What is uber?

[bulbasauresrec]

Acting as an observer, this is what has been observed.

10% of the people are for testing the Ubers and 90% are not. Why don't we practice some democracy here instead of letting Smogon become totalitarianistic.

Its mostly Obi and Aldaron against the rest with a few others siding Uber testing. Tell me can any other person start such a thread and keep it running without getting the thread closed down eventhough majority oppose it?

It's looking like a repeat of the 'ban the Arceus' incident...

 

[Lyfsaho]

Acting as an observer, this is what has been observed.

10% of the people are for testing the Ubers and 90% are not. Why don't we practice some democracy here instead of letting Smogon become totalitarianistic.

Its mostly Obi and Aldaron against the rest with a few others siding Uber testing. Tell me can any other person start such a thread and keep it running without getting the thread closed down eventhough majority oppose it?

It's looking like a repeat of the 'ban the Arceus' incident...

Actually, were we to speculate, I would say 25%-75%, but that's besides the point. Democracy is a thoroughly flawed system, and the most important decisions don't originate from it, but rather from a group of selected few. Get used to it, its life.

 

[bulbasauresrec]

Actually, were we to speculate, I would say 25%-75%, but that's besides the point. Democracy is a thoroughly flawed system, and the most important decisions don't originate from it, but rather from a group of selected few. Get used to it, its life.

Lets keep it to simple democracy where majority wins. In such arguments, even if majority is against you, you will still continue to believe you that you are right, believing that you have proven your point and that the opposition should be sitted convinced. But then again, thats what the others think and the argument can go on forever. So shouldn't there be a point where this stops?

Thats where the idea that majority wins comes in. Either that or someone with enough power to over-rule even the majority of objections chooses his own choice.

 

[Lyfsaho]

Lets keep it to simple democracy where majority wins. In such arguments, even if majority is against you, you will still continue to believe you that you are right, believing that you have proven your point and that the opposition should be sitted convinced. But then again, thats what the others think and the argument can go on forever. So shouldn't there be a point where this stops?

Thats where the idea that majority wins comes in. Either that or someone with enough power to over-rule even the majority of objections chooses his own choice.

Majority doesn't win, because the majority is in most cases not right, but rather a reflection of a band-wagon fallacy which escalates to a point where people join the cause just because it appears stronger than the opposition. There are exceptions of course, but those are rare. A selected few always have to bear the responsability to make the choices for the rest. Was there a vote on bombing Iraq? ;)

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

I think everyone can agree that a metagame with more avaliable pokemon, more diverse strategies and room for innovation is a good thing. And while the metric can be subjective ("Diversity" is good), the measurement or application of the metric can be completely objective... as long as the metric is good.

IE: We measure diversity with how many pokemon make up 5% of the game. But whatever it is, we need a metric, and from this metric we can make a completely objective test.

My point is this: We need to know what to look for while we test the game. It looks like you also agree with me that a larger pool of pokemon is better? (if you do, thats a place to start for an objective test)

OU ought to have as many Pokemon allowed as possible. If you really wanted to have the largest number of viable Pokemon, you should have been speaking out against the tiers for quite some time now.

This is the heart of the problem and this is the entire reason I started the poll, "What is the purpose of Standard Play?" There is not an agreement about the goal of the Standard tier. Obi, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems very clear that your goal is to make as many Pokemon legal in standard play as possible, viability aside. Obviously there's a limit to this (you wouldn't want all teams to have to have the same six Pokemon in order to compete), but I don't think I'm mistaken in thinking that you're OK with a fairly small pool of 'usable' Pokemon in standard play. Dragontamer, your goal is to create a tier that increases variety and encourages creativity. Hence, you'd like to increase the number of viable Pokemon and therefore the number of viable strategies. Because the two of you have this very different idea of what is enjoyable/preferable, it is doubtful that you will ever agree on a metric for what makes a tier better or worse.

Of course, this is where the battle takes place, because even if we had two "standard" tiers catering for these two different viewpoints, one would probably be seen as the 'real' standard tier. Tradition would seem to dictate that there can be only one. According to my (completely unscientific and not necessarily accurate) poll, Obi's viewpoint is in the majority (or at least the plurality).

Again, my apologies if I misunderstand either of your positions.

 

[JesiahTEG]

What can hurt by testing it? Test it. If it works...Awesome. If it fails...Things go back to normal. It's a win win situation.

 

[Twilight_Vaizard]

What can hurt by testing it? Test it. If it works...Awesome. If it fails...Things go back to normal. It's a win win situation.

Alright let's do it. I'll make an entire team out of all of these pokemon obi said and see how well it does against a team of OUs. That will be sufficient testing won't it?

@lyfsaho, Democracy is the best system as long as you elect the right people.

 

[Fenikkusu]

Just pointing out the fallacy of "allow everything is better than test 1 by 1", because while "low ubers" may balance each other out, that doesn't prove much more than that "low ubers" are powerful enough to be counters to each other. Each time you add or remove a pokemon from the metagame, you're obviously going to cause shifts. What if the [former] uber you just deemed too powerful was the one consistently keeping another [former] uber in check? We'd be back to where slowly testing them got us, just with more time to deal with having ubers in "standard" play.

 

[X-Act]

There are two points I'd like to make.

The first one is that any metagame you may think of will have Pokemon that are more powerful than others. Even in the lowest tier possible, Unown is outclassed by pretty much anything, unless you place it in a metagame all on its own. That means that no metagame is 100% balanced.

My ideal metagame would be one which achieves the greatest amount of balance with ideally the largest amount of Pokemon. Unfortunately, I think that such a metagame would end up having relatively few Pokemon if you include too many having more than 600 total base stats... maybe 15 to 20 Pokemon at the very most (and even 20 is overoptimistic in my opinion). Their exaggerated stats and movepools will make their list of counters small, restricting the number of playable Pokemon in that metagame.

However, whatever metagame we end up having and whatever broken Pokemon are in it, people usually manage to find a way to counter them, and this is my second point. I'm convinced that Garchomp is one such Pokemon. It can 2HKO anything in the game, it can also make use of Sand Veil hax. Yet people have, in the most part, gone ahead and used it and/or countered it without too many complaints, even though it is practically overcentralising everything and forcing people to use certain Pokemon and moves to counter it. Tyranitar may be another such Pokemon as well.

The reality is that people react to what are the common Pokemon played at that time, and then other people will adapt to what Pokemon you are playing, and it goes back and forth. This will happen no matter what happens with our metagame. The only thing that would make a difference is the number of Pokemon that would be viable in that metagame, and so I'd rather have a metagame having more viable Pokemon than less.

 

[the_artic_one]

I've been thinking, perhaps we can quantify a pokemon's viability in OU by comparing the number of pokemon that counter it (and will thereby have their usage increased by adding it to OU) to the number of pokemon currently in OU that it counters (those that would decrease in usage from adding it to OU).

A pokemon that decreases the usage of significantly more pokemon than it increases the usage of would be considered too centralizing and would be restricted to ubers whereas one that increases the usage of more pokemon would diversify the metagame and would be a good candidate to move to OU.

I think this system would give us a rubric for improving OU that would solve these issues while eliminating some of this pointless bickering.

What do you guys think about that?

 

[Syberia]

I've been thinking, perhaps we can quantify a pokemon's viability in OU by comparing the number of pokemon that counter it (and will thereby have their usage increased by adding it to OU) to the number of pokemon currently in OU that it counters (those that would decrease in usage from adding it to OU).

Such an objective list would be impossible to create, really, because of how many different moves certain pokemon learn. Like listing Blissey as a Gengar counter, only to have it get SubPunched or Exploded on. Or listing Hippowdon as a Tyranitar counter, when it packs a surprise Ice Beam.

 

[Raikou]

The reality is that people react to what are the common Pokemon played at that time, and then other people will adapt to what Pokemon you are playing, and it goes back and forth. This will happen no matter what happens with our metagame. The only thing that would make a difference is the number of Pokemon that would be viable in that metagame, and so I'd rather have a metagame having more viable Pokemon than less.

Exactly, and people like me- while not totally against testing reasonable things like low ubers- don't want to play Obi's new metagame which will have half as many viable Pokemon. Restricting diversity makes the game get stale twice as fast, and I think this whole argument started because certain people are already bored of the current metagame. So you switch it up, and people will get sick of seeing the same exact ubers-lite teams very quickly. Don't kid yourself and say that it will promote diversity, I'd put money on the opposite.

Yes there will always be top tier Pokes in every metagame, no way around that unless you're ban happy. But Garchomp, for all his overpoweredness, is nothing compared to the likes of most ubers. I think if you play a fully defensive team, then yes he's overpowering because your team is based around trying to counter everything, but when you're setting up your own offense and most of your team carries ice moves, he's not as threatening because they'll be struggling to counter you. Most ubers don't have this achilles heel, have more raw power, and are sturdy to boot.

 

[el_B]

I don't know, but I understand Obi like he's willing to move down all Pokémon into the "main tier" in order to test what definately centralizes the metagame and therefore define the term "uber". He left some Pokémon out which he believes should remain banned, as their offense is, even in theory, way too enormous.
If we test the possible ubers this way, we'll start all over again, however we can test certain ubers in a metagame, where other, formerly "banned" Pokémon can actually counter those massive beasts ubers are.

If they STILL overcentralize the metagame, we can always ban them again, no?
To all the people saying that Obi's "Metagame" won't be as diversive as the current - it probably won't. But doesn't Obi want to test this "metagame" and eventually reach the point where the diversity is maximied?

However, I'm asking myself currently - Which style of metagame do we want? A somehow balanced metagame which requires the smallest amount of Pokémon to be banned? (For this, I believe, Obi's way is the best way to actually achive this, as some Ubers actually can balance themselves, but they were banned, because they a) were already banned last gen b) they are those One-time-legendary Pokémon with 600+ Basestats and a role in the storyline c) actually were tested in the current metagame, but standalone and not with possible counters in the uber tier and/or d) seemed too strong in theorymon, again standalone.)

Or do we want a balanced metagame in which the greatest number of Pokémon can be used efficiently? In this case, we need to venture down the tier list further and also think of banning those 600 stat points beasts and other huge threats who effectively force you to have atleast 2 of ..let's say.. 7 Pokémon in total on your team - in my opinion atleast.

But still, in both cases we need to define the term "banning". It's not about allowing Pokémon in a certain metagame, but rather banning certain Pokémon out of the metagame we want to achieve.

Concluding the wall of text, I'm with Obi on this one, as we really need to start on the top if we want to define banning and then venture down while testing a metagame - and not a single Pokémon.
Of course, you can always leave the current tier list like it is, but can't we revert to it anyway if it doesn't work out at all?

 

[Mekkah]

Here's a fun thought bait: how about instead from the top, we start from the bottom? Obviously we can skip the NU and UU sections since they have a balanced metagame of their own. Just start with one BL, ask yourself "is this a balanced metagame", and if yes for really sure (like very early on) just continue adding and repeating the question. When in doubt, test it.

It sounds really tedious but I think it's better to start small and keep adding things than vice versa.

 

[Jenigmat]

I remember once reading a thread started by Amazing Ampharos, I believe, in which he proposed that we completely redo the tiers and clauses. Something like, start off the game with no rules, just whatever's in the game goes. And then you can see that, oh, this is too much, we should ban it. That way, we could see what actually was worth banning and what wasn't.

 

[Lyfsaho]

Exactly, and people like me- while not totally against testing reasonable things like low ubers- don't want to play Obi's new metagame which will have half as many viable Pokemon. Restricting diversity makes the game get stale twice as fast, and I think this whole argument started because certain people are already bored of the current metagame. So you switch it up, and people will get sick of seeing the same exact ubers-lite teams very quickly. Don't kid yourself and say that it will promote diversity, I'd put money on the opposite.

In the first part of the post, all you say is purely speculative; As some people have stated so far, this introduction of ubers will have undoubted diversifying effects as well. If Kyogre and Groudon did not have the capabilites to be insane threats on their own, the metagame would broadened significantly by the introduction of unending rain and sun.

Talking about the "low tier ubers", Wobbuffet for instance, when tested, will force more taunters to appear from lower tiers, moves like worry seed to actually have some usage (it isn't that bad a move, ya know - ttar, hippo and aboma dont like it either), more u-turners from lower tiers, dugtrio usage to go up, and these are only a few of the foreseeable effects; Consider the unforseeable ones. Deoxys-LG would give us a valid alternative to Cresselia, since it is superior in some ways and inferior to others, and so on. The whole reason we are talking about this is to stop speculating and start testing.

 

[Hyra]

I remember once reading a thread started by Amazing Ampharos, I believe, in which he proposed that we completely redo the tiers and clauses. Something like, start off the game with no rules, just whatever's in the game goes. And then you can see that, oh, this is too much, we should ban it. That way, we could see what actually was worth banning and what wasn't.

We have one chance to do this, and that is when Competitor comes out. Shoddy is already established and is not entirely under Smogon's influence. It's the only way to get a completely tested Smogon originated metagame.

And to Obi, my main opposition to your idea is that you banned some of the Pokemon that make Kyogre seem to be less powerful. Giratina, Latias, and Arceus can all be call Kyogre "counters". However, we will never test this Pokemon according to you. I feel instead of half testing everything, we should actually test everything. It just doesn't feel right saying your for unbanning everything and then having a ban list of counters to the stuff you want to unban.

 

[obi]

Acting as an observer, this is what has been observed.

10% of the people are for testing the Ubers and 90% are not. Why don't we practice some democracy here instead of letting Smogon become totalitarianistic.

Its mostly Obi and Aldaron against the rest with a few others siding Uber testing. Tell me can any other person start such a thread and keep it running without getting the thread closed down eventhough majority oppose it?

It's looking like a repeat of the 'ban the Arceus' incident...

Smogon isn't a democracy, as I said. We judge ideas by their merit, not their popularity.

You seem to be advocating effectively forcing everyone to stick with whatever positions that they believed in as newbies. Allow me to explain:

You are trying to shut down debate because one side or the other doesn't have the majority (it's impossible for both sides to have a majority support, so your argument would apply to any debate). This means that people's ideas won't be challenged, so the odds of them actually changing their mind is very small. Shutting down debate because an idea is unpopular is an incredibly foolish and short-sided plan. Remember that all ideas, no matter how great, begin in a minority of one.

My goal isn't to poll everyone before the discussion has even finished (or, for most of the early posters, before it's even truly started). My goal is to lay out logical, informative arguments in hopes to convince people.

We don't close threads because they are unpopular. We might close threads because they are illogical or based on false premises, but not because they are unpopular.

It's interesting that you bring up the Arceus thing. Yes, when it started, it seemed a lot like this. People were initially opposed, and some people made the same error you did by PMing me and telling me "Hey people don't agree with you so you shouldn't make any posts!", as though I'm only capable of supporting popular positions. In the end, however, Shoddybattle added the "Extended Game Clause", solving the issue, and several people have since told me that they agree with me. Now that the clause is implemented, if you were to poll everyone now, the support for such a solution would be much higher than it was before. People like to support the winner. My position doesn't have as much support as the opposite precisely because it does not yet have as much support as the opposite. As soon as things start getting more even, many people will cease to be vocal supporters of either side, because now they don't know who is going to end up looking like the majority option.

This is similar to the phenomenon where polling people after the election results are known about who they voted for would suggest a landslide victory. Right before the election, polling is usually pretty accurate. Right after it, a large portion of the population says they voted for whoever won, even if that is not the case.

So please, don't try and shut down debate because people don't agree with me yet. The only threads that have discussion worth reading are those where people disagree.

Thats where the idea that majority wins comes in. Either that or someone with enough power to over-rule even the majority of objections chooses his own choice.

What if I were that someone? Really, who would you say has the authority to overrule the majority you so champion? Your answer has to be "no one" or you are undermining "democracy", or in other words, you are saying it probably isn't the best way.

Alright let's do it. I'll make an entire team out of all of these pokemon obi said and see how well it does against a team of OUs. That will be sufficient testing won't it?

@lyfsaho, Democracy is the best system as long as you elect the right people.

No, it wouldn't. One person is a ridiculous sample space. Moreover, you would naturally win more than you usually do because you have access to more Pokemon. If Salamence, Garchomp, Togekiss, and Tyranitar were banned, and I were having this same discussion for them, you would still sweep teams with some combination of the four of them vs. normal OU teams, simply because they won't be prepared and even if they are, they are at an inherent disadvantage. That doesn't mean those Pokemon are necessarily broken.

The only test I would see as valid is the Shoddy ladder. I would first request that people try to avoid posting dissertations on why Pokemon X is broken after the testing has started until we get some hard statistics to analyze. Then people can post their subjective reports in light of this data.

Just pointing out the fallacy of "allow everything is better than test 1 by 1", because while "low ubers" may balance each other out, that doesn't prove much more than that "low ubers" are powerful enough to be counters to each other. Each time you add or remove a pokemon from the metagame, you're obviously going to cause shifts. What if the [former] uber you just deemed too powerful was the one consistently keeping another [former] uber in check? We'd be back to where slowly testing them got us, just with more time to deal with having ubers in "standard" play.

How is that a fallacy? I guess I'll have to explain what I'm proposing once again.

I'll begin by saying what I'm not proposing. I'm not saying "Unban everything!", as is made obvious by my list of Pokemon I wouldn't unban.

I'm not saying "Unban these Pokemon forever! They aren't broken for sure!". I thought I had made this clear, also, but some comments (not just yours) have convinced me to say this again. I'm saying those are the Pokemon I would recommend testing.

My actual method runs something like this:

1) Play
2) Find the Pokemon that is / are truly unbalancing from that list
3) Ban them.
4) Repeat step 1 with the new list of Pokemon.

I fail to see the fallacy in that reasoning.

Exactly, and people like me- while not totally against testing reasonable things like low ubers- don't want to play Obi's new metagame which will have half as many viable Pokemon. Restricting diversity makes the game get stale twice as fast, and I think this whole argument started because certain people are already bored of the current metagame. So you switch it up, and people will get sick of seeing the same exact ubers-lite teams very quickly. Don't kid yourself and say that it will promote diversity, I'd put money on the opposite.

Prove it.

Here's a fun thought bait: how about instead from the top, we start from the bottom? Obviously we can skip the NU and UU sections since they have a balanced metagame of their own. Just start with one BL, ask yourself "is this a balanced metagame", and if yes for really sure (like very early on) just continue adding and repeating the question. When in doubt, test it.

It sounds really tedious but I think it's better to start small and keep adding things than vice versa.

If a Pokemon is broken and you don't ban it, it makes itself obvious. If a Pokemon is not broken and you do ban it, you may never know. Let's take your argument to the extreme. We start out with Unown and Ditto. Now virtually any Pokemon we add will be overpowering in such an environment. Such an example may appear absurd, but it is what you are suggesting, and it's possible that similar situations would arise with more Pokemon allowed.

I remember once reading a thread started by Amazing Ampharos, I believe, in which he proposed that we completely redo the tiers and clauses. Something like, start off the game with no rules, just whatever's in the game goes. And then you can see that, oh, this is too much, we should ban it. That way, we could see what actually was worth banning and what wasn't.

In theory this is similar to my position, but in reality it is not. I don't believe that the only reason to ban something is because it's far too powerful. I also like to minimize the element of luck as much as possible (and therefore maximize the element of skill). Double Team and OHKOs bring the game closer to a coin flip, so I'm against them regardless of their actual power. This is a major part of my reasoning for wanting to ban hyper-offensive Pokemon like Deoxys-A. At early stages of the game, you can't have any real prediction because you have no information about his team other than that he has a Deoxys-A. If you guess wrong, you lose.

 

[Raikou]

In the first part of the post, all you say is purely speculative; As some people have stated so far, this introduction of ubers will have undoubted diversifying effects as well. If Kyogre and Groudon did not have the capabilites to be insane threats on their own, the metagame would broadened significantly by the introduction of unending rain and sun.

Talking about the "low tier ubers", Wobbuffet for instance, when tested, will force more taunters to appear from lower tiers, moves like worry seed to actually have some usage (it isn't that bad a move, ya know - ttar, hippo and aboma dont like it either), more u-turners from lower tiers, dugtrio usage to go up, and these are only a few of the foreseeable effects; Consider the unforseeable ones. Deoxys-LG would give us a valid alternative to Cresselia, since it is superior in some ways and inferior to others, and so on. The whole reason we are talking about this is to stop speculating and start testing.

So if I say Mewtwo will be promptly banned if he is tested in OU with all his uber friends, I'm being "speculative". Call it what you want, it's common sense, as is the fact that a restricted metagame will result from an influx of ubers. Obi isn't even against a restricted metagame, but those of us who value diversity are, so it's just a matter of personal opinion now.

You already proved your extremely uninformed position on how Wobbuffet works and contributed largely to locking a former thread in which it was being discussed. Here is Jumpman's response to your misinformation, so I'd just let that one die if I were you. http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932134&postcount=252

 

[DBZ_Trunks1000]

Wow i didn't even bother to read pass page 2 of this thread. Not having anything against obi, but some of you are just bias for the fact that he is Obi. Hell, c'mon be honest. I will tell why i feel some of these pokes are Uber and can't stay in OU.

Manaphy- Manaphy is Uber no doubt. Manaphy is basically a tad bit slow Azelf with MUCH better defenses and can Tail Glow without the fear of Pursuit. With Tail Glow/ Calm Mind, Rest, Surf, Grass Knot/ Ice Beam/ Rain Dance. Not a lot can even switch in or wall it. Hell a Surf under Rain With Life Orb, will 2hko any Blissey IIRC. Kyogre ( who you are trying to move to OU dies to Grass Knot. If someone dares to use Vaporeon, what the hell can Vaporeon do back to Manaphy, TOXIC? while i rest? lulz. Manaphy shouldn't be allowed in OU. Can make Rain Dance teams more popular sure, but will be broken in so many ways.


Mew- If Mew was to be allowed in OU, you may as well give Cresselia 8 move slots. if Baton Pass was banned on Mew then it may be a shot. But he can basically do anything to it's counters he wants to. He can Bulk Up, to avoid Pursuit damage, and then RECOVER later. Or Calm Mind to reduce Shadow Ball damage, then RECOVER later. He is basically Cresselia with more Speed ( Doesn't fear Tyranitar Pursuit ) He has the option to set up and INSTANT recovery, while Cresselia has to have an 8 PP Moonlight, and with T-tar everywhere that sucks. Rest Talk is basically Cresselia only option.


Ho-oh- Choice Banded Sacred Fire hurts every poke, then with the burn rate, makes a 2hko even easier, especially if Sand is out to negate leftovers. With it's defense's he can switch in on Megahorns and Close Combat, hit back hard with Sacred Fire. Hell even Punishment on Calm Mind Cresselia isn't anything to laugh at, or Calm Mind Slowbro. Even rocks who are physical attack based, get ruined by burn. Everyone says Stealth Rock this, Stealth Rock that. A good player who wants to use Ho-Oh really knows how to not keep Stealth Rock on the field.

Palkia - Make it hold Life Orb or Leftovers, and he is fine by me in OU

Dialga- Same as Palikia

Darkrai- Fine in OU

Deoxys-D- Fine in OU

Kyogre- Wow, lets be honest, what stops Kyogre. He can wall with Toxic ( other bulky waters ) Make Manaphy the biggest threat in OU. Thunder most counters for some Paralysis. Calm Mind and sweep, if you think CM Cune was TOUGH, you must have no met Calm Mind Kyogre, especially with Thunder at it's disposal. Only pokes to wall Surf/Thunder Kyogre would be Quagsire <_< and Shedninja. Not all Kyogre run choice items, so trying to trap with Dugtrio would be risky. Too Specs set can 2hko Blissey. Scarf sets runs through teams after Blissey takes its defeat.

Wobbuffet- Fine in OU
Lugia- Fine in OU

 

[Lyfsaho]

So if I say Mewtwo will be promptly banned if he is tested in OU with all his uber friends, I'm being "speculative". Call it what you want, it's common sense, as is the fact that a restricted metagame will result from an influx of ubers. Obi isn't even against a restricted metagame, but those of us who value diversity are, so it's just a matter of personal opinion now.

You already proved your extremely uninformed position on how Wobbuffet works and contributed largely to locking a former thread in which it was being discussed. Here is Jumpman's response to your misinformation, so I'd just let that one die if I were you. http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932134&postcount=252

There's no need to get offended because you can't make a valid point - as again, you show here.

Mewtwo? When in god's name was Mewtwo ever mentioned by anyone? You're being speculative when you say that adding the Ubers Obi suggests in this topic to the OU metagame will overcentralize it instead of diversifying it.

Obi isn't against a restricted metagame?? Seriously, not only him, but most of the advocators of this thread, are suggesting that not all Ubers are tested. By not testing Deoxys-A, Dialga, or Mewtwo, you are already restricting the metagame. The question is only to what extent you want to restrict it.

And to your frail attempt at an insult, that thread was locked because emotions ran a little too high and that had nothing to do with Wobbuffet, I talked it over with Jumpman. And just as you'd bet your money on Ubers overcentralizing the OU metagame, I'd bet mine on me knowing a tad more about Wobbuffet than you. But enough of that.

 

[Raikou]

Then substitute Kyogre for Mewtwo if my analogy went right over your head. This will be my last response to your trolling. You can't make an argument for or against ubers if you have no idea how they work. The last thread like this was 5+ pages of your irrelevant arguments so I'll leave you with this.

Here's Jumpman16's response to you in the thread he had to lock:

yep, just as i was afraid of, this thread is largely terrible

lyfsaho, your video alone is indication enough that you honestly have no idea of the strategy behind wobbuffet. at around 4:00, lucario is granted a free turn even after a stupid wynaut sacrifice. anyone who is a competent battler would realize how dangerous that turn is for a SD lucario, especially in light of the pokemon that was actually switched straight into lucario in tyranitar (i shook my head at this irl).

then you say "Why the hell is Tentacruel an OU on the Tier List? Because every third person gets one now to counter mixape nowadays on shoddy. What is the purpose of Hitmontop's existance? To counter boah. etc, etc."

if you feel that i've singled you out, i have. your posts and football fanatic's, among a few others' are the reason this thread turned to shit by, what, page 3? 2? unbelievable. you two should just be glad i didn't infract you for the several posts in which you either insulted other members or were trolling.
when the answer is actually that both were important pieces used in the very popular RMTs of Obi and Aldaron that were copied, not what you just decided to assume. and in general you are telling other posters to get some battle experience because they don't know what they are talking about...that is the most hypocritical thing i've seen in a long time given what you've proven about yourself from your posts and video. posters like you are the kind i don't want posting in threads like this and are the reason we have to lock so many of them.

 

[DBZ_Trunks1000]

There's no need to get offended because you can't make a valid point - as again, you show here.

Mewtwo? When in god's name was Mewtwo ever mentioned by anyone? You're being speculative when you say that adding the Ubers Obi suggests in this topic to the OU metagame will overcentralize it instead of diversifying it.

Obi isn't against a restricted metagame?? Seriously, not only him, but most of the advocators of this thread, are suggesting that not all Ubers are tested. By not testing Deoxys-A, Dialga, or Mewtwo, you are already restricting the metagame. The question is only to what extent you want to restrict it.

And to your frail attempt at an insult, that thread was locked because emotions ran a little too high and that had nothing to do with Wobbuffet, I talked it over with Jumpman. And just as you'd bet your money on Ubers overcentralizing the OU metagame, I'd bet mine on me knowing a tad more about Wobbuffet than you. But enough of that.

Some shit is just common sense. If Ubers can't handle Mewtwo, what makes you think, OU can handle Mewtwo?

 

[Lyfsaho]

This will be my last response to your trolling. You can't make an argument for or against ubers if you have no idea how they work. The last thread like this was 5+ pages of your irrelevant arguments so I'll leave you with this.

I fail to see how I troll. What I don't fail to see is your attempt to back your lost thesis up with someone else's authority - its not working, ya know. That was sorted out already.

Some shit is just common sense. If Ubers can't handle Mewtwo, what makes you think, OU can handle Mewtwo?

Ubers can't handle Mewtwo? lol, disputable. Very.

But in essence, you're right, it is common sense that a few pokemon can't be allowed in OU, but its still a restriction of OU - one that makes sense, but a restriction nonetheless.

 

[Deck Knight]

OK, let me try and reach out here.

I would be willing to test out everything on that lower list except Kyogre.

If you want to bring down Kyogre, you MUST bring down Groudon.

Kyogre without Groudon will imbalance OU towards Rain Dance teams, which are already powerful in their own right. It would also be patently unfair to Sunny Day teams to allow every other auto-weather ability except Auto-Sun.

If your only reason for bringing down Kyogre is that unlike Kyogre, physical pokemon don't have a wall as strong as Blissey, then you're using poor logic considering there are Kyogre sets that can break Blissey and still be effective in the metagame. Many more pokemon are immune to Groudon's STAB than Kyogre's. Groudon has competition among Ground type sweepers with Garchomp, whose advantages include strength in a different auto-weather than sun and higher speed, along with Dragon STAB. No water type can directly compete with Kyogre. Starmie comes closest and has the speed advantage like Garchomp, but simply cannot hit as hard as Kyogre or take as much abuse.

Unless you can provide a reason why Kyogre shouldn't be in the "heavy hitter" category when it's essentially just a special version of Groudon that gets double water STAB, then I won't move my position.

Weather Ubers should be banned together or allowed together.