Keldeo has Vacuum Wave to invalidate Sucker Punch.
-
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.
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [Gouging Fire is banned]
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
The egg. The first creature we could conceivably call a chicken had to have hatched from an egg that was laid by a bird that was close to but not entirely a chicken.
More to the point, I feel there is a difference between a Pokémon that takes advantage of a linear meta and one that is the cause of it; I believe removing Darkrai would be an attempt to cure the symptom rather than the problem. Balance won’t have an easier time dealing with Kyurem and Waterpon if Darkrai leaves, but I don’t believe the inverse to be true; I think balance will have significantly more room to adapt to Darkrai and force it in turn to spread its sets even more thin and to be even more specialized. Waterpon and Kyurem don’t have to do any such thing to force balance in order to bend over backwards to accommodate for them.
I might have repeated this argument in the Volc suspect but I think it's worth bringing up again here:
I'm not a smart enough player to know how much unpredictability should play in a tier and how many options a mon could have at any given time before deemed broken, but one thing I will say is that more options on a mon can only be a good thing for them, even if some are better than others.
The problem with the "4MSS" argument that gets brought up alot is that, 90% of the time, the 4MSS'd mon still has the upper hand due to the opponent not immediately knowing what kind of moveset is being run. It doesn't matter if Gliscor has to sacrifice defensive utility for SD sets if the opponent sends in their Balloon Gholdengo and the Gliscor responds by setting up and clicking knock. Even if Darkrai can't run every viable set, the fact that he has so many viable sets to begin with, is noteworthy.
I can't say if the flexibility is enough to push him over the edge as we've seen past cases where it can be managed (Valiant mainly), but I felt like this was worth bringing up again since I've already seen a few "4MSS" posts related to Darkrai.
I'm not a smart enough player to know how much unpredictability should play in a tier and how many options a mon could have at any given time before deemed broken, but one thing I will say is that more options on a mon can only be a good thing for them, even if some are better than others.
The problem with the "4MSS" argument that gets brought up alot is that, 90% of the time, the 4MSS'd mon still has the upper hand due to the opponent not immediately knowing what kind of moveset is being run. It doesn't matter if Gliscor has to sacrifice defensive utility for SD sets if the opponent sends in their Balloon Gholdengo and the Gliscor responds by setting up and clicking knock. Even if Darkrai can't run every viable set, the fact that he has so many viable sets to begin with, is noteworthy.
I can't say if the flexibility is enough to push him over the edge as we've seen past cases where it can be managed (Valiant mainly), but I felt like this was worth bringing up again since I've already seen a few "4MSS" posts related to Darkrai.
your examples aren't really 4MSS though. 4MSS means that the mon functionally requires 5 moves.
Blaziken in the current metagame is a good example of 4MSS. It needs SD to ensure it's hits are powerful enough, STABs for ample coverage in the meta, Thunder Punch to deal with bulky waters and Protect to ensure it gets speed boosts up.
Let's say you cut out TPunch cause you want dual stab + protect and set up, then you lose the ability to deal with water types and are forced out
Let's say you cut out one of your two STABs cause you want TPunch as a coverage then you either have to deal with losing Fighting STAB to deal with mons that hardwall you like Heatran or get ripped by the MANY fire resist in the current meta or get amply walled by ghost types.
Let's say you cut Protect.. I don't even need to reply right?
I can think of many more examples of 4MSS but Darkrai and Gliscor DON'T functionally have 4MSS.
About Darkrai, the thing is most of the arguments that people make to imply it's a candidate for a suspect test, are actually aplicable to a lot of mons. And in fact, I think a lot of answers to most of its sets have already been discussed.
But yeah, while you can’t with most mons switch into it without risking a 2HKO -Except Muk Alola cough cough (sorry)- you can say the same about Waterpon, Kyurem, Raging Bolt if you don’t have Bliss/Ting Lu, boosted Gambit aganist most teams, Pult etcetera. And a lot of mons imo get momentum at the same speed of even faster than Darkrai. RMoon, Iron Moth, Gouging Fire… All of them can get easily out of hand.
Darkrai imo is a solid mon, a really good one, but the more I play the least of suspect worthy pokémon I think it is.
It's true that I gave a high number to Darkrai a couple of weeks ago, but the more I play, the more I think I was over reacting to the meta and thinking banning would be useful. I know think it wouldn’t. And while I wouldn’t hate a non-Darkrai meta as I said a couple of days ago (In that case, again, we should unban sleep. And if Lili-H / Val are an issue just ban SP and Hypnosis, Spore mons and Yawn are 100% balanced) I will vote DNB.
I also think that Zamazenta being as good as Gambit and therefore being spammed most of the time makes Darkrai severely weaker. But don’t get it twisted, Zama is not getting used for Darkrai, it’s not a Dracovish-Seismitoad situation. Zama is already a brainless answer aganist physical mons, it stopping Darkrai is just another quality it randomly has.
I think that some Uber mons could be tested instead of banning. If we HAVE to ban, I would look at Gliscor maybe. But I would 10x times prefer a uber test or a Gliscor suspect over a Darkrai one
But yeah, while you can’t with most mons switch into it without risking a 2HKO -Except Muk Alola cough cough (sorry)- you can say the same about Waterpon, Kyurem, Raging Bolt if you don’t have Bliss/Ting Lu, boosted Gambit aganist most teams, Pult etcetera. And a lot of mons imo get momentum at the same speed of even faster than Darkrai. RMoon, Iron Moth, Gouging Fire… All of them can get easily out of hand.
Darkrai imo is a solid mon, a really good one, but the more I play the least of suspect worthy pokémon I think it is.
It's true that I gave a high number to Darkrai a couple of weeks ago, but the more I play, the more I think I was over reacting to the meta and thinking banning would be useful. I know think it wouldn’t. And while I wouldn’t hate a non-Darkrai meta as I said a couple of days ago (In that case, again, we should unban sleep. And if Lili-H / Val are an issue just ban SP and Hypnosis, Spore mons and Yawn are 100% balanced) I will vote DNB.
I also think that Zamazenta being as good as Gambit and therefore being spammed most of the time makes Darkrai severely weaker. But don’t get it twisted, Zama is not getting used for Darkrai, it’s not a Dracovish-Seismitoad situation. Zama is already a brainless answer aganist physical mons, it stopping Darkrai is just another quality it randomly has.
I think that some Uber mons could be tested instead of banning. If we HAVE to ban, I would look at Gliscor maybe. But I would 10x times prefer a uber test or a Gliscor suspect over a Darkrai one
I am not a consistent mons player anymore (even though I consider myself pretty solid when I am active) so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. As an added disclaimer, even though I disagree with most of what celebrated tournament players are supporting this gen I cant help but respect at the minimum the hours and effort they put consistently into this game, which they enjoy or suffer everyday while I and some of us only touch when we are bored or get hit by a nostalgic feeling. The reason I am making this post is because I'm a bit confused about some approaches as to what is in need of suspect testing vs what is not (in the context of what is broken), and because the tiering methods in this gen seem a lot more different than previous gens (with many things being handled a lot better imo, but also with some inconsistencies).
I'll start with the latter. I am an absolute fan of the tier surveys. In no other gen was the OU council so in touch with the playerbase when it comes to making decisions. Smogon's success in my eyes is because of its "playerbase dictating the rules" approach. Defining what the "playerbase" actually is tho is most important. There's been an approach to separate an inhomogeneous group of people in two subcategories: those who are qualified and thos who are not. While this division doesn't seem to do harm at first glance, because the council takes into consideration the sentiment of both groups, I do believe that there are some problems with that. Two reasons I am against this is because firstly it promotes elitism (those who played in the DPP era remember the harshness of suspect tests in a period where the council's choice were not conveyed in such a manner as they are today, and the unreasonable expectations of the council back then for suspect voters to justify their vote, a practice that limited player's engagement and imo contributed to smogon's lowest point) and second because it makes interpretation of results more difficult: what is the course of action when the sentiment of the competitive mons player base is vastly different than that of those who play more casually?
In my opinion the ladder should be the metric on which tiering decisions should be made because it involves the biggest amount of people possible. Yes, I realise that I am possibly being unfair and unkind towards those that are putting more time and effort to the game than others, but I believe this to be the most logical and beneficial solution. However I am in favor of keeping the suspect testing system that is established. Everyone should be able to have a say in the tiering process and that say is through the tiering surveys. When it comes to materializing the possible changes setting a minimum of effort seems the best possible way.
The above reason is exactly why I am dissapointed towards the master rule change regarding sleep. What was an internal discussion among great players with some valid points, was eventually implemented - quite hastily imo - wihtout it being set up for a survey or a suspect test. This change is at princple way more important than a simple pokemon concerning suspect test.
Now when it comes to what should be suspected - or in other words what is broken, there are some two new approaches that didn't exist a while back. People now are concerned with what the meta WOULD be without a high profile threat and take active side against suspecting a mon because its removal could potentially make for a significantly worse metagame. While this thought process isn't unreasonable, isn't this exactly what the suspect process is? Determining whether a mon is healthy or not? If a mon is "broken" or "unhealthy" shouldn't there be tiering action or at least a suspect (a potential tiering action)?The potential metagame would be a new position that should be evaluated when its time has come: if the new meta is uncompetitive and unenjoyable we can always determine what are the reasons for such a state and deal with them anew. Fixing a stagnant and unfun meta doesn't necessarily mean banning things. Attempting to reintroduce threats previously deemed too powerful is a valid tiering strategy assuming nothing in the OU meta feels above the rest.
The second approach is the centralisation argument which I will edit in later because of time.
Sorry for the long post!
I'll start with the latter. I am an absolute fan of the tier surveys. In no other gen was the OU council so in touch with the playerbase when it comes to making decisions. Smogon's success in my eyes is because of its "playerbase dictating the rules" approach. Defining what the "playerbase" actually is tho is most important. There's been an approach to separate an inhomogeneous group of people in two subcategories: those who are qualified and thos who are not. While this division doesn't seem to do harm at first glance, because the council takes into consideration the sentiment of both groups, I do believe that there are some problems with that. Two reasons I am against this is because firstly it promotes elitism (those who played in the DPP era remember the harshness of suspect tests in a period where the council's choice were not conveyed in such a manner as they are today, and the unreasonable expectations of the council back then for suspect voters to justify their vote, a practice that limited player's engagement and imo contributed to smogon's lowest point) and second because it makes interpretation of results more difficult: what is the course of action when the sentiment of the competitive mons player base is vastly different than that of those who play more casually?
In my opinion the ladder should be the metric on which tiering decisions should be made because it involves the biggest amount of people possible. Yes, I realise that I am possibly being unfair and unkind towards those that are putting more time and effort to the game than others, but I believe this to be the most logical and beneficial solution. However I am in favor of keeping the suspect testing system that is established. Everyone should be able to have a say in the tiering process and that say is through the tiering surveys. When it comes to materializing the possible changes setting a minimum of effort seems the best possible way.
The above reason is exactly why I am dissapointed towards the master rule change regarding sleep. What was an internal discussion among great players with some valid points, was eventually implemented - quite hastily imo - wihtout it being set up for a survey or a suspect test. This change is at princple way more important than a simple pokemon concerning suspect test.
Now when it comes to what should be suspected - or in other words what is broken, there are some two new approaches that didn't exist a while back. People now are concerned with what the meta WOULD be without a high profile threat and take active side against suspecting a mon because its removal could potentially make for a significantly worse metagame. While this thought process isn't unreasonable, isn't this exactly what the suspect process is? Determining whether a mon is healthy or not? If a mon is "broken" or "unhealthy" shouldn't there be tiering action or at least a suspect (a potential tiering action)?The potential metagame would be a new position that should be evaluated when its time has come: if the new meta is uncompetitive and unenjoyable we can always determine what are the reasons for such a state and deal with them anew. Fixing a stagnant and unfun meta doesn't necessarily mean banning things. Attempting to reintroduce threats previously deemed too powerful is a valid tiering strategy assuming nothing in the OU meta feels above the rest.
The second approach is the centralisation argument which I will edit in later because of time.
Sorry for the long post!
may or may not write a more fleshed-out post on this later, but, when it comes to tiering, we should be wary of a couple of things:
- assessing a pokémon’s worthiness of staying in the metagame based on the speculative consequences of its ban, as opposed to whether or not it has enough reasonable counterplay/is overwhelmingly strong/introduces an unacceptable level of variance. don’t tier for a metagame we aren’t playing, deal with it as it comes, etc.
- centralisation is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is mandatory within a metagame to produce predictable results & lower matchup variance. there is a line to be drawn between a wide-open metagame, which invariably ends up inflated, creating teambuilding strain, & one in which certain pokemon are mandated by one or a few threats such that they constrain teambuilding to a degree that once again, leaves holes when it comes to preparing for the rest of the metagame.
If Darkrai and Iron Valiant were a problem with Hypnosis, they could have easily suspected both of them or ban Hypnosis.
Liligant-H and Venusaur could maybe have been a problem down the line but in that ban SP and that’s it. Apart from literally 4 mons out of all the entire game (from moves that could actually miss. A lot) There wasn’t any other problem with sleep in gen 9.
if we’re banning an entire mechanic for 4 mons, then we should ban Tera Blast for example and test Volc and Regieleki. It’s not fair imo
Yawn is a healthy move, Clodsire Yawn was legit in OU, so was Amoonguss with Spore
I feel like this whole "we should unban sleep" discussion misses the point that it was not just because darkrai, valiant and to lesser extents red card amoonguss, hilligant and venusaur were abusing it, but also because sleep clause is not cart accurate. You could not replicate aspects that sleep interacted with in showdown on cart. If that doesn't make sense, then pressing a sleep move on an opposing mon that is healthy (i.e. doesn't have a status condition already) while the opponent already had a sleeping mon, then it would fail. This is NOT replicable on cart, the sleep move would still work and sleep the mon. We try our hardest to avoid these mods as the hp Percentage mod is the only one that is still active in CG OU (which is just QoL at this point, and not comparable to sleep clause). Everybody has seemingly overlooked that aspect because the mon that has an ability that punishes sleeping mons might be suspected. And Darkrai wasn't even the main thing breaking it, valiant was prob even worse due to the fact it could use hex to punish every sleep immunity.
(And I swear to god, if somebody says "well banning mons isn't cart accurate" then I am going to lose it because you have to be so dumb to say that)
Why are we trying to bring back a mechanic that already had a clause that was still causing problems I ask you. No, yawn and amoonguss are not enough of a reason to bring it back. And yawn without sleep clause would be so cancerous due to hazard stack forcing you to take increasing hazard chip while risking multiple mons getting slept in order to stop it.
If you had issues with how sleep was handled, then there was an entire suspect thread to get your thoughts out and a survey to vote on. Why is there now such a big issue with how sleep got banned, it is not coming back, it is game breaking on multiple levels.
(And I swear to god, if somebody says "well banning mons isn't cart accurate" then I am going to lose it because you have to be so dumb to say that)
Why are we trying to bring back a mechanic that already had a clause that was still causing problems I ask you. No, yawn and amoonguss are not enough of a reason to bring it back. And yawn without sleep clause would be so cancerous due to hazard stack forcing you to take increasing hazard chip while risking multiple mons getting slept in order to stop it.
If you had issues with how sleep was handled, then there was an entire suspect thread to get your thoughts out and a survey to vote on. Why is there now such a big issue with how sleep got banned, it is not coming back, it is game breaking on multiple levels.
Cart accuracy is an arbitrary term with little consistent meaning and increasingly irrelevant as a concept as Smogon and PS policy has developed over the past several years. Gen 1 is probably the biggest example of how "cart accuracy" is a meaningless term with the amount of glitches and mechanics that are arbitrarily implemented and unimplemented. Trying to justify HP percentages as QoL only proves this point, as it significantly reduces the guesswork needed to identify sets that would otherwise be difficult to judge on cart. The other issue is that the overwhelming precedent would be to ban Valiant and Darkrai instead of radically changing how the game is played to accomodate two already arguably broken Pokemon. I don't care either way on Sleep, what I care about here is having a consistent policy.
But with that in mind, if we're banning sleep, why not paralysis and Confusion? Why not Serene Grace? Why should we have nonconditional turn skips as a whole? Paralysis is extremely uncompetitive in LC metagames because of how easy it is to fish for free turns (although arguably the real issue is turn-fishing with healing consumables factored). So why is it only a problem with sleep in Gen 9?
Outside of complex bans on stuff like Stored Power or Tera Blast (which would free Volcarona, Magearna, Espathra, and Regieleki) I don't think there are any good mons to unban. Ideally an unban should have the effect of making balanced teams better, but most of the commonly cited unban targets don't really do that.
Palafin would be a nice anti-offense mon, but given that our anti-water mons are a bit mediocre, its pretty easy to see how Tera Water Wave Crash under rain just decimates most of tier. That being said, it doesn't need rain to mess up its counters. Other tech like Grass Knot or Encore to beat most of them. I don't think there are many good counters to this Pokemon on balanced teams. I was a Shifu advocate in the past, and I think it would have some positive impact on the metagame, but its also not neccessary, particularly given that it is such a potent FS abuser.
Chien Pao and Terapagos unbans could help balance. Chien Pao might sound crazy, but the power boost & speed over weavile let it more reliably revenge kill most of the annoying balance breakers like Darkrai, SD Gliscor, Gholdengo, Ogerpon-W, and Kyurem & it also has stronger priority over Weavile to let it more reliably revenge kill Roaring Moon from lower ranges. Chien Pao itself could arguably be checked by ID + BP Zamazenta, which is a common staple on balance. That being said, I think it would be too centralizing of a force & it is very likely it would become a potent balance breaker itself with sets like CB or SD. Balance would lilkely be forced to run it and Zamazenta on every composition to remain competitive. Terapagos offers Spin utility, a nice conditional check to certain Pokemon like Darkrai, Kyurem, etc. & is arguably not overwhelming for balance to handle due to checks like Spdef Pex, Spdef Unaware CM Clefable, and the like fitting better on balance than other styles. That being said, it has the issue of, again, centralizing the game too much around itself & sets like Specs likely are difficult for balance to beat without a premier special wall like Blissey.
Cart accuracy is an entirely objective term actually
While some tiers stray from it due to technical logistics (gen 1 particularly) or like acid rain in gen 4, it doesn't mean it's a meaningless term however.
QOL changes like HP percentages and the Cancel button aren't deviating from cartridge accuracy because they don't physically alter the gamestate (like sleep clause would.)
Agree 100%
My point was many users have gave detailed and concise reasons why TB should be banned, or at least suspected, but I've never personally seen those points addressed intelligently or refuted in any significant way. The proof is presented (as much as an subjective opinion can be "proof") but then we just always have a bigger fish to fry and time moves on. I believe if there was a TB suspect thread or something then it would be pretty clear the pro-ban side arguments have more substance.
I truly don't know what an argument regarding TB as more positive to the meta than negative would even look like, sincerely.
4MSS isn't as cut and dry as "functionality" and is more so about checks and counters. Blaze doesn't need T-Punch for bulky waters, it has CC, but it needs T-Punch for Slowbro, for example, or it's checked. Blaze doesn't require T-Punch to function, but it does require it to muscle past certain mons. 4MSS just means a mon can't handle all its checks and counters with only 4 moves. The worse a mon has 4MSS the more this problem is exasperated.
Free turns have always been uncompetitive in 6v6 singles. There has been some dogmatic approaches to balancing mons and creating our own metagame over the years. Para basically ruins Gen 6 for me. That said, the majority usually think free turns, even earned in insane BS ways like Static, are just part and parcel of Pokemon. Crits and some RNG do make the game better, or at least more exciting which is sometimes more important.
All that said, sleep finally got banned for a few reason and some are specific to Gen 9. First, hypnosis can miss, and that's lowkey a good thing sometimes. It's also tied to some of the strongest mons in the tier, Val and Rai. Spore essentially had no switch-ins this meta, and when you factor in Sludge Bomb only Garg and Gold could consistently switch into Amoong. Speaking of Gold and the hazard meta, Yawn just forces boots on everything which isn't fun.
The biggest reason though is that Gen 9's power creep is so insane that 1-2 free turns is often all a good player needs to take momentum and even the game sometimes. It added nothing healthy to the meta to the point where the majority wasn't okay with it anymore. The other hax, not so much. To defend Gen 9, which is rare for me, I think this is the least amount of hax we've ever had. Static and Flame Body aren't everywhere. Para spam is really low. Confusion is barely a thing. Flinches barely exist when compared to Jirachi and Kiss metas. I don't see how anyone is that upset about hax this gen. Banning sleep was just the cherry on top.
The issue with the "precedent" comparison is that the way Sleep Mod behaved was already breaking the Tiering Approach that underlies the point of Showdown (a convenient way to recreate game states as the Pokemon games of the Generation could, streamlining the ability to participate in battles without directly modifying how they play out). HP percentage is objectively QoL because all the information that HP Percent provides is information that could be acquired in a game as an agreement for the ruleset you play, in the same manner as a ban only applying to playing a Smogon format (you could have a judge verifying no banned Mons/Moves in a team and similarly a judge could see raw numbers and provide %'s with a Calculator, it just cuts down the time to visualize).
Sleep Clause Mod fundamentally changed how the interactions for multiple Sleep usages played out in such a way that Pokemon Showdown matches vs Actual-Software matches would have different optimal plays for the same game state. The thing that is being left out in claiming Darkrai and IV should be banned for consistency is that they were already creating these uncompetitive interactions under a compromise we made to keep Sleep moves as an option. Sleep Mod was basically "we change things to make Sleep moves fair," but then they made Sleep moves unfair with it, at which point Sleep Mod is failing its primary purpose and isn't worth keeping as a break in our policy, but then if Sleep Mod is a failure and removed, Sleep moves in general aren't healthy well beyond those 2 problem children and thus fit the uncompetitive blanket themselves more closely.
The follow up I think is a slippery slope fallacy, but I would note that banning Sleep when it's overbearing within a particular generation does have a precedent with Gen 5, where Sleep moves were banned due to their much more punishing turn durations, combined with a similarly High-Power-and-Pace Meta to what Gen 9 has been for a lot of its run. The fact of the matter is Smogon doesn't remove every single uncompetitive element, but there is a threshold before things are addressed rather than gritting and bearing it, and the short answer is Gen 9 sleep crossed that threshold while Paralysis and Confusion have not (nor Serene Grace if only because no problematic-level users are viable this Gen).
As one last bit because of the comparison to Gen 1's buggy cartridge experience, besides the whataboutism that we're not tiering for Gen 1 (which has its own community/tiering authorities and is legitimately from a different time in terms of Smogon policy), perfection should never be the enemy of improvement. Just because we can't make literally everything in some Metas (old or new) literally 1-to-1 down to the glitchy interactions doesn't mean we should abandon ANY effort to do so on the aspects we do have control over.
Changing available information ALWAYS changes how the game in question is played. Trying to use an arbitrary qualifier to justify departure from cartridge accuracy doesn't change how inconsistent the policy actually is.
I should have clarified, when I'm talking about flinches and confusion, I'm talking about other metagames. Confusion seems less relevant until you remember that there's already precedent under Swagger, which itself was a weird choice to isolate beyond the fact it's enhanced confusion.
Are the judges going to implement cancel buttons too? You're talking about optimal plays changing under different clauses, but fundamentally all decision-making changes when you have information you otherwise wouldn't have in a cartridge game. Could you have a judge verifying and providing calculations? Sure, and you could have a judge transcribing moves after they happen like Showdown does. That's not how competitive Pokemon has ever been played though, so it seems a little disingenous to suggest that as an option. And you could just as easily say a judge can rule violations of sleep clause as being an autolose condition instead of having sleep moves fail automatically. The timer and cancel button together aren't implementable, and are extremely useful for making predictions that are otherwise much more difficult to make without the option to cancel inputs. At the end of the day, what I'm getting at is that trying to justify banning something on a power basis by using policy arguments only leads to bad policy going forward.
These other arguments fundamentally ignore the point I'm getting at, which is the need for consistency across metagames. I agree that it's futile to try implementing all gen 1 glitches in the games, but that's not the point I'm making, the point is that we are picking and choosing what to implement based on entirely arbitrary parameters. It's one thing if it's a programming issue, it's another issue entirely to say we (don't) want to implement something. It's not whataboutism to bring these up when the point of policy is to set consistent guidelines for shaping metagames.
Been trying out that clodsire BO team in the RMT thread and i realized how efficient zama and garg are at noobstomping
They both have 1 thing in common where they completely destroy badly structured teams with 0 effort.
With zama you just clear your opponents ghost types, idpress up and win.
Garganacl is a bit of a tera hog, however the fact that it can spam the biggest braindead, low-risk high-reward move that is salt cure, generally makes it worth the trade. Also it's a pretty funny but pitiful sight to see your opponents keep switching their mons around to try and hopelessly escape salt cure chip damage
When you're in the 1500-1600 range using these mons, it's like playing showdown on autopilot
They both have 1 thing in common where they completely destroy badly structured teams with 0 effort.
With zama you just clear your opponents ghost types, idpress up and win.
Garganacl is a bit of a tera hog, however the fact that it can spam the biggest braindead, low-risk high-reward move that is salt cure, generally makes it worth the trade. Also it's a pretty funny but pitiful sight to see your opponents keep switching their mons around to try and hopelessly escape salt cure chip damage
When you're in the 1500-1600 range using these mons, it's like playing showdown on autopilot
You can see 200/400 hp from a judge and calculate that its at 50% hp, the information is available to you either way, hp percentage mod just does the math for you, objectively a qol feature as people have said.
Last edited:
We can't even ban Rage Fist because of a Pre-Evolution that is currently ranked ZU. As far as I know it's against Tiering Policy to axe something as widespread like Moves and Items without definitive proof that the Move/Item in question is a widespread problem. Why it took the release of Basculegion to ban Last Rites, and why the notion of a Booster Energy ban has been shot down since the beginning of SV OU(think of poor Slither Wing and Scream Tail). While Tera Blast existing has directly lead to the ban of two, maybe three Pokemon when you consider that almost every Pokemon has access to the move, and aren't broken because of it it's really hard to justify its ban. Also I doubt Regieleki would do anything for the OU tier, and I also think Espathra would still be a problem with just Tera Fairy + Dazzling Gleam. So it really is just a movement to allow Volcarona in the tier. Which removing a universal tool that's fine on all other Pokemon just to allow one Pokemon to maybe stick around in OU is imo not a good look.
The problem is that Sleep Clause should more properly be called Sleep Mod Clause. Early generations have their own wacky metagame rules because the mixture of a small pool of available mons and since-abandoned mechanics led to serious problems, and therefore Smogon (and predecessors to Showdown) implemented gameplay mods.
By Gen 9, the only gameplay mod remaining was Sleep Clause, and it was coasting along because everyone knew the only options were banning sleep entirely or continuing the status quo. The moment that the status quo showed itself problematic, 'ban the status' was inevitably going to be the pick over 'further mod gameplay.'
If we truly care about console accuracy, then we should implement timer clause. Additionally (please correct me if I'm wrong here), according to the Showdown RNG page, the Switch uses CPRNG, meaning it is impossible to verify that the RNG used in battles on Showdown are possible on actual hardware.
As boo836 says, "Cart accuracy is an arbitrary term with little consistent meaning." We cannot selectively choose to apply it. If you want to play 100% accurate Pokemon, you have to play it on device. I am not even against the sleep ban (I personally prefer it to sleep clause), but it is an inconsistent argument and one that is being used to avoid having to actually discuss the underlying problems. If the community prefers to stay as close to traditional hardware as possible, that's fine and even a compelling argument on its own, but let's not pretend that modding is evil when we have to do it for the format to be playable in the first place.
From my point of view (which is not better than anyone else, I just want to give my opinion on this even if I think it's a bit "controversial") I wouldn't really care about being "legitimate" to the cartridge in stuff that would benefit the quality of the game.
I know that old tiering / decisions are WAY different than what we should take, but the aspect that I think is good is making small mods that help the integrity of the metagame. This is just my opinion tho, and if we wanna keep it as true as possible and we can't have a Sleep clause then I 100% support non-sleep. I was refering to bring back Sleep Clause. But again, I get the point and I fully respect it.
Tbh, while I know I wouldn't have changed anything on the debate about sleep, I wasn't actually active on Smogon forums when the discussion happened:( I started to post and read stuff here around the pre-Volc suspect era,
I just wanted to say I couple of things about what you said about sleep pre-ban (when we had the clause) because I like this type of debates:)
1. "Valiant was prob even worse due to the fact it could use hex to punish every sleep immunity"
I think that if mostly 2-3 mons are making a mechanic overbearing, then those mons should be looked, not the mechanic. This is my opinion tho.
2. "And yawn without sleep clause would be so cancerous due to hazard stack forcing you to take increasing hazard chip while risking multiple mons getting slept in order to stop it."
I get your point, but so does Whirlwind and Roar for example (the point of forcing hazard stack damage), so also does pivoting constantly from Gliscor's toxic + EQ + Knock if you don't have a Clef or a Bulky Gholdengo for example. Would that aspect of Yawn be "frustrating" yeah but so are a lot of moves / strategies in OU (and that's not bad imo)
But yeah I get the point about being legitimate to the cartridge and it's 100% reasonable
We ultimately have to stay as close to cartridge as possible because, to a certain point, we stop playing Pokemon. As was said above, to choose between upholding a faulty status quo and further modding the game, the former will win out. Yes, we don't have a completely perfect replica of Pokemon, though it is, as far as I'm aware, mostly due to inability, such as implementing an exact timer and frame by frame move animations.
More to the point, if we completely disregard cartridge accuracy, we should unquestionably remove all freeze chances from damaging ice moves, remove flinch chances, etc. While this theoretical metagame may sound more initially appealing, as flinch memes are never fun, it puts policy making on a hue hue hue slippery slope where we can just pick and choose what aspects of the core pokemon game, and not just isolatable elements like moves or mons themselves, we are playing.
More to the point, if we completely disregard cartridge accuracy, we should unquestionably remove all freeze chances from damaging ice moves, remove flinch chances, etc. While this theoretical metagame may sound more initially appealing, as flinch memes are never fun, it puts policy making on a hue hue hue slippery slope where we can just pick and choose what aspects of the core pokemon game, and not just isolatable elements like moves or mons themselves, we are playing.
I mean. I agree with you there. :V
There's a difference between selective application and "we literally cannot replicate this so we use the next best alternative." Especially since directly emulating games would have Nintendo lawyers knocking on our door.
