-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Metagame SV Monotype Metagame Discussion [Indigo Disk]
- Thread starter maroon
- Start date
- Status
Been a while since i played monotype but coming back after the bax dnb to see the gouging dnb has really ignited a fire in me!
I will now patiently wait for another suspect test so I can also vote dnb on it!
I will now patiently wait for another suspect test so I can also vote dnb on it!
This may not matter to some people, but its worth pointing out that yesterday, the Mono room ran "The People's Mono" room tour where the specific things were banned (in addition to mono's current banlist): Baxcalibur, Ogerpon (Fire and Water), Flutter Mane, Chien, Gouging Fire, Archuladon, Kingambit, Bloodmoon, Zamazenta, and Heat rock. And guess what? It was by far one the most popular SV tours we have had in a long while reaching 30+ each time (the most being 36 iirc). Not only that but damn near everyone who participated and watched said it was the most fun they had from the generation. Types people wouldn't dare use actually saw use nowadays got played and everyone had a good time. I do not think it was a coincidence that the day this happened, the room had several long discussions in regard to tiering policy, and the current state of the meta.
It's worth, at the very least, looking into and discussing.
It's worth, at the very least, looking into and discussing.
Last edited:
With the suspect test ending and Dragon still regarded as the best and Steel considered to be second to it, I think that’s fine. Having a couple types stand above the others isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Each generation has at least 2-3 types that are clear cut above the others with some members on them that need to be accounted for in the team builder.
It’s safe to assume majority of people knows there’s a difference between ladder and tour play. However many that knows there’s a difference between the two scenes, there’s just as many that doesn’t know what the difference is. When you team build for ladder, you’re building to have a chance against all 18 types since you can run into any of them at all points of the ladder. Some are fine with having a chance against 17/18 and giving up on that one matchup, some are fine with having chance against 12/18 because you’re still climbing winning two-thirds of your games. When you team build for tournament play, you’re building to have a chance against 1 or 2, maybe 3, types that could be potentially brought by your opponent. This is the difference between the team builders for both scenes.
What I see most in discussions where people find the most issues with things like Dragon, or specific mons like Baxcalibur, Chien Pao, etc., is the fact people that have to account for them. Having to keep Dragon and Steel in mind bothers people. Having to keep specific Pokemon in mind bothers people. People want to run a team with 1-3 with blanket checks for everything and the rest of the team to be fun or experimental stuff and not think too much about. But when they have to account for specific types or mons, they feel it restricts their creative freedom in the team builder and it makes people think critically on how to account for these things.
When you read discussions about Dragon, it spoken as a type that consistently beats everything. You talk about Dragons’s matchups with some people and they speak as nothing can beat it. Then playing the games, you obviously see Dragon loses to some types that can account for Dragon and not miss out much on the rest of their other matchups. Dragon can be prepped for for more consistent wins against it, but that goes for any top tier type or meta staples that are running around.
Now that the suspect is over, keep prepping for or using whatever is best in the current meta.
I actually want to end it with a question:
Would you rather want to know everything about a team you’re an against or let it be a surprise?
It’s safe to assume majority of people knows there’s a difference between ladder and tour play. However many that knows there’s a difference between the two scenes, there’s just as many that doesn’t know what the difference is. When you team build for ladder, you’re building to have a chance against all 18 types since you can run into any of them at all points of the ladder. Some are fine with having a chance against 17/18 and giving up on that one matchup, some are fine with having chance against 12/18 because you’re still climbing winning two-thirds of your games. When you team build for tournament play, you’re building to have a chance against 1 or 2, maybe 3, types that could be potentially brought by your opponent. This is the difference between the team builders for both scenes.
What I see most in discussions where people find the most issues with things like Dragon, or specific mons like Baxcalibur, Chien Pao, etc., is the fact people that have to account for them. Having to keep Dragon and Steel in mind bothers people. Having to keep specific Pokemon in mind bothers people. People want to run a team with 1-3 with blanket checks for everything and the rest of the team to be fun or experimental stuff and not think too much about. But when they have to account for specific types or mons, they feel it restricts their creative freedom in the team builder and it makes people think critically on how to account for these things.
When you read discussions about Dragon, it spoken as a type that consistently beats everything. You talk about Dragons’s matchups with some people and they speak as nothing can beat it. Then playing the games, you obviously see Dragon loses to some types that can account for Dragon and not miss out much on the rest of their other matchups. Dragon can be prepped for for more consistent wins against it, but that goes for any top tier type or meta staples that are running around.
Now that the suspect is over, keep prepping for or using whatever is best in the current meta.
I actually want to end it with a question:
Would you rather want to know everything about a team you’re an against or let it be a surprise?
Last edited:
There is alot to unpack here, so let's go step by step and see why i disagree with this.
There will always be a difference in ladder and tour play. in tours you know your opponent and you know what types they brought already, giving you a much more detailed view into the mind of the player. On Ladder, you roll a dice and sometimes you know the opponent and sometimes you just don't. Even in Tournaments, you don't just account for 3 types usually, you still don't want to auto L against the other types you didn't expect. You just Prep more for specific types like currently dragon, knowing there is a high likelyhood of it being played.
I also don't think ANYONE assumes that all types are ever going to be equal. That just will never happen in a game where inequality in types and mons is a thing. The issue is much deeper than that. Of course Dragon loses, does that mean Dragon is not forced to be almost overprepped for? Just in MWP, in SV alone we saw in DLC 2 21 dragon usages and a 57% winrate of the type. On ladder, dragon sees high usage and a solid winrate too. We can very clearly see that, especially the tour and top end ladder players, have to go above and beyond to prep for a type. THAT is the issue right now. Nobody would say "you can't beat it" in a literal sence, that would be madness. But the fact is that Dragon right now is too strong to handle for MANY types. Of course it's allowed to be stronger than other types, but it should not invalidated half the type chart or more. There is no use to running some types just cause dragon rolls over them so incredibly hard that they become unplayable. And even Types that can account for Dragon can be hit by suprise sets or just good play. Player skill will always come to account for parts of the outcome of the match, that doesn't mean a mon or type isn't overwhelming for the Metagame.
To answer the question:
Of course suprises are better. Of course diversity is better. That does not speak against ANY of the bans suggested tho. Overcentralizing pokemon limit the amount of suprises you can bring, because you HAVE to have specific dedicated answers to them (that are also not allowed to be chipped or statused in certain situations) and that, in the end, limits the teambuilding process. If you are forced to run like 5 mons on a type just to be able to edge out dragon, that is not where creativity comes in. I think people see a ban and say "thats one option gone" without seeing the options for A: that type and B: other types to be available with the overcentralizing threat gone. With that said, i didn't even partake in GF suspect cause i was personally VERY unsure if the ban would be good or not for the metagame. But we have to agree that there has to be some adjustment made to give atleast middle of the road types more flexibility in teambuilding, without being forced to giga overprep for dragon just to have a chance.
I think this is interesting.
Now with this only being one time maybe the introduction (or removal in this case) of a slightly fresher format lead to this. I remember DLC2 at the starting as feeling incredibly fresh for me before things started feeling horrible. (This is after the bans of Kyurem-B and Solgaelo) so maybe a similar thing will happen here. so this probably needs to be run as an experiment a few more times to get some solid data.
However it does give me hope that if we as a community all work on getting rid of the problems of this format, we will have a fun and competitive meta. And we might just have the room tournament to prove it.
We just have to vote ban on some shit.
I thought I would share some of my thoughts on current metagame trends and widespread community dissent for the council's action (or lack thereof):
Espathra — I don't think this mon is balanced at all and I think it needs to go. There's pretty much no counterplay aside from running a viable Dark type, which half of the types don't have access to. I know it doesn't generate nearly enough usage, but I still think it's broken.
Flutter Mane — With the prevalence of physical attackers, Flutter Mane is pretty much a glass cannon in the metagame right now, and even with perfect coverage I think it's a perfectly reasonable offensive threat. not broken
Chien Pao — I think probably the most borderline broken mon we have—it's so so good but sometimes it feels like it's a little underwhelming in the metagame right now. borderline
Kingambit — It's glorified Bisharp. On types that struggle with it you should be running some outs, and on types that don't struggle with it, you don't really need to worry. Think about matchups like Flying vs. Steel or Ground vs. Steel or Water vs. Steel in ORAS, where Flying and Ground and Water had advantages except for Bisharp being able to sweep out of nowhere. You needed to run certain sets to alleviate the matchup (like sub Lando) or keep checks healthy (like Keldeo before it was banned) or risk losing a matchup you should have won. Yes, Kingambit is bulkier, but it's also slower, susceptible to Intimidate, has a weaker Sucker Punch (70 vs 80 bp), and a weaker Dark move (85 vs 97.5 bp). It's a great mon but not broken.
Ursaluna-B — a very very good mon, but it has exploitable weaknesses (mediocre typing, slow, can't hit Flying types twice in a row) that most types can take advantage of. not broken
Zamazenta — I honestly can't speak too much on this mon as I have neither used it nor played against it more than five times following DLC2. I think it's kind of in the same boat as Espathra as in I think it's broken but it doesn't have the usage to back it up.
Heat Rock — I don't think any of the rocks are balanced in Monotype and I think they all need to go. broken
Ogerpon forms — I think Wellspring is clearly not broken and I'm slightly on the fence about Hearthflame as it's very strong right now. However, I think enough of its success can be attributed to Heat Rock that, if Heat Rock is banned, it would be not broken.
It's great to see how active this thread is and I like reading everyone's thoughts on the metagame. Hopefully we can work together as one community to make this tier better!
There has been a lot of talk about how Dragon as a type is "broken" and something "needs to be done" regarding its "overwhelming prevalence" within the metagame. As a community we seem to think that it's somehow too strong, but I'd argue that this is mostly due to us as a tier entering relatively unfamiliar territory with a new type at the top of the viability rankings. I see a lot of arguments about certain types not being able to handle it at all, but these are either wrong (case 1) or overexaggerated (case 2).
As an example of case 1, consider the case of types like Poison, which even certain self-proclaimed "Poison mains" and established tour players had given up on due to it struggling to win against Dragon. I took an "outdated" team, changed Will-o-Wisp on Weezing to Toxic, and subsequently won against many high-ladder and tournament opponents (Rinda, Decem, etc.) using Dragon pretty handedly. It's not like this change was specifically meant to target Dragon either, as I found the swap to be better against most types that are prevalent in the metagame as well (like Fire, but except Steel). Furthermore, after giving this team to other users, they also found similar success. The point of this is to say that sets that we may think are suboptimal or niche could actually be optimal in a fresh, new metagame. Why are we to say that because Will-o-Wisp Weezing was the best set in SS that it should be the best now? There's lots of room for experimentation on many of these types that are considered "unplayable"—I'd urge you all to try out new sets, archetypes, and Pokémon.
That being said, there are certain types (case 2) that truly struggle with Dragon and will almost always fail to win against it, like Grass, Electric, and Water. Of course, this isn't to say that they can't win—a well-played H-Lilligant on Grass, for example, can do the job; likewise, certain Primarina builds on Water can win as well—but rather that they struggle substantially. Historically, these matchups have always existed within our tier. We can look back to Flying's dominance in SM, for example, and see that certain types (Bug, Fighting, Fire, Grass, etc.) will almost always fail to win against it, and I don't see how this is any different. One hypothesis I have is that the usual "good types" in Flying, Water, and Steel are struggling with Dragon (as they are in most generations), but now Dragon has more tools to beat the other types as well, which can seem broken on paper.
We also bring up Dragon's usage in MWP (35.6% usage rate, 57.14% winrate), but fail to see similar trends from previous metagames, such as Flying's usage in MPL IX: 36.1% usage rate, 67.44% winrate. If we weren't calling for nerfs back then to Flying, why are we so obsessed with them now for Dragon?
TLDR: Dragon's prevalence is not unprecedented (i.e., Flying in SM-SVDLC1, Psychic in BW-ORAS) and overly exaggerated (experiment with out-of-the-box solutions)
As an example of case 1, consider the case of types like Poison, which even certain self-proclaimed "Poison mains" and established tour players had given up on due to it struggling to win against Dragon. I took an "outdated" team, changed Will-o-Wisp on Weezing to Toxic, and subsequently won against many high-ladder and tournament opponents (Rinda, Decem, etc.) using Dragon pretty handedly. It's not like this change was specifically meant to target Dragon either, as I found the swap to be better against most types that are prevalent in the metagame as well (like Fire, but except Steel). Furthermore, after giving this team to other users, they also found similar success. The point of this is to say that sets that we may think are suboptimal or niche could actually be optimal in a fresh, new metagame. Why are we to say that because Will-o-Wisp Weezing was the best set in SS that it should be the best now? There's lots of room for experimentation on many of these types that are considered "unplayable"—I'd urge you all to try out new sets, archetypes, and Pokémon.
That being said, there are certain types (case 2) that truly struggle with Dragon and will almost always fail to win against it, like Grass, Electric, and Water. Of course, this isn't to say that they can't win—a well-played H-Lilligant on Grass, for example, can do the job; likewise, certain Primarina builds on Water can win as well—but rather that they struggle substantially. Historically, these matchups have always existed within our tier. We can look back to Flying's dominance in SM, for example, and see that certain types (Bug, Fighting, Fire, Grass, etc.) will almost always fail to win against it, and I don't see how this is any different. One hypothesis I have is that the usual "good types" in Flying, Water, and Steel are struggling with Dragon (as they are in most generations), but now Dragon has more tools to beat the other types as well, which can seem broken on paper.
We also bring up Dragon's usage in MWP (35.6% usage rate, 57.14% winrate), but fail to see similar trends from previous metagames, such as Flying's usage in MPL IX: 36.1% usage rate, 67.44% winrate. If we weren't calling for nerfs back then to Flying, why are we so obsessed with them now for Dragon?
TLDR: Dragon's prevalence is not unprecedented (i.e., Flying in SM-SVDLC1, Psychic in BW-ORAS) and overly exaggerated (experiment with out-of-the-box solutions)
I'll keep this one relatively short as my vote has already been made public. I initially leaned strongly towards the DNB side, as I didn't think Gouging Fire was particularly broken from playing with it and against it on Dragon. It was actually my experience with playing against it on Fire that changed my mind, as I thought it was very reminiscent of the damage output and offensive presence that Dracovish exerted in early SS metagames (think, for example, when we could OHKO Ferrothorn under Rain). These are absurdly strong Pokémon that can brute force their way even through resists, which I thought was super unhealthy for a tier that relies heavily on dual-typing resist building to handle offensive threats.
TLDR: Gouging Fire = Dracovish
TLDR: Gouging Fire = Dracovish
When Bax was suspected in DLC1, I voted DNB, as I thought the suspect was very premature and that little had changed from HOME to DLC1 that warranted a ban (this is when Loaded Dice sets were the rage). After using these sets for a while, I realized that they sucked in Monotype, and that HDB sets were almost always better, as both types that Bax is on struggle heavily with hazards. However, now being in a new metagame, I believe that Bax is too strong of an offensive powerhouse with well-distributed stats and a handy ability to almost completely nullify bulky builds. It's hard to make bulkier builds for any type (except maybe some Dondozo teams) because Bax can't be burned, is often able to soak up so many weak hits on the way to victory, and has great opportunity for bailout with its 30% flinch chance with Icicle Crash.
TLDR: Bax exempts an entire archetype of teambuilding, and needs to go
TLDR: Bax exempts an entire archetype of teambuilding, and needs to go
I flip-flopped between thinking whether or not Arch was really broken, and I've finally decided that I don't believe it is. I think Arch is a great punisher against more offensive teams, since physical attackers are so prevalent right now, and like I mentioned earlier, Bax (and other Dragon breakers like Specs Latios, Raging Bolt, etc.) feasts on slower, bulkier teams. As the glue, it can sometimes feel like it's impossible to get through it, as they cover each other's archetypal weaknesses so well. Again, however, I don't believe Arch itself is broken as much as it is annoying to deal with.
It reminds me a lot of Celesteela in SM and SS, in how they both have excellent typings within their respective types, can hit hard despite being defensively-oriented, and can run niche offensive sets to surprise the opponent. You always need to prep for Celes and Arch or they can run through your team. For example, Ice was making its rise in early SS as a solid, slightly fishy bring that had good matchups against top types like Water and Flying. Even then, you needed to bring unique sets like sub speedy Glastrier (early SS) or sub Arctozolt (later SS) to make sure that you could win against Celes. That's what it needs to take in the current metagame, with Dragon as a top type. I also don't think bringing up cases where Archaludon was able to single-handedly beat teams that it's supposed to be weak to, like Ground teams, have any merit—as a builder, there should always be a special attacker on Ground (Ursa, Lando) and as a player, you should always keep these healthy for Arch. It's just part of the game.
TLDR: Arch is annoying but I don't think it warrants action.
It reminds me a lot of Celesteela in SM and SS, in how they both have excellent typings within their respective types, can hit hard despite being defensively-oriented, and can run niche offensive sets to surprise the opponent. You always need to prep for Celes and Arch or they can run through your team. For example, Ice was making its rise in early SS as a solid, slightly fishy bring that had good matchups against top types like Water and Flying. Even then, you needed to bring unique sets like sub speedy Glastrier (early SS) or sub Arctozolt (later SS) to make sure that you could win against Celes. That's what it needs to take in the current metagame, with Dragon as a top type. I also don't think bringing up cases where Archaludon was able to single-handedly beat teams that it's supposed to be weak to, like Ground teams, have any merit—as a builder, there should always be a special attacker on Ground (Ursa, Lando) and as a player, you should always keep these healthy for Arch. It's just part of the game.
TLDR: Arch is annoying but I don't think it warrants action.
Espathra — I don't think this mon is balanced at all and I think it needs to go. There's pretty much no counterplay aside from running a viable Dark type, which half of the types don't have access to. I know it doesn't generate nearly enough usage, but I still think it's broken. Flutter Mane — With the prevalence of physical attackers, Flutter Mane is pretty much a glass cannon in the metagame right now, and even with perfect coverage I think it's a perfectly reasonable offensive threat. not broken Chien Pao — I think probably the most borderline broken mon we have—it's so so good but sometimes it feels like it's a little underwhelming in the metagame right now. borderline Kingambit — It's glorified Bisharp. On types that struggle with it you should be running some outs, and on types that don't struggle with it, you don't really need to worry. Think about matchups like Flying vs. Steel or Ground vs. Steel or Water vs. Steel in ORAS, where Flying and Ground and Water had advantages except for Bisharp being able to sweep out of nowhere. You needed to run certain sets to alleviate the matchup (like sub Lando) or keep checks healthy (like Keldeo before it was banned) or risk losing a matchup you should have won. Yes, Kingambit is bulkier, but it's also slower, susceptible to Intimidate, has a weaker Sucker Punch (70 vs 80 bp), and a weaker Dark move (85 vs 97.5 bp). It's a great mon but not broken. Ursaluna-B — a very very good mon, but it has exploitable weaknesses (mediocre typing, slow, can't hit Flying types twice in a row) that most types can take advantage of. not broken Zamazenta — I honestly can't speak too much on this mon as I have neither used it nor played against it more than five times following DLC2. I think it's kind of in the same boat as Espathra as in I think it's broken but it doesn't have the usage to back it up. Heat Rock — I don't think any of the rocks are balanced in Monotype and I think they all need to go. broken Ogerpon forms — I think Wellspring is clearly not broken and I'm slightly on the fence about Hearthflame as it's very strong right now. However, I think enough of its success can be attributed to Heat Rock that, if Heat Rock is banned, it would be not broken.First, I haven't been on council for long, but I also feel pretty negatively about nearly half of council not obtaining reqs for a pretty meaningful suspect test. It doesn't speak well on council's ability or enthusiasm for the game, both of which I thought were necessary to be in this position. That being said, there's no need to attack council members personally for this fact, as it's ultimately just a game.
Second, there's a lot of them vs. us sentiment within the community. I can't speak on behalf of the other members, but I feel just as much a part of the community as I feel a part of council. I enjoy playing this game and now that I actually have the opportunity to make changes, I am more a part of the community than ever. If there's any issues with tiering, questions about building/playing, or anything else, my DMs are always open and you can always just ask.
Finally, I've never been a part of a community this negative from when I first started playing PS. I don't think this tier is perfect and I think there are changes that can be made to better everyone's experience, but it's pretty disappointing to see all the negativity being spread. Experiment some more with building, try out new things, and remember that at the end of the day, it's just a game.
Second, there's a lot of them vs. us sentiment within the community. I can't speak on behalf of the other members, but I feel just as much a part of the community as I feel a part of council. I enjoy playing this game and now that I actually have the opportunity to make changes, I am more a part of the community than ever. If there's any issues with tiering, questions about building/playing, or anything else, my DMs are always open and you can always just ask.
Finally, I've never been a part of a community this negative from when I first started playing PS. I don't think this tier is perfect and I think there are changes that can be made to better everyone's experience, but it's pretty disappointing to see all the negativity being spread. Experiment some more with building, try out new things, and remember that at the end of the day, it's just a game.
It's great to see how active this thread is and I like reading everyone's thoughts on the metagame. Hopefully we can work together as one community to make this tier better!
I ran Toxic Geezing in the SV DLC2 No Johns tour, winning Poison vs. Dragon with that team in like semis or qf. The team kinda works, but I still see Toxic being used as the result of overcentralization. Will o is very much needed in many cases, and I ended up running no fairy stab Geezing for dual status + Fezandipiti at some point when testing. There've always been niche's on Weezing and Geezing to opt for toxic, but Will o being a stable wan't just some tradition that got passed down, it's without a doubt the best option for Geezing in 90% of scenarios.
What's the winpath for Bug to win vs. a semi competent Dragon user. This is largely the result of GF existing, when running bug I was able to do fine on the odd drag that didn't have it, but GF Drag is pretty autoloss. Gen 8 Bug vs. Flying was a better matchup.
I'd never been a fan of the idea that mons need to be banned because a type is top tier, they get banned because they themselves are a broken or unhealthy presence. That being said, there's a bit of a difference here I'll point out with SV to prior gens as far as "experiment with out-of-the-box-solutions" goes. For 1 we've been severely limited in movepools and options this gen with the amount of moves that got dexited and erased from movepools. In addition, everyone and their mother describes this meta as autowin on preview. When "The People's Mono" tours were hosted yesterday, the #1 thing I saw was that the fact people felt this was no longer the case. I think the problem is less so a lack of experimentation and tech hunting as you suggest, and moreo the fact that there are a number of mons which when played correctly practically guarantee the result of the match. Baxcalibur which many people want suspected is the main perpetrator of this, but Dragon also has an insane backbone right now, with Gouging Fire and Archaludon standing out there.
Wasn't like every single Fire or Water vs. Ground/Water in MWP just an Ogerpon sweep, with like 2 of the exceptions being a player just sacking their pon. I personally just run Trailblaze + Grass stab Ogerpon. At times I'm tempted to just do triple Grass coverage or sd double grass + sub for the sole purpose of making Ground/Water users cry. I'm not built like others, I see these mons for the purpose of absolute cheese in the Water and Ground mus, and find joy in making their lives as horrid as possible whenever I decide to use an Ogerpon.
Also just gonna say, even mons like Flutter which I'd been pretty deadset on a DNB vote all gen I think has validity for a suspect down the line, I'm not sold on Archa but when I look at the rest of the list they all seem like mons which are unhealthy presences in the metagame.
Given Dragon's heavy usage (around 33%), that already accounts for around 33% of matchup-based scenarios. Then when you consider that it's also better against Fire (another top type), most special attackers, and some other types (which I'll consider negligible since I'm lazy), I'm not sure where you got that statistic aside from your one SV No Johns tournament game. There's also room to consider cases in past generations in which non-S tier types needed to resort to historically suboptimal movesets to tackle S tier matchups, such as Thundurus sometimes choosing to run banded sets to better tackle the Psychic matchup in ORAS. As it turns out, these sets aren't necessarily bad sets, as Weezing (in this case) and Thundurus (in ORAS' case) both have merits outside of their specific matchups that they were originally designed to alleviate. Will-o-Wisp Weezing is certainly still viable and better in some scenarios but we can't blindly say that it's the better option in 90% of scenarios when there's no evidence.
I'm not sure where you dragged Bug out of since it's completely unrelated to what you quoted (although I do remember you being a Bug main), but I'll still help answer your question. As I say, there are certain types that will struggle substantially against Dragon—it's a top 1 type for a reason—and Bug is one of them. That being said, if a Dragon build lacked Gouging Fire, you would struggle much less, and there is still opportunity to win even if there is Gouging Fire (i.e., a well-played Heracross + Frosmoth duo can exert a lot of pressure if you make the correct switches). It's difficult, yes, but you need to ask yourself how much of that is attributed to a single Pokémon (Gouging Fire), and also whether we've seen this in past tiering. In the excerpt you quoted, I mentioned Flying in SM and how it had very strong matchups against many types. This is no different, it's just a top type with its good matchups.
Whether or not mons need to be banned because a type is top tier is a matter of policy and not one that I'm particularly interested in, but I do feel as if it's important that people feel like there's flexibility in building. In my personal experience, I found SV to actually have more options and flexibility while building, both throughout types, within types, and in movesets. This is because, despite the dexit, I felt like (specifically within Monotype) there were more types that were usable and there were emerging strategies that became viable, like Normal, which I believe is a top 5 type right now. Besides some moves being taken away from Pokémon, why do you think that there is no flexibility in building? Also, do you think all of those "threats" from those tours need to be removed for the metagame to be healthy? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response. As for matchups being autowin on preview, I also haven't felt like this was the case. I've loaded into many games I thought I'd lose but outplayed, and some I thought I'd win but got outplayed myself. It's always going to be the case that certain matchups appear decided at preview, but it's never really the case in my experience. I'm also interested to see some examples and why you think that's moreso the case now than it has been before.
As for the Ogerpons, we can probably agree to disagree. If you want to cheese against two types that are fairly mediocre then that's on you. For the other mons, would you be able to explain why you think they're all unhealthy?
Disclaimer: The contents of this post are soley for the purpose of absurdity and comedy.
Hello mono community, it's your resident memer back again with the hottest of takes.
"Assault Vest Archaludon: The Movie"
Rationale:
Replays
AV Archaludon with Mirror Coat says no big deal
Special s/o to iBones who helped in brainstorming
Thanks for reading!
Hello mono community, it's your resident memer back again with the hottest of takes.
"Assault Vest Archaludon: The Movie"
Rationale:
- Archaludon is a magnet for special moves due to having only 65 SPDEF
- Archaludon is also a magnet for special moves because it's the easiest way to get around the DEF boosts from Stamina
- So by using Mirror Coat, this set aims to turn Archaludon's weakness into a strength
- Is this set a meme and suboptimal? - absolutely... but the fact that this is even possible says a lot about this mon
- Archaludon might not be anywhere as broken on the level of Urshifu-S but it's versatility and team support/synergy is unmatched
Replays
Remember how Flutter Mane was the first mon to be suspected in SV?
AV Archaludon with Mirror Coat says no big deal
Special s/o to iBones who helped in brainstorming
Thanks for reading!
Last edited:
Just to lend a bit of support to Trichotomy's point and perhaps shed a bit of additional color on why people are this baffled, I made this exact comparison back in this thread in December.
Similarly apt is Trich's Archaludon-Celesteela comparison. It's an frustrating glue mon that works as a major speed bump against a certain kind of offensive build that has always been popular in this tier. Same as Celesteela it's just going to be downright unfun for worse types to play against, but that's the tier. I do think Arch is currently even more overcentralizing than Celesteela was though.
A lot of this is (at least perceived) top-down as it is people throwing tomatoes at council. As much of a focus is [rightfully] put on circuit tour play as the competitive standard for the tier it really can't be stressed enough that tours just aren't relevant to the experience of the vast majority of players in this tier, even among longtime players. If experiences of the tier weren't so disparate and people actually engaged more with each other in the room and this thread there wouldn't be such a discordance. Engagement matters and it (to be frank) starts the top. That's why I said it feels like two different tiers are being played.First, I haven't been on council for long, but I also feel pretty negatively about nearly half of council not obtaining reqs for a pretty meaningful suspect test. It doesn't speak well on council's ability or enthusiasm for the game, both of which I thought were necessary to be in this position. That being said, there's no need to attack council members personally for this fact, as it's ultimately just a game.
Second, there's a lot of them vs. us sentiment within the community. I can't speak on behalf of the other members, but I feel just as much a part of the community as I feel a part of council. I enjoy playing this game and now that I actually have the opportunity to make changes, I am more a part of the community than ever. If there's any issues with tiering, questions about building/playing, or anything else, my DMs are always open and you can always just ask.
Finally, I've never been a part of a community this negative from when I first started playing PS. I don't think this tier is perfect and I think there are changes that can be made to better everyone's experience, but it's pretty disappointing to see all the negativity being spread. Experiment some more with building, try out new things, and remember that at the end of the day, it's just a game.
It's unsustainable to have a community where a plurality of people are made to feel their opinions don't matter when there are a bunch of perceived "you lose" buttons running around the tier that people have been pretty consistent in saying kill the vitality of the tier. You don't need to be MPL champion to know that normalizing powerhouses with unreasonable speed tiers and mons whose STAB moves hit fat resists for 60% is going to spark a bit of controversy. People aren't suddenly becoming toxic because a suspect or two didn't go their way. What we're seeing is a groundswell of frustration that has been pretty obvious to anyone paying attention going back to SS. This many people aren't just imagining it.
Last edited:
Could you expand on the "plurality of people made to feel their opinions don't matter"? I think it's important to consider what people think, but usually it's unhelpful if they just say they don't like something without providing at least a bit of reasoning to back it up. And also which powerhouses are you talking about? Flutter, Chien, Ogerpon, etc. don't hit fat resists for 60%, they're good because of their coverage and that they're able to account for bulkier builds with a good selection of moves. Gambit and Ursa can, but they're slow and have exploitable weaknesses. Could you also provide some evidence for frustration since SS? From my experience (and I've been very active in the community + playing tours) people thought SS was tiered pretty well. The most negativity I saw for tiering was in regards to Moltres-G, which fell off heavily once people found better options + ways to counter it, and Kyurem, who ended up just being a very strong and versatile offensive threat. I've had frustrations with the tier in previous generations and have experienced community frustration, but never to this extent. You've provided a lot of opinions in your post, which obviously matter to tiering in terms of overall enjoyment, but it's hard to change anything specific without some more detailed explanations, rather than just "I don't like this tier". Looking forward to your response!
This thread will be closed for the duration of the fifth suspect test, this time for Baxcalibur.
The deadline to get suspect test reqs is Friday, March 15th @ 11:59 PM EST (GMT-4) so don't miss out!
The deadline to get suspect test reqs is Friday, March 15th @ 11:59 PM EST (GMT-4) so don't miss out!
Greetings, the Monotype B101 Subforum needs new Monotype Raters and I am forming a new and updated list for active Monotype Tutors. If are interested in tutoring let me know. You need at least 2 vouchers. https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/apprentice-program-signups-sv-monotype.3715596/ B101 is a forum where you do personalized tutoring 1 on 1 with players interested in learning the tier. This subforum has its respective incentives for badges. Also, go get your reqs...
Baxcalibur is banned!
The thread is again open, and we look forward to seeing what developments happen in a post-Baxcalibur metagame!
The thread is again open, and we look forward to seeing what developments happen in a post-Baxcalibur metagame!
DaRotomMachine
I COULD BE BANNED!
If Chien Pao ever gets suspected Ice is not the best type :(
thank you everyone for getting together to get this done. also thank you to the council for posting their thoughts and much higher number of them getting reqs! we are in a new age of monotype, but dragon still finds itself at pretty much S tier or high A tier on my type tier list. expect to see a hell of a lot more of 
and 
on dragon now... as for what's next on the chopping block i do believe we need to wait a little bit before we can jump to anything, but for things that MIGHT stand out just on paper, i think and are going to bat the most eyes, but the bax ban opens up a lot more experimentation in the builder, so we will just have to wait and see. very excited to hear what everyone else has to say!
and on dragon now... as for what's next on the chopping block i do believe we need to wait a little bit before we can jump to anything, but for things that MIGHT stand out just on paper, i think and are going to bat the most eyes, but the bax ban opens up a lot more experimentation in the builder, so we will just have to wait and see. very excited to hear what everyone else has to say!
Holy shit, that was quick
Very glad to see this mon banned, the 4 Ice players are now scrambling to replace Bax with Kyurem, not sure what will happen to Dragon though. Either way I'm happy and glad Team Ban dominated because that mon was stupid.
Very glad to see this mon banned, the 4 Ice players are now scrambling to replace Bax with Kyurem, not sure what will happen to Dragon though. Either way I'm happy and glad Team Ban dominated because that mon was stupid.
I know I’m a bit late here, but the DNB for Gouging Fire was a mistake. This is very clearly seen against Bug. Now I know Bug is of course not going to be a very good Monotype and going up against Dragon and especially Fire will be hard to deal with. Monotype can be matchup-fishy like that. But you should not be guaranteed to lose just by team preview. I don’t have many replays since I don’t take them a lot, but I saved this one to show how ridiculous GF is into Bug. See here:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9monotype-2083295371
In this replay the opponent had Araquanid, Kleavor, Bullet Punch Scizor, and First Impression Lokix. My opponent had plenty of potential counterplay here, even hitting Gouging on the swap. My opponent played as well as they could have, except maybe using Sticky Web over Liquidation. But did any of that matter? Nooo! Because Gouging Fire is broken into Bug. And even if they Liquidation turn 2, and Lokix gets the revenge-kill thanks to the addition damage, I’ve still taken out half the team off a brainless swap. Only Kleavor (has to be Scarf for Proto-Speed) and Sash Sleep Powder users are reasonable counterplay to GF, but Kleavor can be beaten with Burning Bulwark( yes I use Burning Bulwark on my Band set. Barra Rain is annoying) and is iffy at best(can’t even OHKO), while hazards ruin Sash strats. I want to run all the different kinds of Monotype and I know some will be harder than others to use, but it should not be this much of an auto-lose.
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9monotype-2083295371
In this replay the opponent had Araquanid, Kleavor, Bullet Punch Scizor, and First Impression Lokix. My opponent had plenty of potential counterplay here, even hitting Gouging on the swap. My opponent played as well as they could have, except maybe using Sticky Web over Liquidation. But did any of that matter? Nooo! Because Gouging Fire is broken into Bug. And even if they Liquidation turn 2, and Lokix gets the revenge-kill thanks to the addition damage, I’ve still taken out half the team off a brainless swap. Only Kleavor (has to be Scarf for Proto-Speed) and Sash Sleep Powder users are reasonable counterplay to GF, but Kleavor can be beaten with Burning Bulwark( yes I use Burning Bulwark on my Band set. Barra Rain is annoying) and is iffy at best(can’t even OHKO), while hazards ruin Sash strats. I want to run all the different kinds of Monotype and I know some will be harder than others to use, but it should not be this much of an auto-lose.
who would've knew that the Fire/Dragon-type does well into Bug???
something doing well into two or more types should not equal a major reason for a ban, otherwise quite a few mons could be considered for a ban honestly. oh look, there's an Iron Valiant beating the Fighting- and Dragon-types? is that bannable? I'd think not, but you're welcome to disagree.
additionally, the type matchup just kinda sucks here. If it was on Dragon, you wouldn't have had Sun and Scarf Kleav revenges it (and Volc can take advantage of a telegraphed Archaludon switch). Bug v. Dragon is always an uphill battle, but it's winnable. Gouging doesn't invalidate the use of the Bug-type. That set, however; sure. The issue is that it's only accessible on Fire, and Fire will always do very well vs. Bug to the point of being near-unwinnable unless you are a god and predict most moves to bring in Kleavor as much as possible.
The point I’m trying to make is that even though my opponent has one of the better Bug teams to deal with GF, they still can’t. Sure, a Pokémon can make a matchup harder, but it shouldn’t invalidate an entire Monotype.
Iron valiant is a hard matchup for both those Monotypes, but it can be defeated pretty easily without too much damage. For Dragon, there’s Dragapult for any set except Scarf. Dragonite and Raging Bolt who can pretty easily revenge kill, although Bolt is a bit harder to do it with, Scarf Latios or Latias, and Goodra-H for Special sets. For Fighting there’s Scarf Sneasler which beats every set, Heavy Slam Zamazenta which beats all but Scarf, and Iron Hands which can tank anything except Spec Moonblast from full and OHKO back with Heavy Slam.
Now you’re right about Bug vs. Dragon, although Burning Bulwark makes it practically unwinnable and takes away Kleavor counterplay. Yes, I know Burning Bulwark is niche. I’m just giving some thoughts. Mono-Fire GF’s matchup to Bug alone should raise some eyebrows, with the only thing close to that may have been Bax to Ground, and even that’s not that bad.
I'd made this point before. I believe Gouging Fire is worse than any other precedent really for completely skewering a mu entirely by itself. Bug v. Dragon would otherwise be a more than playable neutral, and Fire wouldn't be unwinnable either though unfavored. I don't believe this is a situation of a type being bad either, though Bug is seen as an entry level type by some, I'd always found it to have a higher than expected skill ceiling and more than solid options to take part in the meta. It's solid mus into top types such as Flying, Dark, and Fairy should make it a viable type to consider as far as an anti meta.
I'll also point out that while you pointed out how Burning Bulwark means it answers Kleav, even outside of it's ability to tank a hit, with HDB it's not like Kleavor is answering GF's offensive spread either considering +1 GF OHKOs Kleavor anyway. All the while both Fire and Dragon have fairly common Healing Wish options, and team support to give GF plenty of room to play around.
Prior to GF every time there was a mon that was recognized for soloing a type, the complaint was always in how a type needed to resort to unnecessary, unfortunate, or lacking options just to have a chance. In the past this was a fairy player relying on Foul Play Klefki and a scizor user to misplay to win there, when you see Grass (what I consider the current worst type) discussing it's options, there's still the ability to have options though unreliable for Gouging Fire like Sturdy Ogerpon-C, Sash Breloom, or Sap Sipper Sinistcha to work as a stopgate. Though Grass cannot cover every threat at once, with a lacking structure and numerous top tier threats that do well into Grass such as Pao, Flutter, Gouging, etc, there's at least an argument for counterplay alongside a recognition of how lacking Grass is.
Now instead everyone's just shut up and decided to ignore the bug type in it's entirety when considering Gouging Fire's impact on the meta. When I complained about Dondozo making a cuck of bug users in Pre-Home when I was running Metronome Trailblaze Scizor, not to mention the *awful* but existing options in mons like Rabsca, I at least got answers to try and address the subject. Not to mention but it wasn't an incredibly overcentralizing mon, and ultimately it amounted to being a damn annoying pokemon that I didn't want to play against. The answers I was told were basically cope, run unviable stuff that can handle it, figure it out whatever, but end of the day it wasn't an impossible mu unlike GF and even still there was at least actual discourse about it unlike Gouging Fire where everyone just looks the other way.
There were numerous other reasons for GF to go in my opinion, but yeah, since this was brought up again, I'm just going to restate that how Gouging Fire vs. Bug is treated has changed where the bar is as far as how one sided a mon can be in a matchup. And yeah I will be super annoying in the future about this. If a water user ever decides that Raging Bolt is too one sided, or Zam being too one sided vs. a type that can't handle it's ID Bpress set, the new precedent for what's alright to allow would be presented with Gouging Fire vs. Bug. Cope harder.
Anywho, it's been like a day since bax ban so I'll probs want to wait like 2 weeks or so before even looking at what to suspect next tbh. The problems we had will still exist, and I'd want another suspect before MPL, but we need the meta to chill for a bit. Right now I'd lean Pao as a next suspect if it was up to me.
Last edited:
- Status