Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [Volcarona Banned]

[RS25802580]

Did you read the text in the post or just take a look at the graph?

" Terms like "unhealthy" are far less formal and more "vibes" based than anything else "

That does not answer my question… I get that healthy is vibes based.

But if someone feels that a mon is “broken”, how does it simultaneously vibe as healthy?

Am I misunderstanding what broken means here?

 

[Finchinator]

That does not answer my question… how is mon simultaneously broken and healthy?

I mean it at very least partially answered it -- you should not be assigning actual tiering weight to health.

With this in mind: Every tier needs some degree of centralization to have identity -- look at every past OU...you have things like Latios in BW or Magearna in SM or Weavile/Dragapult last generation

Things like Dragapult have very few checks that are able to hang with it long-term, but are healthy for the metagame and so baked-in to our teambuilding norms that they are much harder to justify true action on. You can look at a dozen of these graphs from the server and end up seeing Dragapult almost always in the same quadrant.

You can argue the same for stuff like Zamazenta or Gambit in different capacities, too. Broken applies a lot differently to them because we end up seeing their counters rising to the top as a relation to their degree of relevance/usage.

 

[Magcargo]

That does not answer my question… how is mon simultaneously broken and healthy?

Some mons can be "broken" in a traditional sense, yet act as very useful teambuilding options. I think Dragapult is probably one of the best examples. Its very difficult to reliably answer, but provides status, pivoting, speed control utility, and a long-term wincondition in one slot that excel's vs all styles.

One of the mons Finch had on the healthy but broken portion of the graph was Roaring Moon, which I definetly see for Hyper offense teams. These teams can struggle doing well vs fat teams because of how resilient their walls are. However, roaring moon is good at breaking holes into these teams and giving them a fighting chance rather than auto-losing to fat.

 

[Finchinator]

Overall, I totally see why from afar something being "healthy" and "broken" would clash, RS25802580 -- I just think informal plotting charts like these are not exactly tiering declarations so much as they are just clarifying where things stand in relation to each other and metagame norms.

Maybe I should have written up more prior to posting to explain the regard in which it was made, but to be abundantly clear: I am not calling for a suspect or ban on anything regardless of where it is on the list. It is more just hashing out where things stand in the metagame. Obviously you can make an argument for more polarizing Pokemon like Volcarona, Kyurem, Wellspring, Darkrai, Kingambit, etc. regardless of if they are upper or lower half of the 'broken' line on the health axis.

 

[RS25802580]

I mean it at very least partially answered it -- you should not be assigning actual tiering weight to health.

With this in mind: Every tier needs some degree of centralization to have identity -- look at every past OU...you have things like Latios in BW or Magearna in SM or Weavile/Dragapult last generation

Things like Dragapult have very few checks that are able to hang with it long-term, but are healthy for the metagame and so baked-in to our teambuilding norms that they are much harder to justify true action on. You can look at a dozen of these graphs from the server and end up seeing Dragapult almost always in the same quadrant.

You can argue the same for stuff like Zamazenta or Gambit in different capacities, too. Broken applies a lot differently to them because we end up seeing their counters rising to the top as a relation to their degree of relevance/usage.

Sorry, I edited my previous comment that you just quoted because I think I was unclear.

So broken here just means really good and centralizing, with no connection to ban worthiness?

If so, that makes a lot of sense. I mean I agree that Pult is healthy for the tier and is simultaneously really good. Just never called it broken before.

 

[RS25802580]

Overall, I totally see why from afar something being "healthy" and "broken" would clash, RS25802580 -- I just think informal plotting charts like these are not exactly tiering declarations so much as they are just clarifying where things stand in relation to each other and metagame norms.

Maybe I should have written up more prior to posting to explain the regard in which it was made, but to be abundantly clear: I am not calling for a suspect or ban on anything regardless of where it is on the list. It is more just hashing out where things stand in the metagame. Obviously you can make an argument for more polarizing Pokemon like Volcarona, Kyurem, Wellspring, Darkrai, Kingambit, etc. regardless of if they are upper or lower half of the 'broken' line on the health axis.

You’re totally fine, and I didn’t mean to comment on any of your specific choices, in fact I agree with pretty much the entire plot you posted. I was just confused about the wording of the axes, but I appreciate the explanation. Thanks!

 

[RainWaiv]

That does not answer my question… how is mon simultaneously broken and healthy?

Broken is a term to describe how strong a pokemon is up front. A mon like Gambit is able to immediately become a threat with only a small amount of preparation; hence they are broken. Whether a mon is healthy or not is entirely dependent on a few factors, such as the metagame around it or in what way it is broken. If a pokemon relies primarily on luck to be broken (ex. early dlc2 hypnosis darkrai), completely shapes the metagame around checking and countering it (ex. early gen 9 gambit) or is otherwise atrocious to play against (ex. volcarona volcarona volcarona), it would be unhealthy.

As a more in-depth example, Dragapult (who I assume you are talking about) is a mon who can offer respectable offensive and defensive utility. 142 speed is the 2nd fastest unboosted in the metagame, access to strong status options, and it has fantastic offenses while having respectable defenses if you really want to swing that way. However, with the metagame being filled with strong darks, fairies, and priority, Pult will find itself kept in check relatively well.

TL;DR: Brokenness generally refers to power in a vacuum, with optimal conditions, while health is more about how it actually functions in a metagame. Also can you guys type a little slower please?

 

[RS25802580]

Broken is a term to describe how strong a pokemon is up front. A mon like Gambit is able to immediately become a threat with only a small amount of preparation; hence they are broken. Whether a mon is healthy or not is entirely dependent on a few factors, such as the metagame around it or in what way it is broken. If a pokemon relies primarily on luck to be broken (ex. early dlc2 hypnosis darkrai), completely shapes the metagame around checking and countering it (ex. early gen 9 gambit) or is otherwise atrocious to play against (ex. volcarona volcarona volcarona), it would be broken.

As a more in-depth example, Dragapult (who I assume you are talking about) is a mon who can offer respectable offensive and defensive utility. 142 speed is the 2nd fastest unboosted in the metagame, access to strong status options, and it has fantastic offenses while having respectable defenses if you really want to swing that way. However, with the metagame being filled with strong darks, fairies, and priority, Pult will find itself kept in check relatively well.

TL;DR: Brokenness generally refers to power in a vacuum, with optimal conditions, while health is more about how it actually functions in a metagame. Also can you guys type a little slower please?

Gotcha, makes a lot of sense, thank you! Thanks Finchinator and Magcargo for their helpful explanations as well. The plot seems very interesting to me!

 

[PastaMechKaku]

Made this after some others brought up their template in the Trainer Aid discord the other day. Figured it would be cool to share so people could see roughly how I view the tier -- obviously this is very rough, unofficial, etc. Terms like "unhealthy" are far less formal and more "vibes" based than anything else.

Volcarona being lower right quadrant should be no surprise for those who read my posts in the suspect thread, but you can also see other "controversial" metagame presences like Kyurem, Darkrai, Deoxys-Speed in a similar quadrant (or Wellspring all the way at the end of "broken") -- I do not think we need to rush to any action after Volcarona suspect, especially with the tier still evolving, but I do think it's good to continually discuss things.

Part of me finds it kinda funny how Gambit is listed as healthier compared to guys like Alomomola and Serperior, but after following the fighting game scene for awhile, I can get it. Gambit is like the top tier who, while operating with power and options others guys can only dream of, is ultimately playing the game on a traditional axis and susceptible to traditional forms of counter-play. Serp is the definition of the mid-tier cheese character who's one-dimensional, rigid, and down-right gimmicky, but its win-con demands respect even if the most of Serp's specs + kit is mid af making it feel sacky to fight/play. I don't have an FG comparison for Alo, but having Scald on top of Flip turn + Wish and its level of bulk always struck me as kinda greasy even if its not 'that' powerful.

 

[somebodyuknow2]

I don't necessarily like the sudden redefinition of broken prompted by le epic 2-axis chart. Current tiering policy states that if a mon is broken and is being suspected, being broken is sufficient reason to ban it. It treats broken with an exclusively negative connotation. My (and many others') notion of these definitions is something like: Broken describes a subset of Unhealthy. All broken things are unhealthy, not all unhealthy things are broken. This is the definition implied by pretty much all Smogon precedent. I believe that introducing confusion about definitions is the last thing we should be doing, as it undermines the legitimacy of most suspect tests. If Broken mons can be healthy, then "we banned it because it's broken" is no longer a sufficient argument defending a ban.

 

[RyukTheDarkrai]

Made this after some others brought up their template in the Trainer Aid discord the other day. Figured it would be cool to share so people could see roughly how I view the tier -- obviously this is very rough, unofficial, etc. Terms like "unhealthy" are far less formal and more "vibes" based than anything else.

Volcarona being lower right quadrant should be no surprise for those who read my posts in the suspect thread, but you can also see other "controversial" metagame presences like Kyurem, Darkrai, Deoxys-Speed in a similar quadrant (or Wellspring all the way at the end of "broken") -- I do not think we need to rush to any action after Volcarona suspect, especially with the tier still evolving, but I do think it's good to continually discuss things.

May I get an explanation for Hatterene, Hisuian Samurott, Walking Wake and Darkrai's placements? I would ask for more as I do love reading these reasonings, but I think four is aplenty.

 

[Finchinator]

May I get an explanation for Hatterene, Hisuian Samurott, Walking Wake and Darkrai's placements? I would ask for more as I do love reading these reasonings, but I think four is aplenty.

Hatterene is an annoying motherfucker with the CM set, but oftentimes feels more idealistic than actually capable of sweeping. It can encounter an untimely Ruination from Lu or SD from Gliscor rather than Spikes a ton, for example. I find it best with Grassy Seed on terrain teams lowkey, but hard to fit always. It is more annoying than truly problematic. PsyFairyFire coverage is godly in a time when Heatran is mid, too. And offensive/TR exploits are strong and underrated, too.

Samurott-H has a move that does boosted + STAB damage while setting Spikes. It is a rare Knock Off user and has two priority options + Flip Turn and Encore. It is still pretty close to the middle due to it being fragile and slow, but it is good enough to force the issue into balance and be a nice early game option that it ends up very slightly into that quadrant.

Wake is just a polarizing, hit-or-miss type that thrives on one archetype. It can really dictate a slot on some offenses or they can risk it and ignore, hoping to out-pressure. Not a true problem in the tier, but definitely annoying and limiting to a slight degree.

Darkrai is one of the most consistently strong Pokemon right now. Great coverage and speed.

 

[Finchinator]

I don't necessarily like the sudden redefinition of broken prompted by le epic 2-axis chart. Current tiering policy states that if a mon is broken and is being suspected, being broken is sufficient reason to ban it. It treats broken with an exclusively negative connotation. My (and many others') notion of these definitions is something like: Broken describes a subset of Unhealthy. All broken things are unhealthy, not all unhealthy things are broken. This is the definition implied by pretty much all Smogon precedent. I believe that introducing confusion about definitions is the last thing we should be doing, as it undermines the legitimacy of most suspect tests. If Broken mons can be healthy, then "we banned it because it's broken" is no longer a sufficient argument defending a ban.

Nothing is being redefined. I implore you to read my posts rather than just take in the graph.

Really the only damning correlation would be in the back-half of the broken quadrants, and even then it is much harder to make an argument on stuff like Pult/Gamb/Zama right now. And my opinions on Kyurem and Volcarona types have been out there for months now, so I do not think many are surprised by that.

 

[EpicGuy321]

Wait why is Electro Ball Cinderace kind of good…?

This is a mon I’ve seen around a decent bit, and I always laugh at it. “Cinderacci has 65 spatk lmao what a trash set.”

Well I just decided to run some calcs…

0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 248 HP / 36 SpD Pelipper: 420-496 (130 - 153.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO
0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Alomomola: 306-360 (57.3 - 67.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Dondozo: 230-272 (45.6 - 53.9%) -- 46.9% chance to 2HKO

I will be trying this out on this team: https://pokepast.es/259fffe02dffd258
I have not tested the team yet, so don’t be too shocked at the fire in the kitchen.

 

[somebodyuknow2]

Nothing is being redefined. I implore you to read my posts rather than just take in the graph.

Really the only damning correlation would be in the back-half of the broken quadrants, and even then it is much harder to make an argument on stuff like Pult/Gamb/Zama right now. And my opinions on Kyurem and Volcarona types have been out there for months now, so I do not think many are surprised by that.

It's mostly from your post about Pult, Gambit, and Zama's performance that i drew my (perhaps mistaken) conclusions.
From smogon tiering policy framework
Broken - elements that are too good relative to the rest of the metagame such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant.

• These aren't necessarily completely uncompetitive because they don't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use these elements and both probably have a fair chance to win. They are broken because they almost dictate / require usage, and a standard team without one of them facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage.
• These also include elements whose only counters or checks are extraordinarily niche Pokemon that would put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere.

Your reasoning for putting those 3 mons in the broken section as outlined here

...
Things like Dragapult have very few checks that are able to hang with it long-term, but are healthy for the metagame and so baked-in to our teambuilding norms that they are much harder to justify true action on. You can look at a dozen of these graphs from the server and end up seeing Dragapult almost always in the same quadrant.
You can argue the same for stuff like Zamazenta or Gambit in different capacities, too. Broken applies a lot differently to them because we end up seeing their counters rising to the top as a relation to their degree of relevance/usage.

doesn't really align with either criterion here. There are good standard teams that have these mons, and good standard teams that don't have them (though of course not having any of them gets more and more unlikely the more you throw into the list). These mons' counters, as you mentioned, have risen to high relevance and usage - definitely not the "niche counters that put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere." A mon being able to outlast all its checks (pult) or mandating its counters' presence (zama, gambit) is just not what tiering policy and precedent mean by the word "broken."

In effect, I believe the chart's horizontal axis could much more accurately be labeled "Central Threats" "Background Cast of OU" rather than Balanced/Broken. It may seem overly semantic, but the word "broken" is so important in so many debates in this community that I truly want us to be careful with it.It's much easier to argue about whether a mon is broken if everyone involved at least somewhat agrees on what broken means. I agree that the chart is clearly not some sort of objective statement on tiering policy, but its structure DOES imply a zone for "broken but not banworthy" which is a definition of broken I have never heard of before in modern tiering. Oldgens of course have their own precedent like Gen 2 Snorlax.

I mean all this in the best way possible and am not trying to start drama pls forgiv

 

[Finchinator]

It's mostly from your post about Pult, Gambit, and Zama's performance that i drew my (perhaps mistaken) conclusions.
From smogon tiering policy framework
Broken - elements that are too good relative to the rest of the metagame such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant.

• These aren't necessarily completely uncompetitive because they don't take the determining factor out of the player's hands; both can use these elements and both probably have a fair chance to win. They are broken because they almost dictate / require usage, and a standard team without one of them facing a standard team with one of them would be at a drastic disadvantage.
• These also include elements whose only counters or checks are extraordinarily niche Pokemon that would put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere.

Your reasoning for putting those 3 mons in the broken section as outlined here

doesn't really align with either criterion here. There are good standard teams that have these mons, and good standard teams that don't have them (though of course not having any of them gets more and more unlikely the more you throw into the list). These mons' counters, as you mentioned, have risen to high relevance and usage - definitely not the "niche counters that put the team at a large disadvantage elsewhere." A mon being able to outlast all its checks (pult) or mandating its counters' presence (zama, gambit) is just not what tiering policy and precedent mean by the word "broken."

In effect, I believe the chart's horizontal axis could much more accurately be labeled "Central Threats" "Background Cast of OU" rather than Balanced/Broken. It may seem overly semantic, but the word "broken" is so important in so many debates in this community that I truly want us to be careful with it.It's much easier to argue about whether a mon is broken if everyone involved at least somewhat agrees on what broken means. I agree that the chart is clearly not some sort of objective statement on tiering policy, but its structure DOES imply a zone for "broken but not banworthy" which is a definition of broken I have never heard of before in modern tiering. Oldgens of course have their own precedent like Gen 2 Snorlax.

I mean all this in the best way possible and am not trying to start drama pls forgiv

Yea, this is why I avoid posting fun things like this in metagame discussion (which is funny considering half the posts here are shitposts/funny posts, and they tend to go by without any issue). People always take it as some larger tiering statement, despite precursors saying it is not, because I am tier leader. Comes with the platform and I get it.

This is meant to be a fun exercise that a bunch of active players in a discord all understood without taking it too deeply into tiering context. As I said multiple times, this is not about redefining tiering norms or taking too deep a look under the microscope. Bringing out the pitchforks and the quotes from the tiering guidelines misses the point altogether.

To make it as abundantly clear as humanly possible: I am not saying the Pokemon close to any axis need tiering action. I make many, many posts on tiering action and they are clearly denoted as such. This was more meant to be fun metagame commentary and discussing the current vibes, nothing more or less. This is being overblown at this point.

 

[Finchinator]

In effect, I believe the chart's horizontal axis could much more accurately be labeled "Central Threats" "Background Cast of OU" rather than Balanced/Broken. It may seem overly semantic, but the word "broken" is so important in so many debates in this community that I truly want us to be careful with it.

To be clear, I view your entire post as "overly semantic" and it is sad that this type of discourse cannot be divorced from regular metagam banter. Your underlying point about "central threats" is right to the mere definition, but not everything needs to be a fight just to make any given point.

If you want to talk about absolutes, yes -- you are right. Broken is not the best word. It can be confusing from afar. You make a ton of sense. I hate to be dismissive given that, but not everything is life-or-death, ban-or-do-not-ban, etc. Sometimes the game is just meant to be fun and discussing it can be fun, too! Hope this clears it up without being too rude, but I understand my tone may come off as a bit negative -- do not take that personal, just jaded towards the direction of this thread

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

Part of me finds it kinda funny how Gambit is listed as healthier compared to guys like Alomomola and Serperior, but after following the fighting game scene for awhile, I can get it. Gambit is like the top tier who, while operating with power and options others guys can only dream of, is ultimately playing the game on a traditional axis and susceptible to traditional forms of counter-play. Serp is the definition of the mid-tier cheese character who's one-dimensional, rigid, and down-right gimmicky, but its win-con demands respect even if the most of Serp's specs + kit is mid af making it feel sacky to fight/play. I don't have an FG comparison for Alo, but having Scald on top of Flip turn + Wish and its level of bulk always struck me as kinda greasy even if its not 'that' powerful.

in smash ultimate terms, gambit is pikachu, serp is, like, shulk or hero or something, and mola is sonic

 

[Bold School]

This is why mods aren't as transparent and we can't have nice things.

Wait why is Electro Ball Cinderace kind of good…?

This is a mon I’ve seen around a decent bit, and I always laugh at it. “Cinderacci has 65 spatk lmao what a trash set.”

Well I just decided to run some calcs…

0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 248 HP / 36 SpD Pelipper: 420-496 (130 - 153.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO
0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Alomomola: 306-360 (57.3 - 67.4%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
0- SpA Libero Cinderace Electro Ball (120 BP) vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Dondozo: 230-272 (45.6 - 53.9%) -- 46.9% chance to 2HKO

I will be trying this out on this team: https://pokepast.es/259fffe02dffd258
I have not tested the team yet, so don’t be too shocked at the fire in the kitchen.

Feels kinda hard to fit, but hitting Dozo on a physical attacker is always nice. I feel like it might be funny on BE speed Treads. You could get Bolt/Beam with Ice Spinner. I don't know if it is good, but you can probably 2HKO most bulky water and flying mons.

in smash ultimate terms, gambit is pikachu, serp is, like, shulk or hero or something, and mola is sonic

Alomomola: "yOU'rE TOo SLoW!!!"

Apparently...

Making an analogy with a base 65 speed mon as Sonic just seems so wrong to me. I don't care about the context. Sonic is supposed to be fast.

 

[Heatranator]

in smash ultimate terms, gambit is pikachu, serp is, like, shulk or hero or something, and mola is sonic

Nah, gambit is pyra/mythra, serp is Lucario and Mola is min-min (because they are both annoying things that once you know the gameplan, are easier to deal with).

 

[Rekka's Backend]

I think some of you gotta relax with assuming a mock up image using a format from a discord is indictative of end all be all statements from someone thats a figure head, lol. This is twice now someone has posted something relatively lighthearted that doesn't have perfect wording thats opinion based that gone after like you're starving dogs with a freshly dropped piece of steak.

Shit ain't that serious. I'm saying that as someone that loves to argue that half the tier is full of garbage that should be out and gets mad about it.

 

[June Heat]

Thinking of giving Gen 9 another try. Anyone got a good Darkrai or Zamazenta team I could steal?

 

[weirdo faye]

There's an rmt team by s7a w darkrai and zamazenta both on it. Haven't tried it myself but I saw ppl saying it's good

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

Nah, gambit is pyra/mythra, serp is Lucario and Mola is min-min (because they are both annoying things that once you know the gameplan, are easier to deal with).

actually what the fuck are we talking about. gambit is lucario. gambit is almost exactly lucario

 

[Heatranator]

actually what the fuck are we talking about. gambit is lucario. gambit is almost exactly lucario

Gambit is like if Lucario was actually top tier, so just kazuya (kinda cause of rage drive)