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.
I appreciate attempts at innovation when it comes to countering and using Zamazenta-Crowned in OU and applaud users for coming up with their own unique strategies, but I feel that Sableye and special Zamazenta-Crowned are far too fringe/gimmicky to warrant serious discussion in a suspect thread. These sets are not (yet) close to representative of the larger metagame and it is best we stay fully on topic rather than turning this into the metagame discussion 2.0 thread.
Got reqs with one of the worst stall teams I've ever had to use. Had basically no wincons apart from clicking Toxic and taking advantage of low ladder players inability to play longer games, would highly recommend.
Now for my personal experience during my run, Zamazenta was not an issue, but the stall packed all of Moltres, Corviknight, Toxapex and Quagsire, so that is to be expected. However while laddering normally in the 1800+ range, I found counterplay to Zama to be very difficult when put in the hands of a competent player.
When the primary counterplay being listed is Rocky Helmet chip, Flame Body burns and Static paras, coupled with being quite difficult to revenge kill consistently, I find it very very difficult to justify letting this mon into OU. mcpallday's post is fantastic and encapsulates most of my thoughts on the matter, go and read it if you haven't already. What I will add to this is Zama's brilliant synergy with both Terrains as well as Future Sight support, which is something ausma touched upon here but somehow came to the conclusion that Zama should be unbanned? I don't want to start anything but unless there is a Future Sight+Teleport/Teleport/Slowtwins ban in the works this is completely misguided in my opinion. Freeing a mon which abuses a strategy makes no sense when the strategy is already so prominent in the metagame. We are testing the mon in the OU metagame, not the mon in a vacuum.
Something that really fascinated me about Zamazenta is that it can take advantage of all 3 terrains. Most people are already aware of Grassy Terrain synergy, providing passive recovery as well as making sure that defensive Landorus EQ does absolute piss back (22-27%). Even offensive Garchomp only does 32-38, so while Zama may not OHKO them back, these are 2 checks that can easily be chipped and potentially set up on in the late game, without even needing Ice Fang. Zama is also great at weakening Rillaboom answers which just makes this combination even better.
Electric Terrain synergy should be fairly obvious, with stronger Wild Charges allowing it to potentially punch through would be counters in Toxapex, Skarmory, Corviknight and Zapdos, not to mention just general good synergy with Tapu Koko.
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Toxapex in Electric Terrain: 226-266 (74.3 - 87.5%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Skarmory in Electric Terrain: 238-282 (71.2 - 84.4%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Corviknight in Electric Terrain: 294-346 (73.5 - 86.5%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 248 HP / 220 Def Zapdos in Electric Terrain: 190-224 (49.6 - 58.4%)
For the record I believe Adamant is better since the only relevant mons missed are Tornadus-T and...Zama itself. 355 as a speed tier is still fantastic.
Psychic Terrain is one that I played with quite a lot with a team my good friend sugarhigh built, and is one that I found incredibly effective running Psychic Fangs as the coverage move of choice, allowing it to cover Toxapex and Buzzwole. Zama is also effective in opening holes for Tapu Lele and vice versa.
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Psychic Fangs vs. 252 HP / 144+ Def Buzzwole in Psychic Terrain: 246-290 (58.8 - 69.3%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Psychic Fangs vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Toxapex in Psychic Terrain: 214-252 (70.3 - 82.8%)
Additionally, while not a terrain, Heatran as a partner to Zama is fantastic. I already believe that an accurate Heatran is a broken Heatran, but in this metagame where people are shifting to mons such as Slowbro and Toxapex as their bulky waters, Heatran absolutely thrives.
On the topic of Toxapex, frankly speaking that mon just is not a counter to Zama. It is a pivot, sure. You can get Helmet chip on it, but then you rely on a Scald burn after since +1 Wild Charge into neutral Wild Charge almost always kills, and then forces the Toxapex side into a predictable sequence of plays. Shit just does not work, not to mention the possibility of Heal Bell support.
In my opinion the only Pokemon that are able to consistently answer Zamazenta are Hippowdon (Whirlwind+Helmet), Tangrowth (Sleep Powder+Helmet) and Defensive Roost Volcarona. Everything else that has been listed up to this point can fold easily to support that is very splashable on teams. Even after that, none of these mons can switch in to Future Sight+Zamazenta hit and come out of the scenario positively, and this is just compounded by the fact that Zamazenta can switch into the mons that threaten the Slowtwins very easily.
While I supported this test because it was worth a punt, I just can't see where the unban side is coming from. We have the luxury of essentially getting to choose the metagame we get to play for the next few months and Zama simply does not add enough to the tier to justify all the problems it brings with it. I will be voting do not unban, and I hope those of you reading this will do the same.
For the record I believe Adamant is better since the only relevant mons missed are Tornadus-T and...Zama itself. 355 as a speed tier is still fantastic.
Well, you also miss out on Weavile
252 Atk Choice Band Weavile Low Kick (120 BP) vs. +1 20 HP / 0 Def Zamazenta-Crowned: 270-318 (81.8 - 96.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock
Weavile may not be too popular right now per se, and while Zamazenta is a Weavile Check, running Jolly ensures that you just don't get 2HKO'd by by Weavile in a pinch, as Weavile is probably one of the best offensecounterplay options/checks to the ominipresent SlowTwins, Dragapult, Lando/Chomp.
Tornadus T is also not something to scoff at either.
+2 252 SpA Tornadus Focus Blast vs. 20 HP / 0 SpD Zamazenta-Crowned: 368-434 (111.5 - 131.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO
If Adamant Zamazenta continues to rise in usage then we will probably see more Weaviles and Tornadus lol.
When the primary counterplay being listed is Rocky Helmet chip, Flame Body burns and Static paras, coupled with being quite difficult to revenge kill consistently, I find it very very difficult to justify letting this mon into OU. mcpallday's post is fantastic and encapsulates most of my thoughts on the matter, go and read it if you haven't already. What I will add to this is Zama's brilliant synergy with both Terrains as well as Future Sight support, which is something ausma touched upon here but somehow came to the conclusion that Zama should be unbanned? I don't want to start anything but unless there is a Future Sight+Teleport/Teleport/Slowtwins ban in the works this is completely misguided in my opinion. Freeing a mon which abuses a strategy makes no sense when the strategy is already so prominent in the metagame. We are testing the mon in the OU metagame, not the mon in a vacuum.
Something that really fascinated me about Zamazenta is that it can take advantage of all 3 terrains. Most people are already aware of Grassy Terrain synergy, providing passive recovery as well as making sure that defensive Landorus EQ does absolute piss back (22-27%). Even offensive Garchomp only does 32-38, so while Zama may not OHKO them back, these are 2 checks that can easily be chipped and potentially set up on in the late game, without even needing Ice Fang. Zama is also great at weakening Rillaboom answers which just makes this combination even better.
Electric Terrain synergy should be fairly obvious, with stronger Wild Charges allowing it to potentially punch through would be counters in Toxapex, Skarmory, Corviknight and Zapdos, not to mention just general good synergy with Tapu Koko.
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Toxapex in Electric Terrain: 226-266 (74.3 - 87.5%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Skarmory in Electric Terrain: 238-282 (71.2 - 84.4%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Corviknight in Electric Terrain: 294-346 (73.5 - 86.5%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 248 HP / 220 Def Zapdos in Electric Terrain: 190-224 (49.6 - 58.4%)
For the record I believe Adamant is better since the only relevant mons missed are Tornadus-T and...Zama itself. 355 as a speed tier is still fantastic.
Psychic Terrain is one that I played with quite a lot with a team my good friend sugarhigh built, and is one that I found incredibly effective running Psychic Fangs as the coverage move of choice, allowing it to cover Toxapex and Buzzwole. Zama is also effective in opening holes for Tapu Lele and vice versa.
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Psychic Fangs vs. 252 HP / 144+ Def Buzzwole in Psychic Terrain: 246-290 (58.8 - 69.3%)
+1 252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Psychic Fangs vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Toxapex in Psychic Terrain: 214-252 (70.3 - 82.8%)
Additionally, while not a terrain, Heatran as a partner to Zama is fantastic. I already believe that an accurate Heatran is a broken Heatran, but in this metagame where people are shifting to mons such as Slowbro and Toxapex as their bulky waters, Heatran absolutely thrives.
On the topic of Toxapex, frankly speaking that mon just is not a counter to Zama. It is a pivot, sure. You can get Helmet chip on it, but then you rely on a Scald burn after since +1 Wild Charge into neutral Wild Charge almost always kills, and then forces the Toxapex side into a predictable sequence of plays. Shit just does not work, not to mention the possibility of Heal Bell support.
In my opinion the only Pokemon that are able to consistently answer Zamazenta are Hippowdon (Whirlwind+Helmet), Tangrowth (Sleep Powder+Helmet) and Defensive Roost Volcarona. Everything else that has been listed up to this point can fold easily to support that is very splashable on teams. Even after that, none of these mons can switch in to Future Sight+Zamazenta hit and come out of the scenario positively, and this is just compounded by the fact that Zamazenta can switch into the mons that threaten the Slowtwins very easily.
While I supported this test because it was worth a punt, I just can't see where the unban side is coming from. We have the luxury of essentially getting to choose the metagame we get to play for the next few months and Zama simply does not add enough to the tier to justify all the problems it brings with it. I will be voting do not unban, and I hope those of you reading this will do the same.
I agree with this logic. I'm currently trying to get my reqs too and I'm in the 1500s right now, and just the vast majority of the decent teams I've faced always have two checks to Zamazenta minimum, which means in practice playing around Zamazenta isn't too difficult, but if you have only one check to it its very exploitable.
I even outplayed a Zapdos with my Zamazenta using ausma's team in one of the posted replays.
In the second replay, I was able to emulate the experience Down$hift has had.
I saved the replays to my computer but not sure how to upload it here as an actual URL so saved it as a pdf for now, in the future I'll try to save them as URLs ( unless a moderator can help me with how to upload a downloaded replay here).
My opponent had a Volcaorona, but since Heatran is just crazy good right now and crazy compatible with Zamazenta, it was easy to play around it and keep disrupting my opponent's rhythm. You could tell that stopping my Zamazenta was on his or her mind the whole game, which is why I could make low-risk, high reward double switches utilizing Zamazenta and Heatran, all the way up to the point my opponent got frustrated and impatient and sacked his Volcorona, leaving him vulnerable to Zamazenta sweep.
And I've noticed a lot of the time in practice , even outside of Terrain Support, Zamazenta can often end up trading with so-called checks like Bulky Chomp, it is always able to get at least an even trade with something, and sometimes you want to use your Lando or Chomp to check some other physical threat on the enemy team too is the issue.
Honestly, I have been shifting more towards the pro stay-banned side of things, because at the very least it does seem like Zamazenta is a powerful centralizing influence. It's not broken but it seems to limit teambuilding.
Well, you also miss out on Weavile
252 Atk Choice Band Weavile Low Kick (120 BP) vs. +1 20 HP / 0 Def Zamazenta-Crowned: 270-318 (81.8 - 96.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock
For the sake of this argument, let's say that you lose momentum in Rain and need to check Zamazenta-C.
252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Close Combat vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Zapdos: 123-145 (38.3 - 45.1%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Behemoth Bash vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Zapdos: 102-121 (31.7 - 37.6%) -- 92.4% chance to 3HKO
252+ Atk Zamazenta-Crowned Wild Charge vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Zapdos: 124-146 (38.6 - 45.4%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
(Offensive Zapdos runs HDB standardly, so I'm not exactly sure why you say the contrary.)
Not only are these moves not doing a ton, even with Adamant, without a Howl boost, but Zapdos fishing for Static against Zamazenta as it tries to break past it is not a tall order whatsoever given its access to Roost, especially if Zamazenta lacks Ice Fang. Once Zamazenta-C is paralyzed, it becomes dead weight--even with Ice Fang, Zapdos has several opportunities to cripple Zamazenta-C since while keeping healthy it has the chance to incapacitate it simultaneously. With Ice Fang, though, Zamazenta-C will lose to Pelipper unless it runs BoltBeam + CC, which can force it to take key damage through Wild Charge chip damage, or force a gamble with Zapdos and only increasing Static opportunities. Regardless of all of this, like I said, if you are put into a position where Zamazenta-C is able to break past Rain, that is your own fault, as Rain is centered around wearing down checks and putting either a win condition (usually a Swift Swim abuser or Nasty Plot Tornadus-T/Thundurus-T) into a position where it can clean. This is, fundamentally, how inherently hyper offensive weather teams work.
Offensive Zapdos gets 2HKOed by Ice Fang from even Jolly Zamazenta. So if Zapdos tries to switch in and eats an Ice fang on the switch, it dies to the second hit. The chance of static activating from 2 hits is 51%. So half the time, you will have sacced your Zapdos with a full health Zamazenta out there. Does that seem like reliable counter play? That is why I said you need to run the Physically Defensive Bold set.
Now you might say, "Offense isn't about switching, you need to apply offensive pressure". That is EXACTLY where Zamazenta shines. You cannot pressure it sufficiently due to its speed, bulk, power, and movepool. Let's take Zapdos out of the equation and look at Zama's match up vs other Rain staples. Ferrothorn, Clefable, Pelipper, Tornadus-T, Kyurem all get either outspeed and KOed or loses the 1v1. Even Barraskewda, the most common rain abuser rn also loses the 1v1 (Banded CC does 73% max). So you are left with no choice but to switch.
Webs, similarly, face issues for reasons that Zamazenta-C is not solely responsible for, but I mention it because the speed drop does allow for Zamazenta to be much more readily overwhelmed, even if it has a better matchup toward Webs in comparison to other offensive Pokemon. Zamazenta-C might be able to knock down one breaker or two, but its lack of longevity lets it be overwhelmed incredibly easily, and it doesn't need too much chip either given that a majority of Webs abusers run coverage or STABs that can naturally threaten Zamazenta-C. There are also options like Garchomp (which is a solid check even against Ice Fang variants) and Aegislash, which I've already discussed.
If you believe that it "obviously completely shuts down" these builds,explain how. Either do that, and/or show replays that demonstrate it cleaving past these teams without being overwhelmed or picking off key threats without breaking a sweat, or else you're making meaningless, extraneous claims that don't add any productive value to the discussion. Although you later rescind your claim of it shutting down BO, this still applies to your original claim of how it affects HO.
To put it simply, Zamazenta's combination of bulk, speed, typing, power, and move pool makes it impossible for purely offensive teams to remove it from the field without losing 2 to 3 mons in the process. If you have doubts about this statement, please refer to this match up list I previously posted in a reply.
Outspeed and Outright OHKO: Kartana, Hydreigon, Kyurem, Excadrill, Tapu Lele, and Tyranitar
Outspeed and OHKO after minor chip: Tornadus-Therian, Rillaboom, Nidoking, Dragonite (needs more chip but Dnite cannot do much back), Hawlucha (pre-seed), Garchomp (Ice Fang variants)
OHKO after minor chip: Zeraora, Dragapult, Tapu Koko
Outspeed and Wins 1v1: Garchomp (Non Ice Fang Variants), Offensive Lando (50% chance with SR, 100% chance with 20% chip)
This is also the response I have when my statement of Zamazenta beating 95% of offensive mons in the tier challenged. The evidence is right here^.
And while I retracted my statement about BO, BO still has to dedicate a significant number of resources to deal with Zama to the point of of being unhealthy.
You don't seem to understand what an offensive check is; in fact, it's in the name. A check is not a counter. In this context, it is a Pokemon that has the ability to beat Zamazenta-C given the right circumstances. Dragapult eclipses Zamazenta-C's speed tier by a good margin, with access to two forms of debilitating status, and can easily revenge kill it after a Close Combat drop, not even needing Fire Blast in most circumstances since status is universal to pivot variants and can scare it out anyway by threatening it with key chip damage regardless. Because Zamazenta-C is forced out, Dragapult can very easily use Zamazenta-C as a progress forcing opportunity, either by gaining momentum, spreading status, or chipping down a switch-in. If you think a Specs Dragapult is going to stay in and click Shadow Ball just to get chip damage when Zamazenta-C is at max HP and put itself into a low HP threshold when it has other, more practical options, you are solely mistaken.
Pokémon A checks Pokémon B if, when Pokémon A is given a free switch into Pokémon B, Pokémon A can win every time, even under the worst case scenario, without factoring in hax. (Source: https://www.smogon.com/smog/issue32/checks-and-counters)
An offensive check is simply an offensive mon that can be used as a check. You cannot pre-assume a status'ed Zamazenta. Hydreigon can beat Kartana if the Kartana is paralzyed or burned. Doesn't make Hydreigon a Kartana check? Assumptions like CC drop do not belong here, because if Zama CC'd something before pult came in, most likely it got a kill or did significant damage.
Some people claim that Zamazenta-C is broken because it "lives a super effective attack from a super powerful wallbreaker?!" but a lot of these claims do not bear in mind the other variables that put major schisms in Zamazenta-C's bulk, as well as the turn-to-turn circumstances by which it stays healthy, or if it even stays healthy at all. It is not practical to assume that just because a Pokemon lives a certain super effective attack at max HP, it is by virtue broken. These interactions are not black and white, and your claims seem to suggest as such.
You mean living super effective attack from a super powerful wallbreaker with 30% to 40% health left in the tank, ALONGSIDE being able to outspeed almost every single mon except 3 (Those 3 fails to deliver even a 2HKO while getting 2HKOed in return or OHKOed with 15% to 20% chip), having the movepool and power to either OHKO or deal 80% damage (Refer to the match up list), and switch into a plethora of attacks by the virtue of bulk and typing? How does that not scream broken to you?
About your latter two examples, you do not Scald in front of a boosted Zamazenta-C. With your latter two examples, the interaction is heavily based in pivoting (as opposed to praying and hoping you can win the 1v1) and positioning a check that is more readily capable of forcing it out. Toxapex uses Haze on the Howl, and if Zamazenta-C chooses not to Howl, Toxapex heals and then fishes for Scald until the Howl boost is intact.
What are you talking about? Zamazenta Howls on the switch and a +1 Wild Charge does 62% mean damage. If Pex is Helmet and Rocks are up, Pex is at 26% when you Haze. Now you either let Pex die there or switch which means something else takes massive damage or is KOed. Now if your plan to switch to another check like Defensive Lando, that means
1) You've already dedicated two slots to checking Zamazenta
2) My point of Zamazenta being able to muscle past Pex holds true
Although I appreciate your response to my post, I personally feel like you mostly are operating under the assumption that Zamazenta-C will always be enabled 24/7, will always be at max HP, has no status, and that the opponent is only brute forcing Zamazenta-C when none of this is realistic whatsoever, and does not bear in mind the unique interactions that Zamazenta-C has with a majority of its offensive and defensive checks.
I appreciate your detailed response as well. But the thing is, while you're trying to chip Zama and attempt to inflict status, Zama won't be a sitting duck. You will have sustained damage in the process. For purely offensive teams, who do not have the luxury of dedicating multiple slots to mons such as Helmet Pex, Helmet Slowbro, Defensive Zapdos, or Defensive Lando, this means losing two to three breakers in the process of trying to eliminate Zamazenta. That does seem like a playstyle being shut down to me.
I hope this doesn't get discarded as a one-liner, but I'm genuinely surprised about how many people seem to use "but it would kill any kind of HO"-arguments, and are apparently "getting away" with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because maybe I missed a change in tiering policies, but in the past whenever a defensive behemoth was suspect tested, it was mentioned multiple times that preserving an archetype (in those cases, more often than not Stall) is NOT a reason to keep something in (or in this case, out of) a tier. So even IF zama would completely negate HO as a playstyle in Gen8 OU, that would historically not be counted as an argument against it if it didn't turn out to be overly problematic otherwise.
Greetings to those who will read and comment on my post.
My thoughts will be on the fact that I am a pragmatic player and that many other people before me on this trhead have done all the necessary calc. I will not make any other calculations.
With the premises I begin.
The first point I would like to make is his type. Zamazenta-C does not suffer from the hazard problem. Zamazenta-C speed and attack power are deadly. But Its coverage isn't the best, but it works. He has a defense boost that allows for a bigger tank on him. A little note, in high ladder due to Zamazenta-C is slightly less used than Kyurem and also Melmetal.
I'm a gamer who likes to play balanced team, but this isn't possible with him because of what I said about his tank, his firepower and his easy entry(or at least much less).
If he enters the meta you will see a lot more HyperOffensve team or stall team (in order not to have a lot of pressure against him you will need to use two checks, as has already been said with a team that supports him can put a lot of pressure).
The teambuilder phase is already very binding due to so much stuff pointing the meta in one direction. In which direction do we want to go?
I'm sorry not to talk more but I think a lot of people have said a lot of things already. That's all in my opinion...
Pokémon A checks Pokémon B if, when Pokémon A is given a free switch into Pokémon B, Pokémon A can win every time, even under the worst case scenario, without factoring in hax. (Source: https://www.smogon.com/smog/issue32/checks-and-counters)
Check – A Pokémon that is designated to stop a threat, but cannot reliably counter one, being unable to withstand repeated attacks from it, such as switching into the threat repeatedly. Checks can use high damaging attacks or other category moves that seek to impair functioning, to scare off their respective threats.
I hope this doesn't get discarded as a one-liner, but I'm genuinely surprised about how many people seem to use "but it would kill any kind of HO"-arguments, and are apparently "getting away" with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because maybe I missed a change in tiering policies, but in the past whenever a defensive behemoth was suspect tested, it was mentioned multiple times that preserving an archetype (in those cases, more often than not Stall) is NOT a reason to keep something in (or in this case, out of) a tier. So even IF zama would completely negate HO as a playstyle in Gen8 OU, that would historically not be counted as an argument against it if it didn't turn out to be overly problematic otherwise.
Negating a playstyle or archetype would fall under limiting teambuilding/overcentralization, since playstyles by definition are differentiated by the number of offensive or defensive mons present on the team. If a purely offensive team can't function then you are limiting the types of teams that can be built and viably played. Zamazenta may not require niche mons to check it and has plenty of counterplay options, but it seems you need to play bulky offense or balanced to fit them all ( since you need 2 checks to reliably keep it at bay) if you don't want to go full fat and its Volcarona or bust if running HO which again is a limit on teambuilding since answers to Volcarona are easily splashable on Zamazenta Teams.
"Tier system – A philosophy of tiering and the resulting tiers, e.g. tiering Pokémon based on a usage cut-off formula from the usage statistics and banning Pokémon, moves etc. via community or administrative agreement, to form a tier list and balance each tier level within it respectively. The aim of any tier system is to open up the potential for many interactions between Pokémon, items, moves and abilities in competitive Pokémon battles, i.e. make them, and the tactics and strategies that utilise them, viable."
Broken (also Overpowered, OP) – A Pokémon, item, move or ability which is deemed too powerful for the tier environment and subsequently banned from the balanced tier if a consensus is reached. Broken Pokémon often have high viability, making the tier overcentralized around them, and can sometimes have a diverse range of movesets, making them hard to counter.
Note that the definition specifies that a tier must allow not only a diversity of pokemon , items, and moves, but also allow make the TACTICS or Strategies that use them viable too. Hyper Offense is a strategy that has it's own unique interaction of pokemon and gameplay. Zamazenta may not invalidate many offensive mons, but it can limit the strategies and arrangements of pokemon in your team. By limiting HO builds and their success in the metagame, the use of these teams are discouraged and thus we miss out on lots of possible interactions and matchups since you can't run a team of 5, usually frail, fast wall breakers and sweepers and a suicide lead, or the teams that you can run are very few, hurting the diversity of the metagame.
but it's not just that, Zamazenta can still muscle past many of it's answers on balance and stall too, and support for it is splashable and strong in their own rights too (Terrains, Future Sight), making it easy for Zamazenta to do its thing. Which fits the diverse range of movesets requirement as outlined in some of the things that make a mon too OP for a tier.
Either way, I just want to point out that this notion that "it shits on all currently popular physical sweeper strategies in the tier" is ridiculous. The only Pokemon it really shuts down are SD Bisharp, Crawdaunt, and Weavile. Rillaboom wins the 1v1 with an SD on the switch-in with either the LO or Grassy Seed variant so long as it is healthy. Even offensive SD Garchomp almost always lives Ice Fang and easily stomachs other attacks all while doing a lot in return, easily KOing if at +2. Hawlucha, BU Zeraora, and just about every Kommo-O variant are all neutral to positive against Zamazenta-Crowned, too. It is quite literally just the Dark types seeing a significant downgrade in viability.
New Pokemon quite literally are already popping up, too. Aegislash is experiencing a resurgence with both common sets, Victini and Volcarona are better than ever, and offensive Buzzwole is super promising right now. I believe this will continue to develop, too, but I cannot promise that much.
I do not know what type of metgame-deciphering calculations you are making, but match-up fishing is nowhere near "twice as bad" and the claim that Zamazenta-Crowned automatically wins the HO match-up is outright wrong. And balance teams do not require "slapping Volcaron on to your team to fish for a burn and a free win" when there are already a plethora of viable defensive and balanced checks. You are using exaggeration in order to emphasize points that are not actually developed whatsoever.
I'll begin in a general way: Your post does not reflect my experience getting reqs during testing. Three weeks into the suspect test and the top of the ladder is all stall teams that couldn't cover the cheese I threw together that ran 2 NU's with stored power.
My point is that matchup fishing in the Zama-C metagame is totally abusable in a myriad of ways that are no doubt still incompletely explored. Amongst other degeneracy that Zamazenta-C does, it also makes priority users much more difficult to run. What I predicted would happen was exactly what my experience confirmed: matchup fishing became twice as bad. I played most of my suspect games at the top of the ladder, unlike most testers. After confirming reqs with the usual lower ladder slog that most people probably passed by loading up rain or toxic spikes Pex, my first confirmation was actually rejected for playing more games after the qualifying screenshot. That has been rectified and I currently have the highest rated account of all qualified and unqualified suspect testers. I played almost no games against an offensive team that was highly rated.
Running the extreme risk of trying too hard I will now get into specifics:
No one on the top of the ladder ran SD Rilla before the test began and the set is still garbage and invisible. All the things that pray to stop Zama-C from making progress certainly completely stop Rillabloom from making progress. If you run SD Rilla, you're practically running it solely to break an opposing offense's Zama-C. What a garbage, what match-up fishing. The problem you don't see is that most of the pokemon you've suggested (sd aegislash, rillabloom, kommo-o) are all pretty bad in the Zapdos- Corvi- Slowbro variant metamage that emerges around Zama-C. The main 'innovation' to so far come out of this metagame is new cheese sets like Agility CM stored power lati@s that take advantage of the fat teams with no priority moves that have been popularized. So no, it is not at all the case that Zama's only effect is making dark types worse, in fact if anyone were to consider the way metagames actually work, dark types never really got worse: Low Kick Weavile and Bisharp and special attacking Tyranitar are all valuable as lures for Zama-C, though are pretty deficient otherwise.
At some point we don't need more mons for teams to cover, as I've already said competitive mons is not, or I would rather say 'should not be', 5D rock-paper-scissors in the team builder. Maximizing diversity is not a necessary virtue of competitiveness. I hope in the future we can find new and exciting ways to make our metagame more competitive that don't involve unbans but perhaps involve bans the like through which most metagames in the past were improved.
And I understand you probably want to say 'first you argued that Zama-C was too restrictive, now you argue it enables too much diversity' but I am not saying it really enables any diversity, the top of the ladder was incredibly stagnant with fat that was still unable to cover the garbage offense I ran. An occasional Victini doesn't make diversity. In fact, had offense been playable in a Zama-C metagame I probably would have lost piles more games. I'll be the first to admit I cheesed the test, and that is my complaint.
Three weeks into the suspect test and the top of the ladder is all stall teams that couldn't cover the cheese I threw together that ran 2 NU's with stored power.
No one on the top of the ladder ran SD Rilla before the test began and the set is still garbage and invisible. All the things that pray to stop Zama-C from making progress certainly completely stop Rillabloom from making progress. If you run SD Rilla, you're practically running it solely to break an opposing offense's Zama-C. What a garbage, what match-up fishing. The problem you don't see is that most of the pokemon you've suggested (sd aegislash, rillabloom, kommo-o) are all pretty bad in the Zapdos- Corvi- Slowbro variant metamage that emerges around Zama-C.
This is just blatantly false. Swords Dance Rillaboom has been a common pick on offense since way before this suspect test started. It was used many times in SPL (some examples: 1234567) and if you look at last month's high ladder usage stats you'll also find that 36% of Rillaboom were Swords Dance variants. It is one of various long-time offense staples that can beat Zamazenta.
The main 'innovation' to so far come out of this metagame is new cheese sets like Agility CM stored power lati@s that take advantage of the fat teams with no priority moves that have been popularized.
If you consult the usage stats again you'll see that this isn't a new Latias set either.
You can argue that Zamazenta warps the metagame, but using hyperbole and claiming sets that have thrived for months are now "garbage matchup fishing that you practically solely run to break Zamazenta and that no one used before the test began" is disingenuous.
I thought it was relatively obvious that what I posted was a rhetorical question. I know the tiering policies in that regard did NOT change since the arena trap and msab suspects, so the same arguing is still intact. How you want to read into those policies is your thing, but it's a fact that in the past, killing off playstyles was not allowed as an argument against a pokemon (can easily be re-read in the closed gen6 or gen7 ou forums by searching "suspect" in the titles) if it otherwise made the format more healthy.
The fact that it seems to be now just shows the absurd double standards a majority of players have towards defensive playstyles
I thought it was relatively obvious that what I posted was a rhetorical question. I know the tiering policies in that regard did NOT change since the arena trap and msab suspects, so the same arguing is still intact. How you want to read into those policies is your thing, but it's a fact that in the past, killing off playstyles was not allowed as an argument against a pokemon (can easily be re-read in the closed gen6 or gen7 ou forums by searching "suspect" in the titles) if it otherwise made the format more healthy.
The fact that it seems to be now just shows the absurd double standards a majority of players have towards defensive playstyles
Mega Sabeleye was banned because it made stall teams too powerful by utilizing it's special ability in stopping hazards and taunt too efficiently, two of the textbook methods of dealing with stall, that when combined with its other attributes and the ways you could support it made stall too powerful. So yes, making one particular playstyle too strong or making one particular playstyle too weak is grounds to ban something because at the end of the day in both cases you're excessively limiting teambuilding options and the diversity of the metagame. In no world is limiting an entire playstyle gonna make a metagame more healthy lol.
Banning Mega Sabeleye opened up more options for stall-breaking and wallbreaking while at the same time increasing the variation and creativity of the stall teams that could be built, as stall was still plenty viable without Sabeleye.
I quoted your post because I don't understand what double standard you are speaking of. There is a difference between a mon preserving a playstyle and making said playstyle too strong.
But, on the flip side , if something is making a playstyle or multiple playstyles unplayable then that quite obviously hurts the diversity of the competitive scene, which isn't a good thing at all.
The only other thing that has me on the fence is the overall stability of the meta. When banning something like Aegislash or Geninja, their presence in the meta alone made entire playstyles unviable and made the meta unbalanced. Currently, the meta allows for a lot of diversity, and people have been able to find ways to get around Sableye and the deadly cores it forms on all sorts of playstyles. And Sableye has more than one counter, which can be paired with something to beat dugtrio or sheninja. Gothitelle forced people to have tyranitar or something with shed shell, greninja was only countered by porygon 2, aegislash turned so many scenarios into 50/50s and forced many wallbreakers to run less-helpful coverage, hoopa forced stall teams to adopt more offensive tactics (like having weavile as a pursuit trapper), and it was just impossible to deal with Mega kangaskhan without significant preparation and very specific mons like ferrothorn. Sableye isn't like that, and things like Mega lopunny and Mega Diancie remain as solid checks to sableye that can also deal significant damage to the rest of the team."
"Sableye saved stall. When Aegislash was banned, stall was pretty much dead, due to the prominence of wallbreaker such as M-Gardevoir and M-Medicham. Sableye is the perfect Mon for stall, it glues stall teams together. Stall is still a team archetype and if M-Sableye is removed, Stall will not be playable in the OU Tier. A healthy metagame lets all play styles thrive. Pokemon should only be banned if they create an unhealthy effect on the metagame. M-sableye removal will create an unhealthy effect on the metagame by automatically ending the viability of stall.
"
"I thought this was at the core of the reasoning for banning Hoopa? I don't know how many times I read in that thread, and then again in summaries, that 'Hoopa-U invalidates stall and thus should be banned.'"
So , in the past, whether you were on the pro ban side or pro- unban side, the arguments were about preserving playstyles and making things less matchup dependant (i.e reducing number of matches that are purely determined by Team Preview),.
There is no need to get into the nitty gritty and the specific scenarios with specific examples from the past, but the point is, people have different perceptions about how viable a given playstyle(s) is and the goal is only keep mons in the tier if they don't limit teambuilding or the playstyles used to a severe extent.
I'm simply saying what the tiering policy actually is.
The argument against Zama C is that it nullifies HO as a playstyle, while still being able to muscle past it's answers on fatty teams thanks to its speed, bulk, power, moveset , and its powerful team support options.
Now, I'm not super high ladder or anything in OU as, up until this suspect, it really just wasn't interesting to me. After playing a ton with Zama, though, I don't see a reason we shouldn't allow it into the OU Metagame. It's got clearly defined strengths and weaknesses, and it's not one of those mons where it's got multiple layers to it. Many of the already common walls in the meta are still usable as walls against Zama, and the fact that it cannot hold an item means that several types of HO can manage it without even worrying about putting a defensive staple onto their teams.
Who wants to run zapdos on every rain team plus most rain teams perfer a more thunderous t option for power but I guess it's just alright to make the meta so limited to running every playstyle cause a mon is in a tier or what? I'm not getting whole one pokemon on a specific team can counter it when the diversity is so limited when sand struggles and both loves zama and zapdos, slowbro, toxapex, buzzwole, hippowdon are all very niche options on some styles of teams and it just proofs why zama makes those be forced to be in teams without much diversity (not mentioning that you can get around them).
This whole thing was hard to read. "Who wants to run zapdos on every rain team plus most rain teams [prefer] a more thunderus T option for power." and so on is ridiculous. Zapdos has already found itself on many rain teams, as it's combination of Weather ball, Hurricane, Thunder, and amazing typing makes it a good check to a lot of common offensive and defensive mons, one of these being (you guessed it), Zama. A ton of the mons they mention after this aren't "niche" first off, and secondly, they list off a TON of options. How is it a lack of diversity if you can list 5 of them off the top of your head?
There's lots of answers to Zama, and while it'll be a great mon, it's nothing unbeatable like Magearna or too restricting to the building process like Dracovish, Urshifu or Spectrier. You've got a surplus of options to beat Zamazenta for every playstyle, and just because "nobody wants to" run these things doesn't mean it's unhealthy for the meta, and as a result I think Zama-C is a good fit for the current OU.
I'm not here to be le missinformed "I played 10 games and think x or y" poster, I just want to remind everyone to consider the ideas and words of someone else here not as an enemy, but as another person who wants to make the meta great. It's good to talk out your opinions and come to a consensus, as long as it actually arrives there. Being pedantic and nitpicking isnt helping, nor is arguing semantics. That being said, happy laddering all who wish to get reqs, and hopefully we can make a better meta as a community.
Weather is an HO archetype that has no issue in overloading Zamazenta-C, with the only weathers that really lose to it being Solo-Tyranitar Sand and Hail. Rain, which is considered to be likely the strongest, completely manhandles Zamazenta-C. Not only does Zamazenta-C get completely overloaded by Barraskewda and other Swift Swim users due to its lack of a Water-type resist, but its best check--Zapdos--is considered to be a Rain staple, and has been even before Zamazenta-C. Rain inherently is a HO archetype that is based in pivoting, overloading, and chipping key threats; bluntly, if Zamazenta-C is put into a winning position against Rain, that is simply your own fault.
Who wants to run zapdos on every rain team plus most rain teams perfer a more thunderous t option for power but I guess it's just alright to make the meta so limited to running every playstyle cause a mon is in a tier or what? I'm not getting whole one pokemon on a specific team can counter it when the diversity is so limited when sand struggles and both loves zama and zapdos, slowbro, toxapex, buzzwole, hippowdon are all very niche options on some styles of teams and it just proofs why zama makes those be forced to be in teams without much diversity (not mentioning that you can get around them).
[/QUOTE]
I kinda see where you are coming from, but Zap has been a rain staple over Thunderus-T for a few reasons
Zapdos is bulkier, allowing for a better pivot
Zapdos has STAB Hurricane, which Thunderus-T lacks
Zapdos can check dangerous physical threats as it commonly runs Roost on defensive sets, and even on offensive sets, you have enough bulk + Static, which has a 30% chance of crippling the unfortunate mon that triggered Static
It synergizes with Ferro, another rain staple, which allows Rain to stand up to Rilla
Thunderus-T is a niche option on rain, which is already niche, and they'd rather have a more consistent mon. Its main draw being nuclear power
Also, Hippo is a better setter than TTar, and bulky sand teams with Toxapex and Tangrowth are far more common higher up, and those teams do naturally well against Zama
thats not what im saying what im saying is that zama normally can get around those teams and most players wouldn't use two of those in each game which makes the meta pretty restricting in a case where you have to run 2 checks on rain or sand to truely wall it.
Could I know why you clicked haha on my post? You didn't reply to it or make any point
Zapdos has been a rain staple since it was released in Crown Tundra. Lando is common, and so is Toxapex. Rain teams aren't being strapped to run suboptimal Mons or Mons that only beat Zama and nothing else.
Your comment doesn't say what you intend to since neither bulky sand nor rain HO struggle to deal with Zama
Hey, I took a break from playing the Battle Frontier to get these Zama reqs, but now I'm motivated to post in this very scary suspect discussion thread. Reason being is that based on some of the recent posts and support from them, it's looking like most voters want to keep Zamazenta-C Uber for reasons that I disagree with. I hope this post encourages more discussion from both sides and urge voters to think about their decision some more.
First off, the team I used in the suspect:
Super simple team that I built in 3 minutes just to try out Zamazenta-Crowned. Going 30-2 with it, I can agree with the consensus opinion that Zama is very good, but not broken. There's enough posts in this thread that better explain why the majority agrees that it's not broken, so I won't go into more detail about that. However, this is a point that I'm going to refer back to again and again because the pro-banners continue to brush over that detail like it's not important: While being a very good Pokemon, Zamazenta-Crowned is not broken.
Of course the reason pro-banners still prefer Zama to remain Ubers is not because it's broken, but rather that it's unhealthy, a very dangerous word around these parts. Banning Pokemon due to "unhealthiness" does have precedence in previous suspects such as Aegislash in XY and M-Sableye in ORAS. The Zamazenta-C suspect, on the other hand, is different and unique from those suspects because we are suspecting a Pokemon that was Ubers from the start instead of a Pokemon that started OU. When players made unhealthy arguments around Aegislash and M-Sableye, their reasoning were backed up with months of evidence due to those Pokemon starting in OU. In this case though, Zama hasn't been in OU for 2 weeks, yet players are jumping to conclusions that "Zamazenta is going to force the metagame into this, this, and this; therefore, it's bad for the tier." Zamazenta has not been in the tier long enough to make such conclusions, despite how logical and persuasive some of them sound. Thus, players are basing their Zama unhealthiness reasoning on pure speculation, dare I say, theorymon? (Another dangerous word that I'm VERY familiar with)
Instead of basing our voting decision on what might happen, which isn't even a guarantee, we need to make a decision based on what we know.
Zamazenta-Crowned can struggle as a standalone Pokemon, but with proper support such as Future Sight and to a lesser extent Wish, it can be a strong pick in SS OU.
Despite this, there are a good number of viable and splashable checks from all team archetypes to keep Zama-C at bay.
Therefore, like many other players agree, Zamazenta-Crowned is not broken.
I also want to counterargue some of the more popular points that the pro-banners bring up.
"What good does Zama bring to the metagame?"
Zama's typing and speed helps in checking Grass spam, Dark-types, and Kyurem, with the latter being one of the tougher Pokemon to handle in the teambuilder. However, I will argue that all of those Pokemon are STILL GOOD based on the games I played on the ladder, especially the former. Dark types were easier to handle using the Zamazenta team, but I still had to play Zama carefully due to its vulnerability to chip damage. Rillaboom + Kartana still gave me trouble even though I had Zama + Zap + Lando-T. And I faced them on hyper offensive teams, the archetype that Zamazenta is supposed to effortlessly run over.
"Unbanning Zama will make Future Sight teams stronger."
That's a Future Sight/Slowtwin problem, not a Zama problem. If that element is truly an issue, then it will be dealt with regardless if Zama is banned or not.
"Zama invalidates offense, akin to the Melmetal suspect."
One, that's not true. When I played vs Volcarona and Aegislash in particular on HO, Zamazenta put me in awkward positions where I'm at risk of being set up on or getting burnt. There's also the fear of the opponent outplaying me and making the proper doubles to overwhelm my Zamazenta. This felt no different than the average offense vs. balance matchup. Two, that comparison is disrespectful to Melmetal who LITERALLY made HO unviable at that point of the metagame. If anyone remembers, HO teams preferred Cinderace over Rotom-H and had Cloyster of all Pokemon as their staple. Since Rotom-H was the only close to offensive check to Melmetal at the time, HO teams just fell over to it since they couldn't efficiently trade with it 1v1. Zamazenta-Crowned is nowhere on that level of invalidation.
"With a Zama unban, the metagame will revolve around the Rocky Helmet. Does that sound like a healthy metagame?"
The wording of this quote makes it sound like a very persuasive argument, but, let's say we replace "Zama" with something like "Stealth Rock" for example and replace Rocky Helmet with "Heavy Duty Boots," then that quote would still sound persuasive. The real question here imo is if Rocky Helmet is objectively a good item. If the item was objectively bad, say, changing the argument from Zama -> Rocky Helmet to Dugtrio -> Shed Shell, then that argument would hold more weight. Rocky Helmet is of course objectively a good item; it is useful for other Pokemon besides Zama, and that chip damage the Rocky Helmet provides can make or break games. Thus, I would have no problem with more Rocky Helmet Pokemon because Zama isn't broken.
"Zama isn't owed OU like Garchomp or Lando-T since it's a cover legendary that started Ubers by default."
If Zama isn't broken in OU, then it definitely is owed OU.
In conclusion, Zamazenta-Crowned is really good, but not broken. The majority seems to agree with this, but the "unhealthy" arguments I feel involve too much theorymon. If it actually does become unhealthy in the future, the OU council can always suspect it again or do what they did with Cinderace + Magearna and quickban if the community agrees to based on a survey. I will be voting to unban Zamazenta-Crowned because it's not broken and we need more time to truly call it unhealthy outside of speculation. Thanks for reading.
After making the reqs for suspect, I decided to ladder a little more with that account, only using Teams with zamazenta I managed to reach 2000, and I come to share them here for those who have not yet made the suspect, also since it is close to the voting date , I hope everybody use their heads and do not put in the meta a pokemon that can be as good on offense as it is defensive, besides that if you don't bring a volc or zapdos hes going sweep your team, also you can't kill him with the common breakers of the meta and all this withou mention that is broken paired with future psigh.
Good luck to everyone and let's keep this broken mon in ubers
Zamazenta-Crowned @ Rusted Shield
Ability: Dauntless Shield
EVs: 248 HP / 252 Atk / 8 SpD or 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Reversal
- Behemoth Bash
- Howl
- Substitute
My favorite set by far. I prefer the bulk+Sticky Webs+SR, but it would be more effective with max speed and attack a lot of the time. Zamazenta-C is one of the fastest pokemon in the whole game and can easily set up subs on passive pokemon and set up with Howl. There are definitely some pokemon that wall it hard but Reversal at full power can sometimes break through them. Toxapex with haze, Lando-T, Zapdos and Dragapult can be a nuisance. Priority, Rocky helmet, etc also stop it.
I have found Zamazenta-C as a very welcome addition to the metagame. Not particularly powerful most of the time, but very bulky and a good defensive typing make it a great asset. Also has a pretty good moveset and it able to hold its own against many top threats.
My favorite set by far. I prefer the bulk+Sticky Webs+SR, but it would be more effective with max speed and attack a lot of the time. Zamazenta-C is one of the fastest pokemon in the whole game and can easily set up subs on passive pokemon and set up with Howl. There are definitely some pokemon that wall it hard but Reversal at full power can sometimes break through them. Toxapex with haze, Lando-T, Zapdos and Dragapult can be a nuisance. Priority, Rocky helmet, etc also stop it.
I have found Zamazenta-C as a very welcome addition to the metagame. Not particularly powerful most of the time, but very bulky and a good defensive typing make it a great asset. Also has a pretty good moveset and it able to hold its own against many top threats.
I have multiple issues with this post. Firstly, Reversal Zamazenta-C seems sort of niche when Close Combat exists. I don’t think I would ever consider Reversal (I didn’t know it got Reversal until this post) over Close Combat in any regard.
Secondly, not many of these counterplay mons really do it. Landorus T becomes set up fodder and dies to Ice Fang, Toxapex can be overwhelmed with FS or Electric Terrain support, and Zapdos doesn’t like eating an Ice Fang. Dragapult can work as Zama C counterplay, but takes 80% from most given hits at +1, and has to run Fire Blast to even do anything to it from what I have seen. Finally, most priority users dislike Zama C coming into play. Only one that doesn’t hate Zama C is Dragonite, who barely runs Extreme Speed anyways, since the main set is defensive.
I have multiple issues with this post. Firstly, Reversal Zamazenta-C seems sort of niche when Close Combat exists. I don’t think I would ever consider Reversal (I didn’t know it got Reversal until this post) over Close Combat in any regard.
Secondly, not many of these counterplay mons really do it. Landorus T becomes set up fodder and dies to Ice Fang, Toxapex can be overwhelmed with FS or Electric Terrain support, and Zapdos doesn’t like eating an Ice Fang. Dragapult can work as Zama C counterplay, but takes 80% from most given hits at +1, and has to run Fire Blast to even do anything to it from what I have seen. Finally, most priority users dislike Zama C coming into play. Only one that doesn’t hate Zama C is Dragonite, who barely runs Extreme Speed anyways, since the main set is defensive.
CC is the staple move on most Zamazenta-C sets, but this moveset takes advantage of it's ability to force switches and substitute is valuable move to shield it from burns, leech seed, etc. Reversal though not as reliable as CC doesn't have the negative affects of defensive drops and can reach almost double the power.
CC is the staple move on most Zamazenta-C sets, but this moveset takes advantage of it's ability to force switches and substitute is valuable move to shield it from burns, leech seed, etc. Reversal though not as reliable as CC doesn't have the negative affects of defensive drops and can reach almost double the power.
It also requires 3 moves to work as well as Close Combat does. The counters you listed for Zama-C can all be beaten with coverage that your set lacks, which makes the fact you said "it's not that powerful" feel a bit, well. Misguided. I, too, can ruin a Pokemon's set and say it's not that powerful, because I don't give it the tools it needs but has access to. Fighting STAB will never be bad, but in Gen 8 OU? It's really not something to go all-in on. Toxapex, Zapdos, Slowtwins; even Urshifu, a Fighting-type we banned, used it's other type of Dark far more than it ever would. One could argue that's because the crit, which plays a part in it, but also that Fighting alone won't get you too far. Behemoth Bash also only really gets you past Clefable after that. With a Substitute set, any Rocky Helmet Pokemon is now going to destroy you.
