RBY OU Viability Rankings

A bit belated, but my bad Troller, overlooked that post.

I'm not opposed to Dragonite merging with D, Victreebel I think also makes sense (I mean sure, it's a potent threat, but so are some of D rank, and it's not significantly less niche than some of them), however Cloyster I feel is definitely much closer to B rank than D. It gets a lot of defensive value regardless of matchup, while in the right matchup its offensive potential is also significant. Basically, if Starmie didn't exist it would be an easy B rank.

I also stand by my opinion that A- should be converted to B and B to C. To adapt Enigami's proposal, I think Dnite/Bel would move down to D, while Cloy remains in C. I think most people regard most of the current B as kinda bad, whereas the pokemon in A-, while good, I feel have significant drawbacks that prevent them from being as defining as the threats in A+. Overall there's a considerable gap in viability between the two A subranks, enough that they should be in their own separate ranks. That said, my opinion is becoming increasingly less relevant due to my inactivity (especially no tours) so idk, it's up to you.

 

Stated my opinion a couple of times now on this, but just saying, the A- mons are extremely defining in this metagame. They are basically the staple 6th Pokmeon. ( Like I said, in my opinion A+ should be Starmie and Alakazam, while A- should be Zapdos, Rhydon and Lapras, which are the staple filler Pokemon of this metagame.)

Merge if you want...but then Hypno has to drop one rank. It's not C material. As well as Cloyster needing to rise to B then. Maybe drop Golem and Jolteon to the new C then while we're at it (but I'm not sure). In words:

S: unchanged
A+: Alakazam, Starmie
A-: Lapras, Rhydon, Zapdos
B: Cloyster, Gengar, Jynx, Slowbro, (Golem, Jolteon)
C: Articuno, Dragonite, Moltres, Persian, Victreebel, (Golem, Jolteon)

After that it becomes messy. I woulnd't just rename the ranks while not changing the Pokemon. In my opinion, we don't need to go further than E rank. The new D and E would then be the stuff from current E, (and the "best" from F, but not he whole F), imo. Scratch G Pokemon entirely and take only the "best" out of F rank to form the new D and E. There's no need to rank stuff that really has no use whatsoever, you will never see a Dewgong or some shit in serious RBY.
However I personally would not wanna evaluate all the "crap" and rank it (for now), like I said, it gets messy.

 

I agree that the current A- are staples of the tier. What I disagree with however, is that this precludes them being in B or that they're "extremely defining". To me they're just good pokemon that are used regularly, which is what B tier ought to be. As for the "extremely defining" description, I just don't think they have that kind of impact. To compare them with A+, Starmie and Alakazam define the lead metagame, while Starmie is also one of the best 5ths and non-lead Zam has the potential to take over games. Zap isn't as defining, but it's just an absurdly potent threat, significantly more so than anything in A-. By contrast the only pokemon in A- that can have a similarly dominant impact is Bro, and I don't think I need to elaborate on it dropping since I think you're on board with that idea. Don and Lapras meanwhile, rarely take over games, instead providing a consistent level of performance, while I think the overall presence in the meta is significant, but not as prominent as that of Star/Zam. They're threats you have to account for, but they generally don't change the way you play the game (unless you're running Zap, in which case Don is really important, but this is a rather specific case).

Again, I think B rank ought to be full of staple pokemon that are seen regularly and are generally good, but not to the same extent that something like A tier is, which is how I see A- rank currently. A tier ought to be for pokemon that still warp the meta, but to a far lesser degree than S. I mean as it currently stands, the rankings go from totally dominant (S)-> mix of good and great pokemon (A)->mostly shit pokemon (B), which I think is a little silly, since it compresses almost everything relevant into two ranks. So yeah, B ought to be for pokemon that are actually good and are reasonably significant presences, just not to the same extent that S/A are. This is also why most of B ought to drop to C (a case can be made for Jynx to remain in B, but I'm fine either way tbh), and C to D (Cloy should remain C tho)

 

I don't see the problem of having all the good pokes in 2 ranks, they should reflect effectiveness, stretching them just for "good looking" sounds pretty bad, is it worth to have Slowbro a whole rank behind Rhydon? Zapdos and Starmie probably deserves better, Alakazam has lost some charm over the time, one bad full para and you are pretty fucked up.

This is how i see ranks as for today:

S: big 4
S-: Starmie, Zapdos
A+: Alakazam
A: Lapras, Rhydon
A-: Slowbro

There is an abyss from Starmie&Zapdos performances compared to other non-S ranks, it's time to reflect it in the rankings.
Slowbro is the most underated pokemon today, i lost the count of how many times i won just because the opponent exploded the Exeggutor . He has a whole package of problems indeed but you can't tell me with serious face that he deserves to drop for real to ranks of very shaky stuff like Jynx or Gengar.

S for super performers, A for great+reliable, simple and clean

 

I'm always sceptical of tournament usage stats because they always have small sample sizes. If they were accompanied by analysis of statistical significance or all tours for which usage is collected were aggregated then they might be more than a curiosity to me.

I never proposed making Bro a rank below Don- they should both be in B. The reason we should stretch things out over more than two ranks is that by compressing everything the whole rankings become meaningless as we're just grouping everything together and condemning almost all our ranks to irrelevance. It's a stupid thing to do because it defeats the point of ranking them. It also flies in the face of the definitions we have for each rank- would you consider Golem a "strong choice"? Because that's how it's being described in B. Lastly, I'm not suggesting we deviate from ranking things based on efficacy. Don/Lap/Bro belong in B because they aren't anywhere near as effective or influential on the meta as Star/Zap/Zam. I'm not saying they're bad, they just don't belong in the same rank as those 3.

On the note of definitions, A's definition is way too vague and I feel like B mostly criticises the Pokemon when they shouldn't be considered bad at all (I'm talking generally, I'm not saying the current B ranks aren't arguably bad. That they are is a sign they should move down). S rank I think is spot on in describing threats as dominant to the point where they belong on the overwhelming majority of teams. A should be exceptionally influential/effective, but not quite dominant and not approaching being considered a requirement. B should be for good Pokemon that must be accounted for, but don't have as much influence beyond that.

I also think we need to deconstruct what we mean by viability. To me there are three components- potency (how much does the Pokemon impact a match), splashability (how easily does it fit onto teams) and meta presence (how it influences the meta)

 

You didn't, some others did (like Lusch). After reading your lost comment i changed my mind a bit, at first i thought it would be good to have an universal rank for the most reliable last mons but i agree with you.

S: big 4 (although i can see Exegg dropping to S-)
A+: Starmie, Zapdos
A: Alakazam
B+: Lapras, Rhydon
B: Slowbro

Still, i think we should keep at least the + to display the differences of importance between Starmie/Zapdos vs Alakazam and Lapras/Rhydon vs Slowbro

 

Is this how good they are as a lead or how good they are whole-game given that they're in the lead slot? There's a significant difference, and it looks like you're rating some of these 'mons on one and some on another.

 

I don't have an opinion on how they should be ranked. I do have an opinion that ranking leads without saying exactly what you're using as a standard of comparison is nearly worthless.

Let's take Chansey and Hypno for an example, since they have a lot of commonalities in this context (inaccurate sleep move, Thunder Wave, slow, bulky). There are at least three standards of comparison for "how strong they are whole-game as leads", because of the opportunity costs involved in Chansey being good in general and Hypno being bad in general. One is comparing a team with lead Hypno + 5 non-Chansey good mons to a team with lead Chansey + 5 good mons (which won't be Hypno). A second is comparing a team with lead Hypno, non-lead Chansey and 4 good mons to a team with lead Chansey, non-lead Hypno and 4 good mons. The third is comparing a team with lead Hypno, non-lead Chansey and 4 good mons to a team with lead Chansey + 5 good mons.

All three of these will give different answers on whether lead Chansey is better than lead Hypno. The first will say that lead Chansey is way better, simply because you have a Chansey (but misses the opportunity cost of non-lead Chansey). The second will probably say that lead Hypno is slightly better, because if you're using Hypno at all you might as well sleep-bait it (but misses the opportunity to replace the non-lead Hypno with a good mon; moreover, when you apply this to everything Jynx rockets to the top artificially). The third is probably the least artificial in team construction, but now you're comparing apples with oranges and it's hard to weigh up the opportunities.

But in any case you'd better know, and state, which one of those measures you're using, else your list will be confusing and people will be talking past each other when suggesting corrections.

 

Regarding stuff that's hopefully less controversial, I propose Gyara to F. Personally I think it is simply unviable, as it's extremely difficult to circumvent its weaknesses and not all that rewarding if you do manage to do that.

I also think the Nidos and Poli should drop to F, and Hypno to E, but I need to test more first

 

Hypno is fine in D, coming from the only actual Hypno player in recent history

Making a separate viability ranking for leads doesn't make too much sense imo

 

Gyarados really needs to drop lol.

I've played a couple games with Poli and I'm confident that it ought to drop. The thing that stuck out the most to me was its lack of reliability. Depending on Hypnosis and Submission creates massive potential for things to go wrong, and this is compounded by it being really difficult to avoid paralysis. Even switching into favourable matchups can be extremely risky, as a paraslam basically means you've suddenly got dead weight rather than a useful pokemon. There are, of course, more flaws. As you might expect, its BST leaves a lot to be desired, and ensures that even favourable matchups are dangerous, and it struggles to switch in on anything with bulk that's just insufficient. Lastly, it has atrocious matchups against a LOT of things, with Starmie in particular being a major thorn in its side. At least when Bro gets countered by Star it can spread paralysis and soak physical hits. Poliwrath has Hypnosis and nothing else. Drop pls, it's just not remotely viable.

 

Sooo I can now say that I've tested Gyara, Poli and the Nidos and they're all absolute trash, can we please drop them?

For Nidos, the reasons they're totally unviable are obvious- loads of weaknesses and abysmal attacking power. Their coverage is practically irrelevant when they're so weak they lose to things they hit super effectively regardless

 

why is golem still in b rank get him outta here he can go have fun over there with porygon or something

 

So...
Not too many players might have paid attention to it, but last month we had an RBY UU ladder on Showdown and Mister Tim started sign-ups for an RBY UU tournament. It is as good an opportunity as any to really sort out the border of OU and UU in RBY. This has been done already, but I feel at the point in time it was done, the metagame was not quite as "understood" as it is now. There has also been some good discussion in this very thread about the RBY OU Viability Rankings changes, and I think it is time to reflect the outcome of those discussions in the rankings.
summarizing the discussion, the current rankings should look something like this (roughly):

S: unchanged
A: Alakazam, Starmie, Zapdos
B: Lapras, Rhydon, Slowbro
C: Cloyster, Gengar, Jynx, Victreebel, Jolteon
D: Articuno, Dragonite, Moltres, Persian, Golem,...

Something along those lines... feel free to disagree.
The main thing I want to start with this post though, is to decide "once and for all" which Pokemon belong into RBY OU. I think we understand the game well enough now to decide that. Some Pokemon might never become top tier, but have roles in the meta that make them worthy of "belonging to OU". Some might have niches but not enough to be able to make the same claim. It's obviously not an objective decision, which is why it would be nice to get as many opinions as possible, to reach a final conclusion.

The Pokemon I expect to be discussed regrding their affiliation to OU are the following:
, , , , , ,

I'll just give my (short) opinion about wether they belong in OU or not, as it is now. Note, that my opinion on most of these is not set in stone yet. I always welcome different points of view and arguments. So here it goes

Definitely OU for me. The reasons for it can be read in a post that I made about the rankings in general just a few posts above. And my opionion about Gengar has not changed... (I also expect this one to be not as controversial, but I've also heard voices calling it D rank or whatever, which is why I inclded it)-

OU material as well. I think Victreebel has its place in OU and it is a tool to deal with slower teams that have become quite common. Surely susceptible for bad luck and with a relatively low tolerance for hax, making it a bit of a risky pick, but can still be a nightmare to face with certain (common) builds and lines of play, to the point where it has been used more and more in the last year with very good success (for example RBY invitational, and I'll try to get those RBY WC stats as well, but I'm confident it did well there too)-

Jolteon has fallen out of favour a bit. But being the fastest Pokemon you'll see in the tier with good enough offensive stats and typing to make use of that speed, for me it's for to say this Pokemon is part of the OU tier.

A lot of people, I expect, will call for this to not belong in OU anymore. While I, of course, agree with Rhydon being the surperior choice, I am not as convinced that Golem does not have its place in OU. I believe for Teams that chose a bit of a different route than the standard paralysis lead + Big 4, but want a Ground Type, Golem is their go-to Pokemon instead of Rhydon due to Explosion giving less sturdier teams a bit more room to play. And for me RBY OU does not only consist of standard builds (mostly yes, but not exclusively). Which is why currently, I'm still in favour of this Pokemon being worth it in OU.

Currently belonging to UU, Articuno still poses an immense threat in OU. The omnipresence of Starmie hurts its viability. The fact that is is mostly outperformed by Lapras does really hurt it too. Still, it also has qualities over Lapras, mainly power and also it gives teams a way better weapon vs Wrap, mainly Victreebel. The question is, are those qualities enough to make it belong to OU? For me, since I see Victreebel as a sure part of OU, yes. I think it is justifiable to call Articuno OU.

Moltres is in a similar boat as Articuno, I has problems with common Pokemon, but the status his STAB infilcts is generally worse on those Pokemon, to the point that it benefits them (in case of Starmie and Chansey). Still, in the same way as Articuno, Moltres has a good match-up vs Tauros and on top of it access to Fire Spin (and Agility). My main problem with Moltres will always be, that it relies on inaccurate moves, to the point that it's not comfortable for my taste anymore. I'm not too sure on this one to be honest, but sinceI gave Articuno the OU-worthy tag (and I'm definitely okay with that), I'm also gonna say Moltres is OU for me.

This one is the toughest in my eyes. rarely seen these days in OU. But it has great potential. Not even only because of the AgiliWrap set. I think Thunder Wave Dragonite can be a realy pain, and I think Dragonite is underrated by most of the playerbase. I suspect being in the minority here, but given that I just want to kcikstart discussion and this opinion does not need to be final, I'm also gonna give Dragonite the OU approval. Not least, because Wrap-teams almost always use Dragonite and, while not common, I think they have their place in the tier, which, like I said above, consists of more than only exclusively standard builts to me.

So here it goes. I hope some people give their opinion as well, that way we can finalize OU, and with it form a final UU.

 

Tbh, I agree with most thing that was said by Lusch, with the exception of Moltres.

As a trapper, Moltres is a poor Dragonite. While it doesn't have a crippling 4x weakness to Ice (it has vs Rock, but it's not as bad as Ice in this meta), it is still weak against, while it also has a weakness vs Electrics.

Fire Spin is nice vs Reflect users, but it has a crippling 70% accuracy (while Dnite's Wrap has 85%). It won't be great vs Reflect Chansey, and if you take CH and Dragonite's ATK into account, both might have similar performance against it (take accuracy into account).

AgiliSpin is nice, but I tried to use it sometimes, and if I had to choose an Agility trapper, Dragonite seems to be the best choice.

Ok, Moltres has 125 base SPC and a nice 120 BP Fire-type STAB move. But as a special sweeper, Moltres behaves like a worse Articuno. While Moltres is not entirely crippled by Lapras, it dislikes Rocks (though they are the only thing besides Tauros and Restless Lax that dislikes a Burn).

Ok, seems to be a nice trade, but Articuno can at least make Starmie and Chansey to think twice before switching-in, because Blizzard has the threat of a freeze. Fire Blast's 30% chance of Burn is a nice way to call an unparalyzed Starmie. It can use Agility and Fire Spin on the switch, but Starmie resists it and that 70% accuracy means that Moltres will take a Thunder Wave before it can hurt the starfish.

Articuno also has a better time against Zapdos, OHKOing if Zapdos already took some hits. And while Moltres is definitely better than Cuno against Cloy/Lapras, it is not that great against them, as it is weak to Ice (while both take neutral damage from Fire Blast). It also can use Mimic and hope for Tbolt vs paralyzed Starmie and Lapras (quite unreliable, though).

And in the end, that 85% accuracy doesn't help Moltres when I compare it with Articuno.

The only thing that I can see in Moltres is that he can act as a trapper and a special sweeper at the same time. But he is not more reliable than Dnite as a trapper, and is worse than Articuno as a special sweeper. It has more ATK than Cuno, is faster, but I just don't think it compensate the fact that Blizzard can actually cripple special walls without CH, while a burn will cripple you.

That said, while I have no objections on Articuno and Dragonite being OU (or even UU), but I don't think Moltres is even with them. If Cuno is D, Moltres should be E, because it's way harder to have have success with it. You need some hax to be successful with Articuno/Dragonite, but you need much more to have success with Moltres.