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

[cantab]

I highly doubt the moves are broken for example
Draco Meteor 140 BP Decreases SP Atk
Wel have also Leaf Storm with the same effect and Overheat then why are those two other moves not broken? it's not a move only thing if moves were broken then we would ban bullet punch from scizor don't you think?
It takes stats to pull the moves Flygon is also a dragon and it also gets stab but one would rather use Draco Meteor on Mence than on Flygon why? because mence has higher and better stats, I believe the dragons are broken not the moves. But the solution is not banning all the dragons and bringing the UU dragons to OU.

Typing matters.
With discussion both here and in the Salamence suspect? thread, I'm increasingly thinking one thing:
If Salamence is Uber, Draco Meteor is a strong contributing factor, and Salamence without Draco Meteor may not be Uber.
I'm still not so sure Draco Meteor should be banned because of that though. I suspect this doesn't apply to Latios - who will hit like a truck with ANY special move - or Garchomp, who mainly just uses physical I think. Thus, if the choice is between banning DM and banning Salamence, I'd go with banning Salamence, in part because the precedent for that is much more solid, and also because it doesn't nerf the other dragons.

 

[Anachronism]

I think that banning anything other than pokemon themselves is bullshit (unless there was an item like berry juice for OU). Basically, the moves only matter because the pokemon that have stab on them are all really solid. Dragon is a good type all around and the pokemon that have the dragon typing all have decent stats other than Altaria.

So I am voting pokemon. Also, making it 200/100 is too good to pass up.

 

[lilyhollow]

if there are crazy logical issues with this post, please pretend they don't exist, I'm tired

The way I see it, banning Draco Meteor & Outrage is a viable option if you want to have an OU metagame that allows as many Pokemon as possible. If, instead, your goal is to play a game that is as balanced as possible while also making as few changes to the natural metagame as possible, then here we are, banning Latios, etc.

It comes down to the very philosophy of the metagame itself.

I agree with this. Talking about whether the moves or the Pokemon are "more broken" is totally empty unless someone has a workable definition of what "broken" even is. You need a picture of what the metagame "should" be if you want to define what it "shouldn't" be (what "broken" is).



I haven't read very many posts in this thread but I've already come across members speaking along these sorts of lines. TVboyCanti has already talked about why saying "like, oh my God, Salamence is so totally OU without Outrage" says nothing about whether the OU metagame would actually be healthier in Outrage's absence, because there are plenty of non-Suspect OUs that currently have access to the move and clearly are not broken. It also says nothing that "Draco Meteor's strength is defined by the base stats of the Pokemon that use it," except that the user is mindful enough to cobble together some rhetoric that somehow equates "Latios with Draco Meteor is not healthy for OU" with "Latios is the unhealthy one; Draco Meteor is merely Latios' tool. Removing Latios makes the most sense." While banning Latios is certainly the "cleanest" course of action, there is no reason to believe that banning Draco Meteor would not result in a healthier metagame, regardless of the fact that certain Pokemon like Latias and Kingdra would also suffer.

I'm going to point out right now, though, that making moves and items "fair game" for Suspect tests without serious, serious evidence in favor of the move/item's removal being the "healthier decision" is pretty much crazy. There's no way I'm going to support testing Outrage or Draco Meteor, because it is really ambiguous whether the moves or the Pokemon are "more broken," "more to blame," "less balanced," whatever. You can't tell me that testing Outrage is a good idea when you don't even have much of a reason to believe that the "cleaner" choice, banning the dragons in question, isn't a sufficient or even better solution to our problems. Not when we're looking at several weeks of Outrage testing and all the ridiculous heartache that comes with testing a move ban, testing a Pokemon ban, and deciding which one we think is just a teensy bit more competitively alluring.

So I already sort of have the opinion that talking about which is "more broken" is a pretty pointless exercise; if you have to discuss that, it's probably just better to assume that the problem is the Pokemon and move on, if only for practical reasons. But even when you do get past that, you run into ANinyMouse's predicament, except potentially way more variable and complicated (for example, you get RB Golbat saying that "losing Flygon and Kingdra is worth gaining Latios and Garchomp," while TVboyCanti feels that "there's no net gain."). There are a lot of directions the metagame could be turned that are all very very valid, but are completely separate from one-another. Maybe user X thinks the metagame would be better without Draco Meteor because having a relatively balanced top 15 is more important than the balance of the tier as a whole. I might think that's just silly-- I care about the overall balance of all 40-some-odd Pokemon, so banning Salamence sounds good to me. Who's right? "Good question."


Basically, I have two problems with this thread. Problem number one is that it's kind of flawed to talk about this stuff in the first place because we have no clear philosophy on what a "good" metagame is. Chess and Poker are both highly competitive games and we could easily start inching towards either of them and be totally justified. So this sort of ends up going around in circles even when people start developing arguments that actually say something about whether it's preferable to ban a move or a Pokemon.

Problem number two is that most of the thread is this weird, artificial "blame game" where people either count up the number of Pokemon that Draco Meteor "makes" broken and present that as evidence in favor of a Draco Meteor test/ban being warranted (and implicitly an efficient use of our time), or point to Flygon and Kingdra as proof of Garchomp/Salamence's "guilt." This sort of makes sense when you're looking at situations that aren't really ambiguous; sure, we're not banning Counter because of Wobbuffet, or Taunt because of Deoxys-S or anything like that. In this case, though, I don't see why we're approaching the discussion that way. Even if there were a consensus on which is "more to blame" somehow, the decision would ultimately be a comparison between the two types of bans' respective environments--which one is "better". Why isn't that the kind of discussion that's mostly going on (maybe the pages I've read aren't representative)?

 

[mtr]

The moves. Sure, the stats of the Dragons matter, but the moves seal the deal. If Salamence didn't have Draco Meteor, it would never be in contention for Uberness. Without it, suddenly the myriad of revenge killers, along with things like Hippowdon / Swampert / RTGyara / Porygon2 / Cresselia become perfect counters to the Dragon Dancer. I mean, what can a MixMence do without Draco Meteor besides Fire Blast and maybe Hydro Pump? Dragon Pulse doesn't hit hard enough.

Salamence without Outrage is interesting simply because it didn't use to have it. I don't have enough expertise in a pre-Platinum metagame to comment on it, unfortunately. I'm just saying that Draco Meteor is what puts Salamence in Ubers contention, not Outrage.

EDIT: Dammit, I honestlythink that Draco Meteor should be tested, simply because the move is exceedingly spammable, whereas Outrage isn't because its quite punishable unless it is boosted (where again the Pokemon come into play). Unfortunately, though, it just seems absurd to me to test a MOVE, because it sets a horrible precedent. Would Calm Mind have been test-worthy in RSE? Not a rhetorical point, this is actually a question.

 

[haunter]

EDIT: Dammit, I honestlythink that Draco Meteor should be tested, simply because the move is exceedingly spammable, whereas Outrage isn't because its quite punishable unless it is boosted (where again the Pokemon come into play). Unfortunately, though, it just seems absurd to me to test a MOVE, because it sets a horrible precedent. Would Calm Mind have been test-worthy in RSE? Not a rhetorical point, this is actually a question.

To be honest even Draco Meteor has its drawbacks. The special attack drop usually forces the user out giving some opposing Pokemon the chance to set up, not to mention that being forced out is automatically a problem for things like Latias (and Latios too) as they're countered mainly by Pursuit.

 

[cantab]

The SpA drop doesn't affect something running a mixed set, since it still has physical moves to fall back on, and possibly super-effective special moves (by which I mean Fire Blast). Salamence, Dragonite, Kingdra, Flygon, and Altaria all have mixed sets listed.

 

[ANinyMouse]

Like I said before, I still think we should continue to test and possibly ban Pokemon over moves themselves, and this is the reason:

The type chart hasn't changed since GSC.

Dragon was just as broken back then, but it didn't matter, since all we had was Kingdra & Dragonite, mostly with a 60-power Dragonbreath, and Outrage was 90 base power and Special. Even in RSE, when Dragon Claw was added, it was still a Special attack, playing off the lower stats of Dragonite, Flygon & Salamence. Only with the Physical/Special split and the advent of incredibly HIGH BP attacks did it suddenly "matter" that Dragon was broken. It's always been broken... it just never mattered!

We could ditch any or all the Dragon-type attacks if we wanted to, and things would be fairly equalized, I'd wager... but that would require us to take a very different stance on what "the metagame of Pokemon should be." Would a metagame without Dragon-type attacks work? Would it be fun? Would it be a safe bet for things to be better balanced overall? Of course! But it would also throw half our suspect test project into the toilet, if not require a total recall... and for that reason alone, I'm not going to hold my breath for anyone to agree with me on this. Smogon has chosen a path, and I would suggest that we follow it at least until a certain level of "completeness." Hey, who knows, right?

So what are we to do? How do we proceed? I propose that we "man up," accept this aspect of the game, and move on with the metagame. And currently, "moving on" requires that we decide what to do with Salamence for now.

So Salamence can 2HKO pretty much anything using some kind of mixed set, right (at the least, Fire Blast)? Well, that requires Life Orb. Those 10% drops in HP every time it makes a move add up quickly! After one or two attacks (in most games, 1 opposing Pokemon, maybe 2), a multitude of threats are able to revenge it immediately... with Stealth Rock and perhaps Sandstorm in play.

Now, obviously, it is advantageous for those seeking to use Salamence to its full potential to keep Stealth Rock off the field at all costs, as it keeps things like Scizor from ruining your fun for a bit longer. Using a Rapid Spinner and an Aerodactyl lead is probably your best bet, I'd wager. Add in Magnezone and Rotom to deal with anything Steel-typed, and you still have room for a backup threat in case things don't go to plan, or to clean up after Salamence has done his job and crippled or killed at least two Pokemon, if not swept the remainder of your opponent's team entirely. Depending on how the final team turns out, I could see Salamence serving either Offensive-Support or Offensive roles! This is a team that I would consider in the spirit of DPPt, being that it does not concentrate on stopping the opponent as much as it concentrates on winning!

How does such a strategy fare in today's metagame? How consistently could a team such as this see an easy victory over the majority of opponents?

I plan on using a team centered around Salamence on Shoddy myself, just to see what I can expect of such a strategy. Personally, I expect Dragon Dance to be the most overwhelming threat... But regardless, how else can a decision be made, unless we go forth and try to abuse Salamence as much as possible?

Whether we decide to do a suspect test or not, the only real way to make an educated decision - in a situation as iffy as this one especially - is to experience firsthand what kind of threat we're dealing with.

And in the end? It will come to some kind of vote or consensus, and the prevailing opinion will move us forward. Neither, I feel, will be right or wrong.

I suggest the consideration of alternate methods if and only if a heads-or-tails decision is something we don't want to base our decision on. Or maybe it's not as simple as all that? I won't know for myself until I use Salamence - I've never used one before!

 

[Age of Kings]

I think it's more the Pokemon than the moves. No matter how powerful a move is, it still has to be solidly backed by something. It can't just be a move's typing alone: let's take something like Rampardos' Head Smash. Every UU player knows that if it gets in safely, Rampardos will most likely be taking something down with it even if it resists the move. Why? It's backed by base 165 attack plus STAB. Scizor's CB U-turn is another good example of this principle for you OU players. On the other hand, you have things like Hydro Pump Gyarados, which gains STAB on a high powered move, but the Pokemon itself cannot abuse it properly. If that's too theoretical, we use Draco Meteor and not Outrage on Latias because of its stat distribution.

If Dragon's coverage is the problem, the Pokemon themselves should be looked at, not the moves. There are many non-Dragons that learn Outrage, but you tell me how many use it on a regular basis.

The only move that should ever be subject to suspect testing imo is SR but that's another topic for another day.

this was kind of a quick write-up; i may add more later

EDIT;; A quick bit: Salamence is one of the things named here. If it relied on Outrage or Draco Meteor alone, would it be as much of a threat? Imagine a Mixmence without Fire Blast or EQ to back it up. Yeah, still powerful, but it'll be losing some of its teeth. What if either of its offenses sucked? Yes, lots of what ifs, but it's important to look at the entire package then just one component.
Oh, and before it got Outrage, before either of its Dragon moves were even physical, it was a pretty solid OU. Latias was uber before it got its Draco Meteor.

 

[ANinyMouse]

Typing is an aspect of not only Pokemon, but moves as well. I'd argue that, especially with offensive characteristics, one cannot be overlooked for the other.

Salamence DOES have EQ & FB, though. If all the Dragons in the game had offensive stats like Altaria, or if none of the Dragon-type moves had a base power over 60, it still "wouldn't matter" that Dragon is a broken offensive typing.

Do you see? Getting hypothetical isn't solving anything. The door swings both ways.

Let's say we had a Pokemon with 100 Speed, 150 SpA, and the only decent Special attack it got was an un-STABed Draco Meteor... etc.

No one's disputing that Salamence is an excellent Pokemon, even without Draco Meteor & Outrage... neither have I ever said flat out, "Latios would be OU without Dragon attacks," but then how are we to know? We've never tried that, and aren't likely to any time in the near future.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Flygon and Kingdra demonstrate that it cannot be the moves that are broken. If the moves were such, then Flygon and Kingdra, who are both powerful even without the attacks, would likely be Uber as well. However, they arre not.

Even without Outrage and Draco Meteor, Latias, Latios, and Salamece would still be powerful. They would not be as powerful, and their options would be more limited, however they would still be powerful.

EDIT: I voted the Pokemon

 

[RaikouLover]

1. Is banning 2 moves to allow 2 Pokemon from Uber to be potential OU, as well as making two suspects less deadly?
Last I checked, Salamence and Latias were both deemed OU and were not suspects so this question is irrelevant.

2. Will it be worth it if other non borderline Pokemon (Flygon, Kingdra) are hurt by this decision?
Kingdra was played the same way even before outrage was available. The Rain sets are unaffected.

3. Which is more broken, the Dragons or the Moves?
The Pokemon clearly.. right Garchomp?

Haven't commented on this thread yet.. but I am a little confused as to the point of it? Why are we talking about banning pokemon that are not suspects, or moves when we already established the SR, a more disputed move, was not even deemed a suspect?

 

[Stylish Interval]

I think question 1 was aimed not at Salamence and Latias, but at Garchomp and Latios.

 

[ANinyMouse]

Haven't commented on this thread yet.. but I am a little confused as to the point of it? Why are we talking about banning pokemon that are not suspects, or moves when we already established the SR, a more disputed move, was not even deemed a suspect?

There's been a lot of busy buzzing about Salamence lately, is all. Since there are a lot of opinions on the matter, apparently, we're just making use of this thread to discuss some of the more abstract elements of the metagame as it pertains to the Dragons.

In the end, I'd say some interesting posts have been made, and I personally feel like I am now more prepared, mentally, to take a look at what Salamence can do for the metagame.

Honestly? I'm fairly sure the whole exercise will prove, in the end, that Salamence is fine where he is and things will go on as they have. But of course, I'm just one of hundreds of people who want to have their say on the matter, so it's only fair that we see what everyone has to bring to the table.

 

[Wikey]

The thing that bothers me about this thread is the people who point-blank refuse to even consider that the moves could be broken or that banning the moves could be a good thing. I don't think that these particular moves are broken, but by putting ourselves into a box and having a closed-minded mindset of "Ban Pokemon, not moves" it really has a negative effect at least on discussion, if not the metagame itself.

Basically, in this case, ban the Mon not the moves, but don't get stuck in a rut of thought that says that you always ban the Mon and not the moves.

 

[Dragonknight!]

The moves. The reason why moves like, say, leaf storm is used less is because it is resisted by a lot of types, so they don't do as much damage. Draco meteor is a dragon type Leaf Storm, and only because only steel type resists it, and so there is a higher chance of dealing a larger amount of damage.

 

[Chileno4Live]

This thread is indeed interesting, so I'll just add my 2 cents.

Everyone has their opinion. Mine is that the Dragons themselfs are broken rather than the moves. However, I'd like to see a metagame without the use of these moves, adding Garchomp and Latios to Overused. What would happen then?

Well, I think it would be more defensive based when I look at it first. Salamence and it's famous MixMence set is gone, since Draco Meteor isn't there anymore. The Dragon Dance set is fairly weakened because Outrage is gone. Salamence is a lot more managable yes. But with Salamence's loss, Stall teams will rise again, because the best killer of Stall is gone. That's what I thought at first. However, if we add Garchomp and Latios to the OU metagame, 2 more offensive pokemon has joined the OU crew. Garchomp is difficult to kill in Stall because Swords Dance and Fire Blast/Dragon Claw combination is very good. Salamence can use this aswell, so his Mix Set is not entirely gone.

as how I see the metagame now, it's just Steel Vs Dragon. If we remove the moves, it will be a bit more centralized in my eyes.

 

[Lord Jesseus]

I don't think Outrage is broken. Flygon, Kindgdra, Dragonite and Altaria are all low-ish OU or even UU despite STAB Outrage. Dragonite even has a similar attack stat to salamence, but comes no-where near Mence's capability.

Mence, I don't think it's broken, but it does kinda come close. Outrage helps sure, but it's stats help a lot - it's only got a little more attack then Nite, but it seems to me that it's the higher that speed pushes it way up into OU and on the border of Uber. So that would indicate to me that Salamence is broken (or close to it) because of it's stats, not it's Outrage (or the combination of the two, but you get the idea).

Garchomp I think is broken without Outrage, and a lot of people would agree; as pointed out earlier, many Garchomp use Dragon Claw instead anyway. It has the speed to outrun things, the defenses to take hits and the Power to annihilate anything with it's amazing STAB's. Hell, even my in-game Garchomp with it's mismatched EV's and Attack-Lowering Nature tears things to bits with Earthquake, Dragon Claw and Stone Edge, even though they might be several levels higher than it.

So we remove Ourtage. And we what? Nerf 4 OUs and 1 UU, and (possibly, POSSIBLY) bring one Uber down to OU. Oh yay, top job guys.

Besides, not that it matters, but removing outrage takes away some fun gimmicks like Outrage Swapert (which apparently actually works alright on the surprise factor).

Draco Meteor I'm unsure of, since I don't have much experience with it. I don't really think it's broken though, from what experience I have.

 

[Aquamentus]

To be honest, I think Game Freak has been pretty stupid about the Dragons. Why did they create a type that is only resisted by one other type, then give it 140 and 120 power attacks, then give said type and attacks to Pokemon with 600 BST? I suppose they thought that the million Weavile fanboys would be enough to make that not totally freaking rediculous? Why bother playing around with Pokemon's Rock-Paper-Scissors type system when one type can cut through almost everything on its own?

Right now we're looking at an OU metagame with about 3 Steel-types per team, which certainly has something to do with Dragons and actually does nerf them quite a bit compared to their power without all the Steels around. Should we tolerate being forced to have Steels to succeed, though?

That said, Mixmence (and co.) isn't the only set in the game impossible to switch into safely. It's just the easiest to use because the spectacular neutral coverage and power of Draco Meteor makes prediction pretty much nonessential. That's what really bothers me... the presence of "idiotproof" Pokemon that are basically guaranteed to get a KO and can't really be countered.

I could agree with either side on this, really.

 

[TSPhoenix]

I pretty much have to agree, Dragons throw the whole type chart out the window. That said I wonder if we'd be saying the same thing about normal types if Hyper Beam was had the same Drawback as Draco Meteor and actually had users that could do it justice.

Let's say we had a Pokemon with 100 Speed, 150 SpA, and the only decent Special attack it got was an un-STABed Draco Meteor... etc.

Put it this way, Mence's DM is stronger than Ray's Overheat.

 

[Objection]

Basically, in this case, ban the Mon not the moves, but don't get stuck in a rut of thought that says that you always ban the Mon and not the moves.

If pokemon A has access to a move, item, ability or whatever else, and pokemon A is not broken while it has this access, then the move, item, ability or whatever else is also not broken. Arguably, therefore, there are no such things as broken moves, items, abilities or anything except pokemon.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Arguably, therefore, there are no such things as broken moves, items, abilities or anything except pokemon.

However, there is a such thing as broken items, because an item can make Pokemon that are normally not broken, broken. As far as I am concerned, moves and abilities are a part of the Pokemon that use them, so if they are broken, the moves and abilities it has are a contributing factor - but the item is not.

 

[Hegemoth]

The single resist that dragon-type attacks possess is itself broken. How easier could Salamence be countered if random type like rock or normal resisted dragon? I admit we can't do anything about it, but I hope you notice my point. We have to blame the imbalance between types created by GameFreak.

Another issue is that nearly every dragon has been given some sort of moves to deal with the only stab resist (FB, EQ). The same thing made pokemon like Honchcrow or Staraptor prominent in lower tiers since they could rape pretty much anything (with Superpower or CC), including sturdiest walls in form of Regirock, Steelix, Rhyperior, bringing them down to the point where their utility extinguished.

I'm rather sure that some pokemon gained not enough love from game-freak.
Heatproof (Flash Fire is too much :D) Steelix would be good answer to any Mence. Basically, the fact that Steels do not take neutral damage from Dragon-Fire-Ground makes more powerful Dragons (The Blue Salamander, Latias) too much of a threat to handle without resorting to sacrafices or smart, unexpected switching. This made Chomp Uber - with some sort of infamous berry he was able to achieve a clean sweep through entire teams.

It looks we'll have too wait for the Fifth Generation to appear and shift the OU metagame a bit with some good rock special sweeper (with fire priority, Zor ^^), thick fat grass-electric bulky attacker with Volt Tackle or anything that could draw more attention than what we have got now - boring spamming unresisted moves, taking down anything when executed properly, because we want to win and can.

 

[TSPhoenix]

Nah they'll just give Thick Fat to Dragonite ;P

Garchomp and Latios are Uber, but I have to wonder if that would still be the case ifthey were Grass/Ground and Grass/Psychic respectively, with Leaf Storm, Leaf Blade (over Dragon Claw), and a Grass-type version of Outrage to replace their usual moves.

I think we all agree the Dragon typing is a bit offensively OP, but it hardly helps that most Dragons also have high-power moves to deal with the only safe switch-ins to their STAB moves.

If pokemon A has access to a move, item, ability or whatever else, and pokemon A is not broken while it has this access, then the move, item, ability or whatever else is also not broken. Arguably, therefore, there are no such things as broken moves, items, abilities or anything except pokemon.

I think we've already tested and proven that Drizzle and Shadow Tag are broken abilities. Just looking at the top 20 OUs, Shadow Tag would be utterly broken on almost all of them.

 

[cantab]

And a move may not have to be broken on EVERY Pokemon to be considered broken. A 200 Base Power drawbackless typeless physical move would not be broken on Blissey, for example. But it would still be massively broken on any physical sweeper.

 

[Objection]

And a move may not have to be broken on EVERY Pokemon to be considered broken. A 200 Base Power drawbackless typeless physical move would not be broken on Blissey, for example. But it would still be massively broken on any physical sweeper.

Then the physical sweepers would be broken because of the move AND their stats. The move alone would not make a pokemon broken.