-
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
I think more letters is the way to go. A+,A,A-, etc. just gets cumbersome to navigate through.
Talenheim's proposed list seems okay. There will always be squabbles over which limbo mons get put on which sides of the dividing lines. For example, Missy and Umb probably are a step above the rest of C in my eyes.
Older gens are much more stable than newer gens, and thus you simply do not have the same reason to maintain a conversation about the viability rankings. That is most likely why the topic died.
Talenheim's proposed list seems okay. There will always be squabbles over which limbo mons get put on which sides of the dividing lines. For example, Missy and Umb probably are a step above the rest of C in my eyes.
Older gens are much more stable than newer gens, and thus you simply do not have the same reason to maintain a conversation about the viability rankings. That is most likely why the topic died.
I would see Jumpluff/Piloswine/Golem each moved up a rank from Talenheim's list. No real opinion on Piloswine but it seems deserving based on what I've seen it discussed as in the past. Every time I play Jumpluff it accomplishes something and is a general pest, reckon its as good as Meganium. Strongly in favour of Golem's rise to D, it's a great soft check to lax on boom teams, has a strong explosion and can be an effective spinner with strong EQs for missy and fire blast to take on steels. It fits well with the Zard/P2/Quag/Rhydon crew
What about Snorlax being S and Zapdos + Raikou being A+? That would make more sense
Tbh I would mix your A rank with some B rank mons into A and A-.
Something like:
A Rank:
Cloyster
Exeggutor
Gengar
Skarmory
Suicune
Tyranitar
A- Rank:
Machamp
Marowak
Nidoking
Starmie
Steelix
Vaporeon
Mons like Machamp, Marowak and Nidoking are huge threats in GSC, B rank is too low for them. This is more or less the same as your list, but I dropped Vap, Miltank and Forry 1 rank because they are not as good as the rest of the mons in the same rank.
B rank (including B+, B and B-) could consist in these mons + Clefable (you ranked it too low), and maybe Golem and Kangaskhan.
Something like this:
B+ Rank:
Forretress
Dragonite (maybe B, Im biased here)
Heracross
Miltank
Misdreavus
Umbreon
B Rank:
Blissey
Espeon
Jolteon
Porygon2
Quagsire (B instead of B- as other similar BDers because it walls electrics which is huge)
Rhydon
B- Rank:
Charizard
Clefable
Golem
Kangaskhan
Muk
Tentacruel
Excluding Clefable. Golam and Kangaskhan, which I moved 1 rank up, these mons are what we could consider the C rank. We could divide them in C+ and C
C+ Rank:
Alakazam
Houndoom
Jynx
Scizor
Smeargle
C Rank:
The rest
I used the same definitions than in the OP
S rank => Dominates the meta (lax obv)
A rank => Pokemons that fulfill a vital role for their team in a way no other Pokemon can, and are versatile enough to fit onto just about any team. They are huge threats that can either wall a big part of the metagame or easily open holes or sweep teams with little support.
B rank => Pokemons that fulfill a given offensive/defensive/support niche. They have some flaws that prevent them from being as consistent as the higher-ranked Pokemon, but are nonetheless powerful and should be taken into account when building a team.
C rank => Pokemons that usually need more support to be effective. They are often inferior to the higher-ranked Pokemon but have one or two advantages that give them a niche with proper team-support.
So to sum it up, my rankins (p similar to yours but using subrankings and with some small changes)
S Rank:
Snorlax
A+ Rank:
Raikou
Zapdos
A Rank:
Cloyster
Exeggutor
Gengar
Skarmory
Suicune
Tyranitar
A- Rank:
Machamp
Marowak
Nidoking
Starmie
Steelix
Vaporeon
B+ Rank:
Forretress
Dragonite (maybe B, Im biased here)
Heracross
Miltank
Misdreavus
Umbreon
B Rank:
Blissey
Espeon
Jolteon
Porygon2
Quagsire (B instead of B- as other similar BDers because it walls electrics which is huge)
Rhydon
B- Rank:
Charizard
Clefable
Golem
Kangaskhan
Muk
Tentacruel
C+ Rank:
Alakazam
Houndoom
Jynx
Scizor
Smeargle
C Rank:
Ampharos
Donphan
Entei
Jumpluff
Moltres
Piloswine
Sandslash
Ursaring
Venusaur
The problem with shifting everything down is that it could give players the wrong impression. Snorlax is nothing like the S ranked mons from other gens/tiers. It both shapes/dominates the tier and is required for any serious team. Its sets require completely different game plans to counter/check and are such threats in their own way. Much higher esteem than a simple S, no other way to put it.
The biggest issue is how the Electrics are represented. They are so good and dominant that you could easily use both. At least one is required to use. They shape the meta almost as much as Snorlax. A+ generally means extremely good, just maybe a small bit of baggage/risk while that factor in S is microscopic (or that their main sets are so threatening, the risk is worth it). There's no risk in running Zapdos/Raikou and teams need them for they're offensive/defensive utility.
Below that, with how A ranks generally look on other tiers, the mons in A and A- all of a sudden appear much weaker than previously.
The biggest issue is how the Electrics are represented. They are so good and dominant that you could easily use both. At least one is required to use. They shape the meta almost as much as Snorlax. A+ generally means extremely good, just maybe a small bit of baggage/risk while that factor in S is microscopic (or that their main sets are so threatening, the risk is worth it). There's no risk in running Zapdos/Raikou and teams need them for they're offensive/defensive utility.
Below that, with how A ranks generally look on other tiers, the mons in A and A- all of a sudden appear much weaker than previously.
Funbot28
Banned deucer.
To me, Snorlax in GSC is almost like Primal Groudon in ORAS Ubers, but P-Don in a slightly lesser extent. It is already S+ in Ubers VR, so I could see Snorlax be placed the same way instead of "Snorlax Rank" tbh. Electrics could stay S
That's some pretty extreme assumptions about how other people will interpret a list. Anyone with a modicum of critical reasoning will be able to look at the fact that's there's only three pokemon in S and A+ and go, "huh, they must be pretty damn good," and view the rest of the tiers relative to that. When there's only one pokemon in S compared to ~5 and two in A+ compared to ~10 it becomes very clear that their relative power is much higher than in other tiers.
The A ranks in other tiers are ridiculous to begin with, the BW list is trash when A rank consists of every single commonly seen OU pokemon.
There's zero reason to imitate that for GSC, especially when the pool of pokemon is so much smaller and allows for more clarity in separation. Frankly other tier lists should have no bearing or impact on determining the optimal way to display this tier in a list.
MDragon's list is, in my opinion, very close to optimal in how it portrays the power and viability of each subsection of pokemon. When I think of how frequently I see a Mon and the effect it has on a game, that is almost entirely how the distribution works out.
The A ranks in other tiers are ridiculous to begin with, the BW list is trash when A rank consists of every single commonly seen OU pokemon.
There's zero reason to imitate that for GSC, especially when the pool of pokemon is so much smaller and allows for more clarity in separation. Frankly other tier lists should have no bearing or impact on determining the optimal way to display this tier in a list.
MDragon's list is, in my opinion, very close to optimal in how it portrays the power and viability of each subsection of pokemon. When I think of how frequently I see a Mon and the effect it has on a game, that is almost entirely how the distribution works out.
The biggest difference between my proposed rankings and the current one is that the tiers in terms of viable worth are completely different than other VR's. In terms of power, I'd think of them as each tier put into two different subranks - for example, A and B create the old A rank, et cetera. The subrankings just weren't used because i was assumed it would clutter up the thread.
Snorlax was put into a Snorlax S subranking since I figured the rank of its own thats currently in place clutters up the thread, and the subranking itself would achieve the same goal. Although, the big part missing here are the rank descriptions. Here's what I've come up with so far in terms of descriptions:
edit: S rank should be edited to give more emphasis on lax
edit2: done
TBH I had trouble with some lower ones, like D rank, since I found I was defining less the rank and more the Pokemon currently in the rank, which is flawed, but unfortunately I couldn't get myself around it.
I also agree mostly with M Dragon's post, the controversial part is the subrankings TBH.
Actually, I think at the moment, we should be caring less about viability changes and more policy review in terms of how we want the VR thread to be syntaxed. A-C with subrankings? 2 or 3 subrankings per tier? Or should we not have subrankings and have extra ranks? How many ranks should be added? I'm personally leaning towards six rankings TBH.
Snorlax was put into a Snorlax S subranking since I figured the rank of its own thats currently in place clutters up the thread, and the subranking itself would achieve the same goal. Although, the big part missing here are the rank descriptions. Here's what I've come up with so far in terms of descriptions:
S Rank: Pokemon in this rank are they keystone of competitive GSC teams. Practically every single serious team run Snorlax and an Electric, and some run all three. Failing to prepare for Pokemon in this rank is akin to PokeSuicide. These Pokemon ARE the Metagame.
A Rank: Pokemon in this rank are the cream of the crop. They either have very little true answers, the ability to get past its own checks and counters, or can do one job extremely well. These Pokemon define the Metagame.
B Rank: Pokemon in this rank are potent threats, but are held back from A rank by a few flaws. They are either slightly outclassed, get worn down easily, or necessitate greater team support than the Pokemon in A rank. However, it would be a mistake to fail to prepare for these Pokemon. These Pokemon affect the metagame.
C Rank: Pokemon in this rank are generally inferior to the above ranks, but have strong, solid niches that allow them to remain threats in the current metagame. Pokemon in this rank either do one job specifically well but are subpar outside of that job, or have bad matchups against a lot of higher-tiered threats. These Pokemon have a presence in the metagame.
D Rank: Pokemon in this rank are quite powerful options, but teams in the current metagame usually prepare for them without even trying. As such, they are generally unreliable options for a team, as they are most likely going to be a liability more than anything else. However, in those rare scenarios where they aren't a liability, they easily win games. These Pokemon aren't necessarily threats, but can be extremely effective if everything aligns just right.
E Rank: Pokemon in this rank are mostly inferior to higher ranks, but have niches strong enough to be recognized by the metagame. These Pokemon either have niches strong enough to land them in select serious teams, or are potential threats that have been held back by the metagame just a tad too much. These Pokemon are recognized by the metagame, but they do not affect it.
F Rank: Pokemon in this rank are almost never seen on serious teams, but have enough qualities to justify their use on select teams. They either face heavy competition from Pokemon in higher ranks, or have a small enough niche that it warrants extremely little demand, despite the Pokemon not facing competition from higher ranks. These Pokemon are forgettable in terms of the metagame.
A Rank: Pokemon in this rank are the cream of the crop. They either have very little true answers, the ability to get past its own checks and counters, or can do one job extremely well. These Pokemon define the Metagame.
B Rank: Pokemon in this rank are potent threats, but are held back from A rank by a few flaws. They are either slightly outclassed, get worn down easily, or necessitate greater team support than the Pokemon in A rank. However, it would be a mistake to fail to prepare for these Pokemon. These Pokemon affect the metagame.
C Rank: Pokemon in this rank are generally inferior to the above ranks, but have strong, solid niches that allow them to remain threats in the current metagame. Pokemon in this rank either do one job specifically well but are subpar outside of that job, or have bad matchups against a lot of higher-tiered threats. These Pokemon have a presence in the metagame.
D Rank: Pokemon in this rank are quite powerful options, but teams in the current metagame usually prepare for them without even trying. As such, they are generally unreliable options for a team, as they are most likely going to be a liability more than anything else. However, in those rare scenarios where they aren't a liability, they easily win games. These Pokemon aren't necessarily threats, but can be extremely effective if everything aligns just right.
E Rank: Pokemon in this rank are mostly inferior to higher ranks, but have niches strong enough to be recognized by the metagame. These Pokemon either have niches strong enough to land them in select serious teams, or are potential threats that have been held back by the metagame just a tad too much. These Pokemon are recognized by the metagame, but they do not affect it.
F Rank: Pokemon in this rank are almost never seen on serious teams, but have enough qualities to justify their use on select teams. They either face heavy competition from Pokemon in higher ranks, or have a small enough niche that it warrants extremely little demand, despite the Pokemon not facing competition from higher ranks. These Pokemon are forgettable in terms of the metagame.
edit: S rank should be edited to give more emphasis on lax
edit2: done
TBH I had trouble with some lower ones, like D rank, since I found I was defining less the rank and more the Pokemon currently in the rank, which is flawed, but unfortunately I couldn't get myself around it.
I also agree mostly with M Dragon's post, the controversial part is the subrankings TBH.
Actually, I think at the moment, we should be caring less about viability changes and more policy review in terms of how we want the VR thread to be syntaxed. A-C with subrankings? 2 or 3 subrankings per tier? Or should we not have subrankings and have extra ranks? How many ranks should be added? I'm personally leaning towards six rankings TBH.
Texas Cloverleaf I didn't really include any gen past DPP in my statement, because I also don't like BW's list, plus there's too many Pokemon in general in later gens. DPP doesn't really make a better case either.
You're right when you say other lists shouldn't affect a given one fir the most part, but ideas and structures can certainly be shared.
On the subject of restructuring, I guess we're continuing where it was left off about five pages back.
You're right when you say other lists shouldn't affect a given one fir the most part, but ideas and structures can certainly be shared.
On the subject of restructuring, I guess we're continuing where it was left off about five pages back.
So any comments about my proposed viability list?
I think that 3 ranks with subranks (and an extra rank for Snorlax) is much better than 6 or 7 different ranks, since the difference between A- and B+ is much greater than between A- and A, and it is a better way of organizing the viability ranks
I think that 3 ranks with subranks (and an extra rank for Snorlax) is much better than 6 or 7 different ranks, since the difference between A- and B+ is much greater than between A- and A, and it is a better way of organizing the viability ranks
I like M Dragon's list in general, I think it combines usage and metagame impact pretty nicely (e.g. Suicune is nowhere near as common as Cloyster but its metagame impact is worth of A rank). Only thing I probably don't agree with is Miltank sitting at B+, I think it belongs to A- more, and I'm not sure about Forretress. Below that I'm not going to bother commenting anything because things start getting very close to each other and it depends on each player's view tbh, at least within the B and C subranks. You guys could even merge all B's and all C's into just two tiers and I'll be fine with it.
Last edited:
The main qualm I have with M Dragon's list is that it's sorted into three subranks per instead of two, where A+ is just breaking off the electrics off of S Rank (I side with Aerodactyl Legend on this point), and C is missing a tertiary ranking. That means the only real rank split into three parts is the B rank, which would be inconsistent with the rest of the rankings. We could get away with it by making seven seperate tiers - adding a G rank - but that would be stretching it, and M Dragon's already said his opinion on the topic.
The real question here is, is that extra one rank truly necessary? On one hand, it does show the relations in the viability of the Pokemon in a better fashion than the six-rank list, which is what the thread is aiming for in the first place. On the other hand, that argument could be used to keep pushing specificity until we inevitably reach individualized rankings, and it would remove uniformity within the subrank count.
I mean, I'm not opposed to having the list be three ranks with two subranks each as opposed to six ranks - I just want a conclusion reached about this seventh rank M Dragon put in.
The real question here is, is that extra one rank truly necessary? On one hand, it does show the relations in the viability of the Pokemon in a better fashion than the six-rank list, which is what the thread is aiming for in the first place. On the other hand, that argument could be used to keep pushing specificity until we inevitably reach individualized rankings, and it would remove uniformity within the subrank count.
I mean, I'm not opposed to having the list be three ranks with two subranks each as opposed to six ranks - I just want a conclusion reached about this seventh rank M Dragon put in.
I don't really see your issue, sure the electrics are the only things broken off from A but logically that distinction makes sense. As far as a power and utility ranking goes everything just intuitively makes sense, you don't look at that list and wonder why x is lower than y, it all seems really clear.
I don't see an issue with adding a C- (Donphan, Entei, Moltres, Sandslash, Ursaring?) if that's your main aesthetic concern, though.
I don't see an issue with adding a C- (Donphan, Entei, Moltres, Sandslash, Ursaring?) if that's your main aesthetic concern, though.
Okay so aside from the arguments provided by talenheim we seem to be mostly in agreement. My question to pose before we get out of the nitty gritty stuff with who's rankings are better suited for this tier. Are we gonna start a new thread, if so who will manage OP?
Well, it comes down to who's willing. If Jorgen is willing to keep moderating this, we can still keep using this one. Otherwise, the moderator should be both willing and competent enough at the tier to know what they're talking about. In other words, the people who nominate themselves for the job even after knowing what they're signing up for and what the expectations will be.
Electrics in A+ still tips me off, but I can live with it. I'm also fine with either a B subranking being removed or a C subranking added.
Electrics in A+ still tips me off, but I can live with it. I'm also fine with either a B subranking being removed or a C subranking added.
he made a good tier list to help people that don't know gsc well. the sub categories is too broad and will create more disagreements. everyone's personal tier list will be a different because it's too difficult to judge a pokemon's overall efficiency. New players should understand from this that it's snorlax + zap/kou + good Synergy in most cases.
If you guys want to I can just edit the OP so we don't have to move to a new thread.
So this blew over. We seem to all be in agreement that something needs to be done to apply the new rankings, but talks about going ahead and implementing it fell through.
So I'm taking initiative. Unless anybody here protests against it, I will make a new Viability Rankings Thread tomorrow. As for the rankings, they will have four rankings with two subrankings per; Snorlax, Electric, A+, A-, B+, B-, C+, and C-. Even though more people supported M Dragon's rankings (and frankly better), they have inconsistent subrankings; as such, for syntax's sake, I will start out with the list I came up with (EDIT: With Texas Cloverleaf's changes), so as to have a solid starting point with constant ranking syntax.
Forgive me if this comes across as too harsh. I just want to make sure this actually goes somewhere instead of lounging due to inactivity.
So I'm taking initiative. Unless anybody here protests against it, I will make a new Viability Rankings Thread tomorrow. As for the rankings, they will have four rankings with two subrankings per; Snorlax, Electric, A+, A-, B+, B-, C+, and C-. Even though more people supported M Dragon's rankings (and frankly better), they have inconsistent subrankings; as such, for syntax's sake, I will start out with the list I came up with (EDIT: With Texas Cloverleaf's changes), so as to have a solid starting point with constant ranking syntax.
Forgive me if this comes across as too harsh. I just want to make sure this actually goes somewhere instead of lounging due to inactivity.
Last edited:
I'm not against M Dragon's rankings in terms of viability; in fact, in those terms, I think they're better than mine. The only qualm about it is the subrankings - with Electrics in A+, there would be four ranks of two (granted, I'm heavily against electrics not in S), while with Electrics in S, there would be seven - one ranking would have a third subranking, making it uneven. Purely syntax.
The reason I'm so against Electrics in A+ is - well, I'll be frank. It doesn't feel right. It makes it seem that the Electrics are better than the A- ranks, yet are dispensible and aren't needed to build a serious GSC team, when in reality, it is a massive struggle to build a team without Electrics when you're trying to exclude them, let alone when you aren't focused on leaving them out. It seems to undersell them, what they can do, and what effects they have on the metagame.
And yes, I know this seems nitpicky, or even self-bias. But the uniformity of the rankings is important. And if push comes to shove and more people want elecs in A+ + M Dragon's tierlist rather than elecs in S + my tierlist, then that will be the syntax of the thread.
The reason I'm so against Electrics in A+ is - well, I'll be frank. It doesn't feel right. It makes it seem that the Electrics are better than the A- ranks, yet are dispensible and aren't needed to build a serious GSC team, when in reality, it is a massive struggle to build a team without Electrics when you're trying to exclude them, let alone when you aren't focused on leaving them out. It seems to undersell them, what they can do, and what effects they have on the metagame.
And yes, I know this seems nitpicky, or even self-bias. But the uniformity of the rankings is important. And if push comes to shove and more people want elecs in A+ + M Dragon's tierlist rather than elecs in S + my tierlist, then that will be the syntax of the thread.
Last edited:
Lavos
Banned deucer.
I understand your perspective, but Zapdos and Raikou aren't comparable to Snorlax. This has been proven countless times. Snorlax has to be in a tier of its own. I also think Zapdos and Raikou have to be isolated. Thus if S rank is the best possible, it's solely for Snorlax. And if we accept that the Electrics have to be isolated below Snorlax, we see them move to A+. Reserving a "letter grade" entirely for Snorlax makes perfect sense given its overwhelming effect on GSC.
Every great team must have Snorlax. There exist great teams without Zapdos and/or Raikou. Not using Zapdos and Raikou is justifiable in rare circumstances. Not using Snorlax means you're intentionally making a team worse for style points.
Every great team must have Snorlax. There exist great teams without Zapdos and/or Raikou. Not using Zapdos and Raikou is justifiable in rare circumstances. Not using Snorlax means you're intentionally making a team worse for style points.
- Status