prob because you don't understand that he's using a team he copied to give credits to what he says after. i faced him on the ladder when he was using my team (with zamazenta, not kartana) and i also made a joke with him about the fact that he picked a good team. i don't really care btw, it just looks stupidthis has to be one of the most insufferable things i’ve read here in awhile.
Cinderace is walled hard by Quagsire, a UU Pokemon. Therefore it's not broken and we should unban cinderace.Zamawhatever is walled hard by Quagsire, an UU Pokemon. Therefore it’s not broken.
I think it pivots well as long as he not your main Pokemon as your win con . Definitely can't destroy team on it own but if opponent team get low enough work well clean up. I agree not sure if ban worthySo after lurking in the thread for a while I had a thought about how to use zamazenta crowned. To use it to pivot and scout the other person's zama answer with protect, then answer accordingly, the team I came up with was honestly pretty awful but I'm curious if anyone has had any more success with the idea of zama baiting answers for a teammate to take advantage of. I'm gonna try to get reqs but as it stands I have no idea whether or not I will vote ban because zama has answers but those answers in part only beat zama and hopefully after getting reqs I will have decided how to vote.
I've been meaning to respond to this post for a few days but haven't gotten around to it, apologies for that. I'd like to address a few things here-Volcarona is garbage offensive counter play, offensive teams that run it can pretty much give up on breaking stall when the basic archetype these days is a lead and 5 physical sweepers. Same goes for Zapdos btw. Adding volc to check Zama-C means giving up the advantage you normally have because stall teams run Blissy and it does not play against your physical sweepers, thereby ensuring stall begins at a soft 5-6 disadvantage against offense. Since you have to run roost and invest in defense to consistently answer Zama-C, your volcarona is also garbage against other offensive teams where it is set-up fodder for Garchomp, DD Dragapult, Dragonite, etc. Having set-up fodder mons like defensive Volcarona is how matchups between offensive teams are lost and devoting resources to run a special attacker that is bad against offense and stall is a massive nerf to the recent offensive archetypes that have been used in Gen 8 OU.
If nothing else, I hope this post will motivate better explanations for why we should want to unban Zama-C and shine a light on its implications for team match-ups.
"Theory" just means that part of the game that is easy to comprehend without playing. It's obvious that Zama-C has incredible base stats, and it's easy to imagine how it would win many 1v1 matchups, but how it plays out in a long 6v6 is data better gained from practice.People keep saying that Zamazenta is great in theory but poor in practice. If it is supposed to be poor in practice that means the theory was wrong, and it should be poor in theory as well. If it is supposed to be great in theory, it is supposed to be great in practice when the theory is actually applied. If Zamazenta is actually great in theory but poor in practice, that means it is a great Pokémon that people aren’t using correctly. If it is broken in theory, should we unban a broken Pokémon because people aren’t using it correctly?
I personally haven't decided whether or not zamazenta should be freed but this post doesn't sit right with me. The "theory" about zamazenta is that looking at its stats with defenses rivaling toxapex, speed rivaling talonflame, and a solid attack stat, it would be way to much for OU. However, in practice, it has shown to not be too bad. It struggles to break through walls since 130 attack without an item is pretty weak, its STABs have low PP with its coverage either being weak as shit with ice fang or chips it even more with wild charge. Furthermore, there are many instances of Pokemon who were broken in theory but fine in practice. using the example given by Lilburr, Aegislash was a Pokemon many people saw broken on paper, with solid breaking power and a multitude of sets who wouldn't? However, in practice it has shown itself to be underwhelming and leading to its unbanning. Aegislash was a Pokemon that was very slow and weak to common tier staples, meaning that it could rarely generate attacks due to it being forced out by so much. Choice Soecs, its "most dangerous set" got owned by plenty common cores, like Rotom-H + Kommo-o. You have to be super keen with the prediction or you can suffer big costs by clicking the wrong move. My point with this comparison is that Pokemon may look fine on paper or with a bunch of calcs but until you actually use it in practice you won't know how it is. This is why we have 2 WEEKS to figure this out. It seems the major contested point would be zama's effect on teambuilding and how it functions with support, but many have acknowledged that zama has plenty of checks and counters that can effectively be used in the metagame, so in terms of it being overpowered by breaking through too much is simply incorrect. The above post says it well, Pokemon is a 6v6 game and judging how a Pokemon performs 1v1 with a bunch of meaningless calcs any player could do is pointless. You want to show zamazenta is broken? Show some replays, drop teams, give high ladder in-game evidence showing zamazenta to be unhealthy, whether it be on screens or stall or whatever, to help further your point.People keep saying that Zamazenta is great in theory but poor in practice. If it is supposed to be poor in practice that means the theory was wrong, and it should be poor in theory as well. If it is supposed to be great in theory, it is supposed to be great in practice when the theory is actually applied. If Zamazenta is actually great in theory but poor in practice, that means it is a great Pokémon that people aren’t using correctly. If it is broken in theory, should we unban a broken Pokémon because people aren’t using it correctly?
This post was not worth it in theory or in practice. This is not your freshman year philosophy class.People keep saying that Zamazenta is great in theory but poor in practice. If it is supposed to be poor in practice that means the theory was wrong, and it should be poor in theory as well. If it is supposed to be great in theory, it is supposed to be great in practice when the theory is actually applied. If Zamazenta is actually great in theory but poor in practice, that means it is a great Pokémon that people aren’t using correctly. If it is broken in theory, should we unban a broken Pokémon because people aren’t using it correctly?
If Zamazenta is supposed to be “not too bad” in practice, the theory should take into account the reasons you mentioned, and be not too bad in theory as well.I personally haven't decided whether or not zamazenta should be freed but this post doesn't sit right with me. The "theory" about zamazenta is that looking at its stats with defenses rivaling toxapex, speed rivaling talonflame, and a solid attack stat, it would be way to much for OU. However, in practice, it has shown to not be too bad. It struggles to break through walls since 130 attack without an item is pretty weak, its STABs have low PP with its coverage either being weak as shit with ice fang or chips it even more with wild charge.
This sums up everything I feel is wrong with Zam-C.I do like giving my thoughts in these threads, but Zamazenta is a mon that is perplexing me greatly.
To be frank, I was always of the opinion that the dog should never see OU. On paper, it has too many ways to abuse too much stuff to be worth adding it. In practice, after playing it, I found that the howl set was basically all it could run and be consistent (I also played around with a facade set which was very good if RNG was on your side, and very bad if it wasn't). It's not as strong as I expected it to be, but still has an effect on the meta I don't very much like or enjoy.
I've pretty consistently seen people describing it as just a breaker, or just a tank, and truthfully I think many people are ignoring much of what Zamazenta brings to the table, and why it both seems under-and-over whelming depending on who you ask.
Zamazenta is a fast tank + wallbreaker. It has the option to blanket remove or trade most offensive mons in the tier with very little disincentive. It has the option to boost in the face of many of the (former) premiere walls in the tier, again, usually with little disincentive. It does both of these things with a single set. With cleric support, it does the first role for a long time. With hazard or future sight support, it does the second role very well.
Because it does both of these things in a single set, it has the effect of forcing one of a limited set of options to be added to a team, usually with movesets that are explicitly run because of Zamazenta. These checks are often very abuseable - I had the opportunity to watch a ZamaC team match up against a team with Iron Defense Skarmory and PhysDef volcarona on it. It won because of how streamlined Zamazenta's counterplay had to be. Every time Zamazenta came in against an offensive mon, the opposite side had to choose between potentially losing something or switching to a dedicated Zamazenta check. Zamazenta was able to pick up a single strong KO (Bulu), with almost no risk. The problem really occurred because Zamazenta was never really punishable with that offensive mon - none of them had the ability to do much more than chip to Zamazenta. The defending player was forced to switch into physdef volc every time and rely on RNG to punish Zamazenta, who could often simply howl risk-free.
(In fact, in many of the calcs that people have linked in this thread, Zamazenta is not constrained to +1. It can easily just keep howling.)
The recurring theme I noticed in most matches was, due to its inherent bulk and speed, Zamazenta was more heavily rewarded for its predictions than it was punished for its mispredicts. To contrast it with other bulky breakers, like Melmetal: if Melmetal predicts poorly and facetanks an EQ from lando-T, it is likely useless for the rest of the game without being wished up or slow turned/ported in front a wall. If Zamazenta does the same, it is only marginally less effective - still requiring being punished by hazards or revenged by the limited faster mons in the tier, rather than easily dismissable by the variety of present breakers.
This is the first time I think I've posted in one of these things without being sure of my final thoughts. Is Zamazenta broken? Absolutely not. Is it unhealthy? Maybe. Every day I see new builds popping up to support Zamazenta, but I haven't seen much innovation in stopping it without using the several checks that are already known and abused by other things present in the meta.
What if you focus on the 3 posts i wrote about Zamazenta and the SS OU metagame instead of 3 stupid OT lines?Reminder that this is a suspect thread and not a cringe compilation, so post accordingly. Thanks
What if you focus on the 3 posts i wrote about Zamazenta and the SS OU metagame instead of 3 stupid OT lines?
And maybe spend the time you spent to write down this hypocritical post to write smth like this in your council chat: "hey guys its finch there, XxPussySlayer2008xX already finished the suspect and posted his rationale, when are you going to do the same?"
Thanks.
Yes you do what you can, but you know I wasn't talking about you. I don't really see how discussing inside the council chat can help once a suspect test starts and the decision isn't only yours to do anymore. Do you need to have an unanimous thought before to share with others?
Ok, done.
I already read through your posts and even liked one of them, Niko. I read through every single post I can in this thread and contribute as often as I can. I also encourage others to do the same on a regular basis. The same can be said for other OU contributors and moderators. I can also guarantee you the council chat has discussed the suspect thread at length. If they post or not is up to them — Ima already has multiple times with some great insight — and I encourage everyone to give their insight, but taking that out on me and continuously derailing the thread is doing nobody any good, so perhaps avoid doing that.
I think this are really good questions and I would like to answer them, haven't posted this much ever in a suspect thread :0.And for the pro-ban side:
- How often does Zam-C end up bypassing its specific counters without support? Are there any lures it can use without massively compromising itself?
- What team support have you found to work best with Zam-C and which counters does this support let it bypass?
- What would you say is the difference between a well-played Zam-C and a poorly played one? How much does player skill affect its breaking capabilities?
From my own experience (23 games where I've gone 13-10, as well as watching quite a few replays), Zamazenta-C is pretty matchup-reliant. Sometimes my opponent has barely anything to handle it and Zama gets 3 kills, and sometimes all it does is finish something off or even just sit in the back unused. Over half the time, it's my Volcarona or Corviknight that breaks the biggest hole instead of Zama. It's not like I don't support the thing either; to the contrary, I have a Blissey with Wish and Heal Bell. The problem is finding a safe opportunity to do that, usually a double switch or by forcing out a special attacker of theirs. So far, I think Zama is quite good, probably worthy of A or A+ rank, but not broken.3) Big difference for sure, in one of my previous posts I said how zamazenta isnt a "No Skill Mon" and I still firmly stand by that, a well played zamazenta will know when to come out and start boosting up to make meaningful progress and not just come out everytime they see a rillaboom or constantly bash at a toxapex trying to crit.
There isnt much to say about this tbh, zamzenta honestly requieres optimal play to truly make progress, one thing I gotta admit is that if zamazenta is played sub-optimally it isnt as punishing as other mons and thats why we see many zamazenta's in ladder that make absolutely nothing.
Well the argument is that just about all of Zama's checks are defensive Pokemon, which could make the metagame shift away from offense, and a lot of them need to use Rocky Helmet to chip it or run different EV spreads to before.Can anybody explain (pro ban side) how is Zamazenta-C unhealthy addition to the current meta? To be unhealthy it must have limited counterplay/overcentralizing. So far I haven't seen any particular mons being forced to run on a team to deal with Zama (as it was the case with something like Dracovish or Spectrier).
So, how is Zamazenta-C an unhealthy addition?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this statement apply to most offensive pokemon? If you let your Zapdos/Clef/Corv get chipped too hard against a Hawlucha HO team, that pokemon is likely to sweep you; if you let your Hippo/Lando/Clef get chipped too hard against a Dracozolt sand team, that pokemon is likely to sweep you. I understand that Zama's bulk and its toxic immunity makes it somewhat harder to deal with in other ways than these two specific mons, but I fail to see how this argument can't be applied to any good fast offensive pokemon. Is there something unique about this dynamic with Zama-C that makes it uniquely broken?The real problem, the closest thing to making Zama-C broken in my opinion, is the fact that sacrificing your check leaves a team vulnerable to being swept by it afterwards, putting pressure on you to avoid getting your Zapdos, Skarmory, Landorus-T or the like worn down too much by checking something else on Zama's team
Zamazenta-C has 128 base Speed, so it outruns everything unboosted in OU except Dragapult, Zeraora, and Tapu Koko (and if Adamant Torn-T and Weavile), so combined with its bulk having an emergency secondary offensive check that wins the 1v1 is more difficult than other Pokemon. For instance, with Dracozolt sand will usually only last five turns, and Hawlucha is frail enough that defensive Pokemon that survive a boosted hit like Slowbro can do heavy damage back.Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this statement apply to most offensive pokemon? If you let your Zapdos/Clef/Corv get chipped too hard against a Hawlucha HO team, that pokemon is likely to sweep you; if you let your Hippo/Lando/Clef get chipped too hard against a Dracozolt sand team, that pokemon is likely to sweep you. I understand that Zama's bulk and its toxic immunity makes it somewhat harder to deal with in other ways than these two specific mons, but I fail to see how this argument can't be applied to any good fast offensive pokemon. Is there something unique about this dynamic with Zama-C that makes it uniquely broken?
Scarf is a very common item that Zama-C can't run, which I feel you should keep in mind. You also mentioned Hawlucha. Thing about that mon, it usually runs a terrain seed, which boosts a defense stat, so it's always harder to stop than you think it will be. Granted, you'll usually use a seed that boosts defense and not Sp.Def, which doesn't really help in the specific case you mentioned, but it's still worth noting. There are probably better examples you could have used for a frail sweeper...Zamazenta-C has 128 base Speed, so it outruns everything unboosted in OU except Dragapult, Zeraora, and Tapu Koko (and if Adamant Torn-T and Weavile), so combined with its bulk having an emergency secondary offensive check that wins the 1v1 is more difficult than other Pokemon. For instance, with Dracozolt sand will usually only last five turns, and Hawlucha is frail enough that defensive Pokemon that survive a boosted hit like Slowbro can do heavy damage back.