-
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!
Gen 2 GSC Viability Ranking (OU)
- Thread starter Jorgen
- Start date
- Status
HP Rock or EQ is all the damage aero would need; sleeping or 50% lax cannot reliably win the battle of attrition. Curselax without Thunder is an even sadder case.
right so, whats the set?
curse/eq/rock/coverage
I don't like leaving OU or BL Pokemon unlisted. As a way to inform players, they need to be marked in the viability list somehow, no matter how outclassed they are. It was dealt with in this past, but D rank should come back specifically to list the very bottom of the barrel or useless shit (viability rankings should be catered to the tiers/metas they represent anyway). Or make an "Unranked" list at the bottom.
I've seen Whirlwind Aero used to fairly successful effect, though it's impact is limited solely to being a Lax answer. I've also seen Beserk Gene Aero but that's more than a little crazy.
lax still gets by non-rest ww aero in the long run.
you can run rest, but at that point you're a really shitty skarm without egg, hera, marowak, and machamp coverage.
alternatively you can forgo rest, but then you're just a really shitty ttar/steelix.
you can also play an offensive aerodactyl foregoing snorlax coverage altogether, but then you're just a really shitty everything.
you can run rest, but at that point you're a really shitty skarm without egg, hera, marowak, and machamp coverage.
alternatively you can forgo rest, but then you're just a really shitty ttar/steelix.
you can also play an offensive aerodactyl foregoing snorlax coverage altogether, but then you're just a really shitty everything.
So if Charizard goes up to S, Aero will be in business.
Seriously, that should be one of the mons to go in the list I'm talking about. To prevent unsuspecting players having to waste their time trying to make complete crap work on a practical team.
Seriously, that should be one of the mons to go in the list I'm talking about. To prevent unsuspecting players having to waste their time trying to make complete crap work on a practical team.
Alright, something has to be done about these rankings. On one hand, according to its own guidelines, it's complete in terms of which Pokemon goes where. On the other hand, you've got things like Misdreavus and Umbreon in the same tier as Exeggutor and Skarmory. Jorgen is also mostly inactive currently, and this thread in general has been dead since late July, mainly since the viability ranking's gone stale. Because of these reasons, I believe that a new thread should be created, with changes made to the ranking system to add specifity - like adding a D rank to expand into, or subrankings - to differentiate the obvious differences of currently ranked Pokemon that aren't. While it's true a lot of ranks are mostly relative, and as such fitting Pokemon into more specified ranks can be extremely controversial (i.e. which subranking does TTar go into again?), I would personally rather have heated discussions of said controversy, a frequently jumping viability ranking, and a more specified ranking than a dead, stale, less specified ranking that has its flaws even after it's finally settled.
And at worst, even if this idea gets shut down, it'll at least revive this thread. So what do people think? Should we make a new thread? add a D rank and/or subrankings? or leave it how it is?
And at worst, even if this idea gets shut down, it'll at least revive this thread. So what do people think? Should we make a new thread? add a D rank and/or subrankings? or leave it how it is?
Were the lists ever organized by viability instead of alphabetically?
Nope, I don't think so. On the other hand, individualized rankings would be really hard to pull off, since so many Pokemon do so many different things. Like, how would I be able to compare the viability of Suicune vs. Skarmory vs. Gengar? They do completely different things, and as such would be really hard to successfully pull off. At least subrankings would allow the kind of "dead space" to accommodate that kind of thing.
it's accurate in the sense that the ou mons are listed in the same rank, yes, but putting cloyster and umbreon in the same level of overall viability is so vague that it's pointless
the only thing this list says is that OU mons are good, zapdos and raikou are better than good and snorlax is better than that. that's a really low mark for a viability list
i'd also argue that discussion about a potentially slightly inaccurate list (is gengar really worse than tyranitar?) is more important for gsc at this point in time than a matter-of-fact "everything that you thought was good is also good except for blissey" kind of list
the only thing this list says is that OU mons are good, zapdos and raikou are better than good and snorlax is better than that. that's a really low mark for a viability list
i'd also argue that discussion about a potentially slightly inaccurate list (is gengar really worse than tyranitar?) is more important for gsc at this point in time than a matter-of-fact "everything that you thought was good is also good except for blissey" kind of list
I'd have to agree with both users here. It is true that the current viability rankings are complete as far as its limitations let it, which is why the discussion died out. The problem was that said limitations were faulty, meaning that even though the current viability rankings are as complete as they can get, they aren't actually complete at all. What we want is a viability ranking thread that finds perfection not because of self-limitations, but because of facts. Of course, this means that the utopian rankings would be completely individualized, but us as players and humans will never be able to recognize such nuanced viability differences between two radically different Pokemon to achieve individualized rankings we're content with.
if the issue of cloyster and umbreon being in the same tier is that problematic, then the criteria of the tiers itself needs to change to reflect the difference.
this is similar to sub-tiers, but less cumbersome. instead of a, a-, b, b- they should just be a, b, c. d, f. i'm sure two additional dividers should be plenty.
this is similar to sub-tiers, but less cumbersome. instead of a, a-, b, b- they should just be a, b, c. d, f. i'm sure two additional dividers should be plenty.
I'm actually not too opposed to adding on extra ranks if subrankings won't really work out. I mean, the only reason NOT to is to follow the guide made by past viability rankings in other tiers, which to be honest doesn't have to be followed in the first place, it's just nice-to-have.
edit: who should take over the new thread? I still think we should make one mainly since Jorgen's gone inactive. Borat's easily currently the most qualified, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to be moderating a VR thread. I'm skeptical about my own knowledge of the tier, so I'm not a good choice IMO, though I'd do it if literally nobody else stands up to do it.
edit: who should take over the new thread? I still think we should make one mainly since Jorgen's gone inactive. Borat's easily currently the most qualified, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want to be moderating a VR thread. I'm skeptical about my own knowledge of the tier, so I'm not a good choice IMO, though I'd do it if literally nobody else stands up to do it.
Last edited:
I'm not sure but I still like the idea of subranks because only A rank really needs a more detailed division, B in a lesser extent. It's a lot more simple to say Cloy/Egg are A+ because they are stupidly easier to fit on any team, but at the same time, they still belong to the same concept of the bread and butter mons that define what the meta is.
I mean, subrankings aren't completely out of the question, but TBH if we did use them it would still effect the lower tiers. I mean, what's the point of turning A into two/three subranks if C stays its own rank?
The main argument here is just how specific is the better ratio. TBH, I'm starting to lean more towards the extra ranks - I've started putting together what it would probably look like with rankings down to F, and it actually looks pretty solid in terms of viability breaks.
Of course, the list is entirely theorymonning of the top of my head, so don't take them as the end-all be-all. Just a glimpse at the overall viability breaks in-between tiers.
The main argument here is just how specific is the better ratio. TBH, I'm starting to lean more towards the extra ranks - I've started putting together what it would probably look like with rankings down to F, and it actually looks pretty solid in terms of viability breaks.
S Rank:
Snorlax Rank:
Snorlax
Electric Rank:
Raikou
Zapdos
A Rank:
Cloyster
Exeggutor
Gengar
Skarmory
Suicune
Tyranitar
Vaporeon
B Rank:
Forretress
Machamp
Marowak
Miltank
Nidoking
Starmie
Steelix
C Rank:
Blissey
Jolteon
Espeon
Heracross
Misdreavus
Umbreon
D Rank:
Charizard
Dragonite
Muk
Porygon2
Quagsire
Rhydon
Tentacruel
E Rank:
Clefable
Golem
Houndoom
Kangaskhan
Meganium
Scizor
Smeargle
F Rank:
Alakazam
Ampharos
Donphan
Entei
Jumpluff
Jynx
Moltres
Piloswine
Sandslash
Ursaring
Venusaur
Snorlax Rank:
Snorlax
Electric Rank:
Raikou
Zapdos
A Rank:
Cloyster
Exeggutor
Gengar
Skarmory
Suicune
Tyranitar
Vaporeon
B Rank:
Forretress
Machamp
Marowak
Miltank
Nidoking
Starmie
Steelix
C Rank:
Blissey
Jolteon
Espeon
Heracross
Misdreavus
Umbreon
D Rank:
Charizard
Dragonite
Muk
Porygon2
Quagsire
Rhydon
Tentacruel
E Rank:
Clefable
Golem
Houndoom
Kangaskhan
Meganium
Scizor
Smeargle
F Rank:
Alakazam
Ampharos
Donphan
Entei
Jumpluff
Jynx
Moltres
Piloswine
Sandslash
Ursaring
Venusaur
Of course, the list is entirely theorymonning of the top of my head, so don't take them as the end-all be-all. Just a glimpse at the overall viability breaks in-between tiers.
- Status