Open Hazard Discussion Thread

**Django** · November 21st, 2011, 20:51

Recently NU has become abundant with a number of good hazard setters, and still has the fantastic spinblockers as before. However, it has next to no spinners able to beat the spinblockers. This leads to hazard centralized teams (both offensive and defensive) being seen as overpowered in many people’s eyes. There are a number of ways of dealing with this, as detailed below.

(Please not that I am not suggesting or promoting any of the options below, merely detailing them to promote discussion)

Ban or nerf the spinblockers.

The defensive spinblockers in NU (primarily Frillish and Misdreavus) are almost unbeatable by the spinners in NU, stupid sets like Sub Toxic Cryogonal aside. Offensive spinblockers such as Rotom and Golurk are easier to deal with and do not have the same kind of staying power. However, the main reason Misdreavus and Frillish are so good at their jobs is because of Eviolite. So if you want to ban or nerf the spinblockers, there are yet still more options. We could outright ban them, or ban Eviolite on them.

Ban or nerf the hazard setters.

Recently many very good hazard layers dropped into NU (Crustle, Scolipede, Steelix). This is where the problem stems from, but the amount of Pokemon with access to Stealth Rock/Spikes is pretty large, and how can one determine which ones are overpowered and which are not? As for nerfing them, banning specific moves on specific Pokemon is seen as pretty drastic, but if that really is the best way to do it then so be it.

Ban Hazards outright

Perhaps the most controversial solution, this would see a ban on certain hazards, or indeed all 3. Or perhaps there should be a limit to one type of hazard per team? The combination of ways of doing this is pretty massive. Again, banning moves is seen as pretty drastic by some, but if it is the best solution then that is the direction we will take.

So post your opinions on the matter here. Please note we will take almost all options into consideration, but be sure to back up your posts with solid reasoning and logic, as they are less likely to be taken seriously otherwise. Also, this thread will be closely moderated, and if we see any of the flaming and poor posting that went on in the Stealth Rock discussion then punishments will be handed out. You have been warned.

Also note, this discussion is ONLY for NU. Hazard related issues in higher tiers are not to be discussed here.

**fidgety** · November 21st, 2011, 21:19

I'ld say based on the fact that hazards have been an issue in NU since prior to the Hazard setters that dropped this month it is either Entry hazards themselves or the Spin-blockers (the setters may need a look into if hazards aren't banned oughtright, but the fact stands that they weren't around to be a problem when said problem first emerged though it may have escalated since). I'ld say start by banning Eviolite on the Blockers (gasp fidgety endorsing a complex ban) as this lets us at least see what Missy and Frillish are like without it (this SHOULD be enough to at least fix the Spin-blocker issue). Next if hazards are still an issue (but not spinning) the door is open to test the Hazard setters, or if we are finding that we are banning to many of them Hazards themselves.

**Marche Radiuju** · November 21st, 2011, 21:23

I feel that the issue lies with the spinblockers. I would suggest a nerfing along the lines of 'no Eviolite Frillish/Misdreavus on the same team as more than one hazard setter', which would also include the likes of spikes/toxic spikes on Roselia/Scolipede. If the spinblockers didn't have such a stronghold over the tier as a whole, then the hazards wouldn't be so strong. Torkoal and Cryogonal, the best spinners of the tier, have a hard time at best defeating these multipurpose Pokemon, and even if they could somehow beat them, their movesets would be too specialized to help them survive, having bad typings and stat spreads.

Having a greater amount of setters doesn't necessarily help, I'd like to add. Running 2 SR/spikes users makes you more vulnerable, since a lot of common setters share weaknesses. Just a single set is all you need when you can have Frillish or Misdreavus block off any attempts to spin; arguments like 'predict the spinblocker' are completely redundent, because they assume player skill comes into factor, which it shouldn't when tiering.

**~~suzaliscious~~** · November 21st, 2011, 21:35

I agree with Marche. Better setters *can* be an issue, but that's more due to the setter itself being versatile or powerful as in Scolipede's case. It's really the spinblockers that are the real problem.

The thing is, a "No Eviolite" on Frillish or Misdreavus = banning them anyway, since who would use them without Eviolite? Actually, discount that as theorymon. I'd be in favor of this complex ban for once, since the bulky spinblockers are a serious problem.

**ShadowRayquaza** · November 21st, 2011, 21:37

As we all know, most NU 'mons are in this tier because of their crippling weakness to hazards, mostly Stealth Rock. Removing / nerfing hazards in some way, shape, or form will drastically alter the metagame. Banning / nerfing hazards will cause hazard weak 'mons to destroy NU, because most NU 'mons either are weak to Stealth Rock or are outclassed. This will cause the Stealth Rock weak 'mons to run rampant, because they are noticeably stronger and better than other NU 'mons, because the only reason they fell or are in NU is because our fantastic player base hates Stealth Rock weak 'mons. (See BROKENZARD) BROKENZARD was banned because although it is 4x weak to Stealth Rock, it can still decimate the entire tier easily. Now, BROKENZARD was banned because it was just absolutely too strong. There are many NU 'mons that have a crippling weakness, which would be their major setback, so it decreased its usefulness. Without hazards or nerfing hazards, NU would have a bunch of borked 'mons popping up, which would be absolutely chaotic. That is about all I have to say on the topic of banning / nerfing hazards themselves.

Banning / Nerfing the hazard layers or spin blockers is something I absolutely oppose. If you ban the hazard layers, you might as well ban hazards, and it wouldn't make such a dramatic impact. Banning the spin blockers on the other hand, is considerable, but banning a spin blocker purely for the purpose that it can spin block is ridiculous. Banning Rotom or Golurk because they are stronf AND can spinblock sounds more appealing, and is more logical, where banning... Frillish is... Yeah. Banning Frillish from NU. We have other priorities.
EDIT: forgot about nerfing, so I would agree with nerfing spinblockers, but not hazard layers, as that has almost the same effect as banning hazards.

**Galblade** · November 21st, 2011, 21:46

I think banning SR is the way to go here. All spinners in NU are weak to it (except for spinda and eviolite mons), and banning SR would help them survive frillish/misdreavus a lot better if they have to switch out. Frillish/misdreavus themselves can be weakened by Toxic, though missy has Heal bell.

About SR weak pokemon running rampant after SR ban, give us some examples... BROKENZARD is gone. Articuno could be a big deal maybe, Delibird... lol. If we do find some mons broken after whatever nerf we decide to implement, we can just ban them.

**Marche Radiuju** · November 21st, 2011, 21:54

Originally Posted by ShadowRayquaza

As we all know, most NU 'mons are in this tier because of their crippling weakness to hazards, mostly Stealth Rock. Removing / nerfing hazards in some way, shape, or form will drastically alter the metagame. Banning / nerfing hazards will cause hazard weak 'mons to destroy NU, because most NU 'mons either are weak to Stealth Rock or are outclassed. This will cause the Stealth Rock weak 'mons to run rampant, because they are noticeably stronger and better than other NU 'mons, because the only reason they fell or are in NU is because our fantastic player base hates Stealth Rock weak 'mons. (See BROKENZARD) BROKENZARD was banned because although it is 4x weak to Stealth Rock, it can still decimate the entire tier easily. Now, BROKENZARD was banned because it was just absolutely too strong. There are many NU 'mons that have a crippling weakness, which would be their major setback, so it decreased its usefulness. Without hazards or nerfing hazards, NU would have a bunch of borked 'mons popping up, which would be absolutely chaotic. That is about all I have to say on the topic of banning / nerfing hazards themselves.

So you're saying that the reason we shouldn't ban something broken is because it checks other broken things? That logic's been proven false many times. We ban the broken parts of hazards, and then we ban the broken pokemon that might pop up afterwards. You shouldn't tier with mind to what might become broken, because the point of tiering is to remove all that broken (at least in the low tiers).

Banning / Nerfing the hazard layers or spin blockers is something I absolutely oppose. If you ban the hazard layers, you might as well ban hazards, and it wouldn't make such a dramatic impact. Banning the spin blockers on the other hand, is considerable, but banning a spin blocker purely for the purpose that it can spin block is ridiculous. Banning Rotom or Golurk because they are stronf AND can spinblock sounds more appealing, and is more logical, where banning... Frillish is... Yeah. Banning Frillish from NU. We have other priorities.
EDIT: forgot about nerfing, so I would agree with nerfing spinblockers, but not hazard layers, as that has almost the same effect as banning hazards.

I disagree with this a bit too, because as was stated in the original post Golurk and Rotom are not as effective spinblockers as Misdreavus and Frillish, because they don't have the same staying power. Short of abusing weaknesses and multiple hits (because both have reliable recovery), there are few ways to truly get rid of these things, especially with one of NU's famously bad spinners. And if we have other priorities in NU apart from banning the biggest spinblocker in the tier that has many people up in arms, pray tell, what are these important problems that leaders and players alike are missing?

**VuvuzelaΒzz** · November 22nd, 2011, 19:36

In my opinion carrying a spinner in NU with SR around is extremely limiting to team building and effectiveness in team-building, as every spinner that's half-decent is weak to it; that, though, is merely my opinion and I do not expect tiering decisions to be based on it. However, in order to deal with hazards at all you have to run any of the sub-par pokes that are NU's spinners. Even then, you are not guaranteed to get the spin off, regardless of whether if you set up what would otherwise be a perfect opportunity to spin, due to the opponent carrying a spin-blocker that will effectively stop any spinner you can run from fulfilling it's role. This in my opinion is what makes SR and Spikes broken in NU. Unfortunately, judging by how the last discussion went I'm not convinced that any of the above recycled points are going to affect our current course of action, so here's my proposal for the time being, taking into consideration what are seemingly the tier leaders' preferences:

1)Suspect/Ban Crustle and Scolipede.

If the problem persists:

2)Ban spikes and SR or spin-blockers(Frillish definitely, Misdreavus possibly)

Now for responses to prior posts:

As we all know, most NU 'mons are in this tier because of their crippling weakness to hazards, mostly Stealth Rock.

I know nothing of the sort and I am fairly certain it is not anywhere near the truth. Yes, some of NU's pokemon are NU in great part due to their weakness to SR, however it is by no means the majority of the tiers pokemon, nor is it a reason to not ban SR.

Removing / nerfing hazards in some way, shape, or form will drastically alter the metagame. Banning / nerfing hazards will cause hazard weak 'mons to destroy NU, because most NU 'mons either are weak to Stealth Rock or are outclassed. This will cause the Stealth Rock weak 'mons to run rampant, because they are noticeably stronger and better than other NU 'mons, because the only reason they fell or are in NU is because our fantastic player base hates Stealth Rock weak 'mons. (See BROKENZARD) BROKENZARD was banned because although it is 4x weak to Stealth Rock, it can still decimate the entire tier easily. Now, BROKENZARD was banned because it was just absolutely too strong. There are many NU 'mons that have a crippling weakness, which would be their major setback, so it decreased its usefulness. Without hazards or nerfing hazards, NU would have a bunch of borked 'mons popping up, which would be absolutely chaotic. That is about all I have to say on the topic of banning / nerfing hazards themselves.

Yes, it will change the metagame, but so what? Changing the cutoff for LU drastically changed it's metagame, banning Gligar, the single greatest centralising force in the tier caused a great shift in the metagame, and yet both actions were realised without hesitation. The possible change of a tiering decision on the metagame is not to be affected by the possible changes or even damage it could have on the metagame. This is because a)speculation of the changes would be based solely on theorymon, which is by no means reliable, and b)any detrimental changes to the metagame can be resolved by new suspect decisions. If the change is soooo horribly bad that it makes the metagame a lot worse than before and many new pokemon broken then the decision can always be taken back.

That said, you provided no examples or argumentation to prove your point. The only thing I can see being broken by any nerf to hazards is Articuno and maybe(unlikely) Archeops and there is no conclusive evidence to support either theory for the time being.

Banning the spin blockers on the other hand, is considerable, but banning a spin blocker purely for the purpose that it can spin block is ridiculous. Banning Rotom or Golurk because they are stronf AND can spinblock sounds more appealing, and is more logical, where banning... Frillish is... Yeah.

Banning spin-blockers for their effectiveness as spin-blockers is by no means ridiculous. It is banning them for supporting too well and let me remind you that team-support is one of the criteria by which a pokemon can be deemed to be broken(Chansey in UU was banned due to a combination of walling and supporting capabilites). If hazard-stacking teams are broken due to the effectiveness of their spin-blockers then that's what you ban.

Banning Frillish from NU. We have other priorities.

Juggler got dis:

Originally Posted by Marche Radiuju

And if we have other priorities in NU apart from banning the biggest spinblocker in the tier that has many people up in arms, pray tell, what are these important problems that leaders and players alike are missing?

**Django** · November 22nd, 2011, 20:07

Ok I'm going to put a few calcs out there, to show how Eviolite on Misdreavus and Frillish is overpowering.

Misdreavus is running 252 HP and 252 Def with Eviolite and Bold. Frillish is running the same.

So, Torkoal

Look at the difference between Eviolite and non Eviolite. And don't tell me running Fire Blast Torkoal is a bad idea, when it can deal that much damage to one of the best spinblockers in the tier. I won't go into offensive Shell Smash Torkoal because I'll get raged at...it beats the spinblockers, and then spins.

Again, 5HKO > 3HKO (Possibly less with hazards) is a massive difference. And note that Torkoal can easily spare more EV's for Sp. Atk. Without Eviolite these two have to think a lot harder about switching in.

Ok moving on to Armaldo

So Misdreavus can't switch directly into Max Atk. Armaldo without Eviolite. Cool.

Frillish was scared of switching directly in already, but without Eviolite has an even harder time.

Now Cryogonal

(I've put Cryogonal in hide tags since it was already the most reliable spinner, and can beat Frillish and Misdreavus on occasion)

So whats the point of this post? Basically, both Torkoal and Armaldo become MUCH better spinners without Eviolite on Frillish and Misdreavus. If that was removed, then the situation would become much more manageable IMO. It still doesn't solve the problem of the spinners being in general sub par Pokemon, but they all have niche roles which they fill well. There are two ways of going about this, either banning Eviolite, or banning Eviolite on Frillish and Misdreavus. I am not expecting many people to agree with either of these proposals, but let me know your thoughts on this.

If people are very opposed to this, then I would agree with suspecting Crustle after Scolipede.

**pokemonnerd** · November 22nd, 2011, 20:49

I personally think the problem lies within Frillish. Possibly Misdreavus should be looked at as well. Golurk, Haunter and Rotom are all much easier to deal with simply due to the fact that they're generally offensive and generally can't take that much punishment before going down, and even defensive Rotom isn't that hard to get rid of due to lack of recovery outside of Rest.

Actually, that's the main thing that makes Frillish so damn hard to spin on; the fact that it has recovery. Misdreavus only has Pain Split, and although it can use it effectively, it still dies eventually without that much effort needed to down it. Also, this is almost unrelated, but the fact that we may ban frillish and/or Misdreavus, or at least eviolite on one or both(which I'd like to avoid unless there is a huge movement about it), I'd like to remind you guys about this thread.

Just saying.

**Marche Radiuju** · November 22nd, 2011, 20:56

What was the concluding proposal on Eviolite bans? Was there a set amount of evio abusers that would change eviolite to be banned? I honestly think that is a viable option, because not only would it weaken some of these overpowered bulky sweepers (Shelgon and some others) but it would allow us to better gauge the threats from offensive sweepers being held back by these eviolite users (anything walled by Golbat/ previously by Gligar comes to mind).

**pokemonnerd** · November 22nd, 2011, 21:44

The proposal was basically my last post in there; if we ban 4 or 5 NFEs that are broken because of the defensive boost Eviolite gives, then we ban Eviolite and lift the bans on the NFE pokemon. Me, Django and Luck think that 4 pokemon is enough of an indication that the item is broken.

We are including any complex bans we may do if there is enough support for one(like no eviolite on Misdreavus or Frillish), and if we did ban both pokemon or the combo it would bump the number of Eviolite using pokemon to 3.

**Groudon Ramsay** · November 22nd, 2011, 22:18

I really need to get back into NU... I haven't played since the drops. Anyway, I'm only posting because I feel the need to remind everyone that the two most prominent hazard setters (Scolipede and Crustle) both have superb offensive sets in addition to their support sets. Kinda like Roserade in UU. Anyway, I can't really think of any pokemon that can switch into both and have its user come out on top under normal battle conditions.

I can't formulate an actual opinion on the matter until I play the meta for a little, but as of now it seems to me like the best way to go is banning the hazard-setters.

**Platinum** · November 24th, 2011, 13:15

Originally Posted by kokoloko

I really need to get back into NU... I haven't played since the drops. Anyway, I'm only posting because I feel the need to remind everyone that the two most prominent hazard setters (Scolipede and Crustle) both have superb offensive sets in addition to their support sets. Kinda like Roserade in UU. Anyway, I can't really think of any pokemon that can switch into both and have its user come out on top under normal battle conditions.

I can't formulate an actual opinion on the matter until I play the meta for a little, but as of now it seems to me like the best way to go is banning the hazard-setters.

Your point is quite true, but Crustle is easier to stop if you can Taunt its hazard set (it's slow), but that's when the problem with the SS sweeper comes in. Actually, I'm theorymoning because so far I have not seen anyone used that SS Crustle, it seems that the hazards set has more benefits since it's too slow to sweep. Scolipede, on the other hand, can be very flexible because it's easier for Scolipede to sweep imo.

I also agree that we should ban the hazard-setters, as with the drop some of the better ones came to NU (Steelex, Crustle, Scolipede, Regirock). Comparing them to the popular setters in the previous months such as Golem, Armaldo, Metang, or Roselia, the new ones probably have better utility overall.

**Luck>Skill** · November 24th, 2011, 13:16

Since it looks like the true problem are the defensive spinblockers (Frillish and Misdreavus) I'd be for banning Eviolite. Eviolite is an item that makes a lot of pokemon VERY good, and some broken (the 2 ghosts, Gligar, Tangela might be looked into, Munchlax isn't broken but it's very good with evio). A ban of Eviolite would make hazards A LOT less problematic, since with leftovers the ghosts don't perform nearly as well as with Eviolite. And no, we aren't doing a complex ban like Eviolite + those pokemon, because that would be very stupid. With nerfed spinblockers, and the possible ban of Scolipede, hazards should become a less centralizing force of the metagame.

**Galblade** · November 24th, 2011, 22:24

Originally Posted by Platinum

I also agree that we should ban the hazard-setters, as with the drop some of the better ones came to NU (Steelex, Crustle, Scolipede, Regirock). Comparing them to the popular setters in the previous months such as Golem, Armaldo, Metang, or Roselia, the new ones probably have better utility overall.

Hazards have been a problem long before these drops even happened. Banning the hazard setters is not the way to do this. Steelix/Crustle/regirock might not be broken if another action is taken and we should be trying to limit as many bans as possible.

**pokemonnerd** · November 25th, 2011, 01:39

It doesn't matter how many of the hazard layers you ban; the spin blockers that are nigh on impossible to spin on will still be there. If we go that route we may as well just ban the hazards, since this has been a problem for quite a long time(relative to how long the tier's existed anyway). We're only getting to it now because Scolipede was such an overwhelming force that, with decent playing, guaranteed a layer of spikes or two.

**Galblade** · November 25th, 2011, 02:27

Ban SR and Frillish I think is the best course of action. Spinners major weakness atm is their SR weakness, with SR gone they can't die as easily just from being forced out. Repeated argument ftl I think :S

**fidgety** · November 25th, 2011, 02:33

Ok, this thread proves how little attention my posts get as in the First post I pointed out the fact that hazards have long been an issue the only one who has posted who has given any illusion to potentially paying my post any mind is luck and it is really due to something I forgot to put in in the first place (I meant to go on to say: after the complex ban test ends go on to fully Test ban them and use the first test ban as a Way to Judge how they will impact the meta if an Eviolite ban does Occur).

@above 1. the Leaders have made it clear that they have no intentions to introduce a Complex ban. 2. Honestly While Rocks does do a number on all the Spinners there is not reason to ban it even to a low level As of yet if for no other reason than we haven't proved directly that it is the full source of the issue as opposed to just a significant Aspect therefore the ban wont have the necessary support to go anywhere.

**pokemonnerd** · November 25th, 2011, 03:07

No one ignored your post, it's just that you didn't argue anything. You simply proposed things we could possibly do to remedy the situation, which was already done in the opening post.

**Galblade** · November 25th, 2011, 03:26

Originally Posted by fidgety

@above 1. the Leaders have made it clear that they have no intentions to introduce a Complex ban. 2. Honestly While Rocks does do a number on all the Spinners there is not reason to ban it even to a low level As of yet if for no other reason than we haven't proved directly that it is the full source of the issue as opposed to just a significant Aspect therefore the ban wont have the necessary support to go anywhere.

I don't see how SR ban then an additional Frillish ban is complex.

**Zephiell** · November 25th, 2011, 03:33

I run offense in NU, I do dislike stall in general. I would suggest going out for the Evolite ban, as Luck said, the true problem is on the spinblockers since it's hard for spinners to KO them.

**fidgety** · November 25th, 2011, 03:44

Originally Posted by Galblade

I don't see how SR ban then an additional Frillish ban is complex.

OK i though you were Proposing Frillish + rocks on the same team though the Second point still stands for rocks.

@Pnerd it was more the point on why the Spin Blockers to start with and not the Setters (people have been acting like that it is just now that Hazards have been an issue when this is hardly the first time they have been brought up and I had attempted to remind people of that in said post).

**Platinum** · November 25th, 2011, 06:10

Ok so after reading the arguments and having a short talk with Luck last night, I support at least a testban of Eviolite to see how the tier adapts. Hazards or not, Eviolite is proven to be OP in NU with so many good abusers, so (test)banning Eviolite can balance the tier as well as nerfing the hazards.

**Galblade** · November 25th, 2011, 07:05

Just like to remind you guys on behalf of pnerd about this thread: http://pokemon-online.eu/forums/show...l=1#post103077 With Frillish and Misdreavus being the only spin blockers abusing eviolite, I don't think we should discuss it in depth here.

**Xdevo** · November 25th, 2011, 07:39

Originally Posted by Platinum

Ok so after reading the arguments and having a short talk with Luck last night, I support at least a testban of Eviolite to see how the tier adapts. Hazards or not, Eviolite is proven to be OP in NU with so many good abusers, so (test)banning Eviolite can balance the tier as well as nerfing the hazards.

While I'm not against a test-ban, I definately do not think Eviolite is broken. Almost all of the pokemon that could be considered broken with Eviolite, have outstanding BST or some other feature that makes them so powerful. Gligar had a great speed, Defs, and Atk. Duosion has Magic Guard and 125 SpA. Frillish has the typing and Movepool. Gurdurr had the high attack and a great set-up method and guts. Without these things none of the users would be broken, obviously the Pokemon are the ones that are broken, not eviolite as a whole.

**Luck>Skill** · November 25th, 2011, 08:33

Could you please stop posting saying Duosion is good? It /fucking/ sucks >_>

I don't see why you would ban 4/5/6 pokemon instead of Eviolite, if it's clearly Eviolite that makes them broken, just like we banned Damp Rock instead of Ludicolo + Seismitoad + Kabutops...

On the Eviolite topic, Tangela is another possible suspect on my list :3

**Galblade** · November 25th, 2011, 10:17

Luck, in the Eviolite discussion thread its been decided that if 4 or more abusers are banned then eviolite will be banned overall. Hate to say it, but can we stick to the topic...

**Drigger** · November 25th, 2011, 13:09

Banning Evoilite just because 2 Pokemon are ruining a tier seems unfair to Pokemon that are actually viable in the tier with Evolite. Metang, Golbat, Roselia, Rhydon, Tangela etc.

Something I think is missing is the fact that Armaldo Learns Knock Off. While It is sacrificing possibly an offensive slot it becomes better at being a Spinner.

**pokemonnerd** · November 25th, 2011, 13:17

We would not be banning it because 2 pokemon are running the tier, we would be banning it because it makes too many pokemon overpowered. Banning 4 or however other pokemon, assuming we even ban that many, is ridiculous to me. Banning that many just because of one item to "maintain diversity" seems a bit ridiculous to me, especially seeing how the eviolite walls that initially caused the eviolite complaints are so centralizing in and of themselves.

Anyway, the Eviolite thread is open again. Please argue over there about the possibility of it being banned; I'm not so stubborn that I refuse to change my mind about the ruling. Since this topic is specifically about the hazards in the tier, any further posts after this about eviolite as a whole(you can still mention it on frillish/misdreavus) will be infracted for going off topic.

Feel free to quote me in this thread and respond in the Eviolite one, of course.

**Galblade** · December 4th, 2011, 02:11

Seems that this subject has been benched for the eviolite test. On the server people have been saying that Crustle should be the one banned next because once that is gone Spikes will have to be used by specialised pokemon. Thats a BS way of nerfing the problem. Crustle's Offensive set is no where near as good as Scolipede's was, and banning it just for spikes is not the way forward. I stick to my previous recommendation, ban SR so spinners actually work and keep Crustle in the meta.

**Django** · December 4th, 2011, 09:19

Banning SR, which would be an interesting way of dealing with the problem, is not the right way to solve it imo. It is an unnecessary ban on a move when the problem can be solved in simpler ways. I would like people to give time for the Eviolite test limit thing, because believe you me it WILL have an affect on this. With only one Eviolite on each team people have to think a lot harder before simply sacrificing every single other Eviolite mon for a Frillish or Misdreavus, both of which become a lot easier to take down without Eviolite cores backing them up anyway.

Now, it seems to me that people have again lost the concept of playing around something. I'm not advocating keeping everything unbanned because you can play around it, but really, Stealth Rock is not on the field 100% of the time. It's obvious when something is going to use Stealth Rock, so use that free turn to your advantage. Furthermore, it's pretty obvious when something is going to switch in and use Stealth Rock, so make the opponent pay for it, send in something that can beat the Stealth Rock setter so either they have to switch out or they lose a mon just for Stealth Rock.

On the topic of the "unbeatable" ghost types; its not like the spinners are the only things allowed to attack them. They do have to serve some role on a team apart from beating the spinners (absorbing water/fighting attacks, for example). Because of this, run something that will lure them in and beat them. Look at Flame Orb Guts Haryiama, it brings both of those in and then slams the hell out of them with Payback/Knock Off.

./rant.

Basically, the playerbase in general (note this applies to all tiers), need too play around things more, rather than getting upset when something's standard set gets beaten by the things that are meant to counter it. On Stealth Rock, it's an incredibly annoying move yes, but can be played around and used to your advantage, and it's not impossible to get rid of either.

**pokemonnerd** · December 4th, 2011, 14:40

Just a side note: people have been thinking Stealth Rock has been broken since the move's debut last gen. This isn't really a new thing at all; Smogon's council just kind of brushed it to the side as simply a new game mechanic. Although I agree with the "playing around threats" parts of your post, SR in particular isn't just a side effect of people screaming broken at the smallest things.

Thread: Open Hazard Discussion Thread

Thread Tools

Display

Open Hazard Discussion Thread

Posting Permissions