UU Tier Discussion Request Thread

[RysPicz]

6 minutes ago, LifeStyle said:

Don't keep Kanga in OU, ban Typhlosion

Fixed this for you.

 

Imo Kanga should be unbanned- at least for the time when we will actually get a discussion thread about it.

Regardless, Typh is just pure fucking OP and should get the iron boot of ghaey asap...

[LifeStyle]

Just now, RysPicz said:

Fixed this for you.

 

Imo Kanga should be unbanned- at least for the time when we will actually get a discussion thread about it.

Regardless, Typh is just pure fucking OP and should get the iron boot of ghaey asap...

Nah fuck Kanga, UU looks more fun now without that thing spamming Toxic+Rest+Dedge on SP Attackers (Barring Haunter ofc)

[RysPicz]

Just now, LifeStyle said:

Nah fuck Kanga, UU looks more fun now without that thing spamming Toxic+Rest+Dedge on SP Attackers (Barring Haunter ofc)

It doesn't look fun for me seeing Cradily and Scizor in literally every team

[LifeStyle]

2 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

It doesn't look fun for me seeing Cradily and Scizor in literally every team

Weren't most teams full of Crad+Scizor+Kanga before anyways?

[RysPicz]

5 minutes ago, LifeStyle said:

Weren't most teams full of Crad+Scizor+Kanga before anyways?

Um, no? What's the purpose of taking Cradily when you got Kanga as your spec wall?

[TheNightArch]

6 minutes ago, LifeStyle said:

Weren't most teams full of Crad+Scizor+Kanga before anyways?

I mean, no one really ran spdef kanga + cradily. Pretty redundant

[BlackJovi]

I just think Kangaskhan wasnt that op because there are ways to exploit it when it rests.. or it's move sets you can exploit them somehow, but typhlosion.. you can't go wrong with just spamming Eruption here and there, and not even that, the mixed set is way more scary imo. Like EQ/HP Ice or Grass/Fire Blast/Low Kick wall breaks almost everything outside from Altaria/Quag depending on it's hidden power. I don't really care what you do with kanga, just ban typhlosion. 

[SweeTforU]

Guys I think we should ban scizor cuz it stops my cradily from sweeping

[Arimanius]

38 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

Um, no? What's the purpose of taking Cradily when you got Kanga as your spec wall?

I used cradily + kanga + scizor SOMETIMES, but it was an offensive kanga or cb kanga not sp def xD so I don't know which piece of shitty players ran that

[RysPicz]

7 minutes ago, Arimanius said:

I used cradily + kanga + scizor SOMETIMES, but it was an offensive kanga or cb kanga not sp def xD so I don't know which piece of shitty players ran that

@gbwead

 

Are you going to take this insult?

Edited October 29, 2016 by RysPicz

[BlackJovi]

17 minutes ago, SweeTforU said:

Guys I think we should ban scizor cuz it stops my cradily from sweeping

You dont have a hp fire cradily? Beta

[gbwead]

19 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

@gbwead

 

Are you going to take this insult?

I played Kanga maybe 15 times in 2 years of PokeMMO. I got principles man.

Edit: Those were my lowest days. Gonna name drop @BurntZebra now ^^

Edited October 29, 2016 by gbwead

[Gunthug]

Why are we posting here about typhlosion when it has its own thread? I agree kanga needs a thread too, and as soon as a decision is made on typhlosion I'll make sure a thread is opened. Until then, I don't see the harm in discussing kanga here 

[Guerinf]

Kanga wasn't op at all since LO and specs as it can't wall manec and struggle facing haunter. 

Kanga is great vs stall as it can't be outstall thanks to rest + early bird. It's actually pretty easy to beat it's being offensive.

And paradoxically, I think banning Kanga avantages stall.

 

NB : i'm talking about the stall version

[DoubleJ]

On 10/31/2016 at 7:52 AM, Guerinf said:

Kanga wasn't op at all since LO and specs as it can't wall manec and struggle facing haunter. 

Kanga is great vs stall as it can't be outstall thanks to rest + early bird. It's actually pretty easy to beat it's being offensive.

And paradoxically, I think banning Kanga avantages stall.

 

NB : i'm talking about the stall version

This is a very similar argument that I have toward the Blissey ban. With Natural Cure, incredible bulk, access to Toxic, and being an awesome CM user, Blissey is a great pokemon to "out-stall" stall. Kangaskhan can do the same with a powerful STAB that prevents switch ins, Early Bird + Rest, good bulk, and decent speed. 

 

It's an outside-of-the-box view on a toxic pokemon and one that I like.

 

The argument to keep Kangaskhan though is very valid, considering it really isn't a defensive uber, it doesn't support teams incredibly well other than to stall, it can't be defined as uncompetitive, and the idea that it is "unhealthy" is debatable. What makes Kangskhan unhealthy? I really can't think of anything to be honest.

[Gunthug]

I actually changed my mind on kanga a few days ago (was originally pro ban and fully supported the test ban) while perusing the m sableye discussion thread and running into some in depth discussion as to "what is unhealthy?"

 

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/ous-tiering-policy-framework-read-and-understand-this.3552154/

 

This entire link is full of incredible stuff but I'll post the pertinent part here:

 

IV.) Unhealthy - elements that are neither uncompetitive nor broken, yet deemed undesirable for the metagame such that they inhibit "skillful play" to a large extent

 

Going off this definition, I just don't think kanga fits the bill. I don't think it is quashing skillful play by any means. Would like to see if anyone else has thoughts on this definition applied to kanga, or any other poke currently being discussed

Edited November 1, 2016 by Gunthug

[Arimanius]

4 hours ago, Gunthug said:

explanation

tbh the only pokemon with that currently tag in uu or nu is kanga and I don't think it fits that criteria either, I wasn't in favor of the test ban since it wasn't unhealthy for me but still I didn't mind the test but I hate the fact that we're testing typhlosion with a test ban on kanga

[OrangeManiac]

I love how unhealthiness has like a trillion different professional descriptions but it really boils down to "it's annoying pls beuhn"

 

To be honest I think Kanga could possibly be unhealthy mostly for the reason that it's such a ridiculously good blanket wall for every special attacker that isn't Modest Specs. It's just a Pokemon you can slap with pretty much zero support. Now, this would be fine and all but my main reasons I don't actually like Kanga's precense is that it's such a lazy easy solution when there are plenty of others. Slowking, Plume, Clefable, Cradily.. All these Pokemon need specific team support to justify its presence in your team, therefor giving the diversity from UU specwalls. Kanga is just... It's like a duct tape that wherever your team is leaking one Kanga solves the issue. In addition Kanga is just notably better than all the aforementioned defensive pivots at that job. That is sort of a problem. But yeah, it's obvious that if there would be to approach Kanga for being unhealthy, it's metagame diversity.

[Gunthug]

5 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

I love how unhealthiness has like a trillion different professional descriptions but it really boils down to "it's annoying pls beuhn"

 

To be honest I think Kanga could possibly be unhealthy mostly for the reason that it's such a ridiculously good blanket wall for every special attacker that isn't Modest Specs. It's just a Pokemon you can slap with pretty much zero support. Now, this would be fine and all but my main reasons I don't actually like Kanga's precense is that it's such a lazy easy solution when there are plenty of others. Slowking, Plume, Clefable, Cradily.. All these Pokemon need specific team support to justify its presence in your team, therefor giving the diversity from UU specwalls. Kanga is just... It's like a duct tape that wherever your team is leaking one Kanga solves the issue. In addition Kanga is just notably better than all the aforementioned defensive pivots at that job. That is sort of a problem. But yeah, it's obvious that if there would be to approach Kanga for being unhealthy, it's metagame diversity.

I think unhealthiness has approximately 0 professional descriptions, unless you're referring to a doctor's definition of unhealthy. Smogon is not a "professional" authority on the subject by any means, nor does the description I posted boil down to "it's annoying pls ban." Your actual analysis is good but not sure why you felt the need to start that post with something that makes absolutely no sense

[OrangeManiac]

55 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I think unhealthiness has approximately 0 professional descriptions, unless you're referring to a doctor's definition of unhealthy. Smogon is not a "professional" authority on the subject by any means, nor does the description I posted boil down to "it's annoying pls ban." Your actual analysis is good but not sure why you felt the need to start that post with something that makes absolutely no sense

 

It's again one of those overall feelings I have more than a need to direct something at you but since you brought that up..

 

I didn't refer that your quoted description comes down to "it's annoying pls ban". I'm referring that the term "unhealthy" in general is so watered down at this point that in my head it just sounds like something is just wanted to be banned despite not falling in the premade descriptions of banworthiness.

 

Powerful but not exactly "broken"? Can be still unhealthy.

Isn't exactly uncompetitive enough to be deemed so? Can still be unhealthy.

Limits metagame in a one certain way? Can be unhealthy.

In some way limits skill? Can be unhealthy.

 

Lots and lots of Pokemon may fall in one or more of those categories yet some individual Pokemons are somehow brought as "unhealthy banworthies" and it really comes down to "when a Pokemon in a metagame feels wrong (or, "annoying"). So when this Pokemon is wanted to be banned from the metagame you can just bring one of the many descriptions of "unhealthiness", say "makes sense" and go on with your lives.

 

Well about your actual quote, how does Kangaskhan limit skillful play? What even is skillful play? Seems even broader than my little analysis of the vagueness of term "unhealthy".

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by OrangeManiac

[Gunthug]

1 hour ago, OrangeManiac said:

 

It's again one of those overall feelings I have more than a need to direct something at you but since you brought that up..

 

I didn't refer that your quoted description comes down to "it's annoying pls ban". I'm referring that the term "unhealthy" in general is so watered down at this point that in my head it just sounds like something is just wanted to be banned despite not falling in the premade descriptions of banworthiness.

 

Powerful but not exactly "broken"? Can be still unhealthy.

Isn't exactly uncompetitive enough to be deemed so? Can still be unhealthy.

Limits metagame in a one certain way? Can be unhealthy.

In some way limits skill? Can be unhealthy.

 

Lots and lots of Pokemon may fall in one or more of those categories yet some individual Pokemons are somehow brought as "unhealthy banworthies" and it really comes down to "when a Pokemon in a metagame feels wrong (or, "annoying"). So when this Pokemon is wanted to be banned from the metagame you can just bring one of the many descriptions of "unhealthiness", say "makes sense" and go on with your lives.

 

Well about your actual quote, how does Kangaskhan limit skillful play? What even is skillful play? Seems even broader than my little analysis of the vagueness of term "unhealthy".

 

 

Will go into this more when I get home from work, my point was that the snippet I posted actually posed the opposite thought to "it's annoying pls ban" - even if something is "annoying" it's not unhealthy unless it limits skillful play. Like I said, will dive into this further later 

[OrangeManiac]

14 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Will go into this more when I get home from work, my point was that the snippet I posted actually posed the opposite thought to "it's annoying pls ban" - even if something is "annoying" it's not unhealthy unless it limits skillful play. Like I said, will dive into this further later 

Herp di derp. I understood the complete opposite. I thought you considered it not banworthy but something in Smogon convinced you enough that it actually is unhealthy for being skill-less.

 

Well, there are other things we've been considered unhealthy (lots of things) and I thought we just had another one in our list. Either way, understood your initial post anyways wrong from which side you're leaning on. I personally don't like Kanga that much in UU so in that way my post was a bit of reflection, it's one of those Pokemon you just hate in a tier but there's hard to reason enough to actually ban it so we just weasel our way around those requirements by coming up with something - anything - we can. Like I said it sorta makes other specwalls "less viable/needed" and being like a duct tape Pokemon in your team it's still very hard to alone use that to ban something.

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by OrangeManiac

[Spaintakula]

33 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Will go into this more when I get home from work, my point was that the snippet I posted actually posed the opposite thought to "it's annoying pls ban" - even if something is "annoying" it's not unhealthy unless it limits skillful play. Like I said, will dive into this further later 

at work and being on both showdown and forums, how would you feel taking a promotion, shame on you

[Guerinf]

6 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

I love how unhealthiness has like a trillion different professional descriptions but it really boils down to "it's annoying pls beuhn"

 

To be honest I think Kanga could possibly be unhealthy mostly for the reason that it's such a ridiculously good blanket wall for every special attacker that isn't Modest Specs. It's just a Pokemon you can slap with pretty much zero support. Now, this would be fine and all but my main reasons I don't actually like Kanga's precense is that it's such a lazy easy solution when there are plenty of others. Slowking, Plume, Clefable, Cradily.. All these Pokemon need specific team support to justify its presence in your team, therefor giving the diversity from UU specwalls. Kanga is just... It's like a duct tape that wherever your team is leaking one Kanga solves the issue. In addition Kanga is just notably better than all the aforementioned defensive pivots at that job. That is sort of a problem. But yeah, it's obvious that if there would be to approach Kanga for being unhealthy, it's metagame diversity.

I'm sorry but that is absolutely untrue.

Kanga can win once against manec LO/specs but can't come in play like it was nothing. Crad is clearly better at this job.

Same applies to haunter but haunter may be the best (unbroken) UU wallbreaker.

Exeggutor isn't walled like nothing by Kanga neither.

 

What kanga is the best at is being a great status absorber allowing him to switch in vs nearly every stall super safely and being able to counter a good amount of spe attackers. But clearly not like a chansey. It's even less bulky than Cradily.

 

I remember you complaining about not being able to play offensive teams something like 2 weeks ago. Well the kanga ban doesn't give special sweepers better chances at shinning, whereas what is way more viable are defensive strategies due to the lack of kanga. 

 

I really don't understand what motived the ban since it has defensive counter (altaria, steelix, vileplume namely, omastar uses it as a bait for spiking) and offensive (steelix, bloc cm slowking, armaldo). Those are only viable UU pokes with good usage (even after kanga ban), not an exhaustive list of what can beat it.

As gunthug said, it doesn't fit unhealthiness or overcentralization (the meta wasn't defined around beating kanga,  unlike lax...) characteristics . 

 

And on a more structural issue, I find highly problematic and under discussed that the TC banned 2 top tiers mons meanwhile releasing à huge monster. 

How can we fight for kanga and scept returns and the ban of typhlo at the same time? 

[OrangeManiac]

25 minutes ago, Guerinf said:

I'm sorry but that is absolutely untrue.

Kanga can win once against manec LO/specs but can't come in play like it was nothing. Crad is clearly better at this job.

Same applies to haunter but haunter may be the best (unbroken) UU wallbreaker.

Exeggutor isn't walled like nothing by Kanga neither.

 

What kanga is the best at is being a great status absorber allowing him to switch in vs nearly every stall super safely and being able to counter a good amount of spe attackers. But clearly not like a chansey. It's even less bulky than Cradily.

 

I remember you complaining about not being able to play offensive teams something like 2 weeks ago. Well the kanga ban doesn't give special sweepers better chances at shinning, whereas what is way more viable are defensive strategies due to the lack of kanga. 

 

I really don't understand what motived the ban since it has defensive counter (altaria, steelix, vileplume namely, omastar uses it as a bait for spiking) and offensive (steelix, bloc cm slowking, armaldo). Those are only viable UU pokes with good usage (even after kanga ban), not an exhaustive list of what can beat it.

As gunthug said, it doesn't fit unhealthiness or overcentralization (the meta wasn't defined around beating kanga,  unlike lax...) characteristics . 

 

And on a more structural issue, I find highly problematic and under discussed that the TC banned 2 top tiers mons meanwhile releasing à huge monster. 

How can we fight for kanga and scept returns and the ban of typhlo at the same time? 

 

You can't switch Cradily against everything due to its weaknesses. Kanga meanwhile can be switched against everything with very low risk. The number of LO users that can even 3HKO Kanga is very low. And I wasn't even arguing for this, I was arguing that Kanga needs absolutely no support unlike other UUs. (but still not inherently broken)

 

Also what comes to me complaining about offensive playing being too unviable, this isn't first time that people intepret it as banning a wall would make it better / bringing a sweeper down would help with this. Ironically the problem for this issue isn't so much Kanga or Cradily for that matter, but Typhlosion. The fact I need to run offense that isn't swept by Typhlosion for breakfast is really hard, unless I opt to run something like Slowking or Lanturn to stop Typhlosion and even then. The existence of a powerful offensive Pokemon can make offense less viable. The same way if special sweepers weren't so powerful Marowak would be the one of most used OU Pokemon.

 

What comes to last paragraph, I agree.

Edited November 2, 2016 by OrangeManiac