Tiering Screens in SWSH RU

Status
Not open for further replies.

EviGaro

is a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
RU Leader
Good morning,

Recently, we in RarelyUsed did a tiering survey to discuss the state of the tier following most of RUPL and the start of RU Open, and at the top of the playerbase’s concerns was the constraint hyper offence seemed to leave on the tier’s competitive landscape. We then submitted a variety of options to further examine what exactly caused this issue for players, and there was a clear plurality for screens being at least the most significant problem.

Tiering screens is a bit… unique, though not necessarily without precedent, albeit a far more recent one than most other debates over tiering we have had over the past decade. Usually, screens only boost offensive pokemons, and when those tend to be seen as overwhelming, they are suspected and banned on the merit that they are offensively overwhelming, not necessarily because they are supported by screens. However, gen 7 marked a turn in that history, as Aurora Veil took competitive by storm, solving what seemed to be a main issue with screens by applying both in the same turn. It was considered way too unbalanced for RU and NU, despite the lack of a natural setter, and was thus banned, while the main setter of the generation, Ninetales-Alola, was banned by UU. As such, while screens are still perfectly legal in gen 7, multiple tiers for the first time actively tiered them in response to the support it provided being considered too much for their respective metagame.

Fast forward to gen 8… And again, Aurora Veil was what lower tiers started aiming at first. Ninetales-Alola was once again banned in UU before being allowed back with the DLCs, and NU banned Veil before allowing it back after banning Snow Warning instead. However, recently it has been seen that screens are starting to pop off alarmingly in a few metagames, especially UU and RU, and Aurora Veil isn’t actually at the front of this issue. UU now favours Grimmsnarl as a setter, and its usage in Open has been I’m told a cause for concern. Also while talking to Lilburr, it became obvious that for at least some of the UU Council removing Grimmsnarl only makes the playerbase move to the next best thing, which might be a mon UU has previously banned because of screens support While RU obviously doesn’t have these two, screens have been targeted as the main issue by the survey, the Council, and discussions with the general playerbase. But it’s really hard to pinpoint one specific mon with screens, as Raikou, Xatu, Froslass, Klefki, even Virizion are generally pretty effective screeners with different qualities without going into Veil options. And it’s also really hard to pinpoint one mon being the specific issue as an abuser, as both Necrozma and Cloyster got some support but far less so, and either would hardly be considered a problem without screens for most people: Cloyster’s ability to live stuff like a Power Whip from Zarude and a First Impression from Golisopod is the kind of thing that makes it far more annoying to actually outplay in a game than its sheer offensive output, and screens are by far the cause for that here. Necrozma and most other Weakness Policy users are good on their own, but become obscenely difficult to counter when they have multiple turns to setup and also activate their item to break. Idk that many scenarios for UU as is, but I’m sure some users can think of those in the replies as well.

So, if screens provide the support that is considered at the heart of the problem, something about said support should be addressed. Unlike in gen 7, Aurora Veil isn’t the clearcut answer and thus makes this a lot more arguable than anyone would like, but the proposal we have is this: Light Clay should be tiered and allowed to be banned from RU. If UU wants to opt with that ban, they are more than welcome to but so far it’s the option we in the RU Council have formed our consensus on.

This is not even a clear precedent being established, as earlier in the generation PU decided to nerf sun’s ability to break the metagame by banning Heat Rock. Both items work in very similar ways, enabling longer support for elements that can easily get out of hand to dominate a matchup. It doesn’t mean an easy and obvious win, but it gives a lot more leverage to the user of said item to navigate a game because they have a lot more turns on hands, while the other player always has to play reactively. Without Heat Rock, sun breakers have about three turns safe to break, without light clay, a mon setting up behind both screens might have two turns of safety. All of a sudden, that Cloyster doesn’t live both hits I mentioned earlier, and now the screens user actually has a lot less leeway to act. Cloyster’s effectiveness doesn’t completely crater, but it obviously changes things and makes the matchup a lot more even.

To us, this is the most obvious attempt at solving this problem currently. Banning mons that hardly anyone strongly think would be too much without screens to salvage a playstyle that would more likely continue to cause trouble – other mons like Rhyperior, Polteageist, Slurpuff, Barbaracle are already getting success - isn’t very appealing, and we honestly don’t know where to start if we had to ban screens users. PU solved its sun issue by removing heat rock, and we do think that logically banning light clay would also solve ours.
 

Finchinator

You’re so golden
is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending BW Circuit Champion
OU & NU Leader
I support the initiative to act on Light Clay.

I do not find consistent usage of the screens hyper offense archetype to be a standalone indicator of there being a problem. We have seen an abundance of hyper offense across a number of metagames this year and I do not believe action was warranted in each of them. However, the alarming effectiveness of screens teams is the true red flag here. Both the UU and RU metagames have a number of common abusers that can overwhelm counterplay when granted free turns, so it is not like banning any individual Pokemon can solve the problem in either metagame. Perhaps Grimmsnarl in UU would be a temporary stop to the current outlook of the archetype, but there are other potential screens setters that would make this ultimately futile and the archetype is even stronger in RU, in my opinion. The point is: normal procedure of looking at Pokemon to ban would be ineffective in this scenario.

As the OP indicates, many abusers are given free or low risk turns when they should not and those turns allow for unreasonably convenient sweeping prospects. Pokemon like Gyarados, Kommo-O, Aegislash, Scizor, and Moltres-Galar are already strong options in UU; if opposing teams lose the ability to pressure them offensively, then it should be no surprise that their presences become problematic, especially when looked at collectively as many are paired together on hyper offensive teams. On a similar note, Necrozma, Cloyster, Slurpuff, Polteageist, and likely others I am dismissing all have disruptive sweeping potential in RU; if opposing teams lose the ability to pressure them offensively, then it should be no surprise that their presences become problematic, especially when looked at collectively as many are paired together on hyper offensive teams. I would argue that RU has it even worse than UU, but both should be looking into this.

Suddenly there is a burden put on to balance and bulky-offensive teams to not only counter or consistently pressure these options under normal conditions, but also go above-and-beyond to assure they handle them with screens up frequently. The risk of using screens teams is naturally lower when their abusers are already strong and consistent enough while the way they warp other archetypes, perhaps even invalidating certain structures, is absolutely not a welcome or healthy addition to metagames like UU and RU. And while I play NU the most of the three and will admit that it is the most tame there (this is likely not a pressing NU topic), you can argue that Pokemon like Shell Smash Blastoise and even CritDra get obnoxious just about every game with the support of screens as well -- they cannot be revenge killed and very few things can do the trick defensively.

As for acting on Light Clay vs banning Reflect and Light Screen, there is a bit of a discussion to be had here. Ultimately, I prefer focusing on Light Clay. The OP touches on this well, Light Clay is the main catalyst of the issue, and Light Clay received lots of support in places like the recent UU tiering survey as well. For those curious, I would advise checking out this post. While I hope more UU and RU mainstays chime in on the topic, I hope the OP's initiative is seriously considered and I would not at all mind losing Light Clay as an option in NU if it comes to it.
 

Specs

Remember where you've been
is a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnus
PU Leader
I've talked with Lily and Evi a bit about where screens are at in PU. While they are fine there, it wouldn't be the worst thing ever to lose Light Clay.

From what I've seen in the tiers discussed here, the amount of turns that screens are up for is more of an issue than the moves being allowed as a whole. Gen 8 really turned up how many viable screen setters there are. Prankster Grimmsnarl, Teleport Xatu are the two big ones introduced. Boots was also huge for these teams. Making it so any turns your opponents get against either a sweeper that doesn't sweep them, or a screen setter, they cant always rely on getting up hazards for future interactions. Cloyster wont care, Thund wont care, Gyarados wont care, Moltres-Galar wont care, ect.

Screen teams should definitely still exist, therefore banning Light Clay is 100% the best option of the two. There is a skill in being able to get in things as quickly as possible with screens up. However, the amount of turns combined with how many good abusers and setters there are has clearly made the current state of screens too much.

Keep in mind I don't main any of the tiers mentioned, but I felt like giving my support was important
 

Lilburr

boo
is a Tutoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UU Leader
Going to sleep soon but I also wanted to agree that screens are a big problem in UU atm in both tours and on ladder and realistically they have been for well over a year at this stage, it's just been borderline impossible to act on them up until now, so thank you for making this thread.

Speaking for myself here only, not the rest of the UU council (though some of them do agree with me).

UU currently has many, many ludicrously powerful Pokemon that are very strong on dual screens teams. Finch alluded to some above but to give a full list of mainstays on screens teams that can be found anywhere from S to A- on the current viability rankings:

Scizor
Kommo-o
Mew
Salamence
Aegislash
Celesteela
Krookodile
Galarian Slowbro
Thundurus
Thundurus-T
Azumarill
Diggersby
Gyarados
Galarian Moltres

Our two best setters are ranked lower than this, Grimmsnarl and Alolan Ninetales are at B+ and B respectively (though they are set to rise in the VR).

I'd like to go over some common arguments against banning x, y, or z instead of Light Clay:

Why not just ban the setters?
They are not the problem and 99% of the time they never will be. There are so many Pokemon that learn dual screens and a utility move to support their team beyond that; Azelf has Taunt + Explosion, Meowstic has Prankster + Memento (edit: it doesn't have memento I'm ass for that but it does have yawn to force incredibly scary situations), Xatu and Espeon have Magic Bounce (Xatu also has Teleport!), Klefki has Prankster + Steel Beam, and going into the bottom of the barrel you even have stuff like Virizion, Inteleon and Raikou that could take over the role if needed because they're fast and have Taunt or a pivot move / can pressure relevant Defoggers. Banning a setter would be a fine temporary stop gap but people will just move on to a new one and it'll make no difference.

Why not tackle the screen abusers?
Lots of these Pokemon are very versatile and perfectly healthy in current UU. Scizor is one of the best Pokemon in the tier with a multitude of sets, Kommo-o too, Mew is probably broken but still, Salamence/Aegislash/Celesteela/Krookodile/Galarian Moltres all serve incredibly vital offensive and defensive roles and the collateral damage is not worth it relative to banning a low-impact item like Light Clay. There's also no guarantee this would even nerf the playstyle enough to begin with - sure, I can get rid of Mew, but what happens when Necrozma takes it place? Maybe SD Aegislash is the problem, but who's to say SD Incineroar won't fill the gap?
Banning abusers only works if there are one or two that are particularly egregious, but that isn't the case here. There are so many, and it's not worth it to take them on, assuming we can even figure out which one is the biggest problem.

Okay, so why not just get rid of the moves altogether?
Well in UU's case, two reasons - I don't want to piss off other TLs, and I don't see it as necessary compared to just getting rid of Light Clay. I don't think screens is some scummy degenerate playstyle that must be completely removed at all costs; it's a valid way to play the game, but it is massively constricting in its current state and it's also really, really not fun to play against when screens last as long as they do. You can argue fun isn't something to be considered or whatever but this is still a game at the end of the day and if none of the players want to play it then it's nothing at all.

In short, Light Clay is just the best option to me because of its limited collateral damage while still addressing the screens issue well enough to be a desirable solution. In case it wasn't obvious or anything I also agree that screens are hilariously stupid in RU and that this solution would work perfectly fine there rather than going after Rhyperior or Necrozma or Slurpuff or whatever else. Please just get rid of the dumb clay and let us be rid of this issue so that our tiers can develop without running into the screens problem time and time again.
 
I do not have much experience in RU, so I can't really comment on the state of Screens and Light Clay there.

For UU, I do have experience, and I think Light Clay is fine and I wouldn't ban it. But that's not what I want to argue here. I think, if the community believes Light Clay is a problem, they should be allowed to suspect test it. Therefore, I agree with this topic generally in that Light Clay should be allowed to be tiered, so that it can be properly suspect tested in UU if the community feels that could benefit the tier significantly. I definitely don't think it should be banned without a test that gives the entire community a chance to input and vote on it with reqs. The tier has survived with Light Clay and screens for a long time, so up and banning it without a test right now seems a bit improper. But again, I do support the idea to have it tiered so that it is allowed to be tested.

If the state of RU screens is so dire that the only real solution is to immediately ban Light Clay, then they should do it, but again, I don't know the state of how it is in that tier. For UU it is certainly not that dire, though some will say it is problematic and should be looked at, and that's fine.
 

Ktütverde

I like trains.
is a Tiering Contributoris a former Tournament Circuit Champion
I'd like to make a post about this too, since PU and NU are my favorite tiers and the ban of Light Clay (or the screen moves) in a higher tier will remove it (them) from the tiers below too. I'm going to defend the opposite viewpoint, which is that LightClay/Reflect/LightScreen should never be banned. My post will have a big part explaining what are Screens HO, how it's built and how it works, since it's much more than "Screens+sweepers xd". You don't need to read it, and I put it in a blue HideBox. The final part is the point I want to make and is what you should read.

Screens HO theory

You all know what is Screens HO: Sweepers with doubled defenses for several turns thanks to Reflect+Lightscreen or Aurora Veil. So let's see more specifically what that means:

HO Screens team structure:
Lead / Screen setter / Pillar sweeper #1 / Pillar sweeper #2 / Filler / Filler

Notes
-The pillar sweepers should be used in any screen team, they are the reason why the playstyle is good, the "foundation" alongside the setter.
-The screen setter should have good synergy with the pillar sweepers.
-The fillers should provide key resists and be sweepers too.
-There can be more than 2 Pillar sweepers, but usually there aren't 3 perfect sweepers in a given tier.

Examples:
SMOU: LandorusT/TapuKoko/Hawlucha/Magearna/GyaradosM/Serperior
SSUU: Azelf/Grimmsnarl/KommoO/Mew/MoltresG/Aegislash


And here's how HO screens work:
-The lead allows you to not send your screen setter on turn1 on an unfavorable situation: your lead gets rocks up, prevents opposing rocks with taunt, and allows you to scout what the oppo sends on the field, so that you can then set up screens easily or open holes with one of your filler sweepers.
-The screen setter by virtue of its speed or prankster, will get screens up easily. Thanks to its good typing, it can set up screens on many key threats without taking too much damage in the process, so that it can use screens again later.
-The pillar sweepers decimate the opposing team under screens since they are almost uncheckable, and either they just win, or put the foe in an impossible situation where the filler sweepers will clean.
-The filler sweepers normally can't do much alone, since their checks remain checks even with screens up. However they provide the team with some coherence, by providing key resistances, and share checks/counters with the pillar sweepers, so that they can weaken those for the pillar sweeper, but better: sweep once the pillar sweepers have smashed through these checks.


About the screen setter:
-It needs to be fast or have prankster.
-have taunt or magic bounce.
-have a pivoting move (explosion, uturn, memento, teleport, steelbeam).
But that's not enough. It should generally:
-be able to set up screens twice in the match (8 turns end up quickly and screen sweepers almost always need screens up).
-prevent defog.
-prevent roar, set up moves, toxic, spikes....
-have good type synergy with the pillar sweepers (if your SSNU screen setter is inteleon you'll struggle to setup blastoise or tyrantrum on a rotomMow or Vileplume attracted in by Inteleon).

About a pillar sweeper:
-its normal checks should not check it in screens.
-if sent on the field with screens up and as the first sweeper, it should be able to pick up 2 KOs and seriously weaken a third mon at least.
-if sent later in the game, it should be able to sweep the entire remaining team or put it in an impossible situation.
-it should be able to set up easily provided that screens are up and that it has been brought on the field safely.

Good examples of setters:
ORASOU: Serperior: Taunt, glare, fast, can sweep itself.
SMOU: TapuKoko: Taunt, uturn, fast.
SSUU: Grimmsnarl: Taunt, prankster, good typing, Azelf: taunt, fast, explosion.
SSRU: Froslass: taunt, fast, cursed body, Xatu: magic bounce, teleport.

Good examples of pillar sweepers:
ORASOU: Manaphy, Volcarona.
SMOU: Magearna, Hawlucha
SSUU: Kommo-O, Mew, Galarian Moltres
SSRU: Cloyster

Mediocre setters (imo):
SSOU/UU: Ninetales alola: bad typing, no taunt, no pivoting move, hail hurting the sweepers.
SS lower tiers: Meowstic: no taunt, no memento/uturn/explosion etc.

Sweepers unable to function as pillar sweepers:
SSUU: Scizor (loses to Salamence, Moltres or Rotom even with screens).
SSRU: Rhyperior (loses to bulky waters and grass types even with screens).


"Well" you are thinking, "nice examples, but?" Well, these examples sum up the screens playstyle in these 4 tiers entirely imo. Remove these screeners and these sweepers from their respective tier, and screens will become really bad, or bad enough to not be worth using in a competitive environment. That's a bold statement but I'm quite sure it's true.



What I came to say

With all due respect to the posts above and any other opinion not made public yet, banning DualScreens itself (whether it's the item LightClay or the combo Reflect/DualScreen) would be rushing things. It is a bit exaggerated to say that the screen setters aren't the problem because there are many of them being fine Screeners on paper, or that the sweepers aren't the problem because there are several of them. In fact, I believe these two things are the only problem. My point is summarized in three sentences below:


"The viabiliy of Screens HO is directly linked to the effectiveness of the one or two best screen setters and the two or three pillar sweepers."
(I explained what this is in the part in the blue HideBox above. The pillar sweeper is how I call the two (could be three) main destructive sweepers in screens, the foundation of the team alongside the setter. Their normal checks no longer check them in screens (for example Manaphy in ORASOU beating Latios or Thundurus easily in screens, when it just can't beat them normally, or SSUU KommoO/Mew being unkillable behind screens and sweeping entire teams). For example Scizor can't be a pillar sweeper in SSUU, since Salamence or Moltres beat it easily even with screens up).

"If screens HO is broken, it's because of the pillar sweepers, and maybe the setter. Two setters can be problematic, but usually it's the big one."

"LightClay, Reflect+Lightscreen or AuroraVeil will never be the real problem."



I have played every tier between OU and PU, and others like AG, LC, NFE, ZU, and I've built and tested a million of screen teams, and I'm convinced LightClay or Reflect+Lightscreen or Aurora Veil will never be the real problem. It's the quality of the setters but mostly the quality of the pillar sweepers.

There aren't 10 ways of building screens in a given tier, you always need two or three insane sweepers in screens (pillar sweepers) that can finish the match in less than 8 turns pretty much, and only a couple mons can achieve that. Screens isn't about sending a sweeper and then another etc like regular HO, it's trying to sweep a team with a couple mons. Why's screen HO dumb in ORASOU? because serperior, manaphy and volcarona. Why is screen HO dumb in SSUU? because Grimmsnarl, KommoO and Mew. Why is screen HO so scary in RU? because of the fucking Cloyster mostly. What makes screen HO viable in NU? Tyrantrum and Blastoise. Removing these mons should be tried before acting on the whole playstyle by banning LightClay or the screen moves.

I think the council and leaders from the different tiers should seriously consider the possibility that some sweepers need a ban simply because they are insane in screens, and that a screener could be banned if it does it job too well, and to accept the possibility that banning those could solve the Screens problem. Believe me, there are no good replacements for a good screener. Maybe one other screener. But a quality screener needs so many things going for it including good type synergy with the pillar sweepers that it's very hard to find good replacement. If my theory about screens sounded wrong, sorry about that. But if you see in it some truth, maybe you should try to target the key elements that make screens good.

There's only One viable screen structure per tier, so basically only One screen team and its variants. Remove its foundations and the problem is removed altogether.

It is widely accepted that screens are cheese, but the reasoning "we wont miss it if it's removed" should never be taken into account into tiering. I also recommend that precedents such as the ban of Aurora Veil or Heat Rock should not be set as examples, because they are bad ones imo. Auroraveil, because very few mons learn it and are all extremely similar, so banning the move itself achieved the same result as banning the two/three very similar-looking ice-types without impacting the diversity in the tiers below. And Heatrock because it was a mistake imo, and banning Ivysaur and Leafeon from PU would have solved the problem (note that Silvally-Fire was insane in sun but was equally broken without sun and got banned later).

Here's my proposal: look very carefully at the best screen sweepers. If one or two are clearly overwhelming in screens, ban them. If nothing really stands out or screens remaing broken, then ban the best screen setter (or two best if there are two great ones). And if ever it's not enough, you can always ban LightClay and unban the setter(s). I think it's a good compromise and it is worth trying, instead of literally exterminating the playstyle from the tier and the tiers below.


Last words
Thank you so much for reading. I hope my contribution won't be useless. I also hope there are other posts made pro-screens, since a good, well-informed decision can't be taken if one side leads the debate overwhelmingly. I also respectfully read pro-ban posts. Thanks for making this thread. Peace. (I'm not a native English speaker btw, sorry about my english writing).
 
Last edited:

EviGaro

is a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
RU Leader
I think the council and leaders from the different tiers should seriously consider the possibility that some sweepers need a ban simply because they are insane in screens, and that a screener could be banned if it does it job too well, and to accept the possibility that banning those could solve the Screens problem. Believe me, there are no good replacements for a good screener. Maybe one other screener. But a quality screener needs so many things going for it including good type synergy with the pillar sweepers that it's very hard to find good replacement. If my theory about screens sounded wrong, sorry about that. But if you see in it some truth, maybe you should try to target the key elements that make screens good.

There's only One viable screen structure per tier, so basically only One screen team and its variants. Remove its foundations and the problem is removed altogether.

It is widely accepted that screens are cheese, but the reasoning "we wont miss it if it's removed" should never be taken into account into tiering. I also recommend that precedents such as the ban of Aurora Veil or Heat Rock should not be set as examples, because they are bad ones imo. Auroraveil, because very few mons learn it and are all extremely similar, so banning the move itself achieved the same result as banning the two/three very similar-looking ice-types without impacting the diversity in the tiers below. And Heatrock because it was a mistake imo, and banning Ivysaur and Leafeon from PU would have solved the problem (note that Silvally-Fire was insane in sun but was equally broken without sun and got banned later).

Here's my proposal: look very carefully at the best screen sweepers. If one or two are clearly overwhelming in screens, ban them. If nothing really stands out or screens remaing broken, then ban the best screen setter (or two best if there are two great ones). And if ever it's not enough, you can always ban LightClay and unban the setter(s). I think it's a good compromise and it is worth trying, instead of literally exterminating the playstyle from the tier and the tiers below.
So those are the main points I want to reply to because they directly affect what we're saying the most, while you have some points about metagames it's mostly about UU and well I really cannot claim to have made this proposal for them, so I'll let them talk about their metagame. But:

- Regarding your proposal, we did that. In fact, that's the first thing we asked in the survey, and people said screens in both surveys. Cloyster, the mon you targeted in your post, was never the first option picked, or even the second since Necrozma was, and only got 15.4 % / 9.5% of the voting share. But also, we did that last generation as well. When we banned Linoone, there was already talk of screens being the problem and we did discuss it with tiering leadership, which ended up saying that we should look at the pokemon first and then see. Now, that did solve the problem, but it was also only Linoone, no other mon was really close to being that problematic. However, we do absolutely feel it's different this time around, hence this thread. We can't really point to a single pokemon, too many breakers have proven their worth at this point, and the playerbase also strongly believe the issue comes from screens. Basically, this thread is already a follow-up to issues raised last generation, and while we did apply the standard methodology then, our consensus in the Council is that it really doesn't apply to our current situation.

- Now banning the screeners is also really tricky, because again, the style has developed so much that you cannot point to one. This isn't a Ninetales-Alola scenario for us. Looking at some of the screeners used on ladder / tour play, here is a shortlist: Raikou, Klefki, Froslass, Xatu, Virizion. Now, three of those mons aren't even RU by usage, so going down that path of banning the setters might also leave us damaging lower tiers pretty significantly for something we cannot reasonably say would solve the problem to begin with. It's also like... Where do we start? Where do we stop? Xatu isn't worse than Klefki because it's in a lower tier, but it's not really better either, it just does different and valuable things. It really doesn't make sense for us.

- I am honestly not sure why Veil and Heat Rock are bad examples. Sure, Veil had fewer mons that were allowed to run it,although because a lot of the hail setters in gen 7 did not have it, it definitely led to some out there strategies to put them up that were obviously different from just going Ninetales-Alola. Regardless, Veil was also just plain better in gen 7. The fact that the ban was easier might have mattered to some extent yeah but it was also plainly more problematic for everyone. This isn't the case anymore, even in UU, and not in RU either. But, well, if the element that broke screens in gen 7 for most people was allowed to be banned, why couldn't it be banned in gen 8? It just happen to not be Veil anymore. Regarding Heat Rock, you can have your opinion on this sure, but honestly it's not what I'm concerned with from a tiering standpoint, what I'm concerned with is that it was allowed to be banned and deemed the easiest solution for the tier. That's pretty much why I start my proposal with saying light clay should be allowed to be tiered, because it's functionally a very similar item. PU thought the turns given to sun were too much, and that's also what we think for screens here.

- I do absolutely agree that removing the foundation solves the problem. The thing is, when people talk of screens as a problem in RU, the main issue that comes forward is that screens are just giving way too many turns to too many threats. That's the foundation of the problem for us, and really all other issues put forward could be solved rather quickly if you remove this core issue. Like I said, Cloyster doesn't eat too many random hits easily. Polteageist drops a lot easier and doesn't get the same time to do its shenanigans that kinda own our main dark type, Necrozma gets a lot less leeway when our main revenge killer with priority can drop it far more safely, Weezing's terrain bonus still annoys status heavy teams but our offensive counterplay is also far less useless if there's two turns to kill. Light Clay being targeted just solves a lot of issues for us and it would be way easier to actually move forward in our metagame without having to maybe ban five sweepers, four setters and a terrain before realizing we had a simpler solution that everyone was fine with to start.
 

Indigo Plateau

is a Community Leaderis a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
UU Leader
I’m very glad Evi made this post because we’ve been talking about screens for a while now in UU council and the best way to approach it. I asked council this morning on their current stand on screens & based on the recent responses, as well as from prior conversation, mostly everyone agrees that screens are kind of dumb right now and would approach it by (ideally) targeting Light Clay. I don't want to speak for everyone on there and I very much hope they post here, so I'm including my thoughts on it below and why I think Light Clay should be suspected (and consequently banned) from UU.

Screens are insanely easy and very advantageous to use in the current state of the tier. This is a different take and doesn't really fit the convo here but I personally think they are the only issue the tier has at the moment. The main problem I have with them is just how versatile they can be and how much precise play they require to not lose against. Sure, you'll probably see some mons get repeated usage - Gyarados, Mew, Kommo, for example - but I don't think any one is the main culprit. From my personal experience Gyarados is the worst one, but I've played and seen plenty of games where it doesn't even need to touch the field for the screens user to win. They're also a pain in the ass to actively build for if you're not using Pokemon like Lycanroc to revenge kill the floating boosters or hoping your removal + speed control can beat it. Let's take a very quick look at my recent UUPL game just to show some of my points on versatility and precise play.
On paper, you could say my opponent doesn't have a bad matchup: a Thundy against an offensive team with no resists, a scarf Zarude that outspeeds my entire team and hits 3/6 mons super effectively, and a bulky Primarina that could be somewhat annoying if it gets a possible CM off or is Specs. I talked about my main issue with screens being their versatility and this shows right off the bat. Some might think that seeing a Necrozma on this type of archetype would probably mean a sweeper of some sort, but I made it a bulky PHerb lead instead. Now my opp goes into Zarude to kill Necro turn 2 (normally an okay roll if none to little HP invest) but he doesn't know that I never die from Lariat at this range and end up killing the Zarude instead. One misplay that I don't think you can even blame him for ends up costing him the mon that outspeeds my entire team, and the game was extremely easy to play after that. Come Turn 12, where my opp is now staring down a boosted Gyara after losing Zarude, and there's really nothing else to be done except hoping I'm Jolly Gyara (I wasn't).

I'm including a few builds that saw some usage in UUPL or in Open below.

1620875055714.png


Now looking at the pic above, there are a lot of different abusers here and to respond to Ktütverde's post, trying to target the setters/abusers seems very unproductive and speculative. Even if you were to suspect say, Gyarados, there's still a lot of other mons that are very problematic. This is also only four builds that I found or knew of and there's definitely many more that I've seen on ladder or in other Open replays that I just didn't bother including. On top of this, I believe Pokemon like Kommo-O, Aegislash, Thundurus, etc actually contribute good and healthy elements to the tier. Why would you suspect these as opposed to just focusing on the item that makes the playstyle unhealthy? I won't touch on the setters because Lily addressed that already. Evi did a good job at responding to Ktut's post, but I wanted to state that I heavily disagree with the ending ("And if ever it's not enough, you can always ban LightClay and unban the setter(s). I think it's a good compromise and it is worth trying, instead of literally exterminating the playstyle from the tier and the tiers below.") By banning Light Clay, we are not exterminating the playstyle. We are nerfing the playstyle to make the tier healthier. You can still use screens/veil if you choose to do so, and I think the previous example set with Heat Rock should support looking into Light Clay, if anything. Looking into setters/abusers sounds like a terrible waste of time and just trying to work around the problem when we already know and agree on what the centralizing dilemma is.

One final issue that I want to address is the unhealthy impact that it has on the ladder. I started noticing this around the Latias suspect test but it seems like the ladder has been plagued with screens to the point where during before and during UUPL, I would try testing my teams on it and half of my games would seemingly be against screens. I don't want to state without a doubt that there is correlation here, but I know several people that have stopped or just not enjoyed laddering at all now because they constantly run into screens, myself included. The ladder is the easiest and most convenient place for someone to test their ideas, improve their play, allow newer players to become more familiar with the current metagame, etc. I don't want to be forced to test my team(s) against the same handful of people every week just because I'm running into screens ever 2-3 games and I'm sure it's annoying for others who actually ladder or newer players just trying to learn. Even during suspect tests I've had to wait much longer to find games when I get to a rating of just high 1500s low 1600s, something I would've previously considered pretty low. When I wait 5 minutes to find one game and then have it be against screens, it instantly turns me off from playing.

tl;dr; I believe that screens are unhealthy for the UU tier and the most efficient solution with the least amount of collateral would be suspecting Light Clay to allow for more meta development. This seems to be an issue that comes up repeatedly and I hope it's addressed now, especially given that "complex bans" have already taken place before, and lower tiers such as RU struggle with it just as much if not more or just don't seem to mind it gone (from my limited conversations with players of said tiers).
 

Moutemoute

aka "Palico enthusiast"
is a Tutoris a Site Content Manageris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a defending SCL Champion
Moderator
Hey there, here to give my two cents on Screens HO since I've been using them for since quite a while now.
It's been around 6 months that I'm spamming Screens HO and I trully think acting on Light Clay is the way to go. I trully think that no matter how many setters or abusers we'll ban, there would still be some new things to abuse the shit out of screens. I don't want to repeat what as been said by my fellow council members but it's obvious that UU has too much Pokémon which can abuse of screens to allow us to deal with the issue by this side. Also it's important to highlight the fact that a lot of those Pokemon are not unhealthy whatsoever outside of Screens HO (thinking about Pokemon like Aegislash, Scizor or Kommoo- etc..). On the other side while it's true that Grimmsnarl is an incredible Screens setter, it's important to note that it wasn't always the case. Back in the end of 2020 / early 2021 when UU got Regieleki, this Pokemon was in my opinion the best pick as a setter. Even tho Grimmsnarl is the current best setter, there is other viable options which could replace it if we had to ban it so the issue would not be solved..
The fact that this issue isn't specific to UU kinda highlight the fact the Screens as a whole are problematic and I trully think we should act against them, even tho I'm enjoying a lot using this archetype but I think we need to nerf it, but nerf it effectively and the best path to go for me is to act against Light Clay. Light Clay makes the whole archetype extremely "easy" to abuse and this is something we saw in UU a couple of months ago where a team I made was basically everywhere on the ladder. I trully think that if Screens was reduced to 5 turns instead of 8, this issue wouldn't have been that bad and it would forces Screens HO user to think more when they're playing those teams (since 5 turns is much shorter than 8 and forces the player which play the team to be way more agressive, which can lead him/her to be forced to sack more mons). Also it could forces players to pick between the 2 Screens, since setting the 2 screens means that the first one settled will only last like 2 turns.

Don't have anything to say about Screens HO on tournament since I tend to be a poopy player in tournaments. Great topic tho, I'd like to know the current state of Screens HO in all the tiers.
Screenshot_1.png
 
Last edited:

Ktütverde

I like trains.
is a Tiering Contributoris a former Tournament Circuit Champion
Thanks for the replies and comments on my post.

I will comment on yours Indigo Plateau . You are saying the problem is screens, not the sweepers or setters. But then your example proves the opposite. The game you posted is this one: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen8uu-557673. What I see is Gyarados sweeping an entire team without any other support than aegislash weakening primarina. Screens barely mattered in this game unless I missed something. It is also fairly obvious that your opponent's scarf zarude being surprised by bulky necrozma and not being able to then RK gyarados doesn't have much to do with screens, it's just a "lure+sweeper" scenario at best, and a risky play/mistake from your oppo at worst. I just see this example as strengthening my point which is that some sweepers are the problem. Maybe I didnt include Gyarados in my post but i'm no UU expert. I know this is just an example and maybe not the best one, but it's important to not misunderstand what happened. Does screen support make HO broken, or is HO (i.e. "sweepers spam") already broken and made even better by screens? That's two very different things, but it can be difficult to differentiate them. And also: can screens be blamed if people don't try to prep decently or play decently? I suppose this will sound insulting, but it can be easy for many players (including me) to just call something broken or too much and not try to see if they can adapt for it in an acceptable way, where acceptable doesn't mean "easy" or "obvious". Adapting for a good playstyle can require some sacrifices, the question is "are these sacrifices too much?". As someone who has played SMOU when stall and rain literally where the meta, I know what is the frustration of not being able to build freely, but also what is the joy of finding building patterns that cover the dominant playstyles, and to find out they are manageable if you accept they are very good and that they need good prepping. Maybe it's different for screens. But I think it could be nice if people supporting a LightClay ban posted replays where 1) the opponent looks decently prepared for screen sweepers 2) there's no bad misplays 3) screens play a crucial role and look definitely overwhelming 4) the screener isn't always Grimmsnarl (for UU). It could be also nice to see replays where Screens gets beaten, so we could comment on whether the opponent's team was too heavily built around beating screens, or if they just prepped for them in an acceptable way.

I'm aware this post can be borderline insulting, but that's not what I meant to do. Sorry in advance though. As I said earlier, the ban on screens in higher tiers will affect the tiers I enjoy the most. If the ban on LightClay only affected RU or UU or both, I wouldn't have the energy to defend it, since I just don't play this tiers enough to care about it. I also wouldn't miss screens in NU or PU, but I obviously can let this affect my opinion on it.

TL;DR: show me good replays that include the 4 points I listed above if you want to make a clear case for screens being broken in UU. Same works for RU with Grimmsnarl replaced by whatever is the best screener atm. Solid replays + explanation can be powerful tools in a debate more than you would think. Thanks Indigo for posting one and explaining it. If there's something I can do on my end to make my point more convincing let me know. Peace.
 

Feliburn

Trance
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
I think ur undermining how much positioning matters when playing vs screens, to the point where a simple mistake straight up costs you the game. It's never going to be a clear game where screens were set up, and the game was immediately won. In complex matchups, just setting up a single screen affects how you have to handle the setter in front of you, or what mon is gonna be out when you get a kill. And in UU and RU's cases, the amount of sweepers is so big and diverse that there are times when you simply can't do anything.

I only say this cause ur making a big emphasis on team structure but the situation is so stupid that our common screens teams are a setter, a support mon and 4 breakers of your choice, depending on how spicy you are feeling.

Sure enough, IP's post didn't get to showcase how wack screens are, but it did a good job displaying how saturated the tiers are with set up mons that can be used, to the point where it's clear that you can't prep for all the breakers, even worse deal with them while screens are up. So I agree that getting rid of light clay allows for more leeway vs these types of teams and straight up nerfing the play style.

I'll try to show the current situation of RU screens since u asked tho. But I only have RUPL replays, and I can assure you that the play style has only evolved in the past couple of weeks during RU Open.

1621082358410.png 1621082381858.png 1621082391389.png 1621082398321.png

Replays linked in the pics.

Unfortunately, I didn't manage to get replays with other common setters like Raikou, Xatu and Klefki so this will do. Funnily enough, I also didn't get good replays with Cloyster, who is another potent screens abuser.

Anyway, as you can see these are all fairly different teams when it comes to breaking power, the common link is Necrozma + Froslass in these specific replays. Froslass is a fairly decent setter, but there are more options used. Necrozma, on the other hand, becomes a staple on screens teams as a breaker/sweeper. Evi already mentioned that both Necrozma and Cloyster got support to be tested, but the community deemed the overall play style as the issue, as, echoing evi again, both would hardly be an issue without screens, plus all the breakers that actually clean games besides them.

I included that last game cause bebo coulda won from turn 10 if no nerves, and still managed to get in a winning position but missed a stone edge ROFLL.

This is just a small sample of how teams can vary in RU, but I think it's enough to show how different a team can be on breakers alone.

Lily did a small list for UU, so I might as well mention some strong abusers under screens:

  • Togekiss (Sub/NP sets)
  • Cobalion
  • Zarude
  • Incineroar
  • Metagross
  • Necrozma
  • Rhyperior
  • Toxtricity
  • Xurkitree
  • Flygon
  • Cloyster
  • Mimikyu
  • Tyrantrum
These are just some usable options from the B+ rank and up, notice I didn't even include Slurpuff, Polteageist and other usable breakers as their viability is lower than B+. Just speaks volumes of how wack screens are in the tier.

Hopefully I managed to clear up the situation in RU, since I know you are not 100% opposed and just wanted a clear picture of how screens are in the tier, and I respect that. It was worth trying to explain it to the public as well. I think getting rid of light clay will for sure help out with the current situation, and if there are still issues, I'm sure it'll be easier to spot the individual mons that are still causing troubles and fix the tier post light clay, as opposed to having the whole pool of mons abuse the style.
 

Lilburr

boo
is a Tutoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UU Leader
Wanted to add to the above with as many screens replays as I can find in UU - before that though I'd like to say I largely disagree with what's in the hidebox regarding how one should build screens for a multitude of reasons.

Going to break this down one by one since it's a lot to go through at once:
HO Screens team structure:
Lead / Screen setter / Pillar sweeper #1 / Pillar sweeper #2 / Filler / Filler

Notes
-The pillar sweepers should be used in any screen team, they are the reason why the playstyle is good, the "foundation" alongside the setter.
-The screen setter should have good synergy with the pillar sweepers.
-The fillers should provide key resists and be sweepers too.
-There can be more than 2 Pillar sweepers, but usually there aren't 3 perfect sweepers in a given tier.

Examples:
SMOU: LandorusT/TapuKoko/Hawlucha/Magearna/GyaradosM/Serperior
SSUU: Azelf/Grimmsnarl/KommoO/Mew/MoltresG/Aegislash
I disagree with this pretty heavily, maybe that was the case in old gens but it certainly is not the case for modern lower tiers. There are a few reasons for this - the primary one is just that the purpose of a lead (providing and denying Stealth Rock) is much lower in value this gen because of Heavy-Duty Boots making it so Pokemon like Gyarados, Galarian Moltres and, in higher tiers, Volcarona or Dragonite really don't care about Stealth Rock being up on your side of the field, while your own team is not using it to make progress against a Salamence or whatever since you're not playing the long game of keeping rocks up + knocking it. This means that a lead Krookodile or Azelf or whatever is just not really worth running most of the time over something that can act as both a wallbreaker / sweeper *and* a rocks setter like Necrozma or Kommo-o, which is what makes the playstyle so diverse.

Regarding the pillar sweeper thing, normally I'd agree with you but I don't think this is the case right now because of how many stupidly powerful sweepers there actually are. You could make a team with 5 of them in UU without much trouble (Kommo-o, Mew, Galarian Moltres, Gyarados, Thundurus) and the only reason people don't usually do this is because they like to have some form of defensive backbone (e.g. Scizor) or they just want to use something else. So yes, while you covered this with your filler sweeper point, that is not really relevant because there are just too many pillar Pokemon that are creating huge issues.

And here's how HO screens work:
-The lead allows you to not send your screen setter on turn1 on an unfavorable situation: your lead gets rocks up, prevents opposing rocks with taunt, and allows you to scout what the oppo sends on the field, so that you can then set up screens easily or open holes with one of your filler sweepers.
-The screen setter by virtue of its speed or prankster, will get screens up easily. Thanks to its good typing, it can set up screens on many key threats without taking too much damage in the process, so that it can use screens again later.
-The pillar sweepers decimate the opposing team under screens since they are almost uncheckable, and either they just win, or put the foe in an impossible situation where the filler sweepers will clean.
-The filler sweepers normally can't do much alone, since their checks remain checks even with screens up. However they provide the team with some coherence, by providing key resistances, and share checks/counters with the pillar sweepers, so that they can weaken those for the pillar sweeper, but better: sweep once the pillar sweepers have smashed through these checks.
I think the first point here is antiquated once again, leads are really not all that common (which will be shown later on) but for the rest of this I agree obviously. I don't think it linearly applies to every tier but it's a good enough summation.

About the screen setter:
-It needs to be fast or have prankster.
-have taunt or magic bounce.
-have a pivoting move (explosion, uturn, memento, teleport, steelbeam).
But that's not enough. It should generally:
-be able to set up screens twice in the match (8 turns end up quickly and screen sweepers almost always need screens up).
-prevent defog.
-prevent roar, set up moves, toxic, spikes....
-have good type synergy with the pillar sweepers (if your SSNU screen setter is inteleon you'll struggle to setup blastoise or tyrantrum on a rotomMow or Vileplume attracted in by Inteleon).
It does need to be fast or have prankster, yes.
It doesn't need to have Taunt or Magic Bounce as long as it can pressure relevant Defoggers because lower tiers don't usually have that many of them - for example, UU really just has Salamence and the Rotom forms in terms of relevant ones, and Defog on Rotom-H is quite uncommon, so a setter that pressures Rotom-W and Salamence like Raikou or Nihilego or whatever would still work fine even if it's unorthodox.
It doesn't need to have a pivoting move. In fact, the two most common setters in UU don't have one (Grimmsnarl, Ninetales-A), some of the RU ones don't have one (Froslass, Virizion) and the most common screen setter I've seen in ORAS OU where the playstyle is arguably broken is Serperior, which not only doesn't have access to any pivoting move, but it also doesn't even run Taunt 100% of the time.

They should be able to set up screens twice ideally, yes, but that often isn't needed because of the overwhelming offensive pressure these threats provide and how easily they can take advantage of certain passive Pokemon. As IP and Feli showed you above, sometimes you don't even need to get screens up in the first place, and even one turn can end a game.
They should be able to prevent Defog and roar/set up moves/whatever else but you already said they need to be able to Taunt, and I agree, but pressuring relevant mons that do that shit is also enough so.

The type synergy thing is important but there shouldn't be that much stock in it. Realistically this thing is going to get screens up and die most of the time. If my Grimmsnarl lures in Scizor then yeah obviously I'm not setting up my Lycanroc on it but that isn't to say I can't set up my Thundurus, which then baits in the Rotom-Heat that kills me and then suddenly my Lycanroc has a setup opportunity and wins the game. It's important to keep in mind, sure, but even mediocre screen setters will always keep the playstyle alive just by virtue of synergy between the sweepers themselves.

Good examples of setters:
SSUU: Grimmsnarl: Taunt, prankster, good typing, Azelf: taunt, fast, explosion.
This is just not really true, these two are good setters but you're ignoring plenty of other Pokemon that can do this exact thing. If we take a look at Pokemon that have Taunt + dual screens - I don't think Taunt is even necessary, but for the sake of argument - we have Mew, Virizion, Froslass and Swoobat which are all faster than our most relevant Defog users in addition to Xatu and Espeon which don't care about Defog in the first place, then there's Nihilego and Raikou which can just beat up the Defoggers to begin with, Klefki and Jirachi which could just let themselves die before they get Defogged on (Steel Beam or Healing Wish) and probably more I'm missing since this is all off the top of my head.

Since every time I bring this up people ask me "okay well then why don't these get used?" - why would they? "These Pokemon could fill in the role if needed" does not mean that the role is needed. Nobody is going to use these mons as long as Grimmsnarl or Azelf or whatever is around because they're just better at the role but the gap isn't significant enough that it'd really matter, the teams would function absolutely fine regardless.

To show this off I got five games on the ladder, 2 with Meowstic, 2 with Jirachi, 1 with Espeon as my screen setters. I went 4-1. I'll show them off in a hide tag here but I don't really feel like talking about them.

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1341073349
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1341074864
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1341081955
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8uu-1341079504-eucxm0ztyb0vlassq9di9adgwokz6tepw

For whatever reason the one I lost wasn't saved even though I know for a fact I tried to save it but basically I got absolutely destroyed by a well played Conk.

The point here is that you really can just kind of slap on whatever and it'll work as long as the abusers have good synergy - the crazy part is that mine don't! I think my team was actually flat-out bad but the playstyle as a whole is so broken and volatile that I was able to win a lot of games anyway.

Mediocre setters (imo):
SSOU/UU: Ninetales alola: bad typing, no taunt, no pivoting move, hail hurting the sweepers.
SS lower tiers: Meowstic: no taunt, no memento/uturn/explosion etc.

Sweepers unable to function as pillar sweepers:
SSUU: Scizor (loses to Salamence, Moltres or Rotom even with screens).
SSRU: Rhyperior (loses to bulky waters and grass types even with screens).
I think my replays also prove this wrong but some of this is just flat out wrong - Alolan Ninetales is a great setter, so much so that it was literally banned from UU last gen (in a tier with Azelf!), Meowstic does a great job too, Scizor is an incredible sweeper with the right set (see: quick attack), Rhyperior is so bulky under screens that it 1v1s the likes of Milotic and Zarude easily, etc.

I think you're vastly underestimating the abusers here and overrating the setters quite a bit. I'm not going to sit here and act like they play no role but they very rarely make or break the team. It's not like Rain where Politoed is just So Much Worse than Pelipper, these mons all do a perfectly fine job.

Copying what Feli did, here are some UUPL / UU Open replays that feature screens.

(lol)

Believe it or not these were not cherry picked, this is just every single screens team I came across from Week 6 and onward of UUPL. They just happened to win every single time.

There is a big variety in structures here, not even Gyarados or Grimmsnarl make an appearance on every team and we see a whole host of abusers that prove they can hold their own against the entire tier. I personally have no clue what the appropriate way to go about tackling this if it's Light Clay so that's by far the most preferable option to me, unless you want us to waste months going through ban waves that "might" work while also taking away some of our most dominant, important and influential Pokemon.

I ended up spending over an hour on this so it's probably gotten a bit incoherent but I hope it clears up why I find this option preferable for UU, and I think Feli nailed it for RU too. I appreciate you challenging and encouraging us since it allows for a lot more clarity but I think this is one scneario where the optimal solution is the most obvious one.
 

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Site Content Manageris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a member of the Battle Simulator Staffis an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnus
Tiering Admin
From a tiering perspective, things I'd like to see when we're discussing a non-Pokemon ban such as Light Clay are:
  • A demonstration that the element in question consistently leads to non-competitive scenarios;
  • Indication that a Pokemon ban would not solve the problem (or would have significant enough of a negative impact to outweigh the positives, i.e. is a cure worse than the disease); and
  • A discussion of potential impact across all tiers affected.
I haven't been following RU closely in the past couple of months, so I'm a bit limited in speaking to the first point where RU is concerned, but I know that screens have been an ongoing problem for ages there. I also know that they are absolutely an issue in UU, and have developed from a niche playstyle to a way to consistently farm wins both in tournaments and on the ladder. The last couple of suspect tests we've had have been nightmares because of the prevalence of screens used for easyish reqs, because they are overall way more consistent than they ever used to be.

As for why, I think the answer lies not in the quality of the setters (Lily did a good job of explaining why the setter is only a "minor" consideration) but in our plethora of sweepers. To use Ktut's terminology of "pillar sweepers," there just isn't one single pillar sweeper that you can point to that pushes screens over the top. Right now what makes screens so dangerous in UU is not the fact that something super frail can finally set up without dying, but rather that bulky setup 'mons become basically unkillable under screens, and can easily garner multiple boosts. Gyarados is the closest thing to a consistent pillar sweeper, easily picking up two boosts under screens and carrying the coverage to break through the whole tier, but it's far from the only one. The only true counter I've seen to NP Mew under screens is Umbreon, which is a niche mon in the best of times. Kommo-o is another that becomes basically impossible to 2HKO under screens barring strong fairy moves (which are rare) and has an absolutely ridiculous movepool, with the ability to set up in about twenty different ways, making it extraordinarily hard to counter. Those three alone go from "very good" to "sack 50% of your team in an attempt to deal with them" under screens, and banning a single one of them would absolutely not alleviate the issue.

That's not even touching on the huge number of other sweepers that are similarly hard to kill under screens but maybe have some drawbacks that leave them less consistent than the top 3 I just mentioned: Moltres-Galar, Aegislash, Scizor, Celesteela, Necrozma (actually this might be able to go into the first category, though the fact that Mew exists means it doesn't get as much play as it otherwise might), Salamence, both Thundies, Slowbro-Galar, Azumarill. I don't think any single one of these breaks screens, but they all have a very limited number of counters once screens go up, and it's more or less impossible to build a team that has counterplay to all of them.

So yeah, in UU if you banned all of Gyarados, Kommo-o, Mew and Grimmsnarl then screens would.... become less consistent. You'd probably see them used in tours somewhat less. But we'd be talking about three high impact bans + Grimmsnarl just to preserve screens, and even then I don't think there's a guarantee that it would alleviate the issue.

Anyhow, switching back to my tiering admin hat, one thing I'd like to see this discussion touch on a bit more is tiers other than UU and RU. While I know the original scope of the thread was tiering screens in RU, I think there's a pretty decent argument that a Light Clay ban in UU is warranted (which would effectively ban it from all lower tiers). I know that a couple of posts have touched on screens in NU and PU, but it would be nice to see a bit more discussion on the potential impact of a Light Clay ban there before anyone move forwards with it.
 

Specs

Remember where you've been
is a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnus
PU Leader
I know that a couple of posts have touched on screens in NU and PU, but it would be nice to see a bit more discussion on the potential impact of a Light Clay ban there before anyone move forwards with it.
To start off I'll mention the premier screen setters: Xatu, Froslass, Ribombee, Uxie, Meowstic (not that great but gets the job done + prankster t wave / yawn is cool)

The general abusers you could see are: DD Scrafty, DD Charizard, QD Ribombee, SD Kabutops (Screens with weak armor is nasty), SD Silvally-Fairy, Nasty Plot Mesprit, SD Absol, NP Toxicroak, Smash Carracosta, WP Xatu.

Sadly as of writing this our biggest tour hasn't seen mandatory replays yet, so there is very little evidence of screens even being used in decently high level games. But, I have watched some open while chilling on smogtours and some people have been using them, I just don't have the replays. I'll go ahead and show a very standard screens team you could see: click image for import
Standard Screens.jpg

I just don't think screens is even the best HO PU has to offer, I've found more success with webs personally. You don't feel constrained to do so much in a certain amount of turns, as long as you keep webs up. I also don't think the set up sweepers are consistent enough to be able to just be thrown on a team without thinking of synergy, which is the opposite of what I've read here from players in other tiers. Our sweepers also just don't win games on their own, so you depend on those 8 turns a lot more than it seems in higher tiers. For example QD Ribombee is a menace if you knock/KO an opposing Charizard, or heavily chip an opposing Togedemaru, but it rarely will just 6-0 if the opponent positions well and isn't reckless.

I think why screens isn't very popular and doesn't feel as threatening is a combination of things. Our setters lack a ton of defensive utility: whether it be from a lack of key resists or not having enough bulk, none of them can reliably set screens up twice in a game without having to play extremely well. And, our sweepers aren't consistent enough to be able to do their job in say an average 4-5~ turns they are behind dual screens. All in all, I think the sweepers want what the setters cannot provide.

Screens just aren't broken/unhealthy/overbearing. In fact outside of those few Open games I caught, I haven't seen screens used since maybe one team in Omastar meta? It would suck to nerf a play style that really isn't anything special here, but I can't say it would be the biggest deal. Screens would be dead but if it means helping two tiers, go for it.
 

Finchinator

You’re so golden
is a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending BW Circuit Champion
OU & NU Leader
This is my personal opinion, not that of the NU Council
I know that a couple of posts have touched on screens in NU and PU, but it would be nice to see a bit more discussion on the potential impact of a Light Clay ban there before anyone move forwards with it.
Let's talk about Light Clay in NU then!

I am mainly going to focus on the last few weeks of the metagame with specific attention paid towards the ongoing NUPL. Our metagame had been going through a bit of a developmental period prior to the start of NUPL as we recovered from a slew of bans and tier shifts earlier this year, but I think we are finally at a more stable point.

Out of 24 games that happened during the first 2 weeks of NUPL, 7 of them had a screens team used, meaning that the archetype made up approximately 15% of teams used. Over these 7 games, the teams did well, but were not dominant, as they went 4-3 -- winning 57% of the time.

Unfortunately, this sample size is not large enough for me to draw any comfortable conclusions off of. My initial impression is that the archetype is very effective and annoying to prepare for, but not necessarily something we would need to quickly ban. I can see it becoming overbearing, but it is hard to be sure of this over a smaller sample. Admittedly we have not seen an abundance of set-up spam in NU Open or the circuit tours prior to it as far as I can tell, so this is more of a recent development than anything else. With this said, let's take a look at the teams that have been used with Light Clay and the abusers.


Light Clay users
  • :Xatu: is easily the most common of the bunch. Magic Bounce allows for it to also deter hazard set-up and Teleport makes it a slow pivot, which enables numerous abusers we will touch on later.
  • :Uxie: has seen a couple of uses, which makes sense as it is very bulky, can set Stealth Rock, and has access to various utility and pivoting moves that can open the door.
  • Nothing else has seen usage in NUPL yet, but there is one person on the ladder who uses Light Clay + Screens on :Bronzong: which also has Stealth Rock and Explosion as options. I can imagine people trying :Diancie: as well, but I do not believe it has been done yet.
Reflect and Light Screen abusers
  • :Blastoise:is likely the single best Pokemon to fit this role thanks to Shell Smash, good coverage, and already good natural bulk. Many people already want it banned from the metagame due to this in fact. We have fielded complaints about it on the forums and in the PS room regularly with people citing that it invalidates opposing offensive teams when paired with the support of screens and provided a free turn -- the roof of the issue being that it is too hard to kill or consistently pressure with the right support.
    • On teams without Blastoise, we see lots of :Kingdra: with Sniper, Focus Energy, and Agility. This crit-machine is similarly effective against offensive teams as you cannot revenge kill it and it OHKOs most things on offensive teams with Sniper Critical Hits. A few people have called for it to be looked into as well, but this is not near the status of Blastoise.
    • TDK also used :Omastar:, which makes sense on these teams as well as a Water type. It is largely unexplored though, so I will refrain from commenting further.
  • :Celebi: with Nasty Plot has been gaining a lot of traction recently on both standard and screens teams. With great bulk and speed for NU standards, Celebi can pick-and-choose its own counterplay thanks to strong coverage options, which means it can synergize very well with complimentary win conditions on these teams. Standalone, it is not close to broken and just another strong option, but in the context of these teams, it can be very hard to cover Celebi while still being ok against what may be coming next.
  • :Tyrantrum: and :Flygon: are two Dragon types that can dance their way to victory with the right support. Tyrantrum has great coverage between its STABs and the potential Close Combat while Flygon is in the same boat, but with Throat Chop as the coverage option for Bronzong, Decidueye, and the occasional Hyper Voice Sylveon. A handful of Pokemon can stomach +1 attacks from these Pokemon, especially in the case of Flygon, but Tyrantrum can get out of hand if facing offense that cannot revenge kill it behind screens or if given some extra support. Neither of these Pokemon strike me as banworthy right now though.
  • :Glastrier: is very bulky and has great offensive potential, making it a good complimentary fit on these teams as well. It is able to claim multiple kills with the support of screens fairly often due to being very hard to revenge kill despite being one of the slowest Pokemon. With this said, it rarely ever sweeps and with enough pressure and faster threats, it can still be minimized. We also just voted to unban it recently, so we are still adjusting to its presence in the tier.
  • :Silvally: Ghost and Fairy have seen usage on these teams as well. Neither is super problematic, but both can do a great job at cleaning up thanks to Flame Charge and strong Multi Attack. Any Silvally form is greatly appreciative of support from screens and teammates as they struggle to break through standalone in my experience.
  • :Braviary:has Defiant and a strong combination of attacks, which makes it a good option on these teams as well. It also provides an immunity to Ghost and Ground, which makes it a practical addition. I do not think anyone views it as problematic though as recoil and a mediocre speed tier minimize it initially.
    • :Ninjask: is a much faster and more hit-and-run oriented Flying type sweeping option on these teams as well. It is oftentimes seen as a revenge killing option on balance teams, but it works here, too.
  • :Turtonator: and :Scrafty: are more naturally durable than most of the above Pokemon and with a free turn or two can potentially sweep. They have good coverage and are very hard to take out with the right support.
  • :Drapion:, :Decidueye:, :Rotom-Mow:, :Salazzle:, :Sirfetch, :Toxicroak:, :Virizion:, and :Sceptile: are other options that can work on these teams. I have not used any of them recently and I have only seen a few of them multiple times, but they all can be effective with the right teammates. None of them strike me as overly problematic.
Important notes
  • :Golisopod: being banned opened up the door for these teams a lot. STAB First Impression was a great revenge killing tool, enabling balance and bulky offensive teams a lot.
  • :Ninjask: has seen an uptick in usage recently and it serves as a good safety blanket against hyper offense, but it is not the strongest Pokemon without boosts, oftentimes has to engage in Protect 50/50s against speed boosting sweepers, and is one of a very limited pool of offensive counterplay options.
  • Common scarfers lack OHKO power or the ability to outrun the sweepers that get +2 speed which they commonly encounter on these teams. :Passimian:, :Rotom-Mow:, and :Flygon: already make up a shallow pool of choice scarf users, but none are dominant against hyper offense.
Overall, I believe teams using screens + Light Clay are very effective and will continue to see more usage. NUPL reflects this at this point and I imagine it will continue to, which reflects a trend we saw in the recent UUPL and RUPL for UU and RU respectively. I think it would be premature to ban Light Clay from just NU right now and I would not support us suspecting it individually, but I also believe it is likely to end up out of hand like UU and RU once the playerbase is able to optimize the archetype. These things take time though and it would not be fair to say this is a forgone conclusion right now. With this said, NU should NOT be a roadblock to the ban of Light Clay. NU shows symptoms of the problem already and this could save us from looking in to other things like Blastoise in the future.

I support the ban of Light Clay from lower tiers because of this and the points brought up about UU/RU in prior posts.
 

Ktütverde

I like trains.
is a Tiering Contributoris a former Tournament Circuit Champion
Thanks for the awesome responses as well as the other new posts, and for the quality pictures and replays provided. Big shoutout to Feliburn , it is getting great responses like yours that makes posting truly worth it on smogon. Thanks a lot Lilburr too for going over my description of screens and correcting/updating it, it's very important to know what we're talking about exactly and you did well in making the picture as accurate as possible.

Obviously my worries have been taken into account seriously, and I'm truly happy to see the carefully detailed posts with screenshots showing Screens HO teams, and replays showing tournament games featuring screens. It is possible I underestimated the potency of the playstyle, even though it's not something I'd personally use often whether it's in UU RU or NU (it's not good in PU tbh). Then you can legitimately question my understanding of these lower tiers, even though I can assure you I've played them a lot in 2021. I think some replays are good but a certain number of them are somewhat contradictory since sweepers (Gyarados again notably) get out of hand alone or just with memento, but I'm not gonna push any further.

I know screens are a huge worry among the different communities. My goal was just to defend a playstyle because someone should do it otherwise there's no real discussion, and to throw in some doubt just in case some people would be too eager to ban a whole playstyle without carefully weighing what that means (and no, reflect/lightscreen/auroraveil have no competitive use without Lightclay, let's not kid ourselves).

It is a bit unfortunate that there haven't been many posts against a ban on LightClay, but I think I did what I had to do, and I really enjoyed this discussion. I hope I didn't bother anyone, if I did please believe it was just a way of challenging you in order to have the clearest explanations on the situation of screens.

I could speak about screens in PU but Specs said all there was to say. I could just add that just like infiltrator specs dragapult in OU, infiltrator whimsicott in PU is one of these mons that semi-invalidate the playstyle on their own. For example, it resists Nastyplot toxicroak's vaccuum wave and SD absol's suckerpunch, outspeeds +1 scrafty, is faster than well everything pretty much and hits everything extremely hard since infiltrator ignores screens and don't be fooled, moonblast's base power makes up for whimsicott's mediocre spatk. There are a ton of other problems for screens HO in PU though -mostly a lack of good sweepers I think-, as far as I know it's more than matchup-fishy and I dont recommend it. If I'm wrong feel free to show me why.

I just have a question: after LightClay gets banned, under what circumstances could we expect its reintroduction? Will it be discussed and possibly reintroduced (like HeatRock in PU) again as soon as a new wave of mons hit our metas, ie another DLC or new pokemon games or even a big tier shift? Or is this a situation like BatonPass (I suppose not and hope not!)?

Thanks again for the great posts, I can't say I changed my mind but I'm much more on the fence at least, and only good discussions can achieve such a result!

Peace, Ktut.
 
Last edited:

tlenit

is a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Past Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Moderator
Not going to echo everything said above by Feli/Finch/Lilburr/IP and what comes to PU by Specs/Ktut (great posts btw), but I am here to give my support for light clay ban out loud.

Surprised even myself this year to actually catch up on every official tier except LC and the amount of screens been popping from left and right is simply ridiculous. In the past it was more or less alright niche play style but mainly due to how undeveloped it was. I think this is currently more of UUs/RUs/NUs issue right now than PUs, but dont you worry guys, we are following! Not to say screens is too undeveloped in PU, but there is still room to improve and make it even more nuisance than it is right now.

Anyways, I won't make 1000 word essay of exact same key points than have been made already, but heres my few cents of the topic and hopefully we can see good conversation continuing around this and eventually some sort of an official call made rather it being DnB/Ban on Clay or something else.

Maybe this gen is made for Ditto to dominate, who knows :mad:

Cheers Y'all
 
Last edited:

Indigo Plateau

is a Community Leaderis a Tiering Contributoris a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
UU Leader
I wanted to post a short follow up to my initial post, which didn’t really have replays to support it - I was writing it before bed & it wasn’t my intention to dig through replays anyway. After reading through ktut’s response & hogg’s post mentioning the idea of the screens issue potentially being alleviated if we were to ban Gyarados, Mew, and Kommo instead (again, solution most of the UU council doesn’t really agree with), I decided to try something. I made a team without any of these three + Grimmsnarl in about 3 minutes at work & asked a few friends of mine to test just to see what it would be like. I also asked them to take it somewhat seriously & just bring any team they would bring to an individual tour series. I did get their consent to share these replays so thanks to Accelgor Adaam Lilburr Ramolost for going through some minutes of suffering :heart: Please note the idea of these replays isn’t to go into deep analysis of each, but rather an experiment to test if screens were still consistent with Light Clay and no “powerhouse” mons.

No idea how these images will come in on mobile so I’ll include hide tags for now.

A9B8470A-8752-4B03-8EF4-88EF37818560.jpeg

Ninetales > Grimmsnarl for veil, Necrozma as a Power Herb lead again because it’s surprisingly bulky and effective + it helps remove some of Hatt’s nuisances, WP Aegi for Steel + prio + alleviate matchups like Nihi, and Hatterene to help with bulkier teams + muscle past fat Mew. Doesn’t look the best on paper and I’m sure it’s not considering I made this in 3 minutes, but it played pretty effectively still.

FA4EC786-51EE-40B3-8BDD-5A0E5E0A1546.jpeg
I mess up early in this game by overpredicting & not claiming the Scizor with Heat Wave on Turn 4, which would’ve meant Salamence kinda autowon after a DD. I’m still able to get myself in a position where I can get up a late game veil to let Mence DD & win. I had to break through a confusion but veil gave me the buffer to do so, even after missing a Hypnosis.

1E1B8A3B-A99F-4790-930B-3A2FC9225F92.jpeg
Another game where I don’t play optimally early on. I was hoping to eat an attack from Krook then claim it with CC so that Necro could pretty much win on its own, but it turns out to be CB Krook instead. An early veil allows me to DD with Mence, putting Adam in an awkward spot as he can’t really afford to let me get in 2 DDs (fat Prim is doing like 25 to Mence under veil LOL). Mence is then able to stomach Scarf Nihi’s Power Gem bc of veil and open the doors for NP Thundy to sweep afterwards. You could say that Adam could’ve maybe gone into something else to put Mence in range first, like Sciz, but he has no idea on my bulk (CB Knock damage still means I can potentially get another DD depending on my spread due to veil’s ability to let sweepers be bulkier). These weird spots & having to be precise every single turn is what makes veil so frustrating to play against. BO vs BO or whatever other styles allow for a buffer even if you screw up.

07C6A6DD-A157-4F32-BC72-C50BA1C5F4F2.jpeg
And now on to a game where I don’t make a donation in the first 5 turns LOL. This one’s vs a bulkier team where veil sometimes isn’t really needed. On Turn 20 I’m able to get up veil even after getting light clay removed, which allows me to DD with Mence vs a scarf Jirachi (unless I got flinched 4 times). I might’ve been able to afford a second DD as well but after the first one all I needed was a 3 turn Outrage or to not hit myself twice to win. Even if that did happen, I had a NP Thundy in the back that looked good after Chansey died.

1D87B3FC-FEC5-4E37-949E-E4DF01297A0F.jpeg
Final replay shows lead Necro going off early on after avoiding the flinch from Toge. Can’t blame Ramo for going the 60% route since nothing else really matches up well vs lead Necro besides maybe Zarude, which allows lead Ninetales a free veil. Eventually I do end up getting veil up and Mence can chip everything down for Thundy to NP and clean after Zarude died.

I hope the replays & short descriptions above help further prove my point. The playstyle definitely didn’t feel as potent in these tests as before, but keep in mind this is a bit exaggerated and assumes that we ban 4(!!) Pokemon just to nerf it. Even if we just look at the top dogs like say, Gyarados + Mew, there’s no guarantee that screens won’t still be incredibly frustrating to deal with (even if they are objectively worse on paper). If it’s in between looking at one item or x amount of Pokemon just to address the issue that screens present in the tier, it’s clear to me that it’s more effective and efficient to target Light Clay in UU.
 
I wanted to post a short follow up to my initial post, which didn’t really have replays to support it - I was writing it before bed & it wasn’t my intention to dig through replays anyway. After reading through ktut’s response & hogg’s post mentioning the idea of the screens issue potentially being alleviated if we were to ban Gyarados, Mew, and Kommo instead (again, solution most of the UU council doesn’t really agree with), I decided to try something. I made a team without any of these three + Grimmsnarl in about 3 minutes at work & asked a few friends of mine to test just to see what it would be like. I also asked them to take it somewhat seriously & just bring any team they would bring to an individual tour series. I did get their consent to share these replays so thanks to Accelgor Adaam Lilburr Ramolost for going through some minutes of suffering :heart: Please note the idea of these replays isn’t to go into deep analysis of each, but rather an experiment to test if screens were still consistent with Light Clay and no “powerhouse” mons.

No idea how these images will come in on mobile so I’ll include hide tags for now.

View attachment 341897
Ninetales > Grimmsnarl for veil, Necrozma as a Power Herb lead again because it’s surprisingly bulky and effective + it helps remove some of Hatt’s nuisances, WP Aegi for Steel + prio + alleviate matchups like Nihi, and Hatterene to help with bulkier teams + muscle past fat Mew. Doesn’t look the best on paper and I’m sure it’s not considering I made this in 3 minutes, but it played pretty effectively still.

View attachment 341901
I mess up early in this game by overpredicting & not claiming the Scizor with Heat Wave on Turn 4, which would’ve meant Salamence kinda autowon after a DD. I’m still able to get myself in a position where I can get up a late game veil to let Mence DD & win. I had to break through a confusion but veil gave me the buffer to do so, even after missing a Hypnosis.

View attachment 341902
Another game where I don’t play optimally early on. I was hoping to eat an attack from Krook then claim it with CC so that Necro could pretty much win on its own, but it turns out to be CB Krook instead. An early veil allows me to DD with Mence, putting Adam in an awkward spot as he can’t really afford to let me get in 2 DDs (fat Prim is doing like 25 to Mence under veil LOL). Mence is then able to stomach Scarf Nihi’s Power Gem bc of veil and open the doors for NP Thundy to sweep afterwards. You could say that Adam could’ve maybe gone into something else to put Mence in range first, like Sciz, but he has no idea on my bulk (CB Knock damage still means I can potentially get another DD depending on my spread due to veil’s ability to let sweepers be bulkier). These weird spots & having to be precise every single turn is what makes veil so frustrating to play against. BO vs BO or whatever other styles allow for a buffer even if you screw up.

View attachment 341903
And now on to a game where I don’t make a donation in the first 5 turns LOL. This one’s vs a bulkier team where veil sometimes isn’t really needed. On Turn 20 I’m able to get up veil even after getting light clay removed, which allows me to DD with Mence vs a scarf Jirachi (unless I got flinched 4 times). I might’ve been able to afford a second DD as well but after the first one all I needed was a 3 turn Outrage or to not hit myself twice to win. Even if that did happen, I had a NP Thundy in the back that looked good after Chansey died.

View attachment 341904
Final replay shows lead Necro going off early on after avoiding the flinch from Toge. Can’t blame Ramo for going the 60% route since nothing else really matches up well vs lead Necro besides maybe Zarude, which allows lead Ninetales a free veil. Eventually I do end up getting veil up and Mence can chip everything down for Thundy to NP and clean after Zarude died.

I hope the replays & short descriptions above help further prove my point. The playstyle definitely didn’t feel as potent in these tests as before, but keep in mind this is a bit exaggerated and assumes that we ban 4(!!) Pokemon just to nerf it. Even if we just look at the top dogs like say, Gyarados + Mew, there’s no guarantee that screens won’t still be incredibly frustrating to deal with (even if they are objectively worse on paper). If it’s in between looking at one item or x amount of Pokemon just to address the issue that screens present in the tier, it’s clear to me that it’s more effective and efficient to target Light Clay in UU.
I really appreciate the effort to show the usage of alternate setters and cleaners, with replays against skilled players to back them up. When looking at banning non Pokémon elements, it’s an important step to make it clear that it’s not individual Pokémon that are the problem. But that leaves the question; will banning light clay solve this? In 3 of those 4 replays, you didn’t even make use of the extra screen turns; 2 because you win before that, and a third because you were crit through it in the extended duration (and from the looks of things would have won even with bpunch had crit as well, since hatt can eat one from full).

It’s certainly possible these replays aren’t generalizable in that sense, but while “brain dead screens can win 3 times in 4” is better than “braindead screens can win 4 times in 4,” (and in reality is not that simple, since the sample size is low, that other game might have been winnable without screens extra duration if aegi hadn’t randomly died vs not all of the games that were won were guarenteed wins, etc etc). I think we can all agree that that’s not an ideal outcome, but where does it leave us to avoid it? Ban light clay and then escalate to some of the best setters / abusers if it’s not enough? Ban screens themselves?
 
But that leaves the question; will banning light clay solve this? In 3 of those 4 replays, you didn’t even make use of the extra screen turns; 2 because you win before that, and a third because you were crit through it in the extended duration (and from the looks of things would have won even with bpunch had crit as well, since hatt can eat one from full).

It’s certainly possible these replays aren’t generalizable in that sense, but while “brain dead screens can win 3 times in 4” is better than “braindead screens can win 4 times in 4,” (and in reality is not that simple, since the sample size is low, that other game might have been winnable without screens extra duration if aegi hadn’t randomly died vs not all of the games that were won were guarenteed wins, etc etc). I think we can all agree that that’s not an ideal outcome, but where does it leave us to avoid it? Ban light clay and then escalate to some of the best setters / abusers if it’s not enough? Ban screens themselves?
I just want to echo this sentiment in that, I think we really need to be sure that Light Clay is solving this issue before deciding to ban it (at least for UU - I cannot speak for RU because I do not have any sufficient experience in RU). I have been using non-clay screens on the UU Ladder for about 4 days now and I can say that it still works particularly well with certain setters. Grimmsnarl, I think, will be not very relevant without Light Clay, as a non-clay screener with no way to gain momentum will have a hard time with 5 turn screens. Things like Ninetales-A that can set both screens in one turn, or Azelf that can explode for momentum (and also Regieleki when it drops) can more easily utilize non-clay screens.

This means that, essentially, banning Clay makes Grimmsnarl not so great anyways so it is almost like relegating it to a non-viable role in the tier. Then, if mons like Gyarados, Kommo-o, and Galarian Moltres are still causing headaches, there is a possibility that we will end up banning Light Clay (neutering Grimmsnarl) AND ALSO banning those mons that we don't want to ban anyways later. So, while I agree that Light Clay should be tiered and we should be able to test it and act on it accordingly, I want to make sure we are all cautioned about rushing forward with a ban only to go ahead and ban the "4 mons" that we were trying to avoid mass-banning anyways several weeks later after Clay gets banned.

I am fine with a ban on Light Clay if it makes the tier better, and I think we should welcome that. But if we are going to use the argument that this is the least destructive method of fixing the tier as it avoids needing to ban 4 mons, we need explore and test this a bit to make sure we are not just going to end up banning them anyways in addition to Clay ban later.
 

Feliburn

Trance
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
Honestly I appreciate all the tier talk, but keep in mind the main point of this whole thread was banning Light Clay in RU (and tiers below), so if for whatever reason you guys don't think it should be banned in UU, can we at least agree that a point has been made for RU? Especially cause the other lower tier communities don't really mind it that much, and have shown support.

Regardless, given the support from the UUTL and top level players, I feel like it's worth giving my point of view, as I am also somewhat of a UU player myself (4-2 in UUPL and extremely handsome).

I totally get the point IP was trying to prove: Banning 4 Pokémon ain't the solution either. From those replays you can tell that even if we ended up banning the brokens, screens would still be incredibly hard to deal with due to the nature of the meta. The way I see it is as follows: We ban Light Clay, the top setter losses viability and overall screens get easier to deal with as no extended turns.

Then if whatever Pokémon is destroying the tier, then discuss it accordingly. Why is this? Because looking at the replays above, it's way too obvious that the tier is infested with viable set up sweepers under screens. Nerfing the play style first, and then dealing with the mons individually seems like the smarter course of action, as you can probably still make a fucking broken team with the remaining sweepers, making it even worse with Light Clay.

This is all assumption, as I don't really know if like banning one of them will shift the way people build, but it makes more sense to target the whole play style first, at least to me.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents (s/o tko) before going to bed, as I'd like to get this moving as fast and smooth as possible.
 

phantom

is a Site Content Manageris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
RU Leader
Given the general consensus expressed in this thread in favor of tiering light clay, the RU council will be moving forward with a vote on light clay starting this Saturday. We’ve opted for a council vote for a few reasons: one is that the council has been strongly in favor of taking action on screens for a long time now and two, we have other tiering concerns that we’d like to address that screens is currently holding up discussion on. If you have anything else to add that hasn’t already been said, please do so before this upcoming weekend.
 

phantom

is a Site Content Manageris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
RU Leader
Thanks to everyone for participating in the discussion. With that, here are the results:
atomicllamasBAN
beboBAN
EviGaroBAN
FeliburnBAN
LunalaBAN
MrAldoBAN
odrBAN
phantomBAN
Sensei AxewBAN
After a unanimous council vote, Light Clay is now banned from RU! Tagging Marty and Kris to implement this ban on the ladder, ty.
 

Lilburr

boo
is a Tutoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UU Leader
Sorry to unlock this after it's already done for RU but I didn't feel it was worth making a separate thread (apologies for hijacking!):

UU is also going to be holding a council vote on Light Clay within the next few days for the same reasons phantom outlined above, we have a lot of other issues to address and running this suspect would take up valuable time when we've been trying to solve the screens problem for over a year at this stage already. I'll be leaving this open just in case there's any opposition, and if you do oppose this then please make a post here or on the np thread very soon, but otherwise expect a decision within a couple of days if there's nothing significant.
 

Lilburr

boo
is a Tutoris a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributor
UU Leader
And following a unanimous council vote, UU has also banned Light Clay. Thanks to everyone for giving their opinions and support in this thread.



Tagging Marty / Kris to implement on ladder whenever you get the chance please, thanks!! And thank you to the RU leaders for bringing this subject to light in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top