Salamence is Uber.

[shrang]

Anyway, when's the ladder going to be updated?? I'm preparing a new team for the day Salamence gets booted, but isn't very effective at the moment for obvious reasons.

 

[DDRMaster]

The Salamence player is allowed that same liberty because prediction is a two-way street. And predicting correctly doesn't mean Salamence is dead nor that it's suddenly anything other than completely broken. On the other hand, if you predict wrong, your Pokemon is dead. You have a higher chance of being wrong because DDMence and MixMence both have perfect coverage and a completely different (not to mention limited) list of checks/viable switch-ins.

That's true and I'm not sure if I was somehow good at predicting or I kept playing against noobs but my opponent was usually pretty terrible at predicting and I would be able to kill/cripple their Salamence basically for free.

 

[Grammarian]

I've read around that Shaymin Land Form will be making a spike in usage with Salamence's absence from OU. Can someone tell me the reasons why this would happen and what exact movesets would be making more frequent uses?

 

[SJCrew]

Anyway, when's the ladder going to be updated?? I'm preparing a new team for the day Salamence gets booted, but isn't very effective at the moment for obvious reasons.

My Suspect team is actually hauling ass atm, but luckily enough, most of my opponents didn't have a Salamence on their team. At least some people get the picture...

 

[TheValkyries]

This is a flawed definition for 2 reasons:

a) Salamence does not succeed in achieving this, because the opponent often has an opportunity to shirk that advantage through prediction.

That's your opinion, and I really don't feel like debating that. Quite frankly I fail to see what this point has to do with the definition at all.

b) There are many OU pokemon who do in fact, generate situations that would be "unfair" by your definition on a regular basis.

Breloom comes in on slower pokemon. Breloom uses Spore.

Lum Berry Machamp comes in on pokemon it beats, or leads against a pokemon it beats.

Scizor switches into a pokemon it can kill with U-Turn.

Flygon switches into a pokemon it can kill with U-Turn.

Jirachi switches into a pokemon it can kill with U-Turn.

Pokemon A switches into pokemon B that cannot kill its Substitute.

Scarf-Tar switches into faster Pursuit-Weak pokemon.

I can keep going, but the mark of good teams and good players is often being able to systematically create situations that give the enemy no chance to predict or respond and gain advantage regardless of what the enemy does.

But those all have a stipulation. Mence can come in on literally anything and cause major damage. Only two things can wholly prevent that, a Jolteon with HP Ice or a Starmie, one on one. Granted that means he's not a perfect definition, but I never said he was. But he comes damn close.

I also might add that it's by your opinion that they fit that definition, and the point again speaks nothing of the flaws of the definition itself.

You say "mence requires little skill," but you have no way of backing up that statement with proof. It is a statement that cannot be "proven" and yet you state it like fact and base your argument on it as if it were fact. Am I supposed to take this seriously?

I used him to great effect, and I am the first to admit that I'm not a largely skilled player in the slightest. He easily raised my play to a level above my own. I guess I state it as fact because I have come to accept it as fact. Perhaps I am just astoundingly adept at using Mence?

Your definition is flawed. I specifically asked you to define it because it cannot be properly defined.

"Unfair" is a value statement word, so it is ridiculous for you to use it like a fact statement word. You should have realized this was what I was getting at.

Unfair is as black and white as you can get. It's either fair or it isn't. The gray area comes when you try to apply the term to other things. So yes you can properly define it, and easily. And you have yet to bring up any significant problem with the definition I have given.

This is simply outrageously untrue.

Which part, the Mence part or the part where I say that luck isn't controllable and therefore isn't an unfair advantage? The Mence part would be your opinion against mine, I'm sorry my examples should so detract from your understanding. Replace "Mence" with "a Palkia in OU", and maybe the meaning should become clearer. Luck is by definition fair, so it can't be considered an unfair advantage.

Again, untrue. Just because Team A has a bad match up with Team B, that doesn't mean it is necessarily a worse team, because it could have a better match up against Team C, who might be better against Team B. That is such a simply and obvious point of team building, I really have no idea what to say to you.

"No matter what you face." If Team B loses to Team C then it's advantage over Team A is not unfair by my definition.

 

[supermarth64]

I've read around that Shaymin Land Form will be making a spike in usage with Salamence's absence from OU. Can someone tell me the reasons why this would happen and what exact movesets would be making more frequent uses?

Personally, I have no idea why, although I'm assuming that the lower rated people are catching onto the fact that the people near the top of the ladder are using it and adapting to it. Also, since they see Shaymin's used a lot on the suspect ladder, they try it out to see what's up with it. Additionally, since Mence 4x resists Seed Flare and Mence is no longer there, it's harder for something to wall Shaymin.

The movesets I've seen the most are Subseed, ProtectSeed, and Life Orb sets.

Well, I've heard all the reasons Smogon has to say about Salamence being uber and here is what I think

I am utterly disgusted
My respect for Smogon has taken a huge decrease and quite frankly, I'm actually in favor of People starting their own Pokemon tiers
Salamence is a excellent pokemon, I will admit that, but its not uber

The day Salamence becomes uber is the day Magikarp becomes uber

Its not uber, plain and simple, it can be easily Revenged Killed

You know, my friend who played pokemon but stopped after the 2nd generation has said that the only reason the Tiers where made is because people are too cowardly to face a challenge and quite frankly, I am beginning to agree with him

I think its clearly obvious that I disagree with this move and if you "experts" do ban me them be my guest, because I am not happy with this decision

Revenge killed = it already killed one of your Pokemon. Mence can always switch out and come back in later on to get another KO while you've succeeded in not killing Mence. Additionally, Rayquaza is easily revenge killed, why isn't it OU? Oh yea, because it's too powerful for it. Same with Mence. You try switching something into Mence, outspeeding it and KOing it. Anything that doesn't resist Draco Meteor gets DEMOLISHED by it, while Scarfrachi has to worry about both Earthquake and Fire Blast when it switches in, meaning the safest time for it to come in would be after Mence already killed something.

Tiers were made to balance the game. I don't know why you would listen to your friend if he hasn't played since 2nd gen since the game has changed so much since then that any viewpoints he holds from back then don't hold fast in today's metagame.

 

[shrang]

Unfair is as black and white as you can get. It's either fair or it isn't. The gray area comes when you try to apply the term to other things. So yes you can properly define it, and easily. And you have yet to bring up any significant problem with the definition I have given.

Unfair is probably as close a subjective word as you can get. Do you have an figure, a number or something objective to define "fairness" with?? For example. Let's just go to a very obvious example: The Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. The major developed countries thought it was perfectly "fair" to impose a huge levy to cut down on greenhouse emissions. However, the poorer nations did not, and for good reason. Who is correct here?? Is this "unfair" or "fair"?? I hate to sound like a broken record because I'm quite sure your parents or relatives would have eventually told you this some point in your life: Nothing in this world is fair. Fairness is just an ideal that the downtrodden believe in. Bringing this back to Salamence, banning it was not about being "fair", it was about making the game more competitive and ultimately, fun.

 

[TheValkyries]

Unfair is probably as close a subjective word as you can get. Do you have an figure, a number or something objective to define "fairness" with?? For example. Let's just go to a very obvious example: The Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. The major developed countries thought it was perfectly "fair" to impose a huge levy to cut down on greenhouse emissions. However, the poorer nations did not, and for good reason. Who is correct here?? Is this "unfair" or "fair"??

But here you are trying to describe something as fair or unfair, which is exactly where I said you'd encounter gray area.

I hate to sound like a broken record because I'm quite sure your parents or relatives would have eventually told you this some point in your life: Nothing in this world is fair. Fairness is just an ideal that the downtrodden believe in.

Relevance? And actually this is a rather cynical way to view the world in my opinion, but that is not remotely the topic at hand.

Bringing this back to Salamence, banning it was not about being "fair", it was about making the game more competitive and ultimately, fun.

What? They make it more competitive by making it more fair. And fair competition is fun. My point is that it's not more fun than competition with a few unfair advantages thrown in. But then I think you and Mr.Indigo started throwing around the idea that unfair advantages are actually fair when both parties have access, which is what we've been debating.

 

[shrang]

But here you are trying to describe something as fair or unfair, which is exactly where I said you'd encounter gray area.

But the point to say fairness is not black and white, and very often, you'll encounter grey areas.

Relevance? And actually this is a rather cynical way to view the world in my opinion, but that is not remotely the topic at hand.

Yes, it is slightly off-topic, but it is something to remind you that talking about fairness in a game is just pointless. Arguing for something subjective and using it as fact is not a good way to support an argument, ever. It's rather cynical way to view the world, yes, but it's a realistic one.

What? They make it more competitive by making it more fair. And fair competition is fun. My point is that it's not more fun than competition with a few unfair advantages thrown in. But then I think you and Mr.Indigo started throwing around the idea that unfair advantages are actually fair when both parties have access, which is what we've been debating.

Okay, I'll just give you one more example here. Let's say I brought a UU team into OU. I got completely creamed by your team. Am I allowed to say that you have an unfair advantage because you're using OUs?? You will say: "Well this is an OU match, why the hell don't you just use OUs??" Well, you can apply that same logic to Salamence. I bring in my OU team without Salamence while you do. You cream me with Salamence (Not guaranteed, but let's say you do). I complain it's unfair that you're using Salamence. You can just as easily say "Well Salamence is allowed, why don't you use it as well??" What makes Salamence any more "unfair" (If you can define "unfair") than any other OU in the case of a healthy competition?? Banning Salamence, as I said, was a step forward in increasing competition. Making it more "fair" is a way to do it, but ultimately, it is not "fairness" that they are after, because that'll be impossible. Think about it. You were saying in the old Council thread that everyone is using Dragon/Steel as their teams, and it is boring. Now, we get to try something different!! More interesting, more fun. In my eyes, is the Salamence-free metagame more fun?? In some ways, yes. Is it any fairer?? Nope.

 

[TheValkyries]

But the point to say fairness is not black and white, and very often, you'll encounter grey areas.

When applying the term yes.

I'll put it this way, in theory fairness is entirely black and white. So my theoretical postulations about how equally accessible unfair advantages don't make a fair game are truth, since they deal with the theoretical absolutes of fairness. Now, the debate over whether not Mence or something else is such an absolute is another beast entirely, and I think it's confusing the original point.

Yes, it is slightly off-topic, but it is something to remind you that talking about fairness in a game is just pointless. Arguing for something subjective and using it as fact is not a good way to support an argument, ever. It's rather cynical way to view the world, yes, but it's a realistic one.

Un- is the latin prefix for not. If something is fair, then it's fair. If it is unfair, then it is by definition not fair. Fairness is an absolute. There is no gray area where something is fair and not fair at the same time. I fail to see how this is hard to grasp.

The subjectivity of fairness comes when people try to apply the terms to things that are more complex, and two parts of the complex whole may contradict itself in fairness. However, the line of gray area is still very thin, if it exists at all on some subjects.

Okay, I'll just give you one more example here. Let's say I brought a UU team into OU. I got completely creamed by your team. Am I allowed to say that you have an unfair advantage because you're using OUs?? You will say: "Well this is an OU match, why the hell don't you just use OUs??" Well, you can apply that same logic to Salamence. I bring in my OU team without Salamence while you do. You cream me with Salamence (Not guaranteed, but let's say you do). I complain it's unfair that you're using Salamence. You can just as easily say "Well Salamence is allowed, why don't you use it as well??" What makes Salamence any more "unfair" (If you can define "unfair") than any other OU in the case of a healthy competition?? Banning Salamence, as I said, was a step forward in increasing competition. Making it more "fair" is a way to do it, but ultimately, it is not "fairness" that they are after, because that'll be impossible. Think about it. You were saying in the old Council thread that everyone is using Dragon/Steel as their teams, and it is boring. Now, we get to try something different!! More interesting, more fun. In my eyes, is the Salamence-free metagame more fun?? In some ways, yes. Is it any fairer?? Nope.

We are not here to discuss Mence's fairness, as that decision has been made for us by the council. If you wish to debate his fairness please PM me, but this has nothing to do with my point that bans are, and always will be about fairness, and not necessarily about which metagame is more fun. Which is the general consensus of all but you. It is fun through fairness, not fun for the sake of fun.

 

[anti404]

I don't play OU, only UU, so I will void any opinions on his removal from the metagame.
however, I do note an extreme amount of tears being shed at his departure. one thing I noticed, however, was that many of these complaints are coming from users who failed to even apply to, much less vote in, the Council. if you felt so strongly about the decision, why didn't you hone your battling skills, own up some competition, and attempt to become a Council member?
I dunno', it just seems a bit, for lack of a more effective term, lame or maybe even hypocritical for a user to criticize the decisions of the Council without even attempting to voice their opinion as a voter.

 

[the kbxe]

Well you know, I actually don't care if salamence is uber, but what really f**** me up is that now 100% of the internet players wont accept salamence JUST BECAUSE smogon put it uber.

So yeah, good luck for me if I want to find someone to battle who doesn't care to use him!

So it's like some players of a site vote for something and it affects everyone...what about the rest of the players that aren't on smogon???

 

[shrang]

We are not here to discuss Mence's fairness, as that decision has been made for us by the council. If you wish to debate his fairness please PM me, but this has nothing to do with my point that bans are, and always will be about fairness, and not necessarily about which metagame is more fun. Which is the general consensus of all but you. It is fun through fairness, not fun for the sake of fun.

I'm not here to discuss Mence's fairness either, all I'm saying that it was fair (For the purposes of a competitive metagame) was he was OU and it's fair now he's banned. Basically, back to your boxing example, we've gone from Super Heavyweight to Heavyweight. It's still fair. Back then, we were talking about 50=50, now we're at 49=49.

 

[Lucalibur]

if people want to follow smogon tiers outside of smogon then whatever. smogon tiers are made only for the smogon community and the smogon shoddy battle(and CAP i think) server. outside of that people are free to run what they want.

 

[TheValkyries]

I'm not here to discuss Mence's fairness either, all I'm saying that it was fair (For the purposes of a competitive metagame) was he was OU and it's fair now he's banned. Basically, back to your boxing example, we've gone from Super Heavyweight to Heavyweight. It's still fair. Back then, we were talking about 50=50, now we're at 49=49.

-_-

You're missing the point entirely though.

Ok, here's a different analogy. In WWI, Poison Gas was a very deadly innovation in Military technology. The Germans used it on the British, and the British in turn used it on the Germans. The loss of life on both sides was extremely great. And, while both sides had access to this weapon, all parties uniformly agreed that it should never be used again, as the losses it caused were too great to be borne.

To completely downplay something as serious as that, the Poison was considered to be unfair, and so they decided to ban it.

In a similar fashion, Mence easily tore into teams, with no regard for what it was tearing into. And just because two teams with Mence were tearing into each other, that doesn't mean that the losses it caused on both sides were not too much to be borne.


I'm really at a loss of ways to explain it to you, but I'll say this again.

Unfair advantages are still unfair, even if both teams use them. They do not cancel out.

 

[DropTheNuke]

While Salamence itself may have been an unfair addition to the metagame, the metagame itself was, and still is, fair. When two sides have access to the same resources, it's impossible to say that one side has an advantage over the other.

Salamence was nothing more than a resource. An exploitable, powerful resource, but a resource nonetheless. And as a resource, both sides had access to it.

Salamence is uber for the exact reason mustard gas was banned: it overcentralized the metagame. Had the British and the Germans not banned mustard gas, it too would have "overcentralized" warfare (reducing the usage of infantry, etc). the banning of Salamence and mustard gas have nothing to do with fairness.

About the council: I'm amazed at it's speed and efficiency when compared to the Latias situation, but at the same time I (and much of the community) feel rather unrepresented. The council really didn't take into account the players lower on the food chain.

If Smogon's aim is to make a diverse and competitive metagame at the highest level of play, then I feel this council has been highly successful. If the aim was to make a diverse and competitive metagame for the whole community (which it probably wasn't), then I feel some work needs to be done.

 

[TheValkyries]

While Salamence itself may have been an unfair addition to the metagame, the metagame itself was, and still is, fair. When two sides have access to the same resources, it's impossible to say that one side has an advantage over the other.

Actually it is possible to say just that. When both sides use an advantage, they both had an advantage over the other. It doesn't just cancel out.


I'll say it again for value.

Advantages don't cancel out.


Now in different languages.

In Spanish:
Ventajas no se anulan.

In French:
Avantages ne s'annulent pas.

In German:
Vorteile nicht zunichte machen.

In Chinese:
优势不取消了。


So please, stop straw manning the analogies, because I'm tired of having to repeat the same point 10 different ways


To create a more fair metagame, you must eliminate the unfair advantages. An unfair advantage as I defined it, is:

Anything that you can control, that puts you at an advantageous situation no matter what you face.

No matter what you face. That means, even if it faces itself, it is still at an advantageous situation.

(Special thanks to Google Translate)

 

[shrang]

-_-

You're missing the point entirely though.

Ok, here's a different analogy. In WWI, Poison Gas was a very deadly innovation in Military technology. The Germans used it on the British, and the British in turn used it on the Germans. The loss of life on both sides was extremely great. And, while both sides had access to this weapon, all parties uniformly agreed that it should never be used again, as the losses it caused were too great to be borne.

To completely downplay something as serious as that, the Poison was considered to be unfair, and so they decided to ban it.

In a similar fashion, Mence easily tore into teams, with no regard for what it was tearing into. And just because two teams with Mence were tearing into each other, that doesn't mean that the losses it caused on both sides were not too much to be borne.


I'm really at a loss of ways to explain it to you, but I'll say this again.

Unfair advantages are still unfair, even if both teams use them. They do not cancel out.

Okay, I'm not going to continue this argument because it's not really our business to argue this here, but I'll finish off. Regarding the poison, they both agreed to stop using it not because it was unfair, but because it was damaging. We ban Salamence because we believing it is damaging the metagame, which is why other Ubers are banned too. If you decide to play Ubers, would you say that is an "unfair metagame" or just a metagame that is "unbalanced"?? Let's just say you lose in an Ubers game. Would you complain that it is "unfair"?? Technically, it's still fair, but the result is an unbalanced metagame, just like the poison example. It is still fair in the terms that both sides have access to the weapon, but the result is damaging, therefore they both agreed to stop using it.

Okay. I'm going to stop arguing now. Say what you want.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Chou, I really like that I agree entirely with your logic process, and yet we happen to differ on the final value judgments. I think that's kind of cool and interesting. :)

It's nice talking to someone with the brain power to sort logic from value statements. :)

 

[Shizzle]

Ok, my views :S

I think the actual moving of Salamence to ubers was a good move, he did centralise the metagame, far too much, and to be honest, the fact that he isn't a legendary pokemon made him IMO overlooked more [I know this sounds noobish], its just that his offensive capabilities are actually amazing. Don't need to go too in depth, as was done in the thread about Salamence being suspect. I mean to deal with something like Infernape, you could just slap a Vaporeon or Gengar or really anything on your team, and deal with him without taking too much, whereas with Salamence, you could lose the game if you mispredict, and your chances aren't exactly good.

I feel the voting process was ok, but not the best way to go about it, as there are many many more capable voters out there, I mean other people that play competitively and do tournaments outside Smogon who are also very good have no say, because they don't play shoddy or use smogon, or go into smogon tournaments. Also the obvious negativity that was bound to come from choosing a 9 member panel consisting of popular mods [thats how many view them, although I think they were chosen reasonably, their skills have been demonstrated] just gives bad publicity, creating an illusion to quite a few people that its a popularity contest.

I like this new metagame, I mean its not like the FWG combo is impossible to beat, TauntDos with Bounce, Mixape and Starmie/Gengar still devastate these teams, however I am looking to wait for Shuca Berry Heatran to become even more used, as it will be used more commonly as a Stealth Rock user, allowing for CS Heatran's to be much less predictable. Also Spikes and/or Toxic Spikes look like they may be much more useful thanks to these FWG cores.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

centralization has nothing to do with something being uber. case in point: scizor. also lol how does gengar stop an infernape? you mean via revenge? or do you hope to predict right and switch into CC? couldn't i say the same about mence? switch gengar into bb/eq simple right?

lol what? if you're not a part of smogon's shoddy server, or its tournaments, why would you even want a say in it's tiering process? in fact, why would we want you to have a say? especially if you dont take part in any other aspect of smogon. it's like me complaining why i dont have absolute power in other places because i'm good here but i dont wanna join anything of theirs. is this logical?

 

[Shizzle]

lol what? if you're not a part of smogon's shoddy server, or its tournaments, why would you even want a say in it's tiering process? in fact, why would we want you to have a say? especially if you dont take part in any other aspect of smogon. it's like me complaining why i dont have absolute power in other places because i'm good here but i dont wanna join anything of theirs. is this logical?

Because just about every other pokemon community uses Smogon Tiers. I am not complaining, I think the process was fair, but some things are a little weird

 

[ParadoxFtw]

Note: Don't let my lack of post turn you off to my post as I am fairly experienced and am a pretty good player (To those who would even believe me...)

Honestly I don't support the ban but I won't complain because I didn't try to get involved into the tiering process (although my lack of tournament exp. would have been my downfall).

Here's my piece though:
IMHO
Salamence was admittedly OP and did over-centralize a bit. However I think that that makes the game more skill based as you have to play around it for the payoff even as difficult as that may be. So what if you have to use Scizor or a bulky water? Bulky waters have always been a part of the game and Scizor is easily the best priority attacker anyway. Salamence was the best OU pokemon anyway you slice it. But in most every game is there not a best option?

Besides the FWG-Ghost/Dragon/Suicide or Anti Lead Meta is decent and is relatively fun and competitive. Breloom will rise up from Salamence's ashes as will Heatran. Stall will not be dominant as there are many ways to break it (Zapdos/TTar breaks walls pretty good from tseting) Mence was not the only pokemon capable at EASILY poking holes in opposing teams regardless of perfect coverage or not as stated before by other people. But now that Salamence is gone people will start complaining about Heatran or Breloom or Tyranitar or something else like SUicune being too centralizing (ok maybe not Tran). So once they get tested, and voted on the cycle will repeat again, and again until all we have is Ubers and UU.

 

[MrIndigo]

But in most every game is there not a best option?

This is usually true, but it's not the right question. The issue is the gap between the best option and the other options.

 

[Athenodoros]

the cycle will repeat again, and again until all we have is Ubers and UU.

This. I would say that this is the biggest point in he post, and is the reason why I oppose mence's banning. I think the ideas are good, but they can be taken too far.

Also, I don't think the gap to the next best was too big. Among any of the top five or ten it would be hard to establish a clear 'usefullness' scale and difference between them.