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

[cantab]

Then the physical sweepers would be broken because of the move AND their stats.

But given the choice of banning everything with a decent attack stat, or banning a move that is clearly ridiculous, would you choose the former?

This is, of course, an extreme example. The issue at hand of the dragon moves is far more balanced. I'm thinking Outrage definitely not broken, Draco Meteor maybe broken. But I'm not going to close my mind to the possibility of banning moves, even though it is not a possibility I particularly like.

And do you advocate unbanning Evasion and OHKO moves? Evasion isn't broken on anything too weak defensively to avoid being OHKOed by a never-misses move. It would, on the other hand, probably be broken on a solid wall with recovery.
OHKO similarly isn't broken on anything too slow and too frail to avoid being taken out before it can move, and even something that can reliably use the move once before being KOed may not be broken, at most unreliably meeting the Support Characteristic. Again it would, however, be broken on walls that could use the move many times before being taken down, likely netting KOs.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

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

"The stats alone would not make a pokémon broken".

If you have to take every pokémon that learns the move into account to even consider it being broken, shouldn't the same be done with the pokémon? "Not every Garchomp is broken, I use one with Draco Meteor/Dragon Pulse/Surf/Earth Power @ Specs and it's cool!!!".

 

[Objection]

My point is, if something is broken, it can only ever be broken because of a combination of statements that only apply to the thing in question, as if it were broken for one reason alone yet the same statement applied to anything else that is not broken, then there would be a logical inconsistency. As far as I can tell, the only things that can be broken because of a unique combination of statements are the pokemon.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

Ah I remember making a thread awhile ago about Outrage because I thought it has broken properties...

Salamence in ADV was not nearly as much of an issue... His best STAB move back then was HP Flying. Then DPPt came along and we have some of the most powerful moves in the game...

Does the 'mon or the move break things?

I believe that its actually a mix of both. Without the stats supporting it you can't use a move as effectively... Take a look at Breloom and Spore, sure its annoying, but both are not completely overwhelming together because of Breloom's below par Speed and Defenses. Now if we had plenty of base 120 Speedsters with Spore and Breloom's Attack some people would certainly call for a ban on it (ex. sorta like Darkrai).

The pressing question is: What do we ban?

It will be difficult to say without a bit of theorymon, but... We have to ask ourselves what leaves a greater impact on the metagame? The pokémon or the move? In the case of Salemence I would not think it would be suspect worthy if Outrage was banned. Latios and Garchomp I'm not sure about.

In the past we have not banned many moves, but people tend to jump towards wanting to ban individual mons instead. Is this the right way to go though?

At this time I'm pretty unsure, but I feel that we should treat moves that we feel are Suspects just like the pokémon that use them.

I'm happy this discussion has evolved as much as it has because at some point in the future I'd like to analyze Stealth Rock again.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Although I've never played Devil's Advocate before now, I think the discussion would most profit by my trying to do so.

I say that the metagame is just fine as it is. Do we really need to ban anything else, except a Pokemon that we decide is Uber? The attacks and type together are what make the power. Let's take it to the extreme. If Gamefreak added a Pokemon of stats 255/255/255/255/255/255, how many nanoseconds would it take to banish it to Uber? The attacks help the battler, but is it not, at the core, the Pokemon, not the attack? Yes, they've centralized the metagame around themselves and their counters, but is that a bad thing in a metagame? It is inevitable, I would say. If the Dragon attacks Draco Meteor and Outrage were banned, how fast would Salamence, Latias, etc. fall in use? A new threat would rise and recentralize. Dragons have always been powerful in Pokemon, so why not let them stay powerful, on the theory of a known threat is better than a changing threat?

 

[IK.]

Dragons have always been powerful in Pokemon, so why not let them stay powerful, on the theory of a known threat is better than a changing threat?

Wrong. Before DP, Dragons were shit. Dragon type was special type and had a limited amount of moves, (Dragon Claw was the strongest attack). In DP, Dragon types got a huge boost in it's physical typing, not to mention OUTRAGE and DRACO METEOR.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Do we really need to ban anything else, except a Pokemon that we decide is Uber?

Then you want Double Team and OHKOs unbanned (not "tested for possibly being unbanned", but "unbanned straight away").

The attacks and type together are what make the power.

An the stats, right?

Let's take it to the extreme. If Gamefreak added a Pokemon of stats 255/255/255/255/255/255, how many nanoseconds would it take to banish it to Uber?

If Gamefreak added a move of ???-type and 200 Base Power, how many nanoseconds would it take to add a clause for it or "banish it to Uber"?

The attacks help the battler, but is it not, at the core, the Pokemon, not the attack?

At the core of what?

Yes, they've centralized the metagame around themselves and their counters, but is that a bad thing in a metagame?

We're not specifically talking about centralization or "overcentralizing" aspect of the Dragon pokémon, moves and/or type.

It is inevitable, I would say. If the Dragon attacks Draco Meteor and Outrage were banned, how fast would Salamence, Latias, etc. fall in use?

Well, I almost never use Draco Meteor on Latias. And without Outrage, Salamence would be like it was in D/P; the real problem for it would be losing Draco Meteor, which would put it in its Advance state... "Not that I care", Double Team could also make Zapdos and Umbreon top-tier OUs (or even Uber!!!), same with Restalk Lapras. Yet do you think people would oppose banning Double Team were we living in an alternate universe where it had always been accepted, and only now we're planning to "test" them?

A new threat would rise and recentralize.

Yeah, just like when Garchomp got banned and we saw Salamence becoming the most menacing pokémon of OU, right?


Oh wait, it didn't. It only became a true menace when it got Outrage, a few (one? two?) months later. Again, it's expected to have a #1 threat and have the metagame centralizing. It's the very nature of it. What's being discussed here is if Salamence (and Garchomp and Latios), the moves or the type itself could be to blame for being detrimental for the metagame as a whole, due to a multitude of reasons. If we were taking "centralization" into account, then the suspect would be Scizor, not Mence :/ (even though many believe he's only used so much specifically to "check" Salamence...)

Dragons have always been powerful in Pokemon

Tell that to R/B and G/S Dragonite, which had been BL.

so why not let them stay powerful, on the theory of a known threat is better than a changing threat?

So, lemme guess. If Kyogre were unbanned, you'd oppose to have a Suspect test on it using the same argument?

 

[Game Freak201]

I believe that it's not the moves Outrage and Draco Meteor that are to blame, it's both the typing and the stats of the suspects that use them. If Outrage was clearly broken, every pokemon who can learn the move in some way, shape, or form would have been using it by now. Yet, only Salamence and Garchomp - who didn't even need the attack when Dragon Claw works just as well decimating teams with a SD set - are the only truly fearsome pokemon who can instill fear with Outrage. For a move to be broken, it has to be broken by every pokemon who uses the move not just a few pokemon. I'll be prone to laugh at anyone who puts Outrage on Gyrarados or Tyranitar.

 

[cantab]

For a move to be broken, it has to be broken by every pokemon who uses the move not just a few pokemon. I'll be prone to laugh at anyone who puts Outrage on Gyrarados or Tyranitar.

I already said why I feel that logic, that a broken move has to be broken on EVERYTHING, is flawed.

I would suggest the following as the Broken Move Characteristic

A move is considered broken if it would cause several Pokemon to be Uber if the move is allowed, but not if it is banned.

'Several' is a deliberately vague term. It need not be a majority, of anything. It should be considered relative to both the number of Pokemon that learn the move, and also the size of the Uber list. Essentially, the idea is that it may be preferable to ban a single move, rather than lots of Pokemon.

The term 'broken' is used instead of Uber because we may wish to ban moves even from the Uber tier. (Perhaps we should have 'Uber' be with standard clauses, and a new environment, 'Unrestricted', with no clauses whatsoever.)

In the case of Draco Meteor and Outrage, we have 7 Pokemon that learn it and are currently Uber. Rayquaza, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, and Arceus are higly unlikely to get dropped to OU if they lose the moves. That leaves only Garchomp and Latios who have a reasonable chance of dropping to OU if they lose DM + Outrage. Salamence may be added to them; we will have to wait and see.

'Several' was a deliberately vague term, but any way I look at it, 2 or 3 is not several IMHO.

 

[Age of Kings]

Ummm...the free online dictionary defines "several" as more than two or three, and most dictionaries define it as more than two. It's not worth banning moves if it's just going to bring down two Pokemon.

Stealth Rock is another matter, it's a controversial move yet it doesn't make any one Pokemon broken. It affects the metagame as a whole regardless of tier. Double Team is banned yet it doesn't fit into your proposed characteristic.

Then again the characteristics are flawed in nature imho but yeah.

 

[cantab]

Double Team is banned yet it doesn't fit into your proposed characteristic.

I think allowing evasion moves would make Evasion Stall way too dominant a tactic, and thus render just about every decent wall Uber. Provided you can take the first few hits, you can get several Double Teams in and then attack with impunity; on the occasion your opponent lands a hit you just heal. The never-miss moves aren't powerful enough to break it, and locking on is very predictable and can never keep up with healing anyway. Phazers might cause trouble but they can be dealt with by Baton Passing Ingrain. (Evasion and Baton Pass makes sense anyway.) Actual Haze might shut it down, but even denied its Evasion, the team would 'gracefully degrade' into a conventional stall team.

Of course whether I'm right will be determined if and when we test the clause.

 

[Game Freak201]

In the case of Draco Meteor and Outrage, we have 7 Pokemon that learn it and are currently Uber. Rayquaza, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, and Arceus are higly unlikely to get dropped to OU if they lose the moves. That leaves only Garchomp and Latios who have a reasonable chance of dropping to OU if they lose DM + Outrage. Salamence may be added to them; we will have to wait and see.

First off, it wasn't Outrage or Draco Meteor - Chain Chomp sucks even as a gimmick and SD Chomp doesn't need Outrage - that made Garchomp Uber. So, that leaves us with only one pokemon who would go down after doing this with the cost of crippling all the other pokemon who can learn those moves.

In addition, I would prefer a definition of a broken move to be more along the lines of this:
A move is considered broken if it makes a majority of pokemon who can learn it become Uber.

This way, we only ban moves that make most of the pokemon who learn them too powerful.

 

[cantab]

I avoided saying 'majority' because a minority of Pokemon could still be a lot to ban. And besides, if you start talking majority you have to decide, majority of what? Everything that can learn it may well include a load of NFEs and deeply NU Pokemon that wouldn't be broken even if you gave them Sketch.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

A move can be overpowered, sure, but it really is a part of the Pokemon that uses it. I mean, let's say that some Pokemon learned Spore and it made it horrifically imbalanced. You wouldn't ban Spore, but instead you might ban the Pokemon for its ability to have Spore. Outrage on the OU Dragon Pokemon can be dealt with by Ice Shard users, forces the user of Outrage to be unable to switch and thus susceptible to faster Pokemon who can take it out, and confuses it at the end to make it more dangerous to keep the Pokemon using it out. All of these factors together keep it sane and make the enemy using them predictable, making it able to be dealt with.

Move(s) should only be banned if every Pokemon with it available (and in the case of attack moves have STAB with it) will choose it over all alternatives because it makes it able to defeat nearly all opposition with no or minimal threat to itself. Outrage confuses you at the end, can be resisted by cunning walls (since they're locked into it), and prevents the user from being moved out. That creates a huge threat for the user of the move, as it risks being completely stopped cold after a single kill with it (or possibly right away with proper prediction). Draco Meteor has similar qualities in that it makes subsequent uses of itself (and other special moves) ineffective. In light of that, I find both Draco Meteor and Outrage absolutely fine for the standard tier of play.

 

[respiration]

I think the actual dragons because let's be honest, why did Garchomp become uber? Because of his stats, typing and ability to destroy teams, not because he can learn Outrage and/or Draco Meteor. He utilizes those moves to destroy said teams, but even without them he can still wreak havoc. Would you want Garchomp and Latios in OU, knowing they can still very well destroy teams just at a drop of attack power? No one wants to take a +2 Dragon Claw from Garchomp's massive attack either, and especially in the sand you have a chance to not even hit back.

 

[Game Freak201]

I avoided saying 'majority' because a minority of Pokemon could still be a lot to ban. And besides, if you start talking majority you have to decide, majority of what? Everything that can learn it may well include a load of NFEs and deeply NU Pokemon that wouldn't be broken even if you gave them Sketch.

I believe that a broken move would make just about any pokemon who can learn it broken as well. If it is only able to break a few pokemon, it's the pokemon that is broken. For example, should we ban Encore to bring down Wobbuffet and Wynaut? No since only Wobbuffet and Wynaut can abuse Encores turn gaining/revenge killing aspects due to their abilities. I can't really say much on DM right now since only the dragons and Arceus can learn it on Shoddy, but I don't think Outrage is a broken move.

 

[cantab]

There is an element in writing this clause of making it ban what I want it to ban, I admit. Evasion in particular I can see being severely abusable by a few dozen Pokemon, far from everyone who learns it, but still enough that I would rather ban the moves than ban that many Pokemon.
Whether to ban moves or Pokemon, in a situation where we have the option of either, is always going to be a decision we will have to make. (By which I mean, we have to decide, we can't just make some rule and apply it robotically). One can make arguments in favour of either way, but ultimately, it is a matter of subjective judgement. We do what we think will best fit in with our goals for the metagame. And even THEY aren't decided to my knowledge. I suggest balance, diversity, and ruleset simplicity; many may not feel the simplicity of the ruleset very important, some may argue diversity implies balance, and so on.

 

[Wikey]

I believe that a broken move would make just about any pokemon who can learn it broken as well. If it is only able to break a few pokemon, it's the pokemon that is broken. For example, should we ban Encore to bring down Wobbuffet and Wynaut? No since only Wobbuffet and Wynaut can abuse Encores turn gaining/revenge killing aspects due to their abilities. I can't really say much on DM right now since only the dragons and Arceus can learn it on Shoddy, but I don't think Outrage is a broken move.

You really can't imagine a hypothetical situation where a move could be broken even if there were a few shitty pokemon like Luvdisc who learned it and weren't broken with it?

Say all of a sudden GameFreak gave a bunch of OU pokemon and their unevolved forms a move more powerful than Explosion with no drawbacks. Now, every OU pokemon that gets such a move is most likely going to be broken, but their unevolved forms might be so slow and frail that they are most likely going to be too slow to get an attack off or will be killed by a Scizor BP. In this situation, less than a majority of the Pokemon that get the move will be broken with it, does this mean we should ban a significant portion of OU instead of just banning the move?

EDIT: I don't think Outrage or Draco Meteor are broken. I'm just saying there are very easy to theorymon situations where a move could be broken and not just the Mons who get it.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Say all of a sudden GameFreak gave a bunch of OU pokemon and their unevolved forms a move more powerful than Explosion with no drawbacks.

GameFreak does attempt to keep attacks balanced. After all, if they gave Hyper Beam and Giga Impact no recharge, how many nanoseconds until everyone would use it instead of Return or Tri Attack or Double Edge, etc? Not long. The move would instantly be broken. So, no move is truly broken because every move has a drawback. With Explosion and Destiny Bond: user faints (DB: if successful), with some, low power, low accuracy, or a negative side effect. Outrage confuses the user and locks it into the attack for an extra turn or two. Draco Meteor renders the users team prone to SR from switching to keep the attacks powerful. The attacks balance each other out; the pokemon do not always balance themselves out. In OU, if Mewtwo or another Uber were allowed (just a random example, no I'm not questioning its Uber status), how balanced would it be? The entire metagame would center on "Destroy the largest threat ASAP" and "Destroy the threats to the threat ASAP."

 

[PK Gaming]

I don't see what's so good about a Outrage anyway. Looking himself into outrage can be pretty disadvantageous from time to time.

Dragon Claw isn't the BETTER choice per say but I prefer using it from time to time due to it's flexibility.

 

[zaiosama]

Banning outrage and draco meteor is IMO unacceptable.
First of all, garchomp will remain uber even if those moves are banned, most sets I fought were carrying dragon claw and earthquake.
Salamence is perfectly manageble at the moment, you can always revenge kill him if he uses outrage, and you can't really say "smart people will kill all salamence counters before using him", but that applies to all pokemon doesn't it? I've sweeped whole teams with a typhlosion after paralysing some key pokemons.

Sure dragon only have one resistance, steel, but steels are alongside with dragons the most popular typing, if not more popular. Don't say that the OU metagame is plagued with steels because dragons overcentralize the metagame, even if we ban the dragons, we will still see jirachis, scizors, heatrans, metagross, etc in almost all teams.

Now, if we ban outrage, kingdra will be completly out of the OU forever, yes it still has waterfall, but you can't really sweep with only one type of attack, and lets be honest, most of the other moves kingdra gets are crap.

I can't really say something about latios since I lack the knowledge about draco meteor, but are we going to allow the change of the WHOLE metagame just because of one pokemon? Contradicting, since that's one reason pokemon are sent into uber realms.

In conclusion what do we get by banning those two moves?

-Garchomp remains uber
-Salamence gets an IMO unnecesary nerf
-All of the other dragons can say goodbye to doing fairly well in OU
-Steels will remain as common as they are

Its completly unnecesary.

 

[Aura Guardian]

I don't see what's so good about a Outrage anyway. Looking himself into outrage can be pretty disadvantageous from time to time.

Dragon Claw isn't the BETTER choice per say but I prefer using it from time to time due to it's flexibility.

The idea is to use Outrage when you need the extra power behind it. It is sort of a "for emergencies" attack, or a "You just want to wrap it up quick because your team will win even if they revenge" attack, or a finisher.

 

[Deaga]

Now, if we ban outrage, kingdra will be completly out of the OU forever, yes it still has waterfall, but you can't really sweep with only one type of attack, and lets be honest, most of the other moves kingdra gets are crap.

Kingdra was OU before Platinum came out. You can still use its special moves lol.

 

[zaiosama]

Kingdra was OU before Platinum came out. You can still use its special moves lol.

With latios in OU I highly doubt it.

 

[Aura Guardian]

With latios in OU I highly doubt it.

Latios is Uber, last I checked. I think you mean Latias.