Which aspect of Dragons is more broken: Pokémon or Moves?

[skorpion123]

For all you people who keep citing other pokemon with 120/140 BP moves. The difference here is that Dragon is a MUCH better attacking type than any other type in the metagame. Comparing Outrage to Flare Blitz does not work because the type advantage Dragon has over Flare Blitz makes them 100% different attacks.

It's a great attacking type but the combination of great attacking type , + 120/140 BP move and great pokemon is broken only in the cases of the Broken/uber pokemon.

The combination so far , is not considered (not by me , but by those who made the decisions . Decisions that i agree with in that case and in most if not all cases.) broken in the case of OU pokemon.

So neither move nor pokemon are broken , in the case of OU Dragon pokemon. If Mence is broken then i guess it will be found after a test. (if it's deemed necessary) .

 

[Stylish Interval]

However, Dragon only hits one type for super effective damage, whereas Fire hits 4. That's why I asked what makes an attacking type good.

Then I'd go to say its popularity of the resists versus popularity of the types you hit super effectively.

 

[blasphemy1]

@ Raikaria: Do we not have evasion and ohko clauses? We also have sleep clause, which states under a specific scenario(one pokemon is put to sleep by the opponent's pokemon) no other pokemon may be forced to sleep. The former two are obviously the relevant cases.

X-Act also makes a great point. Salamence was a great pokemon back in ADV, but nowhere near broken(and that was without Stealth Rock!).

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Then I'd go to say its popularity of the resists versus popularity of the types you hit super effectively.

Exactly. Dragon-type moves may be SE only on Dragon pokémon, but being resisted only by a single type, which has pretty common weaknesses (and is Magnezone bait), more than compensates Fire-type's SE damage on four types, specially when you take into account those who resist it (Fire, Water, lol Dragon, Rock) and Heatran. It is true that the dragons' high base stats make Outrage and Draco Meteor even stronger, but when you look to things like Altaria, which have subpar offensive stats, you realize that the only thing those two moves need to be incredibly strong and set apart from other 120/140 BP moves is the STAB. You don't even need a dragon with gigantic stats, you only need a pokémon with Dragon as one of its types. Outrage and DM do all the work after that.

@ Raikaria: Do we not have evasion and ohko clauses? We also have sleep clause, which states under a specific scenario(one pokemon is put to sleep by the opponent's pokemon) no other pokemon may be forced to sleep. The former two are obviously the relevant cases.

X-Act also makes a great point. Salamence was a great pokemon back in ADV, but nowhere near broken(and that was without Stealth Rock!).

To be fair, Salamence was acceptable even in DP. It was Platinum teaching Outrage that "killed" it.

 

[Lockeness]

The dragon type is more "broken" than the moves because most moves are only useful with stab. However I do not think that banning moves will only reduce the power of the metagame and the ability to launch offensives. Neither do I think Latios would be brought down if it didn't have draco meteor. These dragon moves are two edged swords and they cah provide easy switch ins- especially to Scizor who resists dragon moves, has a ton of Bulkiness and the ability to kill most weakened dragons.

 

[Darkartisan]

I honestly feel that it would be ridiculous to "ban moves"

while you can argue that infinitely, banning a banner move would cause a Pokemon to not be able to be used to its highest potential. Not only does this practically ruin the Pokemon's damage output, but figure that if you ban Draco Meteor/Outrage, many strategies would be ruined, and it's not like dragons are unstoppable.

After Outrage, switch to a steel type and set up. It's that simple. Draco Meteor practically renders dragons useless after using it.

I honestly don't see dragons as big a threat as everyone thinks.

 

[Ulevo]

Draco Meteor practically renders dragons useless after using it.

So you're telling me that Salamence can't use Outrage, Earthquake, Dragon Claw, Fire Blast/Flamethrower or Brickbreak, on a Pokemon that switched in on a Draco Meteor? Are you saying Flygon can't use STAB Earthquake after Draco Meteor? Or U-Turn? Fire Blast/Flamethrower? Or Outrage? Dragon Claw? Are you telling me Latias can't use SE attacks such as HP Fire, HP Fighting, HP Ground, Grass Knot, Surf, to kill opposing threats that switch in to Draco Meteor?

Draco Meteor does not render Dragons useless after use. If anything, I'd argue it does quite the opposite.

 

[blasphemy1]

To be fair, Salamence was acceptable even in DP. It was Platinum teaching Outrage that "killed" it.

I would agree with that. If he had one or the other(Draco Meteor OR Outrage) I don't think this would be an issue.

 

[Stylish Interval]

This is kind of adding on to what Glen said, but if we were going to nerf Draco Meteor and Outrage, why not SR as well? Why wouldn't we nerf something that causes a lot of Pokemon to be unusable if it could create a better metagame? What would stop us from doing that after we (if we do) ban these moves? How far would it go?

 

[Lite]

This is the same though I have had for a good time now.... Both aspects of dragons are a bit broken in the way the dragon Pokemon use dragon moves to operate. With Outrage and DM gone the powerhouses like Mence and Chomp seem less lethal as well as the Pokemon using these moves that are semi lethal like Flygon and Kingdra. With these two powerhouse moves gone we lose vital parts of OU [*cough*Flygon*cough] however without these moves Chomp comes back and these vital dragons of OU are doomed anyway. That is why the only way to even out the playing field is to allow certain POkemon access to DM and Outrage which would ultimately solve the broken move and POkemon problem, hands down. This is my proposal:

Dragons allowed access to Draco Meteor and Outrage
~ Flygon

Dragons disallowed access to Draco MEtoer and Outrage
~ Kingdra
~ Mence
~ Chomp

WAIT!!!! Why Kingdra? He is not commonly used anyway! What huge damage can he do with DM and Outrage?
~ Answer: Rain Dance teams, Kingdra is absolutely lethal and RD teams are very difficult to beat, especially with the new discovery of Bulky Waters.

 

[Ulevo]

I find it ridiculous that people are claiming that Flygon and Kingdra need Outrage or Draco Meteor to be viable in OU. Flygon is the only Dragon currently that isn't subjected to Rock Weakness, SR Weakness, Sandstorm and is immune to Electric attacks and Thunder Wave. It also has Stab Earthquake, and U-Turn. Draco Meteor and Outrage are merely icing on the cake to a very useful and niche OU Pokemon. As for Kingdra, it has always been one of the best sweepers on a team utilizing Rain Dance. It still gets STAB + 1.5 boost from Surf and Waterfall in the rain, making its wall breaking abilities more than adequate, and it still has access to Dragon Pulse. With the absence of Draco Meteor, I'm sure it could fill the void with an HP Electric or HP Fighting for incoming Gyarados/Tyranitar. Just some thoughts.

 

[Game Freak201]

@Lite
If we are going to ban DM and Outrage, it would be a blanket ban. No exceptions.
Edit: Oh. Well it's good to know you don't really mean that.

[Sarcasm]
I think that if we are to look at this carefully, it's the dragon typing that is obviously broken. DM and Outrage wouldn't be even considered to be banned if it weren't for the dragons who backed those moves up. When was the last time you seen Gyrarados or Tyranitar use Outrage in competitive battles? Most likely never since they don't get STAB on it and those moves only hit one type for super-effective damage. Therefore, I claim that we should just ban all dragons since all of them are too powerful so we can have a more balanced and diverse metagame.
[/Sarcasm]

 

[Ulevo]

[Sarcasm]
I think that if we are to look at this carefully, it's the dragon typing that is obviously broken. DM and Outrage wouldn't be even considered to be banned if it weren't for the dragons who backed those moves up. When was the last time you seen Gyrarados or Tyranitar use Outrage in competitive battles? Most likely never since they don't get STAB on it and those moves only hit one type for super-effective damage. Therefore, I claim that we should just ban all dragons since all of them are too powerful so we can have a more balanced and diverse metagame.
[/Sarcasm]

I'm not sure what you hope to have achieved by posting that with sarcastic intent, as there are poster here who are making implications on exactly that.

 

[Game Freak201]

@Ulevo
I was trying to portray that we shouldn't ban the moves due to certain pokemon being overpowered with them by offering up a satirical solution that seems ludicrous to me.

 

[RBG]

[sarcasm] Yeah! Banning moves cause only a few pokemon can use them viably is stupid! Lets get rid of evasion clause and OHKO clause! [/sarcasm]

Sarcasm gets us no where. I am trying to have a serious discussion and it would help your point much more if you pointed out actual reasons why I am wrong rather then lame and vague sarcastic situations.

 

[skorpion123]

Draco Meteor and Outrage on not uber Dragon pokemon so far is not considered uber or incredibly cheap (or as annoying hax that makes the game more luck based than we wish) while OHKO moves and DT , were considered so , i assume. (to an extend that they should be banned.)


Whether Kingdra/Flygon/Altaria can do just fine even without DM or Outrage is irrelevant because there is nothing to gain by removing their move and 's they are broken with those moves either.

while Salamence is OU with those moves currently but some people believe that it should be tested to determine whether it's uber.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I really don't think the moves are broken simply because they are not normally used on anything but dragons. On anything but dragons, outrage and draco meteor are USUALLY just for a gimmick or for testing. This means that the user of the move (the dragon pokemon) are abusing the move and the STAB.

I honestly don't think either are broken (maybe Garchomp), but if I had to pick one, I'd choose the dragon pokemon. I wouldn't really call any move in the current metagame "broken" (other than the ones already banned ie. Double Team, Sheer Cold)

 

[cyberzero]

The moves definitely play a huge part in it because a Salamence without Outrage or a Latias without Draco Meteor is a lot less threatening than one without either move. The stats and typing allow them to come in and do lots of damage, but Mence would not be such an intimidating wallbreaker by any means without the sheer power behind those two moves.

 

[Lite]

Essentially, what I am meaning to say is that the way the current metagame is we cannot truly fix the dragon problem meaning the moves nor Pokemon, we should test Chomp and Mence in OU without Outrage or DM, no pun or sarcasm intended. I am aware this sounds a bit crazy but see if this works, I have calculated some damages towards common Pokemon in OU i.e. Lucario, Scizor, Bliss, Skarm using Mence and CHomp and the game makes much more sense without them using the moves. Test it out

 

[FlareBlitz]

Some dragons are broken both due to their typing, ability, and movepool and their access to Outrage and Draco Meteor. If we take away Outrage and Draco Meteor from, say, Garchomp, I'm fully confident that it would still be considered broken, especially considering that many Swords Dance sets use Dragon Claw to avoid being locked in anyway. On the other hand, taking away Draco Meteor and Outrage from something like Salamence would result it being far, far less threatening. Hell, I wouldn't even consider it a viable wall breaker if it loses Draco Meteor. Additionally, Specs Latios wouldn't be nearly as big a problem as it was during the suspect tests without Draco Meteor. However, something like Soul Dew Latios or Rayquaza or any other dragon currently sitting in Ubers would still be broken even without access to Draco Meteor or Outrage. So really, it's a situational thing. Removing those moves from the metagame wouldn't necessarily result in all or even most of the currently banned/suspected dragons becoming acceptable, but it would probably make a huge impact on some.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

But why ban a move simply because it is too powerful on a pokemon? There isn't a move simply so powerful just to ban (other than OHKO moves, which are already banned) because that would make many top threats a lot less threatening. I just can't see it happening.

All Salamence sets are counterable, with the right movesets and counters on your team. And if someone says something such as "Well if a pokemon is so good that I need to add a pokemon on my team just to counter it, well that means its broken!" Actually that probably means your team isn't very good. If you aren't taking into account who the top threats are and how to counter them while building your team, you need to rework your game plan.

One Last Point: Let's say hypothetically we decide to ban outrage because it is too powerful? What will that lead to? Maybe ban Close Combat on Lucario? Then banning Bullet Punch on Scizor because these moves are "too powerful"? It would be GSC stall wars all over again! And honestly, pokemon should be about fun, and what fun is it with using weak moves trying to beat a SkarmBliss, hoping for a critical hit?

 

[cantab]

I think it is more important to note here that to have more viable OU Pokemon is certainly ideal

I would disagree. Beyond a certain point, it does little. Obviously 8 viable Pokemon is far better than 6. But 58 is not significantly better than 56, especially when you're advocating making some of the existing 56 worse.

Another point: Sure, banning CM+Outrage might make Latios and Garchomp OU. But Latias and Flygon will then be largely outclassed. Latias will probably end up in the lower reaches of OU, used only in defensive roles, while Flygon will likely land up BL or UU. You don't ACTUALLY increase the number of competitive OU Pokemon by banning these moves!

Unfortunately, the more rules and policies we implement, the more complicated our ruleset becomes. That's just how it is.

You say it like it is an inevitability. But that is wriong - the rules only become complicated if we MAKE them complicated. Currently, the basic rules are "no putting two things to sleep", "no using evasion moves", "no using OHKO moves", "no using two of the same Pokemon", and "no using the Pokemon in this list" (where the list depends on the tier you're playing in). Pretty simple really - and we're considering making it even simpler by testing species, evasion, and OHKO clauses.

 

[Acritter]

The moves alone are just fine. If the moves are what is broken, then the lower-tier dragons (Flygon, Kingdra) would be broken as well. Therefore, it's got something to do with the Pokemon as well. We can clearly see that the combination of the Pokemon and moves is broken (just using Latios for this example, the other Dragons can come later), so splitting the two up will create a more balanced game. The original way of doing this was to simply remove the Pokemon, but who says we can't keep the Pokemon from learning the move? That alone might balance a lot of the problems the Dragons (again, Latios) cause.

Or we could just loluber them. Really your choice.

 

[cantab]

Well, we could make any Pokemon OU by restricting its moveset.

Come to think of it, we could make everything OU even by overall bans. Ban everything except Scratch and Tackle!

 

[Ulevo]

I would disagree. Beyond a certain point, it does little. Obviously 8 viable Pokemon is far better than 6. But 58 is not significantly better than 56, especially when you're advocating making some of the existing 56 worse.

I never implied that having 2 more OU Pokemon is by any means "significantly better", but that it may in fact be beneficial to the metagame. And exactly what proof do you have to suggest that by adding Pokemon to the list of viable OU contenders that it will automatically reduce the worth of all the previously existing OU Pokemon? That's not how our metagame works.

Another point: Sure, banning CM+Outrage might make Latios and Garchomp OU. But Latias and Flygon will then be largely outclassed. Latias will probably end up in the lower reaches of OU, used only in defensive roles, while Flygon will likely land up BL or UU. You don't ACTUALLY increase the number of competitive OU Pokemon by banning these moves!

This is complete theorycraft, and to suggest that Flygon and Latias will be outclassed is ignorant in of itself.

If we ban these moves, and it proves to keep Salamence and Latias in the OU Tier, as well as reintroduce Garchomp in to OU, and unban Latios, that is 4 Pokemon to consider. The only Pokemon that will directly suffer from the removal of these moves outside of these four would be Dragonite, Altaria, Flygon and Kingdra. Altaria is UU already, and you have nothing to suggest or prove that exclusion of these moves will render the other three insignificant in the OU environment.

You say it like it is an inevitability. But that is wriong - the rules only become complicated if we MAKE them complicated.

I'm not saying it is inevitable... I'm saying that the more rules that are implemented, the more complex it becomes. Whether or not we (redundant much?) make it complicated had nothing to do with what I said.

Well, we could make any Pokemon OU by restricting its moveset.

Come to think of it, we could make everything OU even by overall bans. Ban everything except Scratch and Tackle!

Jesus... People need to read. Go back a page and read what I posted. It clearly states why this argument is fallacious.