I don't know why you would mention how stall handles Mega Steelix. I don't see how it's relevant at all. Stall doesn't run the Pokemon that Mega Steelix gives troubles with. Kangaskhan, Pawniard, Sneasel, Liepard, Scyther, Archeops, Swellow, etc. are either considerably worse than they were before or nearly unviable because of Mega Steelix's mere presence in the tier. I'm all for adapting to new threats, but it becomes a problem when adapting means not using a good number of Pokemon.
=)
I gotchu
Can-Eh-Dian
For the first part: It's important to consider all team archetypes when determining if a Pokemon is broken. For ex: Pangoro wasn't amazing against offense, but it made stall un-viable as a playstyle.
Kanga: Low Kick
Pawniard: Was never that good in the first place
Sneasel: 2hkos with Low Kick
Liepard: U-turn out on it coming in
Scyther: U-turn Out on it coming in
Archeops: Heat Wave 2hkos
Swellow: U-turn out on it coming in
I don't see why people believe having to prepare your movesets for a top mon make that mon broken.
And most importantly:
adapting means not using a good number of Pokemon.
=)
Ok. This is the part of the overcentralization argument that is absolute bull-shit.
What defines a "good" Pokemon?
I believe (and I would like to believe most people would agree) that a definition of a good Pokemon is:
"A Pokemon that can perform well in the tier around it. It has the ability to either hit top threats hard, wall top threats, or a combination thereof."
So...since a Pokemon was "good" last gen, and it is not good now (because there are new threats in the meta) This means that M-Lix is broken?
Darwin's Theory of Evolution operates on the principle of survival of the fittest.
AKA: Animals (in this case Mons) that have desirable traits are picked more and more often until they become the normal (standard meta).
Steelix has a lot of desirable traits, that's why it's being used. But it's not broken.
Let's imagine a bird adapts it's beak to eat a particular tree's seeds. BUT, the tree then changes it structure so that the bird can no longer eat those seeds.
It doesn't make the ingenious design of the first beak any different than it first was, but the birds are gonna die because they can't eat.
The Pokemon that lose to Steelix have an undesirable trait (losing to a top mon), so they are inherently BAD.
This does not make Mega-Lix any more or less "broken" than it already is, it just means that the environment around the previously good Mons have changed.
I think it's incredibly healthy to have an evolving metagame with new threats that are at the top of the meta.
If M-Lix leaves, the meta will basically be back to XY NU ft. Mega Camel.
Math will tell you that no matter how many Pokemon you ban from a tier, there will always be TOP MONS.
The thing that makes Pokemon TOP MONS is the environment around it (NU).
So if Mega-Lix goes, there will be an entirely new meta (much like when Aegi left OU).
But that meta will still be centralized around NEW TOP THREATS revolving around what's in the tier.
If we suspect 8-10 mons as
blarajan suggested (and when's the last time a suspect did not result in a ban?)
There will be a new meta centralized around new top threats just because we felt like it.
It's impossible to created an un-centralized metagame...players adapt, the Pokemon in the
meta will always have top mons because they perform well relative to their peers.
Basically, in conclusion, this is why I think an overcentralization argument is a bad argument to suspect/ban something:
- If it isn't broken it doesn't need to be banned (Heatran on like 80% of DPP teams at one point iirc)
- The meta will simply adapt and there will be new top threats, and potentially broken ones.
- It's impossible to "un-centralize a meta"
This is why the tiering system is set up the way it is. As players we get to
choose how tiers get populated (via usage) from the ENTIRE POPULATION (OU).
Then we do the new population (UU) and the new population (RU) and the new population (NU) and the new population (PU) to determine what works within those environments.
Getting rid of a mon simply because you don't like the fact that it's in a tier (and can help to shape that environment) is trash. If you don't like the tier as it is (unless you believe something is
BROKEN, not overcentralizing), go play a different tier, that's why we have them.
-Goomy