YagamiNoir

Dragon Rage was also so good it was banned in LC.

I thought the one disapponting move was Splash. Inb4 PP stall purposes or Magikarp praise comment though.

Oh, for bloody oblivion's sake, I can't even take a break during exam periods. We'll clean this mess up soon, though. *sighs in slow motion* What are you not getting here? You're bad at making comparisons. What's next on the list, Poliwrath? Walrein? "ZOMG a Belly Drum Pokemon too stronk let's get it out of here!" Linoone was banned because of the combo of Belly Drum and ExtremeSpeed, that allowed it to run fairly minimal speed investment bar against things like say Haunter and the like, and I'd pull this out of my hat because "oh Ghosts aren't legit anymore due to Pursuit!" "Offense had no answers to it?" To be fair, Magmar can still be outsped and revenge killed depending on your set, although I'll just factor Salac Berry this time which is again vulnerable to stuff like Hitmonlee Mach Punches and the like. You point out bulky and speedy sets with either Salac Berry or Sitrus Berry, but saying that Magmar without a speed boost is a banworthy sweeper is plain wrong (oh I forgot perhaps most of your team composition consists of things that are slower than it), whereas Sub/Salac sets allow you to opt for only one coverage move, meaning stuff like Lanturn and the like can still take a hit and wreck it (I'll assume the Speed boost means you won't run Mach Punch). Fire Punch/Mach Punch cores are practically walled by any reasonably bulky Water, whereas sets without it can be stopped with stuff like Golem and Lanturn. And apparently your Magmar always gets the favourable situations -- again. And here's another thing -- apart from significantly less safe sweeping capability, unlike Linoone, Magmar has more risks setting up Belly Drum and has a bigger case of 4MSS. You don't outpace anything until you get that Salac Boost, so you'll need at least two turns if you have Substitute, in which you then lose coverage. Don't pretend setting up Belly Drum is that safe for you if you lack Sub, either. Faster offensive Pokemon like Tentacruel/Manectric/anything beyond the 93 mark can come in and revenge kill it at 50% health as they switch in on your Belly Drum. Sitrus Berry? Not gonna go there, that's more vulnerable than Salac is and doesn't change how it's either vulnerable to being killed or being outsped depending on the item. Linoone however could not be revenge killed/outpredicted on a Belly Drum turn through offense, because ExtremeSpeed would cut through anything faster. Wordplay again? The only really way Linoone could be "countered" in UU was through the very little reliable resists the metagame had. Priority didn't help, Ghosts were possibly outsped and killed, and even Flail variants can break through certain Rock types sometimes. If you want something that can take on a setup Magmar, which again relates to how ridiculous your demands of a "counter" are, only Quagsire honestly fits in there. I can safely say the council has no intention of banning this thing any time soon.

Actually it might not even matter, because to my personal interpretation of most of what's been said through Tranz's post and the like, both metas are "stagnant." Snorlax's departure wasn't "significant enough", apparently, so the difference between the two metagames seems to be "mild", which can be a debatable factor. Tldr; That quote can probably be replied with "It's *unhealthy*, but removing it doesn't change the metagame enough, so it either doesn't matter/doesn't merit the definition. An unhealthy Pokemon, when removed from a metagame, displays significant changes toward the "unhealthiness", something that the test proved otherwise. Of course, this still revolves with the speculation that of which some of not most people disapprove of Blissey-centered metas and vice versa that also factors the "healthiness" of the metagame, regarding a post from the last page that you speculated Cody about. This kinda needs to be fixed as well -- is a Blissey meta necessarily *that* bad or some other random question? Logically, "if the change isn't significant, I might as well take all of the bad instead of the slight relief I get", as well. Within the one month of the suspect test it seemed to come to some people that Snorlax's usage made Blissey's "special attacker instant denial thing" irrelevant enough when it kinda still could be run in the first place. "Oh, Snorlax could still be broken by Special Attackers but when it's gone Special Attack went down the charts! And apparently Snorlax was some kind of replacement to Blissey that was dominant enough to make Special Attacking more viable than the one without Snorlax!" We're now seeing that with Snorlax into the mix, which admittedly makes no sense as to why it was brought back down instead of giving an extended test period considering we're moving back to deja vu. Whining won't solve the problem now I guess, but the vagueness of such decisions I need to profess my disagreement with. What is the line, actually? Something that causes the meta to be "stagnant", yet doesn't bring significant enough of a change with it's departure, and apparently changes that are insufficient don't merit satisfaction for a presumably "better metagame", because it's too slight. What does this mean, the fact that the degree of something being "unhealthy" or "stagnant" needs to be dropped down a little? "Adaption"? I've probably asked the same thing but without an answer, I guess.

What is with the disinclination of "oh geez I can't use Special Pokemon well nowadays" in the tiers. Moreso Kangashkan that's been discussed so many damn times now. It depends on your set, really. Also suddenly Kangashkan can do everything at once, and it's better if you specified how it's invested, what it lives, what it can 2HKO, etc. It's exaggerated how a coverage move can deal with a check/counter when some calcs fred gave evidence it isn't that hard hitting especially when you're not running a Choice Band. Coverage moves don't mean massive damage, for your humble information. While you're fast with 90 Speed, slower variants of Kangashkan are also more vulnerable to revenge killing to Speed invested ones. It can do a lot of things and it's good, but it's not even close to the major suspect rank.

Time to step up my game, as much as it was hax-involved I got today with a clean 6-0. GG Fred, but you were up against the Dark Lord. #HeroesNo1, but I'm retiring for two weeks because exams.

And the riots go on. The council decided to bring Snorlax back under the premise that "it did not made the metagame significantly healthy as a result of it's departure to be worthy of being banned, oh let's add some text walls about stats to top it up." Well, ok. Throughout the past sass the day before/during the ban revolving around ThinkNice and a few guys including me I think that we'd all at least agree to some point that each respective metas have their flaws, or in more blunt terms, "each meta is shit, whatever." With this decision, though, what exactly is the council expecting, or at least trying to decide in response to this in an effort to construct a better metagame -- adaption of the competitive community to it? Oh right, I'm sorry but you should adapt to the worse bit rather than the better bit, because having players adapt to Snorlax is better than having players adapting to a meta without it. "One month is enough to shape and determine the line of a meta without Snorlax (which is a pretty big and significant move, and we all know how long it takes for things to catch on sometimes.)" Dismayingly and apparently a month of suspect tests in a slowly evolving metagame seemed sufficient in determining that regard, which I find pretty ridiculous, if anything. Even then, if "both metas are gonna be bad anyway", why not just stick with the one that's the least problematic instead of only displaying nonchalance about it? Contradictory for me to ask this, but what exactly justifies the Snorlax meta would be better than the one without it, or is the argument of "no significant change, you can't ban it, whatever" only going to be thrown stalely and repetitively? EDIT: Well, the discussion has become more of a subjective exchange than an argument about relevant facts, like Robo had stated. Unless something breaks that line soon.

I'm probably just facing a wall of ironic concrete, but whatever. We got the solution, we settle the whole wait with little product. Enough, I aint going through this. I wasn't the one proposing this "no change" thing until Thinkie did.

Maybe I'm just frustrated that the test result didn't bring out a result that gave benefit to the meta, it simply determined "nope, no change, doesn't matter." That being said, while the answer for the suspect is achieved, we're kinda letting it stay dead instead of figuring something out, although maybe we can't do anything about it for now. Is ad hominem your only tool against me, by the way?

I mean I get that, and I've written this myself. "It does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. I get that's what you guys want, to bring it back under the simplicity of the given policy. Still doesn't change the fact that both metas are terrible and will seemingly dissatisfy people, stay toxic, whatever complaint that's been brought out here, whatever the hell. Is this the precedent you guys wanna set, but then again I suppose I'm already ignorant enough of this. "We can't fix OU, it'll be shit and will forever be no matter what we do, so we might as well just make a random decision or follow the policies robotically."

To be fair, there wasn't exactly a clear line in determining things to begin with. I mean, "oh, let's just ditch the idea of examining it further because it won't provide a significant change! Let's have things shit either way with no room for even the slightest improvisation, because it's not like it'll be better anyway!" I acknowledge both metas are bad, but what the hell are you and Thinkie trying to prove? "It's bad, it's shit, let's do nothing about it and let us whine about it because it's relevant and productive for some stupid reason!" If someone is going to complain, back it up with a legitimate solution that satisfies you. All that's being brought out is "there's no difference. Both metas are shit." What the hell does that actually solve, for oblivion's sake? Nice job avoiding the question and topping it off with ad hominem Gun, it won't exactly work. EDIT: I'd cringe if you'd say bringing Snorlax back would be a "solution", not that it'd hurt, but it'd probably be either slightly more consequential. Then again, "it doesn't matter, things will be the same, amirite?"

My head just got blew off. No offense and I still lub you Thinkie, but at this point all I'm seeing is a spoiled brat whining about how terrible the meta is and nothing makes any difference. Special walls still stay special walls in the meta and whatever thingamajigger, I get your point, and it makes sense. Blissey/Snorlax comparisons have their relevance but they're really starting to make me cringe. Don't ignore my question on their usages. If there's anything productive I can get from you of all people now it would be a solution to your complaint/problem. The meta stays terrible either way, what do you exactly say we should do, leave it? Or just adhere to the policy of the test and let it stay because "it does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. Either meta remains a toxic one, so we either have the old one or the less toxic one. Probably doesn't really matter, but hey, if it's your complaint, provide us with a solution, for oblivion's sake.

What exactly justifies that Blissey or some other dumb Special core will be as used as much or will be as viable when Snorlax is around? Despite the whole "Snorlax can be broken by attackers and pivot" hue. Practical consensus, at least in the past, speaks for itself.

And even post ban cancerous posts still plague this thread. From my personal speculation, Snorlax is a likely a hindrance to teambuilding. It has it's flaws, but it's better than what it used to be. Addressing the somewhat cliche "Blissey versus Snorlax" argument, it's not exactly a bad thing that Blissey is all over the place, given that Blissey isn't that centralizing by itself, it just lost the main competition that that admittedly superior to it while it still stayed, nor did it require a CB Choice Bander or whatever in oblivion to actually handle it appropriately. While it has a thicker movepool, Blissey's roles are also less diverse, being primarily focused on cleric/status support and being fairly mediocre in offense unless it had Calm Mind, whereas Snorlax had both offensive and defensive dominance while still being able to fulfill the primary role, but you can top that off with stuff like phazing/Pursuit, too. While Snorlax was "breakable" by Special Attackers to some degree, that didn't exactly stop it from centralizing the meta like it did. The impact it gave was ultimately more influential than the flaws one could actually exploit over it. The meta still evolves a bit too slowly due to more out-of-competitive reasons, and I personally there isn't that high of a degree of justified consensus to accurately determine the line between what is better. The meta however has only proven itself to have increased diversity with the enhanced viability of multiple Pokemon with Snorlax's departure, as far as some people think the pressure Snorlax provided was a deserving one. There isn't a line between how significant it is, but, well, I personally think it's better than what we used to have. Even if there's Blissey all over the place, people can't find excuses saying it's centralizing. Snorlax on the other hand probably has that excessive unhealthy dominance. It's ironic by itself on how Blissey can be revenge killed by Trio but not anything else. Convenient twist of nature for your argument. While Blissey is a brick wall to Special Attackers, it's still vulnerable to a lot of physical attackers and the like, and said frailty, speculatively, can also reason why people run Ludi as an extra wall. Ludi was also a good backup check for physical attacking Kingdra and to some degree Gyarados that don't run a specific move, which could backfire on any Blissey thinking it's Special and Blissey can't fare that well against Gyarados. Imo Ludi has more to offer than just being "a special wall", even if it's most common set belies on that set.

Well, it's entirely dependent on your Nature before I can actually give the EVs depending on the set as well, since there are like....a lot of natures that can be viable on a Wailord. 84 HP EVs (assuming max HP IV) maximizes Leftovers recovery, which can work on any set. If you're running a Curse set, hit around 172 Defense EVs to avoid the 2HKO from most NU Choice Banders at +1, putting the other 252 in Special Defense. You can opt for +Attack/Special Defense/Defense on this. On a more Specially/mixed orientated set, Timid 252/252 means you outspeed as much as possible for Water Spout to hit with either maximum power. If opting for something like Selfdestruct, just make the nature mixed with Hasty/Naive. -Speed isn't really that good unless you're not running Water Spout, which personally even then is inferior to Speed investing it.

How so? Under said premise, many other Pokemon that wouldn't be able to check it otherwise can check/counter it far easier if Hitmonlee has to waste a turn to earn that +1. Even if you're able to switch moves, you either lose priority or have less coverage, so while you have the matter of choice, it's not like those pokes won't be able to do nothing to you anyway, unlike the Choice Band scenario where a wrong switch could prove sudden death. Project teams that are countering Choice Band users should have an easier time faring against it, since while they might be taken aback by it not instantaneously attacking, a Hitmonlee that needs to set up is ultimately one that is easier to respond with. Depending on the set and what Altaria has, Altaria can either phaze it (you'd laugh, but whatever) or Toxic it, unless it has Rock Slide, in which a Bulk Up set lacks the moveslot for. Then again, "still dies against the CB set so no." What I'm saying is that different sets having different counters isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can't touch most things as well if it runs Bulk Up (and some if most of the whole Psychic scenarios are just hiding behind the Pursuit argument). I've said this before and I've said it again, especially if you're going to bring up double switch and whatever scenario that involves things having safe switch ins. It goes for all things and can't be justified. If such scenarios can happen, Psychic types pulling off double switches/predicting Pursuits can also happen, and is a skill that should be known by most players especially if this is so common. Even then, I personally think Superpower contradicts the whole bulk things you're mentioning unless you're saying the set doesn't use it.

Nik implied the stats to justify how banworthy it is instead of the balance. You can see it both ways I guess

I'll make this civil, but again, we'll skip the usual loops. Under the Bulk Up premise,Hitmonlee loses instantaneous offensive presence. It should thusly be easier to respond to.

At home, yes. Forums is probably the best place I can be at the moment since I'm outside and doing some IRL bits. I'll try to attend to my match in due time. EDIT: I'm unsure as to my opponent's stature as well. We had contact in game but he appears to have be inactive in PM.

Bumping this guide since I've been too busy to attend to it for some time. I'm having a month of exams but will be free eventually. Updated Girafarig and Gligar though.

Either the OU Viability list is established insignificantly or this statement is wrong in it's own right.

I only said the words "usage and viability". I never referred such things to a Pokemon's usage in general. And again, it's still a fairly short time since the recent bans. "Was that tourney enough or how many more do you need before you get to admit that I'm right?" I can very safely say it's going to take you a lot to convince me of most things that you're right, Nik. It's not exactly a matter of prejudice but our ideals have tried and true clashed on so many levels. Ranging from things needing 100% counters and now "something that not only has no risk, but can also immediately threaten an entire team in the process" for competitive metagames to be balanced. It goes both ways, I guess, but I think you should be aware of this by now. If you're capable of using a Pokemon as setup bait, why aren't you called a counter to that Pokemon if you get to do whatever you want on it? For oblivion's sake, this new "setup bait" is an even bigger claim that something needing just "counters", and what you're proposing is even better (or worse) to the point that it may even prove centralizing. It's again a very preposterous demand, considering you can't have something like that for every Pokemon. You don't have a "Scizor" for hyper offensive Pokemon, but why do these even need it anyway? Scizor is also a bad example to demonstrate what you want, as to be fair, you also advocated how Scizor's ability to do the whole "turn the match around thing" made it banworthy, so by your own words even if something impossibly stupid like that existed, it probably wouldn't be here for long anyway. Why the hell do we need tools for changing the entire outcome of a match in order for something to not prove banworthy? Since when did Pokemon need such a high level of countering? Since when did the meta need things that "change the game around" to be a stable and healthy one? I'm admittedly a bit disgusted at how odd such a claim is, especially against something like Houndoom in which you find so versatile. "Yeah, you can't answer that, so that makes it banworthy!" The meta doesn't need what you're demanding to be stable. Houndoom doesn't need something that can use it to turn the match around to avoid the banhammer. I like how you don't actually read or comprehend what I say properly. I never, and I mean never put the prediction argument on my side of the table, which is obvious enough through the countless loops of discussions I have with you, since it's something no one can appropriately justify, something I've thrown at you a couple of times as well. I simply state the possibilities and risks, but never justify that one likelihood is stronger than the other one. If anything you're the one that's putting all the hype on some banworthy always acquiring the accurate predictions. I give up, though. Have it your way, I'm not going to go through something we've gone through to only face concrete walls countless times before, moreso not now when you've added a new layer of cement on it.

You don't get reliable usage or blatantly determined viabilities from one or two tournaments and from a metagame that's stagnant and evolves considerably slowly. Your own experience calls no claim to fact, nor does mine, but I'd be damned if someone says Toxic is useless, especially for the whole Destiny Bond hype. Taunt again, but again, four moveslot syndrome. You can't put everything on one Houndoom. Planning to Taunt a Claydol puts at risk of being EQed without being able to anything significant. I won't justify the prediction, but you know the risk. The only real reason Houndoom's a significant "trapper" against Claydol is because "Oh damn, Hitmonlee can shrekt after Crunch/Pursuit hits!" The situations again can backfire on Houndoom depending on prediction. I'm not sure if I should be disgusted or to laugh at this. Oh wait, I don't actually laugh. What you've said is literally a significant part of how one would define a "counter". A counter earns back lost momentum and pressures hostile momentum, and utilizing the low-risk switch in, can either threaten the entire team or what it is currently facing, which is exactly what you're demanding. Don't wordplay with me.

That's debatable on experience, moreso the meta is still in a pretty vague state after the recent bans anyways with little tournaments to justify enough post Scizor/Slowking ban. That or some people just don't adapt, if you see ThinkNice's former quote. One of the ways to deal with Houndoom's exaggeratively broken Destiny Bond lies in a fairly common and largely distributed move called Toxic and you're calling it irrelevant, Taunt aside. I'm sorry if Reflect seemed invisible to you, but alright. That's not what I'm saying, but heck I think the whole flawless Pursuit trap things is a bit exaggerative, or at least it's not applicable to every Psychic type in UU and the effects aren't as significant as you think it is. It's as if you're forbidden from staying in on a predicted Pursuit to reduce it's damage and it's also as if Houndoom always makes the right predictions for some reason. Again one of your ridiculously demanding aspects to tiering in general apart from something needing a full counter to be not banworthy. Oh wait, it's actually the exact same thing. I'm not going to entertain that, we've looped through so much of that in OU, let's not bring this here as well.

Whoah, whoah. The council has no intention of touching anything in UU for the next month or more, like it or not, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about here. Even then no one's gonna take you serious if your only statement goes down to blatant statements. What justifies that this isn't possible? For oblivion's sake this is the third time I've said this and there are ways to punish a Houndoom, or at least on the Pursuit spectrum anyway.