Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [NEW TIERING RESULTS POST 11597]

I think that, if it was up to me, I would have a teraless ladder/OM. I also think that, due to external factors and multiple reasons, it is not a good idea and further discussion of it is completely pointless and a complete waste of time.

I think that drugs and prostitution should be legal. I also think that due to the society we live in they should never be legal, and pushing for that is pointless.

I'm sorry for you if you don't have the critical thinking skills to analyze an issue from multiple perspectives.
Lol. Let me spell it out for you since it seems you missed the point: I don't believe you when you say that.

I don't believe it when you say you would want a teraless ladder/OM or would do it but can't because literally everything else you say is reasons why you think we shouldn't do it, shouldn't even discuss it, and how pointless and a waste of time it is. Dude, if you maybe made one fucking argument for why you think a teraless ladder/OM would be helpful and wouldn't be a waste of time, compared to everything else you said against it, then maybe you could talk about having a more nuanced perspective. I used my critical thinking skills to determine you were probably full of crap.

And to be perfectly clear, being against it is a fine position to have. But don't come on here and pretend you are for it in any way when you clearly aren't. And don't say that you are being misunderstood when you cannot say a single non-negative thing about it.

As I explained, I find the idea of a teraless OM not only not good but also actively detrimental, as such you will understand that I find reasons to not do it in the first place.
So if it was up to you, you wouldn't actually have a Tera-less OM as you literally just claimed earlier in your comment? This is why I have a problem. As for OMs, we have all sorts of goofy OMs and no one has a problem with this. As soon as Tera is involved or not, peoples' attitudes change fast.

It's the same, even if you don't want to admit it. I countered your point and you just said "no it isn't". And the slippery slope is a fact, I've heard the argument of spikeless or sleepless ladder so many times.
So what happened with those Sleep arguments? Oh yeah, the council treated Sleep differently than a pokemon. And no one made a sleepless ladder, as I already alluded to. Slippery slope is still a logical fallacy. And you can look that up, by the way. A simple Google search could tell you who is right here.

Tera is not the same even if you don't want to admit it. But rather than boiling everything I said to "no it isn't", which is another logical fallacy, you could maybe go back and read my actual arguments properly with those critical thinking skills you are so proud of. Or maybe admit that a generational mechanic is not the same as a pokemon? I originally didn't think you were arguing in bad faith on purpose, but now I'm not sure. You are full of bad faith arguments here, which is very ironic considering how you ended this comment.

What if Amoonguss was completely broken and we had no sleep and sleep ladders? Like, sleep is a mechanic, and sleep was treated just like a regular ban, tera is just an added bonus, another mechanic in the game.
No. Actually, sleep was treated differently as it was mainly a council decision. I already stated this multiple times. Like you do realize that the council chose to ban sleep over like Darkrai and Valiant, right? So why do you keep acting like different things are treated the same. This is a clear attempt to whitewash the obvious differences.

Completely missing the point and focusing only on one example. Cool.
Completely missing the point and ignored all the other examples in the same exact post, like the sleep ban and your Gambit example. Cool. At this point, you aren't even trying.

I guess agree to disagree. I just felt like giving my two cents on what a teraless ladder implies in a non-biased way and provide context for previous discussions, and you're painting me as if I'm the tera lord and believe that running Clef Hatterene Gambit RBolt GFire Dirge constitutes a monofairy team.
What are you talking about? Nothing you said has been unbiased. You're against the whole idea and even the conversation of it. Those are literally your words. You did mention to the other poster about coming in with an unbiased view, but you don't seem to be taking your own advice. You already made your own conclusions on how the whole thing would turn out.

This is why I believe discussion on teraless ladder is absolutely pointless, we run in circles and don't end up talking about what actually matters when considering a teraless ladder, which is due process. If you want precedent on how shit turns out, check the Gen 6 UU no scald ladder kerfuffel. Everything that people say it's going to happen with an alternate ladder has already happened in the past. We have had threads dedicated to discussing the merits of tera and gallons of ink have been spilled on the subject.
Which is why we never had a Tera-less ladder and the suggestion this time is in the form of an OM. Agree or disagree with that, it's certainly different.

Furthermore, it would likely be better to have a comparison than to have these arguments about it where we think we know the impact but cannot prove it.

The current meta isn't exactly well liked right now, so it's obvious that people will try to find the cause. Ban discussions and the like will continue to be popular until and unless the meta settles in a way that is more popular. Until then, you can expect many theories on the root cause.
 
Lol. Let me spell it out for you since it seems you missed the point: I don't believe you when you say that.

I don't believe it when you say you would want a teraless ladder/OM or would do it but can't because literally everything else you say is reasons why you think we shouldn't do it, shouldn't even discuss it, and how pointless and a waste of time it is. Dude, if you maybe made one fucking argument for why you think a teraless ladder/OM would be helpful and wouldn't be a waste of time, compared to everything else you said against it, then maybe you could talk about having a more nuanced perspective. I used my critical thinking skills to determine you were probably full of crap.

And to be perfectly clear, being against it is a fine position to have. But don't come on here and pretend you are for it in any way when you clearly aren't. And don't say that you are being misunderstood when you cannot say a single non-negative thing about it.



So if it was up to you, you wouldn't actually have a Tera-less OM as you literally just claimed earlier in your comment? This is why I have a problem. As for OMs, we have all sorts of goofy OMs and no one has a problem with this. As soon as Tera is involved or not, peoples' attitudes change fast.



So what happened with those Sleep arguments? Oh yeah, the council treated Sleep differently than a pokemon. And no one made a sleepless ladder, as I already alluded to. Slippery slope is still a logical fallacy. And you can look that up, by the way. A simple Google search could tell you who is right here.

Tera is not the same even if you don't want to admit it. But rather than boiling everything I said to "no it isn't", which is another logical fallacy, you could maybe go back and read my actual arguments properly with those critical thinking skills you are so proud of. Or maybe admit that a generational mechanic is not the same as a pokemon? I originally didn't think you were arguing in bad faith on purpose, but now I'm not sure. You are full of bad faith arguments here, which is very ironic considering how you ended this comment.



No. Actually, sleep was treated differently as it was mainly a council decision. I already stated this multiple times. Like you do realize that the council chose to ban sleep over like Darkrai and Valiant, right? So why do you keep acting like different things are treated the same. This is a clear attempt to whitewash the obvious differences.



Completely missing the point and ignored all the other examples in the same exact post, like the sleep ban and your Gambit example. Cool. At this point, you aren't even trying.



What are you talking about? Nothing you said has been unbiased. You're against the whole idea and even the conversation of it. Those are literally your words. You did mention to the other poster about coming in with an unbiased view, but you don't seem to be taking your own advice. You already made your own conclusions on how the whole thing would turn out.



Which is why we never had a Tera-less ladder and the suggestion this time is in the form of an OM. Agree or disagree with that, it's certainly different.

Furthermore, it would likely be better to have a comparison than to have these arguments about it where we think we know the impact but cannot prove it.

The current meta isn't exactly well liked right now, so it's obvious that people will try to find the cause. Ban discussions and the like will continue to be popular until and unless the meta settles in a way that is more popular. Until then, you can expect many theories on the root cause.
It's 1AM, I wake up in 5 hours, you're gonna hold your views, and I'm the first one to hate toxicity in here. Yeah, okay, you're right, I'm a fraud and incredibly biased and don't know shit and you got a point. Sorry for wasting your time. Good for you. Here's a meme I found online. See y'all tomorrow.

images (7).jpeg
 
If I had a dollar for every time someone on this thread discussed tera, I would have enough money to be able to create my own website and battle simulator for Pokemon battles and would be able to ban talk about tera on there.
I don’t know. If we assume every post mentions Tera (which literally every single post besides random one-liners will) you would have $8,262 dollars. Honestly, that may be enough to make a website if you could code the entire thing yourself.
 
I don’t know. If we assume every post mentions Tera (which literally every single post besides random one-liners will) you would have $8,262 dollars. Honestly, that may be enough to make a website if you could code the entire thing yourself.
Firstly, respect for finding how many posts mention tera.
Secondly, I do know a few things about coding so I could potentially do it, but I think the time effort would be worth it.
 
I mean, all I did was look at the post number of your post and then assume every single post mentioned Tera……..
Wait, lmao I didn't realise that. Though that is probably a somewhat accurate number since we have 4 metagame discussion threads and I would say about 1/4 of the posts are about tera across these.
 
I don’t know. If we assume every post mentions Tera (which literally every single post besides random one-liners will) you would have $8,262 dollars. Honestly, that may be enough to make a website if you could code the entire thing yourself.
IMG_8098.jpeg
because the smogon forum doesn't give you a number and i'm too lazy to go through all four threads and count up every post mentioning tera, i'm just gonna go with the number google gives you and say $10,300. i don't know how much the costs are to run smogon and showdown both, nor to run a website that would be a viable competitor to them, but this would probably get you off to a decent start if you could find some good coders
 
It's 1AM, I wake up in 5 hours, you're gonna hold your views, and I'm the first one to hate toxicity in here. Yeah, okay, you're right, I'm a fraud and incredibly biased and don't know shit and you got a point. Sorry for wasting your time. Good for you. Here's a meme I found online. See y'all tomorrow.
I hope that at some point when you are more awake and have time, you reread the conversation to figure out why it went the way it did. No one is forcing you to wait until a better time for you to post, either, if that was a factor for you. In the end, it's up to the individual poster to choose whether or not to continue a debate, when is right to post, and how to phrase it.

There was maybe some potential for you to go somewhere more with the scald ladder argument. I was admittedly pretty lazy with my response to that one, but that was mostly because of where the rest of your comment came from. It wasn't in good faith. If you ever do feel like continuing the discussion at a better time for you, which you obviously don't have to, I recommend starting from there.
 
View attachment 614449because the smogon forum doesn't give you a number and i'm too lazy to go through all four threads and count up every post mentioning tera, i'm just gonna go with the number google gives you and say $10,300. i don't know how much the costs are to run smogon and showdown both, nor to run a website that would be a viable competitor to them, but this would probably get you off to a decent start if you could find some good coders
Actually, I think it might be enough. On average, it is about $200 upfront to make one, with about $50 per month to maintain it. If you hire a designer or developer, then it is an upfront cost of about $6000 with an ongoing cost of about $1000 per year. At least, that's what the first google result says.
Though of course, there is also this result so idk if my post is actually relevant.
1710210711794.png
 
Why is it people want to suspect gholdengo, in regards to hazards, instead of some of the setters themselves? Like you can say they're not good, but that's blatantly false as their job is to set hazards, not necessarily win games. Since gliscor has been banned for its effectiveness I don't see why other mons aren't looked at more. Samu-H, Deoxys-S, Gliscor(got some of the highest mentions from the survey), Ting-lu(I remember there was some discussion on it being too good earlier in the gen,). We've got a lot of good setters, and while they don't dominate games, they have a noticeable impact on the metagame. This isn't a call to action, it's more for discussion and seeing some thoughts about why they're considered less impactful than gholdengo, who loses more from failing a block, when they can often just reset spikes.
 
Why is it people want to suspect gholdengo, in regards to hazards, instead of some of the setters themselves? Like you can say they're not good, but that's blatantly false as their job is to set hazards, not necessarily win games. Since gliscor has been banned for its effectiveness I don't see why other mons aren't looked at more. Samu-H, Deoxys-S, Gliscor(got some of the highest mentions from the survey), Ting-lu(I remember there was some discussion on it being too good earlier in the gen,). We've got a lot of good setters, and while they don't dominate games, they have a noticeable impact on the metagame. This isn't a call to action, it's more for discussion and seeing some thoughts about why they're considered less impactful than gholdengo, who loses more from failing a block, when they can often just reset spikes.
Cuz we have a lot of viable spikers but only one Golden Joe keeping them up. Banning Gliscor only led to extremely suffocating Ting-Zap structures by the end of DLC 1.
 
Why is it people want to suspect gholdengo, in regards to hazards, instead of some of the setters themselves? Like you can say they're not good, but that's blatantly false as their job is to set hazards, not necessarily win games. Since gliscor has been banned for its effectiveness I don't see why other mons aren't looked at more. Samu-H, Deoxys-S, Gliscor(got some of the highest mentions from the survey), Ting-lu(I remember there was some discussion on it being too good earlier in the gen,). We've got a lot of good setters, and while they don't dominate games, they have a noticeable impact on the metagame. This isn't a call to action, it's more for discussion and seeing some thoughts about why they're considered less impactful than gholdengo, who loses more from failing a block, when they can often just reset spikes.
Because they would simply be replaced by other mons that fill there same job. Only really Hamurott can't be replaced easily (no, Smeargle doesn't count), so I don't think there is a point to it. Also, none of them are really that problematic and can be dealt with decently easily.
Hamurott: The most problematic one, but it does have noticeable weaknesses. It's speed tier, while alright, is speed-tieing with rillaboom and being outsped by Great Tusk. Also, it's typing is not the best defensively, not bad, but being weak to grass, electric, fighting, u-turn and fairy isn't really the best. I would say that this one you could potentially convince me it might need to go, but I don't think it is too problematic.
Deoxys-S: Actually fell to UU, though I do think it is a bit of a fluke. The spikes sets (offensive sets are fine, and I am interested in exploring them, but this is purely about spikes set), can usually get off one spike, but have longevity issues. Deoxys-S' bulk is not good, 50/90/90 is kinda bad. That means it can maybe get 2 layers of spikes up, and then it will die, meaning you can't reapply spikes if they are removed. Of course, you can try to offensively prevent removal from occuring, but I don't think that is something that wouldn't be replicated by something like scarf meow.
Gliscor: Is the first spiker that actually has decent longevity. Gliscor can definetely be annoying to deal with, but not impossible. It has severe 4mss, as it wants stuff like spikes, knock off, toxic, poison jab, sd and more, but has to fit them all into its moveset. With proper teambuilding, this can be alleviated, but you can't always be the immovable beast you want to be. Hitting it hard is how it is dealt with, especially on the special side. It also has to play a lot of 50/50s with it being forced to use protect, which can be used by the opponent to get a boost off which is undesireable.
Ting-lu: The bulkiest spike setter we have, ting-lu has longevity problems in this meta. It can be quite passive against any ground resistance, which most teams have a ground immunity, so it can easily be chipped down. Plus, being weak to tusk is always undesirable, and also being forced to compete with tusk is another thing that means if you want to have hazard removal, you might have to stack weaknesses to common threats. Definetely a good mon, but something that can be easily overwhelmed.
Overall, non of these are problematic, but I bet most of these would be replaced by something else like chomp, which would not really solve the problem. The hazard metagame is shit, and we kinda have to accept that. I know it may seem like a lost cause fallacy, but that's just how it is sadly. Hazards are going to be a key part of the metagame when we have not a lot of removal.
 
Actually, I think it might be enough. On average, it is about $200 upfront to make one, with about $50 per month to maintain it. If you hire a designer or developer, then it is an upfront cost of about $6000 with an ongoing cost of about $1000 per year. At least, that's what the first google result says.
Though of course, there is also this result so idk if my post is actually relevant.
View attachment 614466
good lord who is out here spending $135k on a year's worth of website design and maintenance. at that point just spend the money on getting a degree and learn to do it yourself
 
Cuz we have a lot of viable spikers but only one Golden Joe keeping them up. Banning Gliscor only led to extremely suffocating Ting-Zap structures by the end of DLC 1.
I don't think that we'd really end up in that situation again. Kyurem, Weavile, Meowscarada, Gouging Fire, Raging Bolt, Darkrai, Iron Boulder, walking wake. There's a good bit of options to pressure those structures, and there's more time for the tier to evolve past that than there was previously.

Because they would simply be replaced by other mons that fill there same job. Only really Hamurott can't be replaced easily (no, Smeargle doesn't count), so I don't think there is a point to it. Also, none of them are really that problematic and can be dealt with decently easily.
Hamurott: The most problematic one, but it does have noticeable weaknesses. It's speed tier, while alright, is speed-tieing with rillaboom and being outsped by Great Tusk. Also, it's typing is not the best defensively, not bad, but being weak to grass, electric, fighting, u-turn and fairy isn't really the best. I would say that this one you could potentially convince me it might need to go, but I don't think it is too problematic.
Deoxys-S: Actually fell to UU, though I do think it is a bit of a fluke. The spikes sets (offensive sets are fine, and I am interested in exploring them, but this is purely about spikes set), can usually get off one spike, but have longevity issues. Deoxys-S' bulk is not good, 50/90/90 is kinda bad. That means it can maybe get 2 layers of spikes up, and then it will die, meaning you can't reapply spikes if they are removed. Of course, you can try to offensively prevent removal from occuring, but I don't think that is something that wouldn't be replicated by something like scarf meow.
Gliscor: Is the first spiker that actually has decent longevity. Gliscor can definetely be annoying to deal with, but not impossible. It has severe 4mss, as it wants stuff like spikes, knock off, toxic, poison jab, sd and more, but has to fit them all into its moveset. With proper teambuilding, this can be alleviated, but you can't always be the immovable beast you want to be. Hitting it hard is how it is dealt with, especially on the special side. It also has to play a lot of 50/50s with it being forced to use protect, which can be used by the opponent to get a boost off which is undesireable.
Ting-lu: The bulkiest spike setter we have, ting-lu has longevity problems in this meta. It can be quite passive against any ground resistance, which most teams have a ground immunity, so it can easily be chipped down. Plus, being weak to tusk is always undesirable, and also being forced to compete with tusk is another thing that means if you want to have hazard removal, you might have to stack weaknesses to common threats. Definetely a good mon, but something that can be easily overwhelmed.
Overall, non of these are problematic, but I bet most of these would be replaced by something else like chomp, which would not really solve the problem. The hazard metagame is shit, and we kinda have to accept that. I know it may seem like a lost cause fallacy, but that's just how it is sadly. Hazards are going to be a key part of the metagame when we have not a lot of removal.
It's not to get rid of spikes, it's to have more manageable setters than the ones we have now. Yes, they have their flaws, like everything else, but they have a lot of influence on the tier because they're good setters. A mon doesn't have to have either longevity, or power to be problematic, they still find strong influence in the tier. Samu has speed issues, but it's able to attack and secure a layer of spikes, along with a powerful stab combo, it's able to usually go 1-1, and set vs Hatterene. Deo-S being UU means nothing to me personally, it was just behind serperior, and it's purpose is more in setting hazards. It doesn't usually matter if it drops as it's teammates are meant to keep up pressure to deny removal anyway. And if they're grabbing two layers they're missing out, because they can just set rocks and do as much potentially as 3 layers in some cases. It has knock so it's able to punish mons, and remove boots so it's not even necessarily a negative if it can't get hazards in some cases. Gliscor is a mixed bag, while it's more manageable than it was, I think its more the stronger offensive mons in the tier than gliscor being a legitimate good presence. It's still a solid mon, and it could very easily get stronger.

In hindsight, I don't know why I mentioned ting lu, mons healthy or at least necessary. I do have problems with glimmora though, hits hard, spins and sets hazards.
 
Last edited:
Why is it people want to suspect gholdengo, in regards to hazards, instead of some of the setters themselves? Like you can say they're not good, but that's blatantly false as their job is to set hazards, not necessarily win games. Since gliscor has been banned for its effectiveness I don't see why other mons aren't looked at more. Samu-H, Deoxys-S, Gliscor(got some of the highest mentions from the survey), Ting-lu(I remember there was some discussion on it being too good earlier in the gen,). We've got a lot of good setters, and while they don't dominate games, they have a noticeable impact on the metagame. This isn't a call to action, it's more for discussion and seeing some thoughts about why they're considered less impactful than gholdengo, who loses more from failing a block, when they can often just reset spikes.
I've always been of the position that while Gholdengo is very constricting on our limited removal options like Defog Corviknight, I personally just think the mon is a patently stupid concept because of Good-as-Gold in general. Its defensive typing and profile are already a strong contender for one of the best in the game with Reliable Recovery and Boosting options, but now throw in the fact that it's immune to anything besides Direct damage and it's conceptually a Middle Finger to any Pokemon that isn't a straight Beat Stick. You can't Stallbreak the defensive sets since Taunt doesn't affect it, Status to cripple it is limited to random procs and Nuzzle, and Boosting sets simply say "nope" to Standard Phazing moves like Whirlwind Ting Lu.

The Design of this mon is basically "screw anything that's not an attacker" by its existence rather than its playstyle, which feels incredibly counter if a healthy meta is considered one where multiple playstyles are viable, even if not equally so. I probably can't make a good case that it's objectively unhealthy, especially in the state of DLC2 OU now, but if it went up for Suspect and got voted out, I would probably mildly celebrate with a Cupcake or something.
 
Ghold stocks are trending negative for better or worse. What was once a centralizing, multifacted, offensive / defensive Pokemon with a plethora of utility has shifted into more of a cheese pick that I am specifically using if I wanna cteam stall with a NP + Shadow Ball / Focus Blast / Psyshock set with a Tera Dark Kingambit in back. On balance / bulky offense teams, I feel you will be getting significantly more mileage from GKing + Metal Bird + possible Kingambit to absorb Fsight (which its doing better than Ghold while providing more utility) + other mons like Dragapult for speed control. On Bulky offense, I tend to prefer other picks such as Kingambit, Iron Crown, and Dragapult since they complement one another better + pair better with Lando-T (Iron Crown gets bonus points for being a UU mon that works great in OU). Even on HO, I have my pick of 5+ Sweepers that are faster + stronger than Ghold and offer more utility with better stats between Gouging Fire, Kingambit, Raging Bolt, Roaring Moon, Volcarona, Ogerpon-W, etc. The only playstyle I find Ghold indispensible on is Webs. Corv is having a hard time removing rocks vs the likes of Lando-T or Glimm anyways because of not threatening them + Taunt in Lando-T's case.

This isn't to say Ghold has neccesarily gotten less effective, since in a vaccum + in 1v1s, its still king. Still one of the best balance breakers around, its still reasonably bulky and difficult to wear down thanks to recover, and T-Wave + Hex has good utility into a lot of mons thinking they can use Dengo as setup fodder. However, perhaps its more due to building differences compared to DLC1, but I find Ghold's unqiue qualities as a hazard blocker to be less desirable given how poorly it matches up against everything + how much it competes with other threats. Why would I want Ghold as my Kyurem check when Kingambit / Galarian Slowking do a better job in that match-up and have more utiltiy vs mons like Volcarona? Why would I want to pair Ghold with Ting-Lu to block hazard removal when Helmet Skarm / Corv are punishing the removers (specifically Tusk) just fine + have more utility into the likes of Kingambit and Roaring Moon? Why would I want to use Ghold on a HSam + Lando-T Bulky offense struct when Kingambit + Pult are more threatening and offer more offense / defensive utility? It feels harder and harder to justify running Ghold at all, espicially given how much it can struggle against Volcarona / Kingambit / Roaring Moon / Gouging Fire / Dragapult / Great Tusk / Lando-T, etc. Unlike before, I feel like I have to go out of my way to pick Ghold, rather than picking it as a default option like I do with Gambit / Dragapult / Lando-T / Ting-Lu, etc.
 
Ghold stocks are trending negative for better or worse. What was once a centralizing, multifacted, offensive / defensive Pokemon with a plethora of utility has shifted into more of a cheese pick that I am specifically using if I wanna cteam stall with a NP + Shadow Ball / Focus Blast / Psyshock set with a Tera Dark Kingambit in back. On balance / bulky offense teams, I feel you will be getting significantly more mileage from GKing + Metal Bird + possible Kingambit to absorb Fsight (which its doing better than Ghold while providing more utility) + other mons like Dragapult for speed control. On Bulky offense, I tend to prefer other picks such as Kingambit, Iron Crown, and Dragapult since they complement one another better + pair better with Lando-T (Iron Crown gets bonus points for being a UU mon that works great in OU). Even on HO, I have my pick of 5+ Sweepers that are faster + stronger than Ghold and offer more utility with better stats between Gouging Fire, Kingambit, Raging Bolt, Roaring Moon, Volcarona, Ogerpon-W, etc. The only playstyle I find Ghold indispensible on is Webs.

This isn't to say Ghold has neccesarily gotten less effective, since in a vaccum + in 1v1s, its still king. Still one of the best balance breakers around, its still reasonably bulky and difficult to wear down thanks to recover, and T-Wave + Hex has good utility into a lot of mons thinking they can use Dengo as setup fodder. However, perhaps its more due to building differences compared to DLC1, but I find Ghold's unqiue qualities as a hazard blocker to be less desirable given how poorly it matches up against everything + how much it competes with other threats. Why would I want Ghold as my Kyurem check when Kingambit / Galarian Slowking do a better job in that match-up and have more utiltiy vs mons like Volcarona? Why would I want to pair Ghold with Ting-Lu to block hazard removal when Helmet Skarm / Corv are punishing the removers (specifically Tusk) just fine + have more utility into the likes of Kingambit and Roaring Moon? Why would I want to use Ghold on a HSam + Lando-T Bulky offense struct when Kingambit + Pult are more threatening and offer more offense / defensive utility? It feels harder and harder to justify running Ghold at all, espicially given how much it can struggle against Volcarona / Kingambit / Roaring Moon / Gouging Fire / Dragapult / Great Tusk / Lando-T, etc. Unlike before, I feel like I have to go out of my way to pick Ghold, rather than picking it as a default option like I do with Gambit / Dragapult / Lando-T / Ting-Lu, etc.
I have used ghold on sticky webs teams with dazzling gleam and tera fairy, and let me say, yeah this thing can still be bs. It's speed tier is just good enough to outspeed most things after the speed drop and the things that can outspeed it still after the speed drop it can take a hit from and destroy back. It hits like an absolute truck at +2, with it cleaning games very easily. I honestly think that some experimentation with ghold could be interesting, because who knows how much better it could be with different sets. For example, it is quite a great dual screens user due to it being unable to be taunted or statused.
 
has anyone tried to rig a suspect test via bribery before? i wouldn't be too shocked if it had happened but if it did i feel like i wouldve heard about it
In SS LC there was a (currently) notorious user that added me on Discord and tried to influence my Do Not Ban vote on Drifloon, without succeeding on that. Drifloon didn't get banned on that Suspect but later that gen gained back access to Recycle and was Quickbanned as a result.
Pretty sure the same user tried (and maybe succeeded on some cases, though not enough of them) to do the same with more people that got reqs but obviously I don't have the proofs for that.
 
I think at this point a Gholdy getting suspect tested and moreso banned is not likely to happen. The tier has gotten so used to it, especially when he got more checks with both DLCs and if he wasn't banned in 2023 when he was so oppressive, forget about it now.

I always thought it was funny how he and Gambit despite of being so hated and controversial, were never banned. They're for sure the faces of this gen.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 6)

Top