All Gens Ask a Simple Question, Get a Simple Answer Mark II (RoA edition)

I'm not involved in tiering so this might not be the correct answer, but I think the difference is that GSC marowak is possible without rom editing. The clause in gen 8 is allowed because it only affects OMs which don't follow cart mechanics anyway, so theres no worry about adhering to cart mechanics. We won't edit cart mechanics in standard cart play of GSC
Ugh. I just... dislike the inconsistency. If we can't update cart mechanics, then I feel we made the wrong call for Gen 8.

Ah well, what do I know?
 
Ugh. I just... dislike the inconsistency. If we can't update cart mechanics, then I feel we made the wrong call for Gen 8.

Ah well, what do I know?
I think the big difference is that there is a competitive advantage to be gained from use of the gen 8 glitch, whereas there is only a disadvantage from the gen 2 glitch.

Also, from what I understand, we did not change cartridge mechanics for the gen 8 glitch. We just added a rule that prevents people from using Pokemon with setups that would take advantage of it.
 
Hello people, quick question about mimic in gen 1. When I was playing pokemon blue I could choose the move I want when I use mimic, and could see all the moves the other pokemon had. Is that only a thing in the non multiplayer battles? On the online simulator wanted lead with a pokemon with mimic to steal enemy recover, but became sad when it was random which move I got

All the best.
 
Hello people, quick question about mimic in gen 1. When I was playing pokemon blue I could choose the move I want when I use mimic, and could see all the moves the other pokemon had. Is that only a thing in the non multiplayer battles? On the online simulator wanted lead with a pokemon with mimic to steal enemy recover, but became sad when it was random which move I got

All the best.
In game link battles, Mimic copies a random move so you can't use it to see your oponent moveset.
 
So, this isn't really a question... but... there has been something that has been gnawing at the back of my mind for a while, and I'm curious what the rest of the community thinks of it (and I have no idea where else to post it).

The way that we tier older generations is suboptimal.

We seem to be against changing old-generation tiers, except that we still change them anyways. When people come to the site and look at the Strategy Pokédex, they expect that when they see a Pokémon at a certain tier, then that is (roughly) an indicator of how good the Pokémon is. In general, Pokémon in Ubers are better than those in OU, which are better than UU, which are better than RU, which are better than NU, which are better than PU, which are better than ZU.

But this isn't always the case. The example that I will be using for this post is Gen 5 Venusaur. Back in the days of Gen 5, Venusaur was quite good. In fact, it was OU. Why? Because it had Chlorophyll as an ability, which was pretty damn broken in combination with Drought. So broken, in fact, that later, after Gen 5 had long-ended, Smogon decided to ban Drought+Chlorophyll in Gen 5. If we weren't so insistent on not changing old gen tiering, Venusaur would have almost certainly dropped to UU, and probably even to RU.

But we don't change the old tiers, so Venusaur is still listed as being OU, thereby falsely telling people that it's a good Pokémon to use in the Gen 5 metagame. It isn't. Because we changed what the Gen 5 metagame was: it used to allow Drought+Chlorophyll, but it no longer does so. The fact is that bans/unbans cause the metagame to change, but tiers are not allowed to change with them. It causes the tier list and the "what Pokémon are good" list to become out of sync.

Logically, the solution is to either restore the metagames to the point that they were at, at the time that the generation ended; or to continue to update tiers based on usage stats. However, each of these carry problems. Restoring the metagames to what they used to be just invites people to break them using our modern knowledge that we didn't have at the time. There's a reason why each of the banned things are banned. But updating the tiers isn't really a good option either.

Few people play old generations compared to the modern generations, and this is ESPECIALLY the case for tiers below OU. As such, any one individual person will have much, much more influence over tiering in the old generations than they would in the new, which could result in very high tier-shifts, and thus rapid shakeups of the metagame, especially in lower tiers.

So instead, I propose a third option: allow the tier leaders to "re-tier" Pokémon as they see fit. If a Pokémon is clearly mis-tiered, allow it to be moved, as though it were simply a banned Pokémon in the lower tiers that is now suspected of being unbanned. After all, there's very few Pokémon that are "wrongly tiered" like Gen 5 Venusaur is. It wouldn't be too hard to just move them around accordingly.

As I said, people come to Smogon and view our Strategy Pokédex to find a rough indicator of how good a Pokémon is, but with our current system, the tier list and the "what Pokémon are good" list are out-of-sync. This would cause them to fall into sync again without being too disruptive.

Is this a good idea?
 
So, this isn't really a question... but... there has been something that has been gnawing at the back of my mind for a while, and I'm curious what the rest of the community thinks of it (and I have no idea where else to post it).

The way that we tier older generations is suboptimal.

We seem to be against changing old-generation tiers, except that we still change them anyways. When people come to the site and look at the Strategy Pokédex, they expect that when they see a Pokémon at a certain tier, then that is (roughly) an indicator of how good the Pokémon is. In general, Pokémon in Ubers are better than those in OU, which are better than UU, which are better than RU, which are better than NU, which are better than PU, which are better than ZU.

But this isn't always the case. The example that I will be using for this post is Gen 5 Venusaur. Back in the days of Gen 5, Venusaur was quite good. In fact, it was OU. Why? Because it had Chlorophyll as an ability, which was pretty damn broken in combination with Drought. So broken, in fact, that later, after Gen 5 had long-ended, Smogon decided to ban Drought+Chlorophyll in Gen 5. If we weren't so insistent on not changing old gen tiering, Venusaur would have almost certainly dropped to UU, and probably even to RU.

But we don't change the old tiers, so Venusaur is still listed as being OU, thereby falsely telling people that it's a good Pokémon to use in the Gen 5 metagame. It isn't. Because we changed what the Gen 5 metagame was: it used to allow Drought+Chlorophyll, but it no longer does so. The fact is that bans/unbans cause the metagame to change, but tiers are not allowed to change with them. It causes the tier list and the "what Pokémon are good" list to become out of sync.

Logically, the solution is to either restore the metagames to the point that they were at, at the time that the generation ended; or to continue to update tiers based on usage stats. However, each of these carry problems. Restoring the metagames to what they used to be just invites people to break them using our modern knowledge that we didn't have at the time. There's a reason why each of the banned things are banned. But updating the tiers isn't really a good option either.

Few people play old generations compared to the modern generations, and this is ESPECIALLY the case for tiers below OU. As such, any one individual person will have much, much more influence over tiering in the old generations than they would in the new, which could result in very high tier-shifts, and thus rapid shakeups of the metagame, especially in lower tiers.

So instead, I propose a third option: allow the tier leaders to "re-tier" Pokémon as they see fit. If a Pokémon is clearly mis-tiered, allow it to be moved, as though it were simply a banned Pokémon in the lower tiers that is now suspected of being unbanned. After all, there's very few Pokémon that are "wrongly tiered" like Gen 5 Venusaur is. It wouldn't be too hard to just move them around accordingly.

As I said, people come to Smogon and view our Strategy Pokédex to find a rough indicator of how good a Pokémon is, but with our current system, the tier list and the "what Pokémon are good" list are out-of-sync. This would cause them to fall into sync again without being too disruptive.

Is this a good idea?
I think the main purpose of this is to not shake up old gen lower tiers, as they are rarely played outside of a few tournaments and it wouldn’t make sense t constantly change them. As for Venusaur etc. being bad in OU, just bc a poke is in OU doesn’t mean it’s viable. There is plenty of stuff in bw OU for example that is bad but still in OU that didn’t have an ability or anything banned. I’m pretty sure Vaporeon is there for example. Players should refer more to the viability rankings and experiment with what’s good rather than just assume all pokes in overused are good.
 
apesh!t raises a good point about the viability rankings being the most likely place where you can find out how good a Pokemon is. I don't think messing with (currently locked) old gen lower tiers is desirable, and motivation would obviously be pretty low for producing a scathing analysis for a Pokemon that is resoundingly bad in the only metagame it's allowed in. So maybe the solution is to make the viability rankings visible on the strategy dex somehow.
 

Sevi 7

Semi-retired
When people come to the site and look at the Strategy Pokédex, they expect that when they see a Pokémon at a certain tier, then that is (roughly) an indicator of how good the Pokémon is. In general, Pokémon in Ubers are better than those in OU, which are better than UU, which are better than RU, which are better than NU, which are better than PU, which are better than ZU.
The only time things are tiered by power is when something is banned. Tiers are made based around usage (hence why they are named never used, rarely used, etc) which is distinctly different than power levels. Instead of thinking of tiers as power scaling, think of them as their own individual pools. The lowest tiers are at the top of the pool, and can trickle down, while the higher tiers are at the bottom and can't trickle upstream. The ecosystem of each pool has its own needs and wants, which has nothing to do with how strong something is, which is way too arbitrary.Looking at it like this gives a much better understanding of why sometimes mons do better in higher tiers than lower tiers. For example, Clefable, Nidoqueen and Dugtrio are arguably better in OU than in UU in Gen 4. It also covers why sometimes things fall as much as 4 tiers when their niche is no longer viable.
Remember the goal of Smogon's tiering has always been to put as many pokemon into a viable and competitive metagame as possible. So that way we have the best chance at using the most mons as possible. It's not about ranking the mons.

As for the point of having mons be called OU, despite not being in the metagane at all. I think doing what they do in ADV and SS would be best and move the mon to BL. It doesn't change anything, but it does show that a mon isn't viable in the tier, it just can't go any lower. I know that they started doing OU by technicality as well. But I think the BL thing is simpler personally.
 

Colteor

Free old gens in WCOP
is a Pre-Contributor
RoAPL Champion
Is DPP Latias the only thing that's ever been "brought back" to an OU tier after originally being banned?
no, a similar thing happened in B/W with excadrill once they banned sand rush instead of it, and garchomp once it got rough skin. I'm sure there's more examples but that's what comes to mind
 
Hi, I wanted to create a team around tapu lele and mega alakazam, but I honestly dont know who I should fill the team with, I’ve tried some but didnt really liked them, so Im asking you guys to suggest a team with Tapu Lele and Mega Alakazam, thank you.

I dont know if this is the right place to ask for a team, Im new to smogon forum
 
Hi guys, 2 little questions:

In DPP OU, The bulky SD scizor set still good in the modern metagame ?

In BW OU, Why some people still use excadrill as they spinner in rain teams even after the sand rush ban ?
 
Hi guys, 2 little questions:

In DPP OU, The bulky SD scizor set still good in the modern metagame ?

In BW OU, Why some people still use excadrill as they spinner in rain teams even after the sand rush ban ?
Bulky scizor is okay but it falls flat vs a lot of bulky teams with rotom and Skarm etc. and is obviously dead to zone. I’m sure someone else will provide more detail on this one. Exca drill with sand force is a great anti sand measure that can role compress with spin and also provide another steel type to rain teams.
 
In BW OU, Why some people still use excadrill as they spinner in rain teams even after the sand rush ban ?
Because some rain structures use Celebi or Breloom as their grass-type. Because of this they use Jirachi or Excadrill as the steel mons. Since Excadrill also have Rapid Spin, this free a team slot for another rain abuser (and Mold Breaker Drill is amazing to defeat Rotom-W, one of the rain nightmarish pokemon).
 
no, a similar thing happened in B/W with excadrill once they banned sand rush instead of it, and garchomp once it got rough skin. I'm sure there's more examples but that's what comes to mind
Am I correct in saying that of those 2, Garchomp had been brought back while BW was still the current gen, whereas Excadrill was the only one other than DPP Latias brought back for an "old gen"?
 

Colteor

Free old gens in WCOP
is a Pre-Contributor
RoAPL Champion
Am I correct in saying that of those 2, Garchomp had been brought back while BW was still the current gen, whereas Excadrill was the only one other than DPP Latias brought back for an "old gen"?
Yeah that's right, should've clarified that in my original post
 
I've seen people playing this in RoA tours and it looks like fun. Can anyone share some tips on which three Pokemon to choose and what moves to give them?
 
I've seen people playing this in RoA tours and it looks like fun. Can anyone share some tips on which three Pokemon to choose and what moves to give them?
Hello! Sample teams for RBY 1v1 are found here. A few powerful Pokemon include

:rb/Exeggutor:
Exeggutor
Ability: Chlorophyll
- Leech Seed
- Toxic
- Substitute
- Psychic

Exeggutor is a powerful threat due to Leech Seed and Toxic stacking togheter the amount of HP recovered from Leech Seed, and can use Sub to stall out threats

:rb/Slowbro:
Slowbro
Ability: Oblivious
- Thunder Wave
- Amnesia
- Psychic
- Rest

Slowbro is a good threat thanks to Amnesia working well in 1v1 format

:rb/Tauros:
Tauros
- Body Slam
- Leer
- Blizzard
- Hyper Beam

With Leer and Hyper Beam, Tauros can KO quite a number of threats
 
Hello! Sample teams for RBY 1v1 are found here. A few powerful Pokemon include

:rb/Exeggutor:
Exeggutor
Ability: Chlorophyll
- Leech Seed
- Toxic
- Substitute
- Psychic

Exeggutor is a powerful threat due to Leech Seed and Toxic stacking togheter the amount of HP recovered from Leech Seed, and can use Sub to stall out threats
I'm guessing sleep inducing moves are banned in 1v1?
 
Hi, I have a question about recovery moves in RBY:

There's nothing worse than seeing the message "In Gen 1, recovery moves fail if (user's maximum HP - user's current HP + 1) is divisible by 256."

I'm terrible at maths - is there an easy way to anticipate this? It wouldn't be practical to work it out via the calculator each time I'm going to use recover...
 
Hi, I have a question about recovery moves in RBY:

There's nothing worse than seeing the message "In Gen 1, recovery moves fail if (user's maximum HP - user's current HP + 1) is divisible by 256."

I'm terrible at maths - is there an easy way to anticipate this? It wouldn't be practical to work it out via the calculator each time I'm going to use recover...
Here are the recovery fail HP numbers/percents for the relevant OU mons.

Edit: It's worth noting that recovery also fails if a mon's current HP is 255 or 511 below the max. s/o FriendOfMrGolem120 for informing me
 
Last edited:
Hi, I have a question about recovery moves in RBY:

There's nothing worse than seeing the message "In Gen 1, recovery moves fail if (user's maximum HP - user's current HP + 1) is divisible by 256."

I'm terrible at maths - is there an easy way to anticipate this? It wouldn't be practical to work it out via the calculator each time I'm going to use recover...
You can nick your recovery / rest mon with the exact value of the fail number so you don't need to do any math.
 
Hello! I'm building a Gen IV OU team. The team was valid yesterday, but today I'm getting the following message "Smeargle's move Spore can't be transferred from Gen 5 to 4". Seems weird. Were there recent rule changes? Thanks!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 3)

Top