[Discussion] Snorlax (OU)

[Vaeldras]

 

If nothing changes, why is it so important to bring snorlax back ...

 

 

I'm pretty sure nothing would change if we ban umbreon.

"The black lame dog every 14old choses cuz hey it's shiny form is so cute" , let's just ban it, blissey is better anyway.

 

Srs, why would you ban a pokemon if it doesn't change the meta? this should be the question.

But this is not the case, if you ask me (or anyone else)

 

 

edit: Changes for worse, that is

Edited May 11, 2015 by Vaeldras

[YagamiNoir]

My head just got blew off.

 

No offense and I still lub you Thinkie, but at this point all I'm seeing is a spoiled brat whining about how terrible the meta is and nothing makes any difference. Special walls still stay special walls in the meta and whatever thingamajigger, I get your point, and it makes sense. Blissey/Snorlax comparisons have their relevance but they're really starting to make me cringe. Don't ignore my question on their usages. 

 

If there's anything productive I can get from you of all people now it would be a solution to your complaint/problem. The meta stays terrible either way, what do you exactly say we should do, leave it? Or just adhere to the policy of the test and let it stay because "it does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. Either meta remains a toxic one, so we either have the old one or the less toxic one. Probably doesn't really matter, but hey, if it's your complaint, provide us with a solution, for oblivion's sake. 

[DrCraig]

Really? Your blissey would stay on Lax? Is this a joke? Are you playing with growl now?
 
If nothing changes, why is it so important to bring snorlax back ...

Growl Blissey is an actual strategy by the way and poops on curselax.

[gbwead]

Your argument just doesn't work. One moment the metagame changes and the it doesnt.

 

So ultimately nothing changes much.

 

 

"In fact stall got even more effective with Snorlax gone.

The only difference in this metagame is that Blissey is more passive than Snorlax but this metagame is actually even more punishing for special attackers."

Edited May 11, 2015 by lamerb

[ThinkNice]

My head just got blew off.

 

No offense and I still lub you Thinkie, but at this point all I'm seeing is a spoiled brat whining about how terrible the meta is and nothing makes any difference. Special walls still stay special walls in the meta and whatever thingamajigger, I get your point, and it makes sense. Blissey/Snorlax comparisons have their relevance but they're really starting to make me cringe. Don't ignore my question on their usages. 

 

If there's anything productive I can get from you of all people now it would be a solution to your complaint/problem. The meta stays terrible either way, what do you exactly say we should do, leave it? Or just adhere to the policy of the test and let it stay because "it does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. Either meta remains a toxic one, so we either have the old one or the less toxic one. Probably doesn't really matter, but hey, if it's your complaint, provide us with a solution, for oblivion's sake. 

And you are a spoiled brat that asks for solutions when I have no obligations what so ever to give them? I don't know where this shit came from.

[gbwead]

 

If there's anything productive I can get from you of all people now it would be a solution to your complaint/problem. The meta stays terrible either way, what do you exactly say we should do, leave it? Or just adhere to the policy of the test and let it stay because "it does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. Either meta remains a toxic one, so we either have the old one or the less toxic one. Probably doesn't really matter, but hey, if it's your complaint, provide us with a solution, for oblivion's sake. 

[Gunthug]

My head just got blew off.

 

No offense and I still lub you Thinkie, but at this point all I'm seeing is a spoiled brat whining about how terrible the meta is and nothing makes any difference. Special walls still stay special walls in the meta and whatever thingamajigger, I get your point, and it makes sense. Blissey/Snorlax comparisons have their relevance but they're really starting to make me cringe. Don't ignore my question on their usages. 

 

If there's anything productive I can get from you of all people now it would be a solution to your complaint/problem. The meta stays terrible either way, what do you exactly say we should do, leave it? Or just adhere to the policy of the test and let it stay because "it does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell. Either meta remains a toxic one, so we either have the old one or the less toxic one. Probably doesn't really matter, but hey, if it's your complaint, provide us with a solution, for oblivion's sake. 

Then you're not reading what think is saying very carefully. He's saying the meta is shit with both, which is basically saying that the meta doesn't appear to be healthier without snorlax - the big question being posed by the suspect thread. You've offered absolutely nothing productive to the thread with this comment, and you should have just hit ctrl-a, backspace as soon as you read it back over

 

I mean, just look at the questions you're asking in the 2nd paragraph - you are actually asking if he thinks we should adhere to the policy of the test? WHat kind of fucking question is that? of course we should

[SpartacusGD]

I started playing OU again the moment Snorlax got banned and i prefer the new meta.

So you basically know nothing about snorlax meta, well i never stopped playing ou and i never for once saw snorlax as the op thing that you think it is, from here what i see is just you dunno and dont wanna deal with it so you insist on having it banned.

For your scenario thingy, some people prefer blissey cause its immortal, i can name you some players with very high win rate who use blussey more often than they use lax and some of them even use bliss 100% of the time so here they are: frags, burntzebra, raaidn, XPLOZ, i can name more but lets focus on this guys, why do you think they use blissey and not lax if lax is available? Well you said its a monster why do they not prefer using the monster? Cause they have pros and cons and these guys dont wanna risk their sp def walls dying easily and getting swept by sp atker, which proves that sweaping wuth sp attacker is harder when we only have blissey. I played a couple of wager duels with these guys and guess what? 100% of the time the sp def wall i saw is blissey and not snorlax. So there you have it. Snorlax doesnt ruin the meta, if its in there it just makes ou, if its not we might aswell name this tier "stall" fyi: snorlax cant wall fake tears jolt and bulky starmie if you use it simultaneously thats how possible you can take down lax with sp attacker, unlike blissey can wall these 2 + mire sp attackers and bkiss will still stand firm walling them sp sweapers. Lax and bliss lets say have same role of sp def wall but do same thing, just like in baketball both shaq and steph curry are scorers byt they do it in different way something like that

[YagamiNoir]

Then you're not reading what think is saying very carefully. He's saying the meta is shit with both, which is basically saying that the meta doesn't appear to be healthier without snorlax - the big question being posed by the suspect thread. You've offered absolutely nothing productive to the thread with this comment, and you should have just hit ctrl-a, backspace as soon as you read it back over

 

I mean, just look at the questions you're asking in the 2nd paragraph - you are actually asking if he thinks we should adhere to the policy of the test? WHat kind of fucking question is that? of course we should

To be fair, there wasn't exactly a clear line in determining things to begin with. I mean, "oh, let's just ditch the idea of examining it further because it won't provide a significant change! Let's have things shit either way with no room for even the slightest improvisation, because it's not like it'll be better anyway!" I acknowledge both metas are bad, but what the hell are you and Thinkie trying to prove? "It's bad, it's shit, let's do nothing about it and let us whine about it because it's relevant and productive for some stupid reason!" 

 

If someone is going to complain, back it up with a legitimate solution that satisfies you. All that's being brought out is "there's no difference. Both metas are shit." What the hell does that actually solve, for oblivion's sake? Nice job avoiding the question and topping it off with ad hominem Gun, it won't exactly work. 

 

EDIT: I'd cringe if you'd say bringing Snorlax back would be a "solution", not that it'd hurt, but it'd probably be either slightly more consequential. Then again, "it doesn't matter, things will be the same, amirite?"

Edited May 11, 2015 by YagamiNoir

[Gunthug]

All that's being brought out is "there's no difference. Both metas are shit." What the hell does that actually solve, for oblivion's sake?

It solves the question of "is the meta healthier without snorlax." How are you not understanding this?

[OldKeith]

Yagami, the point they are trying to make is that if banning Snorlax does not affect the meta, there is no reason for it to remain banned.

 

Although I am not yet convinced that 1 month was enough for a test of that scale.

[Gunthug]

Yagami, the point they are trying to make is that if banning Snorlax does not affect the meta, there is no reason for it to remain banned.

 

Although I am not yet convinced that 1 month was enough for a test of that scale.

I'm not 100% convinced either, but my gut tells me it wouldn't change the outcome. Still, the argument could be made that it's better to go another month with the test than make the decision now and risk the chance that the meta was still adapting

[ThinkNice]

To be fair, there wasn't exactly a clear line in determining things to begin with. I mean, "oh, let's just ditch the idea of examining it further because it won't provide a significant change! Let's have things shit either way with no room for even the slightest improvisation, because it's not like it'll be better anyway!" I acknowledge both metas are bad, but what the hell are you and Thinkie trying to prove? "It's bad, it's shit, let's do nothing about it and let us whine about it because it's relevant and productive for some stupid reason!" 

 

If someone is going to complain, back it up with a legitimate solution that satisfies you. All that's being brought out is "there's no difference. Both metas are shit." What the hell does that actually solve, for oblivion's sake? Nice job avoiding the question and topping it off with ad hominem Gun, it won't exactly work. 

 

EDIT: I'd cringe if you'd say bringing Snorlax back would be a "solution", not that it'd hurt, but it'd probably be either slightly more consequential. Then again, "it doesn't matter, things will be the same, amirite?"

Maybe you would have a point if I was complaining, I wasn't. I'm simply observing the suspect test and answering the question this test was even designed for in the first place. I don't play OU, I merely observe it so I hardly have any justification for 'complaining' about it.

 

The meta with Snorlax is shit and the meta without Snorlax is a little less shitty - is not a complaint on my end, it's the observation and the answer to the suspect test.

[YagamiNoir]

It solves the question of "is the meta healthier without snorlax." How are you not understanding this?

I mean I get that, and I've written this myself. 

 

 "It does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell.

 

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

[Gunthug]

 

EDIT: I'd cringe if you'd say bringing Snorlax back would be a "solution", not that it'd hurt, but it'd probably be either slightly more consequential. Then again, "it doesn't matter, things will be the same, amirite?"

 

I mean I get that, and I've written this myself. 

 

 "It does not provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta with it's departure", whatever the hell.

 

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

Again, as has been mentioned 20 times in this thread, lax wasnt being tested for offensive, defensive, or uber characteristics. The test was to determine if lax was unhealthy for the meta. It's very simple: If after a month, the meta was noticably healthier, then removing lax was the right decision. If it wasn't noticably healthier, then there's absolutely no justification for banning lax. You keep talking about macro solutions for OU, but that's just not something this suspect test can adress - it is limited to the health of lax for the meta, period. If you acknowledge that it does't provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta, then that's the end of the story.

 

are you pissed about think calling out the UU council or something? Seriously, I can't really understand your tone right now

[gbwead]

So you basically know nothing about snorlax meta, well i never stopped playing ou and i never for once saw snorlax as the op thing that you think it is, from here what i see is just you dunno and dont wanna deal with it so you insist on having it banned.

 

What i said, never implied that I "basically know nothing". You might disagree with what I am saying, but that doesn't necessarily means I am wrong. You can assume you know me all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that not everyone wants Snorlax back. I may prefer the new "stall meta" simply because I prefer playing stall, and I think playing stall as awful as it may seem is better than playing parahax.

IMO Snorlax does ruin the meta. People just need time to adjust; Blissey is not a mandatory pokemon, not at all. Breeding takes time and one month ain't enough for this kind of test.

Edited May 11, 2015 by lamerb

[YagamiNoir]

Again, as has been mentioned 20 times in this thread, lax wasnt being tested for offensive, defensive, or uber characteristics. The test was to determine if lax was unhealthy for the meta. It's very simple: If after a month, the meta was noticably healthier, then removing lax was the right decision. If it wasn't noticably healthier, then there's absolutely no justification for banning lax. You keep talking about macro solutions for OU, but that's just not something this suspect test can adress - it is limited to the health of lax for the meta, period. If you acknowledge that it does't provide a significantly more healthy change to the meta, then that's the end of the story.
 
are you pissed about think calling out the UU council or something? Seriously, I can't really understand your tone right now

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

Is ad hominem your only tool against me, by the way?

[Gunthug]

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

Is ad hominem your only tool against me, by the way?

When you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion, I don't really have any other choice to address your posts. You are basically doing exactly what you accused thinknice of doing - complaining about the state of the metagame while offering no solution whatsoever

Edited May 11, 2015 by Gunthug

[YagamiNoir]

When you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion, I don't really have any other choice to address your posts. You are basically doing exactly what you accused thinknice of doing - complaining about the state of the metagame while offering no solution whatsoever

I'm probably just facing a wall of ironic concrete, but whatever. We got the solution, we settle the whole wait with little product.

Enough, I aint going through this. I wasn't the one proposing this "no change" thing until Thinkie did. Edited May 11, 2015 by YagamiNoir

[bl0nde]

Should we just give it a couple more weeks+ guys so less people are hurt over it? Maybe to give the council more time too? It's pretty tough because there are good arguments on both sides.

Edited May 11, 2015 by bl0nde

[Gunthug]

Should we just give it a couple more weeks+ guys so less people are hurt over it?

If the tier council decides to extend the test I certainly won't be against it - while I don't think the meta has significantly changed for the better w/o lax, it's also not exactly hurting for lax back

[bl0nde]

By the way, I'm sure lax usage will be high if it comes back. That is like the stock market though: people read something bad and then everyone bails... um.. to an unnecessary extent. In fact, one strategy is to hit that overcompensated margin for $ before it levels out again. The usage stats will do the same thing. There is under-hype and over-hype, but things level out over time.

[codylramey]

Does the rise in viability of pokemon w/o lax not matter at all? I know that the usage stats dont show a significant change which again could be due to the breeding system but its hard to argue that there arent a number of pokemon who become more viable w/o lax.

[Arimanius]

Does the rise in viability of pokemon w/o lax not matter at all? I know that the usage stats dont show a significant change which again could be due to the breeding system but its hard to argue that there arent a number of pokemon who become more viable w/o lax.

The thing is they don't see that when actually it's really obvious, all they say is "Blissey is everywhere" "Blissey can't be killed by special attackers" and blah blah blah, for the people who said snorlax ban is useless there is no change AT ALL

[Senile]

Does the rise in viability of pokemon w/o lax not matter at all? I know that the usage stats dont show a significant change which again could be due to the breeding system but its hard to argue that there arent a number of pokemon who become more viable w/o lax.

not really. All these pokemon which are supposedly "more viable" were already viable, they're just better now, just like how some pokemon got worse without Snorlax. A few pokemon rising in viability isn't really relevant, because that's obviously going to happen after you remove any top tier threat, healthy or not. The only pokemon which went from "unviable" to "viable" (not top tier, more like the bottom-middle of viable) as far as I can tell is Espeon, but even then, it wasn't a case of "oh, Snorlax made Espeon unviable", it's just that Espeon is a pokemon that's a good special option against Blissey, which is now far more popular. I, of course, shouldn't have to explain why it'd be ridiculous to ban a pokemon to make 1 other pokemon kinda viable, lmao.