Jump to content

[OU Suspect Test] Draco Meteor Hydreigon


Recommended Posts

Due to the newly implemented movepool changes the Tier Council has decided to test Hydreigon with Draco Meteor in the OU Tier for the next month. This thread was made so people can voice their opinions on whether this combination should be allowed in the tier once the test period is finished. Should this combination be considered too overwhelming, the move may be removed from said Pokemon’s move pool in the future, so invest in said Pokemon with caution.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Okay I'm gonna make a serious post now. I feel like the OU metagame is in serious trouble right now. The metagame is overloaded with offensive threats and the last update tipped it past its breaking point. I think this is because most of the major OU threats were physical based. So the meta leaned heavily in favor of physically bulky Pokes. But now with HyDracon, the metagame is full with special and physical pressure and teams aren't able to handle it. So what this essentially means is that the meta became more match up dependent and there is no way to teambuild a team that is 'okay' against anything.

 

So I have to ask myself; 'Is this a Draco Meteor problem, or is this a combination of problems?'. And sadly I think it's the latter. It's easy to point to Draco and say, yeah ever since that move became available it's been going downhill. But the meta has been heavily centralized before that as well. And there is another problem, what characteristic do you really want to ban Draco on Hydreigon on? It can't be an offensive Uber because it relies on Draco, which makes it unable to stay in and sweep teams by definition. You could argue for a Support characteristic ban. Certainly Hydra's role is more of a hole-puncher than a sweeper. But there are Pokemon that do the same hole-punching that have been allowed in the meta for a long time (SD Garchomp).

 

So we can look at the other classifications of Uber material. Is it noncompetitive? No. Is it centralizing and unhealthy? Mmm, possibly and I think this is the strongest point you can make against Hydra. The problem is that Hydra has a few common sets. Scarf, Specs and stallbreaker. Stallbreaker is something like Taunt, Flamethrower, Dragon Pulse, filler. Almost no single Pokémon is an answer to even two of these sets. For example Ferrothorn can maybe check Scarf Hydras, but does not take Specs Draco remotely well and just dies to the stallbreaker set. Chansey is maybe the most reliable answer to all of the common sets, but even Chansey does not like taking Specs Draco or Focus Blast.

 

252+ SpA Choice Specs Hydreigon Draco Meteor vs. 252 HP / 4 SpD Eviolite Chansey: 234-276 (33.2 - 39.2%) -- 100% chance to 3HKO
 
Basically forcing it to Softboiled. Balance teams and offensive teams are hit the hardest with Draco, because there are so little answers to it that fit on these kind of teams. So that means you have to ask yourself, how do I deal with Hydreigon, how do I deal with Garchomp and how do I deal with Conkeldurr? And the answers are: using them yourself. So yes I do think Hydreigon is heavily centralizing and almost invalidates playstyles like balance. And the thing that allows it to do that is Draco Meteor.
 
BUT I think there are other Pokemon that are guilty of this too, but they have been allowed to stay in the meta. I'm talking about Garchomp and Conkeldurr. Two of the most oppressive Pokemon in the metagame next to Hydreigon, in my opinion. Garchomp and Conk are so centralizing that they have made Pokémon like Mandibuzz, Cofagrigus and Umbreon extremely viable in OU. Of course the problem is that these Pokémon can't do anything to Hydreigon.
 
My question is, how can we justify banning Draco Meteor on Hydreigon, while we say 'well Flame Orb on Conkeldurr and Swords Dance on Garchomp are fine'. Let me put it this way, if this metagame did not have Conkeldurr and Garchomp, but did have Hydreigon in its current form. I think the meta would be able to handle it. But the second you add one of them to the mix, they would become banworthy. But nobody would look at Hydreigon and say 'we have to ban that too', because everybody remembers the meta being playable with Hydreigon in it. But in truth, all three of them are heavily centralizing and are worthy of complex bans under the same criteria.
 
So, because we know the PokeMMO Staff has decided to not allow complete bans in OU. I propose the following complex bans:
Ban Draco Meteor on Hydreigon: a tool that makes Specs Hydreigon a nigh unwallable force, especially for balance teams. Because of the variety of its sets, it has also become more of a guessing game which set a player is running as well. Guess wrong and you possibly lose the game.
Ban Flame Orb on Conkeldurr: Guts is a powerful ability and the fact that burn only does 6% damage compared to the original 12,5% in Gen 5 is a BIG deal. It takes half the damage it is supposed to, and it was already an incredible force with 12% burn damage. Conk is extremely centralizing and I'm baffled that people aren't talking more about it. Almost no Ghost type can beat it and it will almost always trade up in a match. Not having flame orb restrict the user to toxic orb, which can cripple Conk way more. Sheer Force is still a very viable set.
Ban Swords Dance on Garchomp: Garchomp is still extremely viable without Swords Dance, as a rocker, mixed attacker, scarfer or band user. But the existence of Swords Dance means that Pokémon like Mandibuzz, Cofagrigus and Umbreon have moved up to OU to deal with the threat. Now as we have discussed above, if you can ban Draco Meteor on Hydra for being oppressive and centralizing then Garchomp absolutely fits that bill as well.
Link to comment
10 hours ago, ThinkNicer said:

So, because we know the PokeMMO Staff has decided to not allow complete bans in OU. I propose the following complex bans:

Ban Draco Meteor on Hydreigon: a tool that makes Specs Hydreigon a nigh unwallable force, especially for balance teams. Because of the variety of its sets, it has also become more of a guessing game which set a player is running as well. Guess wrong and you possibly lose the game.
Ban Flame Orb on Conkeldurr: Guts is a powerful ability and the fact that burn only does 6% damage compared to the original 12,5% in Gen 5 is a BIG deal. It takes half the damage it is supposed to, and it was already an incredible force with 12% burn damage. Conk is extremely centralizing and I'm baffled that people aren't talking more about it. Almost no Ghost type can beat it and it will almost always trade up in a match. Not having flame orb restrict the user to toxic orb, which can cripple Conk way more. Sheer Force is still a very viable set.
Ban Swords Dance on Garchomp: Garchomp is still extremely viable without Swords Dance, as a rocker, mixed attacker, scarfer or band user. But the existence of Swords Dance means that Pokémon like Mandibuzz, Cofagrigus and Umbreon have moved up to OU to deal with the threat. Now as we have discussed above, if you can ban Draco Meteor on Hydra for being oppressive and centralizing then Garchomp absolutely fits that bill as well.

I agree that there is currently a problem with those mons you mentioned but I am unsure if complex banning everything is the right solution. In an ideal world we would have the fairy typing and the problem is pretty much solved but we realistically have no knowledge when or even if we get them. Even some legendary mons could fix the situation e.g. mew for conk, but that has the same problem mentioned earlier.

 

Now I’m not claiming that I know what the ideal solution would be currently, just I’m not sure complex banning everything is right. It could lead to more complex bans and when it comes to the point where we have so many complex bans it may be difficult to understand the competitive scene. If we do go down that path I would think Volcarona fills similar characteristics, would we complex ban quiver dance on it? Well that would mostly kill the mon but we know that quiver dance is the core issue on it. Similarly what if we ban the wrong aspect of the mon? Say with your Conkeldurr example that people start running toxic orb instead, sure it’s worse but effectively it still performs its job.

 

Overall I really like that you brought up this topic but complex bans appear to be a short term fix, if the main issue here is Hydreigon then maybe Draco should be banned again. Again, no clue what the right solution would be currently, I just hope we get more tools to deal with them.

Edited by xXBlu3BreathXx
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

I agree that there is currently a problem with those mons you mentioned but I am unsure if complex banning everything is the right solution. In an ideal world we would have the fairy typing and the problem is pretty much solved but we realistically have no knowledge when or even if we get them. Even some legendary mons could fix the situation e.g. mew for conk, but that has the same problem mentioned earlier.

 

Now I’m not claiming that I know what the ideal solution would be currently, just I’m not sure complex banning everything is right. It could lead to more complex bans and when it comes to the point where we have so many complex bans it may be difficult to understand the competitive scene. If we do go down that path I would think Volcarona fills similar characteristics, would we complex ban quiver dance on it? Well that would mostly kill the mon but we know that quiver dance is the core issue on it. Similarly what if we ban the wrong aspect of the mon? Say with your Conkeldurr example that people start running toxic orb instead, sure it’s worse but effectively it still performs its job.

 

Overall I really like that you brought up this topic but complex bans appear to be a short term fix, if the main issue here is Hydreigon then maybe Draco should be banned again. Again, no clue what the right solution would be currently, I just hope we get more tools to deal with them.

It's frustrating to me that you would take this stance Blue. You agree that these mons are a problem, but in stead of wanting to take action you would rather do the absolute minimum while waiting for features that won't come in years. You are part of the TC and it's your job to promote a healthy and vibrant metagame in the moment. Not the metagame of tomorrow, not the metagame of 2 years from now. No, the metagame needs help right now.

 

We can complain about the fact that we're forced into position that we have to propose complex bans. We all know the disadvantages that come with that. But it is time to be realistic, this is the way it's going to be for a long time. So we have to roll with the tools we have right now, that is your job as a tier council. The worst thing you can do now is making decisions that are inconsistent.

 

For example you propose just banning Draco on Hydra. But I've already illustrated why banning only Draco on Hydra is troublesome. Because you'll have to ban it under the characteristics of centralizing and unhealthy. These things apply to Conkeldurr and Garchomp as well, so you can't ignore these mons while you cherry pick which Pokémon you are going to ban. I'm sorry but if you would make that decision then that reeks of incompetence, laziness and ignorance to me. And I know you aren't any of those three things.

 

Yes, in our eyes complex bans are a short-term fix, I already went over that in a different thread. I share you opinion. But this is not reality, reality is that we have to use complex bans to promote a healthier OU scene. You can't just sit back and say 'well we'll get Legendaries and Fairy-type eventually'. That's a big maybe, unless you have inside information that I don't. Last I spoke with a SGM about this, they said that Fairy type is not even being considered right now, and it might never be considered. Meanwhile Kyu just said that they haven't even started on dungeons yet. So what do you want do to, sit on your ass for three years while we play in this garbage? Or take action. Sure new threats may arise, but so be it. We'll have to deal with that as it happens, that's your whole job as a tier council.

 

So please don't be dismissive of the proposed bans. You agree these mons are problems, so DO something.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, ThinkNicer said:

 

Woah I was just weighing in some input there, I ultimately agree with your stance. I was more coming from the angle of a Draco reversal since that is what appeared to inspire your post and it was newly introduced (most players are aware it could be removed/banned). And by no means did what I say was the “right” solution, sorry if my post came out the wrong way. I’m open to suggestions on how to tackle the issue but would prefer complex bans to be avoided if need be but understand that may not be a reality. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

Woah I was just weighing in some input there, I ultimately agree with your stance. I was more coming from the angle of a Draco reversal since that is what appeared to inspire your post and it was newly introduced (most players are aware it could be removed/banned). And by no means did what I say was the “right” solution, sorry if my post came out the wrong way. I’m open to suggestions on how to tackle the issue but would prefer complex bans to be avoided if need be but understand that may not be a reality. 

I didn't mean to be hostile. From what I've seen from the council so far is that they are very passive, so I'm a little desperate here. I'm afraid that if you ban Draco now, then people are just going to make the same arguments about why Chomp and Conk are fine, when they are not. Unless we can get a suspect test started on these mons I think we're just going to stagnate in the ways it has been so far. I'd at least like to see two of these complex bans going through, but I do think that all three are necessary.

 

So yeah, I think you can safely ban Draco on Hydreigon. But then I'd like to see suspect threads coming up for both Garchomp and Conkeldurr where we can cite the same reasons why Hydreigon got nerfed.

 

Again, and im going to sound repetitive here, I think in a universe where we had a meta with Hydreigon and no Conk or Chomp. We would be alright. A lot of Pokémon can resort to specially defensive builds, like Mandibuzz or Hippo. It would be centralizing like Garchomp but manageable. But if Garchomp would be introduced after Hydreigon, we would be looking at banning Garchomp because the meta can just not handle the pressure from these mons from both sides of the spectrum. That is the main reason they both should receive nerfs. Conk also fits into the same narrative. What I don't want to see is the council banning Draco and then sitting back like they've been doing and seeing the meta as 'fine'. That's just what I'm afraid of will happen after Draco gets inevitably banned.

Link to comment

I just want to make something a little bit more clear. If a pokemon is a problem and fits some ban criteria, the Tier Council can ban this pokemon to Ubers. Once this pokemon is banned, staff/devs will most likely look at complex bans, disables or addition/removal of features in order to nerf the banned pokemon in order to get it unbanned. During that nerf process,  the Tier Council might get asked to give their input on the different nerfs options, but ultimately we will not decide which nerf we will get. For instance, Wobbuffet was first banned and then Shadow Tag was nerfed.

 

With that being said, I understand the need to propose complex ban ideas, but it's kind of premature because the pokemons mentioned are not banned yet. 

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I just want to make something a little bit more clear. If a pokemon is a problem and fits some ban criteria, the Tier Council can ban this pokemon to Ubers. Once this pokemon is banned, staff/devs will most likely look at complex bans, disables or addition/removal of features in order to nerf the banned pokemon in order to get it unbanned. During that nerf process,  the Tier Council might get asked to give their input on the different nerfs options, but ultimately we will not decide which nerf we will get. For instance, Wobbuffet was first banned and then Shadow Tag was nerfed.

 

With that being said, I understand the need to propose complex ban ideas, but it's kind of premature because the pokemons mentioned are not banned yet. 

Given this information, I absolutely do not understand the need to propose complex ban ideas. If the TC can flat ban, who cares what mental gymnastics the devs do afterwards to try to cram the pokemon back into the tier? Maybe they'll realize, while actually performing the dirty deed, that it's not a smart idea and just let the mon sit in Ubers like some mons are destined to do. We shouldn't be encouraging atrocious policy (though I get that it's easy for me to say this, since I have no actual stake in the metagame and am not forced to wallow in it)

Link to comment

Right now I think the priority should be removing draco meteor on Hydreigon, TC trialed it to see how it would be and it is clearly way too oppressive. It is fine without draco meteor however, so this seems to be an easy fix.

 

After this I think we should immediately shift our focus to Garchomp I feel like I don't need to say why as gb and many others have done extensive posts on why it is broken. I propose a test ban on it while monitoring the tier very closely. In particularly stall, as this change will benefit stall a lot. (As well as every style but stall in particular frees a slot as it no longer has to have 1 dedicated garchomp answer).

 

I also am concerned about Gengar, but I don't think we should touch it until the first 2 are looked at as it could change the view on the Pokemon with less answers needed for the first 2.

 

The proposed change on conk is very interesting, and I would not be against it.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, jfk said:

everyone complains about stall for years and how the playstyle sucks and when everything gets shifted a bit towards offense your not happy either

An ideal meta is one where both playstyles are viable, that is one that lies between the spectrum, not at the end.  If people complained about stall, it's because it was at the one end of the spectrum.  Now the meta is at the opposite end where offense is the better option.  We're just trying to get to the middle, and I'm okay with complaining if it gets us there.

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
1 hour ago, jfk said:

everyone complains about stall for years and how the playstyle sucks and when everything gets shifted a bit towards offense your not happy either

The problem is that Hydreigon can run scarf and extinguish all those offensive teams as well in the same way dinosaurs did.

Now, in general:

Garchomp and Hydreigon have no drawbacks while using them. Both hit hard af, while getting key immunities and insane bulk altogether. Both are able to successfully grant, to the user, immediate count advantage  like no other pokemon does. MMO meta is different from what any smogon meta has to offer, and the changes here only grant them buffs, with a few exceptions (Meaning that they are effectively much better here than in any smogon format, in where they were already powerhouses). Simply put, MMO meta has not enough tools to effectively deal with any of the two dragons while not being completely worthless against everything else. It's too opressive and metacentric in an unhealthy way. If TC can flat ban those, please do.

Conkeldurr, on the other hand, falls in the categori of: "extremely good pokemon, but not a broken one". It has way less speed than the 2 dragons, heavily restricting the amount of viable styles it can perform. It doesn't have any immunity, and its resistances aren't that amazing either. Furthermore, it is heavily punishable with items like rocky helmet, and has a exploitable spdef stat that none of the dragons possess. Don't get me wrong, it's a great pokemon, but nowhere as close as where the 2 dragons currently sit, and that states a lot about those.

TLDR; Ban the dragons. If devs decide to remove dmeteor or whatever of them AFTER being banned, so be it. But doing nothing is punishing all OU players that like to rely a bit more on anything not named matchup.

Edited by pachima
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Gunthug said:

Given this information, I absolutely do not understand the need to propose complex ban ideas. If the TC can flat ban, who cares what mental gymnastics the devs do afterwards to try to cram the pokemon back into the tier? Maybe they'll realize, while actually performing the dirty deed, that it's not a smart idea and just let the mon sit in Ubers like some mons are destined to do. We shouldn't be encouraging atrocious policy (though I get that it's easy for me to say this, since I have no actual stake in the metagame and am not forced to wallow in it)

The conclusion I came to with gbwead's post in mind was rather that there is all the more reason to propose complex bans from within the community. I think it makes more sense to get a head start if we think it's at all possible to avoid a flat ban.

 

If you play any other competitive games, you may see just how absurd flat bans are. Let's take card games for example. If a card is overperforming, they don't just delete the card. Most of the time, the card receives a change such that it can remain in play. It's only competitive Pokemon that has this strange culture of "I don't like this thing -- let's effectively delete it". In the context of smogon, it kind of makes sense since banning a Pokemon to Uber doesn't mean deleting it -- it just places it in a different metagame. In PokeMMO, though, we have to be cognizant of the fact that a flat ban does essentially mean deleting something from the game.

 

We already know that the devs mirror that attitude. If a flat ban ultimately results in a complex ban, but potentially less competitively knowledgeable are the ones determining the circumstances of the complex ban, how is that any more desirable than being proactive and having the more knowledgeable competitive players propose ban conditions?

 

Unless there are not clear pain points for a Pokemon that are causing it to overperform, I think it's reasonable to outright suggest the conditions for a complex ban. If something requires changing more than 1 element, then maybe a flat ban is warranted. In this case I definitely think that changing only 1 thing about each of these Pokemon would put them in an appropriate position. ThinkNice's suggestions above are a good starting point.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, ihzi said:

The conclusion I came to with gbwead's post in mind was rather that there is all the more reason to propose complex bans from within the community. I think it makes more sense to get a head start if we think it's at all possible to avoid a flat ban.

 

If you play any other competitive games, you may see just how absurd flat bans are. Let's take card games for example. If a card is overperforming, they don't just delete the card. Most of the time, the card receives a change such that it can remain in play. It's only competitive Pokemon that has this strange culture of "I don't like this thing -- let's effectively delete it". In the context of smogon, it kind of makes sense since banning a Pokemon to Uber doesn't mean deleting it -- it just places it in a different metagame. In PokeMMO, though, we have to be cognizant of the fact that a flat ban does essentially mean deleting something from the game.

 

We already know that the devs mirror that attitude. If a flat ban ultimately results in a complex ban, but potentially less competitively knowledgeable are the ones determining the circumstances of the complex ban, how is that any more desirable than being proactive and having the more knowledgeable competitive players propose ban conditions?

 

Unless there are not clear pain points for a Pokemon that are causing it to overperform, I think it's reasonable to outright suggest the conditions for a complex ban. If something requires changing more than 1 element, then maybe a flat ban is warranted. In this case I definitely think that changing only 1 thing about each of these Pokemon would put them in an appropriate position. ThinkNice's suggestions above are a good starting point.

We could probably argue for hours and hours about the merits of flat bans v. complex bans in the context of different competitive games, and I don't think we'd get anywhere. Suffice it to say, as you've admitted, the golden standard for competitive pokemon has always been a preference towards flat bans. For this community to overturn years and years of precedent in the way we handle bans would be, I think, incredibly foolish and naive.

 

To your argument about a flat ban meaning an effective "deletion" of a pokemon from the game, I would simply point to Doubles as concrete proof that your claim isn't true. Doubles is no less accessible of a meta than ubers is in other generations. Additionally, the devs attitude seems to rest not only on the "deletion" of a banned pokemon from competitive play (which, again, isn't true) but also the possibilty that said pokemon will be abused on the PVE side, which is also demonstrably not true and not really of any importance even if it was, IMO. So my point is, if the devs logic is flawed, the answer is not to cowtow to that logic, but to continue to fight against it. And if the TC is still able to conduct bans as normal, then that shouldn't change how we as a community approach these bans.

 

Why should we not change our approach? Because determining which 1 thing to ban on any given pokemon is rarely an easy task. Take hydreigon for example - we had an effective complex ban of draco for a while, and now draco was introduced, and it's problematic. So in this case, deciding on which 1 thing to ban is easier than usual (though logical people could still make effective arguments for banning something different/taking a different approach like nerfing base stats). That is absolutely not going to be the case moving forward - but guess what? By encouraging a complex ban first attitude, you've now shifted all discussion of pokemon from "is this pokemon banworthy based on enshrined in stone uber criteria," to "which singular part of this pokemon could we get rid of in order to keep it in the tier." I would argue that the former discussion topic I listed is much, much easier to grapple with and get results from than the latter. 

 

So again, my concern is not that some pokemon would require changing more than 1 element to keep them in the tier. My concern (among many others) is that a community, or even the TC, deciding on exactly which element needs to be removed/banned/altered is still going to be tiresome, difficult, and unproductive in the long run. Not to mention, the banlist for OU will eventually look like a cheesecake factory  menu. 

 

 

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.