
And would you like to list said counterplay while you are throwing out passive aggresive remarks or are we "too braindead" to understand that? And the reason why people are saying skilless is because you mentioned a mon which isn't even mentioned by anybody as 'broken'. Nobody was even thinking of d-nite as broken, the last time it was even conceived to be 'broken' was in DLC1, which even then it was more fringe.
And no, balance isn't 'braindead', if you think balance is just "lol, click chilly or wish turn", then you really need to look at balance more before coming to that conclusion. I could say "oh, well HO is just setting up with ugga-bogga mons", but that would be a dumb statement because that's not what it is right?
I mean, sure this gen is a lot more offensive, but that doesn't mean it has to be only offense. Every playstyle should have equal footing, and while balance and stall are definetely good, offense is by far the best playstyle. We can see this because mons like waterpon, kyurem and darkrai (though I am less convinced on darkrai being broken) destroy one or multiple playstyles that are not offense. Nobody is trying to 'lobotomize' the tier, they are simply trying to make it better. And from what we have seen in this thread so far, many people have issue with this meta, so we should be banning what people deem banworthy.
I'm sorry, WHAT. Healthy is definetely a worthwhile word, and saying it isn't is honestly, just stupid. Yes, fun and competitiveness are important, but the health of the metagame is just as important. If the metagame isn't healthy, then it is not fun or competitive to play. You are digging your own hole at this point, please just stop.
Strange how you made no attempt to actually directly respond to any of our comments and just made shallow comments that don't actually move the needle on discussion at all. Just vague posting "there is plenty of counterplay" and not listing any. Your comment is much more "non-argument" this way. Also "just clicks chilly reception/wish+flip"? Glowking is able to do a lot beyond just pivoting and is a very active pokemon, it's not just sponging hits. Spreading status, firing FS off, using coverage to nail pokemon, it's hugely customizable. Mola isn't as versatile but it anchors defensive teams, which is important for stability in a tier, and it's hardly some unstoppable constant force of wishing and passing. There are many ways to exploit Mola that try to constantly come in and out (status and knock off greatly hinder it btw).
Removing broken breakers is not "lobotomizing the tier" especially when we have more than enough ways in the builder to still handle defensive teams without their help. Prior to the introduction of pokemon like Kyurem and Darkrai, we had a healthy amount of ways to play and run Balance and general bulkier teams, they were strong. This notion that gen9 is all fast offense and defense can't keep up no matter what is just wrong. Making statements like "Tera is here and avg attacking stats" is again, not looking at the more complex dynamics of the tier. There's a difference between "Offense is a stronger playstyle than balance" and "offense is preferred because running balance is too difficult". The former is just the result of a metagame development while the latter is the result of an imbalance which negatively affects the tier and makes teambuilding worse.
Gen8 was balance heavy, but it had a good amount of team possibilities and overall diversity. It was in the end, a pretty well balanced tier. Trying to make some kind of passive aggressive comment like this isn't helping your argument.
"Healthy" relating to the health of a metagame/tier and the pokemon within it directly relate to the concept of "fun" and "competitive". A tier is going to be less fun generally when there are pokemon people find to be unhealthy presences and it is liable to be less competitive when the balance is off and teambuilding is difficult. By the way, "fun" is subjective anyways. And good players generally are the ones who spot the problem pokemon, and if you think "not good players" (very not subtle passive aggressiveness btw) are the only ones who find Kyurem/Darkrai/Ogerpon-W to be problematic, then you haven't been engaging with others enough because you can find many good players who dislike one or multiple of these pokemon. You can go back a page or two and literally see a few examples right as the Survey dropped.
hey mods can i be rude to this guy? i've got so much material to work with here
I feel like Zamazenta is healthy as others have phrased, most arguments against it is either that it was ubers or that it has high stats. Which are quite poor arguments. Especially since we did suspect test it before and i dont think many people were pro-ban. Sure the meta has changed but I feel like there are greater concerns than it. And if we had another suspect on Zam, it would stay and we’d have wasted time on a suspect that was set in stone. The thing is, I cant see how Zam would get much better in the future, so it may just stay an OU pokemon, and regardless it’s BST is the same as Kyurem who was like RUBL before gen 8.
I just wanna say that before the thread gets clipped, that Dragonite is a very respectable mon and very fun. But very prone to eating shit or being encored into oblivion unless played carefully. Fun but respectable! Unlike some mons. 
Wanted to post this replay before I went to bed. Hilarious and Ampharos goes nuts.
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-2143586288-m9zq2qb6p025wmqfy33d6rly43w4s0ipw
Too bad I lost to stupid Iron Valiant endgame. As you can see my Elo has risen from the 1400s to the 1500s over the day. Could it be…. Ampharos?
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-2143586288-m9zq2qb6p025wmqfy33d6rly43w4s0ipw
Too bad I lost to stupid Iron Valiant endgame. As you can see my Elo has risen from the 1400s to the 1500s over the day. Could it be…. Ampharos?
I do feel there's a point to be made in all this that there is an underlying sentiment of "we prefer if bulky balence cores rose to being one of the dominant archetypes this gen"
Now whether it's because offense varrients are precieved as more chaotic, volatile, harder to plan around, less skillful, or just subjectively less fun and sure other reasons. I'm not assuming anything about anyone cause I'm sure everyone that prefers balence has their own special combination of reasons but that is the popular sentiment in this form under the subtext.
And I want to preface that that's completely fine and dandy. We're all entitled to our opinions and it's not like preferring a gen to center around balence is an unpopular or unreasonable thing to want. I just wish more where upfront with how their bias impact their opinions on certain mons and their overall vision of a funner meta game.
I feel the the discussion around Wellspring and the sides people take on it encapsulate ehst I'm trying to say perfectly. That why I went into the most detail about it on my previous post. If you prefer bulkier balence cores the Ogerpon is a headache for you. That makes sense to me cause Ogerpon is a wall breaker primarily so it would only make sense that her usefulness scales the more walls you give her to break. So if you want to run these bulky cores and don't want to try and adapt with specific Wellspring checks like sinisha then you have you have sacrifice a bit and adapt more speed and no I'm not talking just match em with HO. The thing is as a playstyle as a whole the Ogerpon sisters are your biggest Ops, both of them,(I'm still in the process of being convinced on base form, mono grass stab is such a nerf comparatively)
I find this no different than how offense varrients HAVE to make sure they have answers for raging neck and gambit, or how the HAVE to account for reliability getting out offense by mons like banded rillaboom, like every set of dragonite, roaringmoons extremely fast booster speed tier etc. So because Wellspring has such clear strengths and weaknesses I'm less inclined to see why it deserse to be banned over say a mon like Darkrai that cam kinda just stat cliff is way into being threatening for a large varriety playstyle not just balence cores. But in all honesty I think there's something beautiful about this gen and how there's so many strong pokemon and strong strategies everywhere that everyplaystyle has a few ops that they have to account for in the builder to succeed. There's no comp that's positive to neutral is every match up and I feel that helps the meta feel less solved and thus more adaptable and fun imo.
I think this was a more elaborate less memee version of what that other fella was trying to get at
Now whether it's because offense varrients are precieved as more chaotic, volatile, harder to plan around, less skillful, or just subjectively less fun and sure other reasons. I'm not assuming anything about anyone cause I'm sure everyone that prefers balence has their own special combination of reasons but that is the popular sentiment in this form under the subtext.
And I want to preface that that's completely fine and dandy. We're all entitled to our opinions and it's not like preferring a gen to center around balence is an unpopular or unreasonable thing to want. I just wish more where upfront with how their bias impact their opinions on certain mons and their overall vision of a funner meta game.
I feel the the discussion around Wellspring and the sides people take on it encapsulate ehst I'm trying to say perfectly. That why I went into the most detail about it on my previous post. If you prefer bulkier balence cores the Ogerpon is a headache for you. That makes sense to me cause Ogerpon is a wall breaker primarily so it would only make sense that her usefulness scales the more walls you give her to break. So if you want to run these bulky cores and don't want to try and adapt with specific Wellspring checks like sinisha then you have you have sacrifice a bit and adapt more speed and no I'm not talking just match em with HO. The thing is as a playstyle as a whole the Ogerpon sisters are your biggest Ops, both of them,(I'm still in the process of being convinced on base form, mono grass stab is such a nerf comparatively)
I find this no different than how offense varrients HAVE to make sure they have answers for raging neck and gambit, or how the HAVE to account for reliability getting out offense by mons like banded rillaboom, like every set of dragonite, roaringmoons extremely fast booster speed tier etc. So because Wellspring has such clear strengths and weaknesses I'm less inclined to see why it deserse to be banned over say a mon like Darkrai that cam kinda just stat cliff is way into being threatening for a large varriety playstyle not just balence cores. But in all honesty I think there's something beautiful about this gen and how there's so many strong pokemon and strong strategies everywhere that everyplaystyle has a few ops that they have to account for in the builder to succeed. There's no comp that's positive to neutral is every match up and I feel that helps the meta feel less solved and thus more adaptable and fun imo.
I think this was a more elaborate less memee version of what that other fella was trying to get at
See the issue for me personally sits with the fact that Sini is a great check to Ogerpon--But nearly every other pokemon that is run Around Ogerpon completely obliterates it and other checks (Kyurem, Darkrai) that unless you have a perfect tera sequence you're often fucked once it goes down. I'm someone who religiously uses Sini as my spinblocker of choice over Pult or Ghold, and so I've pretty experienced with the usual matchups it faces.
For a lot of others I Imagine, it can feel like a narrow selection of Grass types are barely able to keep up due to the SPA attackers in the tier. Most of which are often run together, for the sake of overwhelming these cores and making them feel unreliable due to that fact. Ogerpon in the tier is a symptom of this and not the sole answer, but I feel as the tier currently is Ogerpon too much in conjunction vs being obscenely OP alone. It has counterplay, but its strengths are amplified to an absurd degree due to the nature of the meta.
I'd be fine with it dropping after a lot of these bigger guys go, but together it just feels like too much to contend with to me.
This dude is a troll, I am beyond convinced at this point
oh and uh if I have to pick mon to suspect next, either ogerpon-wellspring or kyurem
You can into a forum meant for discussion and made a frankly rather uninformed comment about the debated brokenness of certain pokemon, then doubled down (and now triple) when people responded to you, while you also haven't really made good arguments in response. This isn't "being defensive" it's just talking.
This doesn't even come off coherently and you sort of just look like you googled big words and tossed em into a word salad.
Gen 9 is not inherently offensive inclined, if you played earlier metas in this generation you'd have seen bulkier teams being more than just decent. Balance has been strong at various points in this generation. These teams are often a sign of some form of stability.
Bad game design is often synonymous or very closely linked with something being unbalanced, and in this case the pokemon we're discussing are arguably unbalanced which results in a less competitive environment. But besides that, there's no reason to talk about good or bad players in relation to discussing these things.
The difference between offense needing answers for Gambit, Roaring Moon or something else, vs Balance needing answers for their threats, is that offense being faster paced has ways to limit the threats it needs to account for beyond just using pokemon in the builder. Even in the event there's some super fast threat like Roaring Moon that naturally does well into offense, you can still handle it with priority and chip through earlier hazards, or using offense checks yourself to deny set up with faster paced gameplay, as well as timely teras. Balance doesn't have quite this luxury, and pokemon such as Darkrai or Kyurem make teambuilding for Balance difficult because their natural raw strength forces you to build a certain way which can be limiting. It's not about wanting balance to be the dominant playstyle. It's about wanting it and other playstyles to be viable.
Finch actually made a tweet some time earlier (independant to this forum, was a reply to someone else on twitter) that actually kind of summarizes this topic in a way. I think anyways, and rather than go back and forth with big long posts I think it'll be easier to read it here.
Sorry but your entire writing style comes off as very "iamverysmart" a lot, and you're not helping your case with your continued tone.
Even if you went into VGC, I guarantee you that you'd find most people prefer when most playstyles are valid and viable to a degree, not necessarily equal, but viable fairly. This isn't some smogon born mindset. It's just a mindset for a competitive game that people prefer when more things are able to be used because it promotes creativity and diversity in teambuilding and skillset. You are continuing to sidestep multiple times how I brought up Balance being strong at multiple stages this gen. There is not a higher BST this gen, just more optimized stat distribution.
If archetypes are so difficult to build that it discourages their use unless they run very specific builds, this inherently is going to make the game worse. Because it reduces teambuilding options and promotes staleness, rather than innovation. It doesn't allow the metagame itself to grow and develop in a positive direction. This isn't just about balance. If offense was in the same boat, you'd certainly have people rightly complaining about it (when it happens of course, but it's not often offense seriously struggles in OU at least).
There's no moral quality. No one but you is making that inference. You haven't even made a good arguement or gave a good reason to taking issue with the characterization of things as healthy. Hell you haven't even responded to the first inquiry, which is "if there are such readily available counterplay to these broken mons, list them".
Woah now let me clarify, cuz I think there's a misunderstanding! My point is a lot more nuanced.
I think if you use Pokemon I don't like you're a morally corrupt and unjust person! I think you're evil, there's stories about how ill and bad people like this are! There's no other possible interpretation here other than this! I, Rekka (wrong gender by the way, just to clarify additionally), think if you use Dragapult you ought to be dragged out behind a barn.
As with all things online, I am speaking with conviction and sincerity.
∧,,,∧
（ ・ω・）
( つ旦O
と＿)_)
I fully agree that those archetypes emerged naturally, but when tiering is concerned there is an intention in balancing the meta. Since it's a 1v1 game and everyone has the same tools, every game is, in theory, decided by or at the very least very skewed toward the best player, which is the one who applies best his knowledge on the system to get a competitive edge. In a vacuum, if that's the case, all tiering should be absolutely minimal and close to nothing should be done. That is how we end up in gen 1 OU with Snorlax, or in Gen 3 with Tyranitar and sandstorm. They are, by all means, VERY balanced by the metric of who is the best player wins. As balanced as Smash Melee with Fox mirrors being Meta and people (myself included) fuckin LOVE that game.
If that's the case, why do we suspect, patch, ban stuff? Well, because centralization sucks especially on a current gen meta and the community is attempting to artificially mold the game in such a way that everyone can have fun. Which brings us back to how those archetypes emerged: well, some players like going defensive, others like to play aggressive, and whatever happens in the middle is also a thing. Just saying "your playstyle fell out of favor, deal with it" isn't very constructive when tiering action happens just so that those arbitrary concepts can be brought to life to make sure as many players can enjoy the game as possible.
Btw, if I'm not mistaken DaddyBuzzwole is majoring in game dev so don't go that route lol (or just don't pepper every single interaction starting from the very first post in this discussion with very thinly veiled insults)
I think the bias runs both ways. For example:
it's trash, always has been. i rarely use it. gking had 90% usage before this 'mon even came out because it's uninteractive nonsense. that ain't changing.
This is not a random but a top player. But I think we can both agree that this take is hyperbolized and rather insincere. "I haven't had any trouble with Kyurem (because I play offense), so it's trash!"
It seems that whenever a fatbreaker is on the chopping block, there will be people fearmongering that defense will get too strong.
I don't have a huge problem with Wellspring, personally. I rated it a 5 because I think a suspect would be a good opportunity for people to discuss and explore counterplay, like what happened to Gouging Fire. As you've stated, it's strongest into certain fat balances. Messing up just one archetype is not a huge issue. These structures can and should adapt with new tech like Sinistcha. Stall can deal with it with Hydrapple or a dedicated Tera on Dozo. BO can limit it with multiple mons like Pult, Zama, and Bolt, among others. If it doesn't end up getting banned, I wouldn't mind.
My biggest problem is with Kyurem. Purely special or physical sets are not the issue. The mixed sets (Dragon Dance with Freeze Dry, All Out Attacker with Loaded Dice) are a problem because they have very limited counterplay into both balance and stall. In fact, Mixed Kyurem takes advantage of the traditional counterplay, baiting in and destroying the likes of Glowking and Blissey to either win outright or open the way for teammates like Valiant/Bolt to clean.
A mon that beats just one archetype is fine, even healthy. A mon that beats multiple playstyles is a problem. The way I see it, Kyurem is in that issue territory. I often see people grouping Balance and Stall into the same category of "fat". These are fundamentally different archetypes with different strengths and weaknesses. When a mon is destroying both of these types of teams that is a red flag.
I think many of us can agree that the game tends to be more fun when many playable archetypes are viable. Some people might enjoy an offense-on-offense fest but I doubt they would be in the majority. Likewise, I was not a huge fan of SS OU which was dominated by teleport fat.
The council directs the meta in the way that they think will be the most enjoyable for the largest population of players, as they have always done.
People haven't been exactly passive aggressive with you. They've been blunt and I've personally gotten rather frustrated by your refusal to address actual comments and arguments people have made. And it hasn't helped that you came in with your comment being very snarky, non constructive and misinformed and then doubled down.
No one's "looking for something to refute", they want you to bring an actual argument. "play something more aggressive" isn't an argument, it's admitting there's a problem with the tier when there isn't actual counterplay. Listing counterplay is like suggesting Blissey or Galarian Slowking, not telling someone to just play something else. Your tone has come off as very unsympathetic towards other players, and honestly you accuse others of a bias towards balance but you yourself seem biased towards offense.
Let me get this straight, you are getting annoyed by passive aggresive comments? Yeah, maybe look at your own tone, because you have been very passive aggresive since you started posting in this thread, as they say "treat others as you want to be treated". And I have read their comments, and they have not been passive aggresive, just simply blunt.
I'm sorry, but this is just a bunch of yapping. There is no moral difference between offense or stall, they are both equally valid. You are barking up the wrong tree, calling something 'brainless' or 'healthy' is not morally right or wrong, it is simply there opinion.
Trust me, we do want kyurem counterplay (nobody wants to ban mons when they are alright in the meta, at least from there point of view), but you refuse to withhold this from us apparently. And saying "just play something more aggresive" is not really helpful. If offense was struggling in a meta, I would not say "play something more defensive". As stated MANY times before, all playstyles should be viable. If something is severly restricting multiple playstyles, then that is problematic. Nobody playing stall (and I talked with multiple pro stall players on this) wants ursaluna banned, people want things banned because they are restrictive to a lot of things.
Eh. If Vert believes that Kyurem isn't an issue based off their own experience, I don't see how that is insincere. Like, are we not supposed to give our honest opinions on the survey?
Sure, it uses hyperbolic language, but let's be real, most survey posts use it. And I say this as someone who believes Kyurem should go.
I don’t have a problem with people’s opinions. If someone thinks Kyurem is fine from personaI experience, that’s valid. I do get annoyed when people exaggerate in their explanations or say blatantly untrue things. Explain sincerely, or if you can’t be bothered, then don’t say anything at all.
I genuinely want to hear arguments in favor of Kyurem DNB. Earlier I posted on this topic and asked for people to reply with DNB Kyurem arguments. Nobody has done so yet but please feel free to.
I completely agree with this. If Vert's offense teams shit on Kyurem, describing it as trash based on his experience is legitimate even if it's hyperbolic in nature. There is nothing insincere about about his take, and players need to learn to accept other player's opinions. Kyurem does have clear weaknesses in being SR weak and having a middling speed tier with some very nasty weaknesses to Rock, Steel, and Fighting, which other Dragon-type Pokemon don't share, all of which reduce Kyurem's splashability, which is the main reason Vert called Kyurem dogshit. I myself want Kyurem banned, but I'm not going to accept someone calling Vert's take insincere just 'cause he thinks Kyurem has no business not being banned.
Kyurem, as a general mon in this meta, is obviously not trash though. If it fares poorly against his teams, he should say so. That’s context that people should hear.
“it's trash, always has been. i rarely use it. gking had 90% usage before this 'mon even came out because it's uninteractive nonsense”
I think it goes without saying that Kyurem has not always been trash (hell, the last time it was suspected it got 58%), glowking never has 90% usage, and glowking being “nonsense” is purely subjective.
Oh and one last thing.
I don’t even play tourneys but I think this is just unnecessarily disrespectful. Folks’ complaints about Waterpon and Zama is “whining”. Got it. And we were just talking about respecting peoples’ opinions.
If this is the kind of rhetoric you think is sincere, then we’re just not seeing eye to eye. You can continue to defend this if you want. I won’t keep engaging.
Last edited: