★ np: SS UU Stage 13.37 - Sandstorm (Tyranitar + Excadrill Test)

[Lily]

​

Hi again everyone, we're back with what's probably a surprising suspect test. UU has had a few issues lately; Pokemon like Alakazam and Zeraora are running rampant over the metagame with seemingly very little recourse, there aren't many viable Ground-types or Stealth Rock setters, and some players have begun to complain about Sun's influence over the metagame. While we could conduct suspect tests to address these issues at their core, we've decided to take a new approach - following a recent tiering policy decision, lower tiers are allowed to select up to three Pokemon from the tier(s) above them to test in their own metagame in order to bring balance. The UU council has decided that the best OU Pokemon to test would be Tyranitar and Excadrill.

Tyranitar's influence was not as massive as expected when it was last in UU during the Isle of Armour meta. It was a decent Stealth Rock user that picked up in popularity for a while before rising to OU, but overall it was considered to be largely unspectacular. Nowadays, we think its talents would be useful for a multitude of reasons; it's a solid Alakazam check with Chople Berry, it's a Stealth Rock setter that threatens the primary Defogger in the tier, Salamence, and its brute strength can muscle through Regenerator cores when paired with Dragon Dance or a Choice Band thanks to its mighty STAB Crunch. It's also a great switch-in to the devastating Chandelure, and it can help to ward off annoyances like Kyurem and Galarian Moltres. As such, we believe Tyranitar will be an excellent and uncontroversial addition to UU.

Excadrill, of course, is one of the most lethal Pokemon ever created. Its powerful STABs, massive Attack stat, access to Swords Dance, and insane Speed in the sand create an absolutely incredible offensive threat. It can revenge kill the likes of Zeraora, Alakazam, and Jirachi with ease, in addition to the dangerous Scizor thanks to its solid bulk and Steel typing. It's no slouch defensively either, being able to use its great typing to handle threats like Thundurus, Jirachi, and Hatterene. So what makes it balanced in UU? Well, the prevalence of strong checks like Tangrowth, Amoonguss, Skarmory, and bulky Salamence all contribute to lowering Excadrill's overall viability. It's also easily checked by the likes of Rotom-H and Rotom-W if it doesn't have Mold Breaker, while those variants can be revenge killed with ease by Choice Scarf Krookodile and Zarude. We believe it can find a home in UU as a strong yet not too overbearing offensive threat.

The combination of these two Pokemon may prove to be too much for UU, but only time will tell. For now, we look forward to testing them out on the ladder and having some fun with their additions!

The voting requirements are a minimum GXE of 80 with at least 50 games played. In addition, you may play 1 less game for every 0.2 GXE you have above 80 GXE, down to a minimum of 30 games at a GXE of 84. As always, needing more than 50 games to reach 80 GXE is fine.

minimum games needed

Other than that, the test will operate as always. There will be no suspect ladder. Instead, the standard UU ladder will remain open. Those who wish to participate in this suspect test will instead use a fresh, suspect-specific alt. All games must be played on the Pokemon Showdown! UU ladder on a fresh alt with the following format: "UU13S (Nick)." For example, I might register the alt UU13S Drilbur Fan to ladder with. You must meet the listed format in order to qualify.

Participants will have until like tomorrow I guess at 8:59 PM GMT -5 to meet voting requirements and post in the Alt Identification Thread. PLEASE DO NOT POST YOUR CONFIRMED SUSPECT RESULTS HERE - there is a dedicated thread for identifying your suspect results. Happy laddering!

Current UU Council

Adaam
Amukamara
Hogg
Indigo Plateau
Lilburr
Moutemoute
Ramolost
robjr
Sabella
TDK
TonyFlygon
vivalospride
kurto

Tagging Marty and Kris to implement this on PS! whenever you get the chance, please. Thank you!

 

[BigFatMantis]

I'm glad that the UU council finally grew some nuts (deez ones) and decided to do the right thing here - this is a monumental decision that I think will transcend what UU is about for generations to come.

More importantly, once Tyranitar is in the tier, other defensive rock mons can check Zam too, such as Special Defense Diancie:


252 SpA Life Orb Alakazam Psychic vs. 252 HP / 156+ SpD Diancie in Sand: 75-91 (24.6 - 29.9%) -- 0.1% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery
0 Atk Diancie Diamond Storm vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Alakazam: 202-238 (80.4 - 94.8%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
0 SpA Diancie Mystical Fire vs. 0 HP / 4 SpD Alakazam: 56-67 (22.3 - 26.6%) -- 22.3% chance to 4HKO

And that's just one example.

Finally, TTar opens the door for other UUBL mons like Blacephalon to be re-tested in the future, fully optimizing the tier for an all-inclusive UU experience that we all deserve. I'd like to thank Lily, Zarel, Junichi Masada, and the rest of the Serebii.net crew for making this possible. Decisions like these are part of why I love being a part of the UU community.

 

[StarFalcon555]

cmon guys if you were going to suspect sand you might as well have gone all out and included Hippowdon and Dracozolt smh my head

 

[Aqua Jet]

My Thoughts

 

[Light Sanctity]

 

[R8]

The vote requirements for this suspect are way, way too hard. It just shows how Smogon keeps promoting elitism in its community.

 

[shooting star]

easiest reqs ever pls unban

 

[Monky25]

Smh Lily you should’ve brought down swampert as well, overthrow the council

 

[StarFalcon555]

ok while I'm at it I might as well give my in-depth thoughts on this suspect

Long

choke me like you hate me but you love me low key wanna date me when you fuck me touch me with the lights on and my chains on baby i'm not the right one you should wait on

 

[Luirromen]

Tyranitar and Excadrill.

Too much sand stuff but.....

 

[justdrew]

Anyone else suspicious Lily posted this on April Fools? Just me? Alright.

Edit: Can confirm it's a prank only because Lily put user Ramolost in council. Can't be real, problem solved!

 

[Derpelo]

Bro tier mods are so stupid, I'm just gonna use machamp on every team on UU now

 

[pannu]

Still doesn't get pursuit LMAOOOO

 

[Monky25]

Anyone else suspicious Lily posted this on April Fools? Just me? Alright.

Nah it’s clearly serious bro. There is absolutely no correlation between this and April fools.

 

[Clefable]

I'd like to throw my two cents in wrt the Sand unban as well -- I'm strongly opposed to it, largely due to two factors: first, the justification for an unban seems arbitrary, self-contradictory, and not in line with the way tiering has happened for other threats. secondly, the decision to unban sand is extremely out of line with the overall opinion of the tier and its players.

I'm going to start with the second point, because I think it's the most objective and obvious. On the community surveys sent out a few weeks ago, a whopping .7% of the community voted to unban sand. Not 7%, .7%. Another 20% or so were strongly in favor of a suspect, and the other 80% of the playerbase was either actively against a suspect test (and an unban), or interested in a suspect at some point in the future but not clearly in favor of an unban.

In fairness -- the meta has changed since that survey. Zeraora isn't here anymore -- and while Zeraora definitely was a strong offensive check to the vast majority of sand, I don't think its presence or absence is polarizing enough to change those numbers too drastically. From a purely subjective standpoint, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a sand unban after Zeraora is gone, and it was never mentioned as something that was likely or conditional upon Zeraora being banned. Like many other people, I feel like this unban is pretty out of left field -- it's definitely been mentioned in the larger discourse around the tier, but never in a way to where it seems like it was a serious option on the table.

For there to be this huge of a disparity between the community and the council (.7% vs 100%), there are only a few conclusions you can draw. The first is that the tier has just changed that much in the intervening few weeks -- as I mentioned above, such a shift would probably be accompanied by popular community calls for sand unbans and discussion of sand needing to unban if zeroara left the tier -- none of that was present. The second is that the council and the larger community don't agree on this subject. This seems far more likely -- and I think it's understandably frustrating to see the community so actively against a quick ban (again, fewer than 1% voted for it in the survey) to seemingly no avail.

Now on to the first point: to begin, according to the UU survey, pre the zeraora ban 50% of the council voted for sand to be unbanned, and 50% voted against it. According to Lily in the post above, that has now shifted to 100%. This is definitely a dramatic shift -- and given that the only thing that's changed is that Zeraora was banned, I can only assume that the justification for the 50% of council members whose votes changed was contingent on that shift. Here's the thing: I don't think that's a particularly invalid assumption to come to. But it's literally been... zero days since the ladder was updated to account for Zeraora being banned? There hasn't been a single UUPL battle post-Zera meta or any other tournament without it and without sand? It's weird to me that in these two days, every single council member that previously voted DNB on a theoretical suspect gained enough experience in the post-zera meta to decide unequivocally that sand was not only unbanworthy, but worth of a quick unban.

There's only one other factor other than Zeraora -- the future shifts. This is where I have a particular problem and where I think the argument presented in this thread is self-contradictory. You can't say "we do not tier based on the future" if you're literally using it as a "nail in its coffin". That is tiering based on the future. I think this particularly strikes a sore spot for me because I brought up slowking leaving during the Zeraora suspect and was (rightfully) shut down for speculating. Why is it no longer unacceptable to consider potential future rises and drops while making tiering decisions? I'm asking not only for this case, but for clarity in the future, as it seems like there's a lot of mixed messaging regarding this.

I value and respect all the hard work of the council, and I don't want this to come off as attacking them or their choices -- I realize you'll never be able to please everyone. But quick unbanning a playstyle that less than 1% of the community wanted to QB, skipping the suspect process entirely, and including self-contradicting language about future drops in the justification makes it easy to feel that the council isn't listening to the community at large or playing by the same rules -- and in the interest of clearing up that sentiment, I think more explanation / reconsideration of this decision is necessary.

 

[KM]

I'd like to throw my two cents in wrt the Sand quickban as well -- I'm strongly opposed to it, largely due to two factors: first, the justification for an unban seems arbitrary, self-contradictory, and not in line with the way tiering has happened for other threats. secondly, the decision to unban sand is extremely out of line with the overall opinion of the tier and its players.

I'm going to start with the second point, because I think it's the most objective and obvious. On the community surveys sent out a few weeks ago, a whopping .7% of the community voted to unban sand. Not 7%, .7%. Another 20% or so were strongly in favor of a suspect, and the other 80% of the playerbase was either actively against a suspect test (and a ban), or interested in a suspect at some point in the future but not clearly in favor of a ban.

In fairness -- the meta has changed since that survey. Zeraora isn't here anymore -- and while Zeraora definitely was a strong offensive check to the vast majority of sand, I don't think its presence or absence is polarizing enough to change those numbers too drastically. From a purely subjective standpoint, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a sand unban after Zeraora is gone, and it was never mentioned as something that was likely or conditional upon Zeraora being banned. Like many other people, I feel like this unban is pretty out of left field -- it's definitely been mentioned in the larger discourse around the tier, but never in a way to where it seems like it was a serious option on the table.

For there to be this huge of a disparity between the community and the council (.7% vs 100%), there are only a few conclusions you can draw. The first is that the tier has just changed that much in the intervening few weeks -- as I mentioned above, such a shift would probably be accompanied by popular community calls for sand unbans and discussion of sand needing to unban if zeroara left the tier -- none of that was present. The second is that the council and the larger community don't agree on this subject. This seems far more likely -- and I think it's understandably frustrating to see the community so actively against a quick ban (again, fewer than 1% voted for it in the survey) to seemingly no avail.

Now on to the first point: to begin, according to the UU survey, pre the zeraora ban 50% of the council voted for sand to be unbanned, and 50% voted against it. According to Lily in the post above, that has now shifted to 100%. This is definitely a dramatic shift -- and given that the only thing that's changed is that Zeraora was banned, I can only assume that the justification for the 50% of council members whose votes changed was contingent on that shift. Here's the thing: I don't think that's a particularly invalid assumption to come to. But it's literally been... zero days since the ladder was updated to account for Zeraora being banned? There hasn't been a single UUPL battle post-Zera meta or any other tournament without it and without sand? It's weird to me that in these two days, every single council member that previously voted DNB on a theoretical suspect gained enough experience in the post-zera meta to decide unequivocally that sand was not only unbanworthy, but worth of a quick unban.

There's only one other factor other than Zeraora -- the future shifts. This is where I have a particular problem and where I think the argument presented in this thread is self-contradictory. You can't say "we do not tier based on the future" if you're literally using it as a "nail in its coffin". That is tiering based on the future. I think this particularly strikes a sore spot for me because I brought up slowking leaving during the Zeraora suspect and was (rightfully) shut down for speculating. Why is it no longer unacceptable to consider potential future rises and drops while making tiering decisions? I'm asking not only for this case, but for clarity in the future, as it seems like there's a lot of mixed messaging regarding this.

I value and respect all the hard work of the council, and I don't want this to come off as attacking them or their choices -- I realize you'll never be able to please everyone. But quick unbanning a playstyle that less than 1% of the community wanted to QB, skipping the suspect process entirely, and including self-contradicting language about future drops in the justification makes it easy to feel that the council isn't listening to the community at large or playing by the same rules -- and in the interest of clearing up that sentiment, I think more explanation / reconsideration of this decision is necessary.

cosigned

 

[haxlolo]

celesteela walls gg

 

[Finchinator]

Gabite @ Bright Powder
Ability: Sand Veil
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Scale Shot
- Earthquake
- Substitute
- Swagger

season saved.

 

[Blox]

Excadrill is a cool Pokemon
Therefore, I will be voting NO BAN

 

[bb skarm]

kurto congrats on uu council bossman

anybody else here eat pencils btw?

 

[Rae]

The State of Sand


I must say that I'm quite pleased that the Underused Council has decided to take some action and test out Sand, specifically in testing out the likes of Tyranitar and Excadrill. Today I will be writing about my overall views on Sand in UU and I may even enlighten some of the less knowledgable folk on this subject.
Tyranitar



Tyranitar was originally a part of the UU metagame back in the Civil War, where it was used primarily as a means of getting up Stealth Rocks and support (Ask BigFatMantis for more on the Civil War, he was an integral part of it). Reinstating what our Tier Ladder has said, Tyranitar is an excellent Special sponge, acting as a capable switch-in for pokemon like Alakazam, Chandelure, Galarian Moltres and Nihilego. It's offensive sets also have their merit, with both Dragon Dance and Choice Band being viable. Overall, I would say it has an well-defined niche in the current Underused Metagame.

Excadrill



Excadrill is a true terror, it's ability to run through teams with it's powerful STABs and great Attack and Speed, which is further boosted by it's excellent abilities. Something that could also be considered is it's ability to provide suicide moment with Steel Beam, becoming a powerful suicide lead, letiing Azelf actually use it's offensive stats and sweep through teams. I'd say that having both Tyranitar and Excadrill would be magnificent for the tier and i will most certainly be voting to bring them down.

Dracozolt



I'm personally surprised that the council didn't consider unbanning Dracozolt as the third Pokemon it's quite clearly a handy Pokemon to have in the current meta. It's offensive prowess paired with Bolt Beak's insane power allows for great Wallbreaking potential, which is something we will need soon considering every team runs Slowking and Amoonguss unless you're running HO (). Dracozolt also has the ability to tear through teams that are unprepared. So, you're probably thinking "Wow! Dracozolt seems super cool and strong! How do we deal with it?", this is where the Council has really outdone themselves. Excadrill, under the sand Dracozolt is most likely under, is an excellent check to it thanks to a powerful Super-Effective Earthquake. Dracozolt should therefore be unbanned alongside these two superstars.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that I have finished my expert explanation, I would like to respond to some other post in the thread and let you know i will be answering any questions so let me know if you are confused about something!

anybody else here eat pencils btw?

As a person of high intellect, i do in fact eat pencils. What flavour is your favourite? Im a big Blue fan but Yellow is also good.

Gabite @ Bright Powder
Ability: Sand Veil
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Scale Shot
- Earthquake
- Substitute
- Swagger

An excellent idea by professional OU player Finchinator! I just wanted to say hi, great job updating the Overused Viability Rankings! BUT the people want to know WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BAN TOX-A-PEX?

Smh Lily you should’ve brought down swampert as well, overthrow the council

We can overthrow council together, Swampert would also be a great decision but I personally believe that Dracozolt would do better in the tier.

This is all for now! Good luck fellow epic gamers on getting reqs!​

 

[Caesarr]

Smogon loves Rotom heat stall thats why they want to ban ttar and excadrill save my message

 

[bb skarm]

As a person of high intellect, i do in fact eat pencils. What flavour is your favourite? Im a big Blue fan but Yellow is also good.​

idc which kind they're just so fucking good

 

[Rae]

idc which kind they're just so fucking good

We will feast upon the most expensive Faber-Castell pack of pencils in the near future, that way you can form your opinion on what flavour you like the most.

 

[Derpelo]

I'd like to throw my two cents in wrt the Sand unban as well -- I'm strongly opposed to it, largely due to two factors: first, the justification for an unban seems arbitrary, self-contradictory, and not in line with the way tiering has happened for other threats. secondly, the decision to unban sand is extremely out of line with the overall opinion of the tier and its players.

I'm going to start with the second point, because I think it's the most objective and obvious. On the community surveys sent out a few weeks ago, a whopping .7% of the community voted to unban sand. Not 7%, .7%. Another 20% or so were strongly in favor of a suspect, and the other 80% of the playerbase was either actively against a suspect test (and an unban), or interested in a suspect at some point in the future but not clearly in favor of an unban.

In fairness -- the meta has changed since that survey. Zeraora isn't here anymore -- and while Zeraora definitely was a strong offensive check to the vast majority of sand, I don't think its presence or absence is polarizing enough to change those numbers too drastically. From a purely subjective standpoint, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a sand unban after Zeraora is gone, and it was never mentioned as something that was likely or conditional upon Zeraora being banned. Like many other people, I feel like this unban is pretty out of left field -- it's definitely been mentioned in the larger discourse around the tier, but never in a way to where it seems like it was a serious option on the table.

For there to be this huge of a disparity between the community and the council (.7% vs 100%), there are only a few conclusions you can draw. The first is that the tier has just changed that much in the intervening few weeks -- as I mentioned above, such a shift would probably be accompanied by popular community calls for sand unbans and discussion of sand needing to unban if zeroara left the tier -- none of that was present. The second is that the council and the larger community don't agree on this subject. This seems far more likely -- and I think it's understandably frustrating to see the community so actively against a quick ban (again, fewer than 1% voted for it in the survey) to seemingly no avail.

Now on to the first point: to begin, according to the UU survey, pre the zeraora ban 50% of the council voted for sand to be unbanned, and 50% voted against it. According to Lily in the post above, that has now shifted to 100%. This is definitely a dramatic shift -- and given that the only thing that's changed is that Zeraora was banned, I can only assume that the justification for the 50% of council members whose votes changed was contingent on that shift. Here's the thing: I don't think that's a particularly invalid assumption to come to. But it's literally been... zero days since the ladder was updated to account for Zeraora being banned? There hasn't been a single UUPL battle post-Zera meta or any other tournament without it and without sand? It's weird to me that in these two days, every single council member that previously voted DNB on a theoretical suspect gained enough experience in the post-zera meta to decide unequivocally that sand was not only unbanworthy, but worth of a quick unban.

There's only one other factor other than Zeraora -- the future shifts. This is where I have a particular problem and where I think the argument presented in this thread is self-contradictory. You can't say "we do not tier based on the future" if you're literally using it as a "nail in its coffin". That is tiering based on the future. I think this particularly strikes a sore spot for me because I brought up slowking leaving during the Zeraora suspect and was (rightfully) shut down for speculating. Why is it no longer unacceptable to consider potential future rises and drops while making tiering decisions? I'm asking not only for this case, but for clarity in the future, as it seems like there's a lot of mixed messaging regarding this.

I value and respect all the hard work of the council, and I don't want this to come off as attacking them or their choices -- I realize you'll never be able to please everyone. But quick unbanning a playstyle that less than 1% of the community wanted to QB, skipping the suspect process entirely, and including self-contradicting language about future drops in the justification makes it easy to feel that the council isn't listening to the community at large or playing by the same rules -- and in the interest of clearing up that sentiment, I think more explanation / reconsideration of this decision is necessary.

That's cool and all but yo another clef pfp?