I believe the message of the OP, although poorly communicated, was not that it was centralized or even heavily centralized, but that it was stagnating.
-
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!
Upsetting The Metagame
- Thread starter Orik
- Start date
There's a reason why the top OUs are the top OUs: because they are that good. Nobody is going to send out a dragonite to do a salamence's job. why? because salamences roles tend to ignore the (relative) lack of bulk and otherwise its faster and hits harder. nobody wants an inferior product, if you lose nothing by choosing the better one then just choose the better one.
and if someone comes up with a set that's really that good, then people will begin to use that set. why?? because people want to win. they want to win in any way other than reprogramming shoddy battle to give them the most ridiculous hax ever. so why stick with something inferior when you can have something better that will give you a better chance of winning?
and if someone comes up with a set that's really that good, then people will begin to use that set. why?? because people want to win. they want to win in any way other than reprogramming shoddy battle to give them the most ridiculous hax ever. so why stick with something inferior when you can have something better that will give you a better chance of winning?
That's actually a pretty bad example, as Dragonite can do things Salamence can't, such as supporting. It has heal bell and used to be, I believe, the only heal bell user with a fire resist until vaporeon got it. It also got extremespeed which makes it a good anti-lead. Also, bulkyDDnite is actually pretty good. the lack of speed shouldn't fool you guys. A haban berry easily takes care of the Scarftias problem and even opens up a salamence sweep.
Anyway, people tend to do this, and thats where people that experiment with sets that aren't as common seem to help. It helps distinguish the good sets from the bad sets. I read about heracross in the Smog #4 I think. It stated that heracross is almost perfect for thriving in this current metagame. I've used it myself, but my own lacking team building skills just don't help this. Regardless, it performed well. My point is, people haven't rediscovered it yet which is what I remember reading in the Smog, and this lack of awareness, you could say, is what probably is keeping some of us from creating those amazing sets.
Anyway, people tend to do this, and thats where people that experiment with sets that aren't as common seem to help. It helps distinguish the good sets from the bad sets. I read about heracross in the Smog #4 I think. It stated that heracross is almost perfect for thriving in this current metagame. I've used it myself, but my own lacking team building skills just don't help this. Regardless, it performed well. My point is, people haven't rediscovered it yet which is what I remember reading in the Smog, and this lack of awareness, you could say, is what probably is keeping some of us from creating those amazing sets.
And that's why it's stagnating.
THis is what I think: People are scared to use something that is not the best. Simple as that. There are plenty of pokemon in UU and NU that work in OU, but people rather use the "better option". For instance, Blaziken can work very well in OU, but people rather use Infernape because it's better.
Now how to beat the metagame? To beat it, people need to start realizing that you don't have to use the best to win, that there are other options out there that can work. Using the best pokemon doesn't make you the better player, it's how you use the pokemon. Someone can beat a OU team while using a NU team if they have the skill to do it.
What?
Yes you do.
Pokemon as it has been said many times in the past is not about that one win or that single loss. It's about how consistently you win. Anyone can take a gimmick and steal a game or two with it, but that will not provide you with the assets you need to win in the long run.
So, one could argue that you are correct, but it depends on what your definition of win is in that context. If you're talking about consistently winning, the type of winning that actually matters, then yes, you need to use the best to win.
Actually, I've tried it - because Dragonite isn't countered by Porygon2, and I'd been seeing a fair few of those spoiling things for my Salamence.
It's not so much being 'scared' to not use the best, it's simply that you WANT TO WIN.
However, I think people should challenge received wisdom. Is Infernape really better than Blaziken? Blaziken may be slower, but it hits harder, and is a little bulkier. It also gets different moves. What you need to do is find a way to make those differences matter. Can Blaziken OHKO something Infernape can't? If Blaziken can get an Agility in, it becomes the faster one.
Another example - you might think SD Mach Punch Breloom is totally outclassed by Lucario and Scizor. But Breloom gets Poison Heal; give it a Toxic Orb and you get a sort of bulkiness, along with status immunity. It has a useful Earthquake resist too. Add to that the expectation of Spore giving you a free Swords Dance as they switch (or even Sleep Talk), and it can certainly be a threat.
Also, what is best in general may not be best for your team. People tend to use Levitate Bronzong, but if you have a load of other ground immunities, and some fire weaknesses, Heatproof is the better choice.
There's going to be inertia in the tiers. People will use OU Pokemon because they are OU, so they're assumed to be good. But really, you should look at the possibilities of all Pokemon. My OU teams often have some UU Pokemon in them, because I see those Pokemon as being able to fill a role in my team.
ok let me reiterate what i said
salamences "job" is to hit hard and hit fast, and just sweep. i think we can agree that salamence is better for that? dragonite does outclass salamence in places more, i guess i would say, tactical. it has a few more "gimmicky" moves that can work
and let me expand on my "the best" argument. why would you consider using a set in the first place? lets look at subpetaya empoleon. nobody thought it was the best at anything, until people realized it was "the best" at setting up on its plethora of resistances and then become faster than the opponent. people waited until they realized tentacruel was "the best" toxic spiker since it also had rapid spin and such until they started using it more. you use it because you think its "the best" at what it can do, otherwise you pick the better thing and the better thing until you have "the best".
pokemon have specific niches, and sometimes they can be very specific. if you wanted "the best" physical sweeper because it had say, priority, a hard hitting move and a pretty decent speed, pick lucario. if your definition of "the best" for your team involves being slightly bulkier, with say, status immunity, priority, and a move that can help it set up, then breloom is "the best" for you.
but really it comes down to, why would you use something that's not "the best"?
salamences "job" is to hit hard and hit fast, and just sweep. i think we can agree that salamence is better for that? dragonite does outclass salamence in places more, i guess i would say, tactical. it has a few more "gimmicky" moves that can work
and let me expand on my "the best" argument. why would you consider using a set in the first place? lets look at subpetaya empoleon. nobody thought it was the best at anything, until people realized it was "the best" at setting up on its plethora of resistances and then become faster than the opponent. people waited until they realized tentacruel was "the best" toxic spiker since it also had rapid spin and such until they started using it more. you use it because you think its "the best" at what it can do, otherwise you pick the better thing and the better thing until you have "the best".
pokemon have specific niches, and sometimes they can be very specific. if you wanted "the best" physical sweeper because it had say, priority, a hard hitting move and a pretty decent speed, pick lucario. if your definition of "the best" for your team involves being slightly bulkier, with say, status immunity, priority, and a move that can help it set up, then breloom is "the best" for you.
but really it comes down to, why would you use something that's not "the best"?
:) I'll give an example. I used butterfree in ten OU matches as a lead and out of the 10 I won seven of the matches. Now is butterfree the best lead in all of pokemon? No of course not, but does it work in OU? I think it does.
I don't know, maybe it's the way I look at it. Tbh, I really don't care if I win or lose, I just want to have a good fun match.
True but that wasn't my point :P
When I said scared, I met scared of losing. So, in a round-about-way, that's what I said xD I said it that way because I would get more responses D:
But I totally agree with the rest of your post.
This is the answer if you really wanna be crude about it. Stealth rock is without a doubt the most centralizing thing ever created in pokemon. The people who think SR is keeping the top6 from getting out of control have never actually looked at how much damage SR does to other pokemon.
You wanna know why scizor remains consistently #1, because the best counters with resistance to bug and steel are all weak to SR. Look at all the analysis of all the offensive top 10. Every one of them have EVs optimized to work with SR. SR create those OHKO or 2HKOs that keep them at the top. There are many pokemon for example that could switch in on salamence, survive the +1 outrage, and either kill him or disable him. But wait, add SR, and the number of pokemon that can do that drastically fall. With multiple switches, that number falls even more. If you respond by saying, you should have SR up to prevent multiple switches, isnt that the definition of overcentralizing?? One pokemon, Rotom-A, is a top6 used pokemon specifically because he is the single best rapid spin blocker in the game. A single move, that in many games is used once, is powerful enough to push a pokemon up as one of the top 6 most used pokemon. What other move in the game can claim that?
See all the stall teams you keep seeing in OU above 1400, that use the pokemon you keep seeing over and over again? I guarantee everyone of them at their core is SR, rotom-A to block, and then walls to cause switches. I've heard of stall without spikes, have you ever heard of one without SR?
Now, The metagame has evolved, and it seems like the top 6 pokemon all seem to have good synergy with each other, and all seem to counter each other. But, if we centered the meta game around a different pokemon, we could probably have a metagame just as aggressive and over centralized as ours;
So, what I think we need to do is experiment, and make a team that isn't made centered around or against the current metagame to beat it; And experiment until we come up with some creative sets that pose great threats in any metagame, and that are unexpected.
So, what I think we need to do is experiment, and make a team that isn't made centered around or against the current metagame to beat it; And experiment until we come up with some creative sets that pose great threats in any metagame, and that are unexpected.
The likelyhood that you would be able to use Butterfree over another lead and win consistently at a higher CRE is unlikely. I'm sure it is reasonable to say that if you have a CRE of 1100, you could win consistently with many things, but it doesn't really amount to much.
And for the record, if you don't care about winning or losing, you probably shouldn't be making a point when it concerns a competitive perspective. I find winning and the competitive game fun of course, and they can share a correlation, but fun methods do not always share the same results as the methods that win games.
Eh... There is a distinct difference between banning Stealth Rock and banning [insertpokemonhere].
Clearly both Stealth Rock, and (for an examples sake) Salamence are not inherently broken in the current meta. Players are both able to deal with the suspects in question, and they are not required to win all games consistently (arguable with SR). I do not think there is a solid foundation to argue that SR is broken anymore than Salamence is.
However, unlike Salamence, the benefits added to the meta with the banishment of SR are blatantly obvious. Even though both would result in the shift of the game, SR would also serve to add more viable OU candidates.
The thing is that people have obviously been trying to do this and are unsuccessful in doing so. The top pokemon by far outclass the rest and are the easiest to work with when building a team. You could make a team with 4/6 of these pokemon in 5 minutes and have yourself a great team which can win the majority of matches. On the other hand you could spend weeks and weeks constructing a clever, original team which won't have a win ratio as good as the bog standard team. The metagame is becoming stagnant and I think that is why.
Agreed with banning SR. You lose quite a few otherwise good pokes by having stealth rock. Like moltres, bless its soul. Pretty much all fire types, even ones with good defenses and utility (like arcainine), are rendered inferior by SR.
It'd also make focus sash sets a lot more interesting =). You'd see a lot of those softer pokes coming up again as non-leads. Like sash alakazam.
Tournament suggestion anyone!?
=]
It'd also make focus sash sets a lot more interesting =). You'd see a lot of those softer pokes coming up again as non-leads. Like sash alakazam.
Tournament suggestion anyone!?
=]
cool, so i'll just always be leagues better than my opponent, and problem solved! after all, my opponent isn't trying to do the same thing back to me, right? my opponent might even be an eight-year-old retard. hell, while i'm at it, i'm going to go ahead and assume that my opponents will always be blind, deaf and paralyzed from the neck down as well.
do you see the flaw in that logic?
no, we aren't scared. using your example, infernape is simply believed to be better than bliaziken in 95 % of cases. so what if you can win with a blaziken? could you have won just as well with an infernape? the answer is almost always yes.
while uus and nus can work in in the standard metagame, there is a reason why they aren't ou. the top ou pokemon work well on as many teams as possible. scizor is at the top because it's terribly easy to just slap it onto any nearly-complete team. as you go down the tier list, there become fewer and fewer reasons to use the pokemon. the most obvious example is something like unown. sure, you might be able to win with an unown every now and then if your opponent is really terrible, but that doesn't mean you should ever use unown over, say, alakazam with hidden power.
the definition of "broken" as i understand it is that it is the one dominant strategy and that all other strategies are significantly inferior. i think this definitely applies to stealth rock in the standard metagame. however, banning stealth rock would have all kinds of negative consequences. probably the most notable of these is the real possibility of salamence being uber. right now, salamence is one of those very few pokemon that has zero counters at all, and it is the only pokemon currently in ou that has even the slightest chance of being uber. usually, the main defense against this argument is that salamence falls apart too quickly in practice, ie. some combination of stealth rock, life orb, and sandstorm will usually result in its demise, or bring its health low enough to be taken down by priority. take away stealth rock, and that argument becomes a hell of a lot weaker. you can't depend on "stealth rock + bullet punch" if stealth rock doesn't exist.
overall, stealth rock should probably stay in the overused metagame for the time being.
Can you please highlight these negative consequences for me? It seems to me you are basing this off of theorymon entirely. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt to test a meta without SR? Based on theorymon? What about Garchomp? Should we have avoided assuming him as a suspect, and consequently banning him later on, on the basis that we assumed "all kinds of negative consequences" would occur later on?
The answer to this is quite clearly no.
Do you know the definition of a counter? If so, I'd be inclined to believe you know full well that there are more Pokemon than just Salamence with little to no counter. In a meta as diverse as this one, you can't rely on counters. You rely on synergy, a flexible supportive team for the theme you strive for, and checks for your threats. Not counters. There are too many variables to consider to cover them all. Whether or not Salamence has any counters is clearly not detrimental to his placement in Standard as far as banning goes. He's a single threat in a game based on matches comprised of five other subjects.
That's your opinion, and I am not going to attempt to take that away from you. But may I remind you that we still have opinions that Manaphy and Latias are Uber, one of which is currently in the OU meta and one is likely soon to follow. I think it's safe to say that the majority agrees with the idea that they are not Uber, but that's the beauty of opinions; you don't need to have the thoughts of the majority.
While it is true that SR is a con to place on Salamence's resume of OU candidates, I don't believe it is the only one, and the only reason it is kept in the OU tier. Salamence's effectiveness is highly dependant on the set it carries, of which it can have multiples of. The reason Salamence is hard to handle is partially due to the fact that you cannot handle a set of Salamence properly most of the time until you are aware of the set being used. This is why Salamence will usually claim a kill a game, because that is what is sometimes required by both good and bad players in order to figure out what set is being used.
Latias can check all Salamence that do not run Scarf or DD. As for the DD set, it may require a Steel to be placed in on the outrage, or to assume an appropriate switch based on another move it may use, such as EQ, Brickbreak or Flamethrower.
With or without SR present, players using and opposing Salamence have always had to come to terms with this.
At any rate, I do not believe in refusing to assume SR as a suspect for the sole sake of keeping Salamence in the OU metagame. Quite clearly, more Pokemon will become playable in the OU tier to a noticeable extent to offset the chance of a single OU pogey being sent to Uber. And I think we can agree that if SR were to go, and Salamence was deemed too powerful, it would be at the fault of Salamence, not SR.
I think the real idea here is if you want to mix up the metagame, put some time aside, think creatively and come up with a new set.
While stuff like Swords Dance Lucario was fairly obvious, sets like Stallrein and Chain Chomp didn't invent themselves. Sure making viable game-altering sets isn't remotely easy, but its the best shot you have at changing how people approach OU.
While stuff like Swords Dance Lucario was fairly obvious, sets like Stallrein and Chain Chomp didn't invent themselves. Sure making viable game-altering sets isn't remotely easy, but its the best shot you have at changing how people approach OU.
Firstly, We only ban things because they are too powerful, or introduce too much luck. Uber Pokemon fall into the first case. OHKO and evasion clauses are a bit of both. If there were a hypothetical 500 base power move with no recoil learnt by many Pokemon, we would be justified in banning that.
Stealth Rock, while it has major impacts, introduces no luck and is in no way too powerful. Getting rid of it would change the metagame, but the official rules should not be changed solely to change the metagame If you want to play some matches without SR, by all means do so. Set up a server with a ladder where it's banned. But I don't see it becoming the official rules.
I think the prevalence of SR owes more to it being learnt by a lot of things than to the move itself. If more things learnt Spikes, we'd probably see a balance between usage of Spikes and of SR (and some teams using both) - they hit different things, so use what you need to hit.
Enough about SR. I have something to say about usage.
The way I see it, there are a few different reasons a Pokemon can be less-used.
* For many of its sets, in most situations, it's outclassed by something else. Blaziken, generally outclassed by Infernape. The Pokemon is thus restricted to the sets and situations where it is not outclassed. Blaziken would be better than Infernape in Trick Room.
* It's only useful on a few teams. Abomasnow would be an example - you're only going to use it on a Hail team.
* It's being overlooked. We can only find former examples of these - Roserade perhaps, it used to be UU but has made the move up.
* It's plain rubbish, ANY set it runs is outclassed by something else. Unown, Luvdisc.
In the first two cases, using the Pokemon in OU is perfectly sound if it fits on your team. In the last case, it's never worth using in OU if you actually want to win.
For the third case, and in all Pokemon for that matter, a simple mantra applies:
Use what works for you
Stealth Rock, while it has major impacts, introduces no luck and is in no way too powerful. Getting rid of it would change the metagame, but the official rules should not be changed solely to change the metagame If you want to play some matches without SR, by all means do so. Set up a server with a ladder where it's banned. But I don't see it becoming the official rules.
I think the prevalence of SR owes more to it being learnt by a lot of things than to the move itself. If more things learnt Spikes, we'd probably see a balance between usage of Spikes and of SR (and some teams using both) - they hit different things, so use what you need to hit.
Enough about SR. I have something to say about usage.
The way I see it, there are a few different reasons a Pokemon can be less-used.
* For many of its sets, in most situations, it's outclassed by something else. Blaziken, generally outclassed by Infernape. The Pokemon is thus restricted to the sets and situations where it is not outclassed. Blaziken would be better than Infernape in Trick Room.
* It's only useful on a few teams. Abomasnow would be an example - you're only going to use it on a Hail team.
* It's being overlooked. We can only find former examples of these - Roserade perhaps, it used to be UU but has made the move up.
* It's plain rubbish, ANY set it runs is outclassed by something else. Unown, Luvdisc.
In the first two cases, using the Pokemon in OU is perfectly sound if it fits on your team. In the last case, it's never worth using in OU if you actually want to win.
For the third case, and in all Pokemon for that matter, a simple mantra applies:
Use what works for you
Most people need to use the "best" option to win, that's true. If someone wants to use a less used poke that has pretty much the same role as the one who's widely used(say, Blaziken over Infernape), you just need to find out what you can do to make said poke to not be outclassed by the "better" option.
Blaziken case: Agility, Baton Pass, Reversal... there's things Blaziken can do that Infernape can't.
One of the best examples for me is Quagsire: everyone sees it as a inferior Swampert, but it's not. You just have to make use of its best traits: Water Absorb and Recover.
Quagsire makes a fine Latias counter with a max hp/sp.def spread, taking 50% from Draco Meteor, which you can Recover. And it's immune to the other used attacks(Thunderbolt and Surf).
Then you realize that Quagsire learns Curse. Since you have max hp/sp.def, it makes sense to use a Curse set, right? And hey, it isn't a inferior Cursepert, since it has Recover! Just like the Curser of choice in OU(Snorlax) it counters Heatran, with the plus of countering Gyarados as well... and it's the perfect Crocune counter. It also can take U-Turns from Scizor and Recover its health. And it is immune to Thunderbolts from Rotom-A, resists Overheat, immune to Hydro Pump, only fears Leaf Storm... oh, there's Starmie without Grass Knot too...
Some of those pokes can't be countered by Cursepert(the ones that has strong water attacks), and Swampert doesn't have Recover, relying on Rest to recover its health.
Bam, we have a set that Quagsire is probably better than Swampert in OU, even if Quagsire has really low stats.
Most people are accomodated using only the top 10 pokes. There's little to no exploration these days. People are set to use the same sets for the same pokes, making the metagame somewhat boring.
It always brings a smile in my face when i win with a team of CB Hippowdon lead with Floatzel, Aggron, SD Celebi... even if i'm facing the same pokes over and over.
Blaziken case: Agility, Baton Pass, Reversal... there's things Blaziken can do that Infernape can't.
One of the best examples for me is Quagsire: everyone sees it as a inferior Swampert, but it's not. You just have to make use of its best traits: Water Absorb and Recover.
Quagsire makes a fine Latias counter with a max hp/sp.def spread, taking 50% from Draco Meteor, which you can Recover. And it's immune to the other used attacks(Thunderbolt and Surf).
Then you realize that Quagsire learns Curse. Since you have max hp/sp.def, it makes sense to use a Curse set, right? And hey, it isn't a inferior Cursepert, since it has Recover! Just like the Curser of choice in OU(Snorlax) it counters Heatran, with the plus of countering Gyarados as well... and it's the perfect Crocune counter. It also can take U-Turns from Scizor and Recover its health. And it is immune to Thunderbolts from Rotom-A, resists Overheat, immune to Hydro Pump, only fears Leaf Storm... oh, there's Starmie without Grass Knot too...
Some of those pokes can't be countered by Cursepert(the ones that has strong water attacks), and Swampert doesn't have Recover, relying on Rest to recover its health.
Bam, we have a set that Quagsire is probably better than Swampert in OU, even if Quagsire has really low stats.
Most people are accomodated using only the top 10 pokes. There's little to no exploration these days. People are set to use the same sets for the same pokes, making the metagame somewhat boring.
It always brings a smile in my face when i win with a team of CB Hippowdon lead with Floatzel, Aggron, SD Celebi... even if i'm facing the same pokes over and over.
We do not ban things based on luck, unless you would like to direct me towards a reference that indicates otherwise. We have OHKO and Evasion Clause because they were old customs, much like Sleep Clause, that at the time they were implemented in their respective metagames, weighed significantly more than they may do so now.
Rather, I think it is more appropriate to say that we ban things because they are too powerful, and reinforce the idea of a more competitive environment. Whether or not that includes luck as a factor, that is up for the community to decide, but it has never been a part of our suspect policy.
And for the record, they are now attempting to test Pokemon with OHKO and Evasion Clause absent.
I'm tempted to argue how you're incorrect, and how SR is too powerful, but I'll refrain.
Anyway, if you truly believe the rules should not be changed solely to change the meta, then what do you believe the policy review is for? It is to help promote the most healthy, competitive Pokemon community possible, for Shoddy and Smogon. In order to reach a destination, we need change to happen.
Clearly the meta didn't collapse when Garchomp was still here, but I'll think of a more appropriate example.
So far we have managed to allow Wob, Latias, Deoxy-S, and Manaphy for a short period, in to our main stream battles. Our battles have fluctuated, so has the way the game has been played, and even the tiers. I think the fact that 3/4 of those Pokemon are still in Ubers is a testament as to where they should be placed, or where they will wind up staying in the future. However, despite this, we have maintained a relatively healthy meta, even with the inclusion of these Pokemon. But if we were able to maintain a style of play in which the community thrived upon during these circumstances, then why follow along with the suspect tests at all? Why even bother?
It's to promote change, to bend the rules and regulations and the way the game is played to our ideals. Smogon promotes to replicate the cartridge, but it does not decide how the game is played. We do, and for that sake, the official rules are changed to change the metagame.
13/30 of the top 30 OU Pokemon in the NOV 2009 statistics are immune to spikes, and for giggles sake, 21/30 are immune to Toxic Spikes, and 4/30 are able to switch out via Natural Cure.
No Pokemon used in OU, except for Clefable, are immune to Stealth Rock.
Spikes takes 3 turns to maximize its effects, in which event, the most amount of damage it can serve on switches is 25%. Toxic Spikes clearly is another matter in terms of damage, but it too takes 2 turns to maximize its effects. If a Rapid Spin user comes in to play, you either are forced to play your Ghost type to prevent the loss of your hazards, or you risk wasting 2-3 turns in your battle, in which you will need to use another 2-3 turns to gain back that advantage, and after you kill off RS user.
Stealth Rock takes a single turn to set up, which means that even if Rapid Spin is used, the turns equal out, and the playing field is reset in terms of turn advantage. To gain the advantage back, it again merely takes a single turn.
As from a damage perspective, Stealth Rock takes a single turn to do the equivalent damage that 3 layers of Spikes will do, and has the potential to double that damage, for the same price.
Toxic Spikes and Spikes do not heavily influence the entire metagame, and are not required to win within a high CRE on all teams without significant disadvantage.
Stealth Rock effects the entire metagame, in every tier, heavily, and is of a severe disadvantage to the player that chooses to ignore using it themselves.
As far as team handling is concerned, one does not need to fear that SR will serve no use to the user, meanwhile it is not uncommon for a player to find out he wasted 2 turns with Toxic Spikes to find out his opponent is using all Steel Types and Levitators/Flying types. This applies less to Spikes clearly, but it still of a great concern when team building. This does not apply to Stealth Rock.
Toxic Spikes and Spikes require team support in order to work.
Stealth Rock does not.
It is the most risk free, rewarding, stand alone move, influential piece of garbage I have ever seen. It reminds me of Pot of Greed/Graceful Charity from Yu-Gi-Oh.
I stand corrected.
To improve it. I think we should only make changes we think will make the meta 'better'. Not change things for the sake of change. (To take a silly example, allowing Arceus in OU would certainly change the metagame.) Stagnation is not a problem in and of itself IMHO
With 1 layer of spikes:
Metagross, Jirachi, Lucario, Machamp, Magnezone, and Breloom, are all hit harder by spikes than by Stealth Rock. Another 11 of the top 30 are hit equally by either, and then there are the 13 immune to Spikes.
With 2 or 3 layers of spikes, 17 of the top 30 OU Pokes are hit harder, while 13 are immune. But you don't need three layers. An offensive team is best off setting up one layer, then attacking.
Spikes isn't of itself vastly inferior to SR. Which would be ideal depends on what your team has more trouble with. (With the trouble Machamp's been giving me, I wouldn't mind hitting it harder when it comes in.) The problem is that the Pokemon that learn SR are themselves better than the Pokemon that learn Spikes. If Game Freak had given Jolteon or Crobat spikes (and ideally taunt too for Jolteon), spikes really would be a viable alternative to SR, on any style of team.
Of course BOTH would be ideal. That way you hit almost everything for at least 1/8 damage. SR + 1 layer of spikes is better than two layers of spikes. But only Forretress, Omastar, Skarmory, and Deoxys get both, and it does mean using up two moveslots.
tl;dr: Spikes isn't outclassed by Stealth Rock, they hit different things. But there are hardly any spikes users.
I believe the metagame has been shifted to a certain point of view on the usability spectrum. The only way to advance our countering ability is come out with the most unexpected move-sets with the most common Pokemon such as TTar, Mence, and the Red Rocket [Scizor]. If we tap into their defensive or utility capabilities we could possible shift the spectrum of usability down a notch and allow more Pokemon into the standard metagame. The only way to do this is to outlaw certain movesets from certain Pokemon. However, Pokemon may be to bias to open the usability spectrum....
The point that I was making was that in order to improve upon something of it's current state, change needs to occur. Not that we should change things for the mere sake of it.
I did not say Stealth Rock is completely superior to Spikes or Toxic Spikes. Clearly the other two hazards have benefits SR does not. The reason I outlined the differences between the two, and how they effect the meta, is to outline how the low risk, high reward nature of Stealth Rock negatively effects the environment the way the other two simply don't. Stealth Rock will not win you the game, or even prove to be more beneficial, than the other two hazards 100% of the time. Much the same way Garchomp would will not sweep a team 100% of the time. We could for examples sake argue that a Baton Pass to Metagross with [/insertstatuphere] is superior in a given circumstance to Garchomp. But the reward to risk ration between my given example, and Garchomp, is not comparable by any means.
Again, I'll say it once more. Toxic Spikes and Spikes do not shape out metagame the way it is now, regardless of their unique advantages. At least, not to any significant degree, and not even comparably so to Stealth Rock.
The multitude of Spike users isn't really relevant to this discussion, because we are talking about the effects that the moves themselves have on our meta, and subsequently, whether or not they (Stealth Rock) deserve to be considered a suspect. There are more than enough usable users of the move itself in the OU environment to display its effects appropriately.
with one layer of spikes the top 30 take a combined total of 225% upon switching in.
with stealth rock the top 10 pokemon switching in take a total of 128.125%
with stealth rock the top 20 pokemon switching in take a total of 228.125%
with stealth rock the top 30 pokemon switching in take a total of 371.875%
So who ever on the last page said one layer of spikes isnt much worse than one layer of stealth rock is severely misinformed. In fact two layers of spikes fails to outdamage stealth rock on the top 30 OU.
Note that each pokemon is weighted evenly here. If I were to weight the usages then stealth rock would even have MORE of an advantage as the top 7 in OU take a combined total of 50% from one layer of spikes but 112.5 % from SR.
with stealth rock the top 10 pokemon switching in take a total of 128.125%
with stealth rock the top 20 pokemon switching in take a total of 228.125%
with stealth rock the top 30 pokemon switching in take a total of 371.875%
So who ever on the last page said one layer of spikes isnt much worse than one layer of stealth rock is severely misinformed. In fact two layers of spikes fails to outdamage stealth rock on the top 30 OU.
Note that each pokemon is weighted evenly here. If I were to weight the usages then stealth rock would even have MORE of an advantage as the top 7 in OU take a combined total of 50% from one layer of spikes but 112.5 % from SR.