Pokemon Showdown!

[Dekkadeci]

Not really sure how this is relevant. Both Pokemon have Ubers-worthy base stat totals and in the case of Zygarde, a powerful coverage move (rip Kyurem-B), with the only caveat being you have to activate its ability first.

My point with the nature of the Zygarde-C quickban is that it doesn't matter how defensively oriented a Pokemon's stats are and its movesets can tend to be, it'll be more likely to be considered an offensive threat than a defensive threat if it's in a meta it's too strong for.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

My point with the nature of the Zygarde-C quickban is that it doesn't matter how defensively oriented a Pokemon's stats are and its movesets can tend to be, it'll be more likely to be considered an offensive threat than a defensive threat if it's in a meta it's too strong for.

Not sure what you mean about this. In OU, a boosted Zygarde-C can do much more than a boosted Zygarde-C can do in Ubers, hence accounting for the shift.

[Dekkadeci]

Not sure what you mean about this. In OU, a boosted Zygarde-C can do much more than a boosted Zygarde-C can do in Ubers, hence accounting for the shift.

Zygarde-C's 100 base Attack and 91 base Special Attack don't change between metas, and neither do its boosting moves. The only reason why Ubers are taking less damage from a same-boosted Zygarde-C than OU mons do is because Uber mons have more bulk overall then OU mons (shucks, Mega Mewtwo Y has 106 base HP and 70 base Defence, and it's supposed to be one of the frailer sweepers).

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Zygarde-C's 100 base Attack and 91 base Special Attack don't change between metas, and neither do its boosting moves. The only reason why Ubers are taking less damage from a same-boosted Zygarde-C than OU mons do is because Uber mons have more bulk overall then OU mons (shucks, Mega Mewtwo Y has 106 base HP and 70 base Defence, and it's supposed to be one of the frailer sweepers).

that's literally just what i said except in more detail

[Dudeman]

No no, I think I get what Dekka's trying to say. A 'mon may appear to be more offensive than defensive if it's in a meta where everything up against it takes massive damage from it, even if its offensive and defensive capabilities are roughly equal. Conversely, if it's put in a meta where its bulk becomes more of an important asset, it may suddenly be considered defensive.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Regardless, you're way overcomplicating it from the original point though.

[mastersuperfan]

Overcomplicating? It seems pretty straightforward to me. It's just Dekka's explanation for why it seems that offensive Pokémon are always the ones to be banned (which Dudeman summed up very nicely) in response to your claim that Smogon hardly ever bans defensive OU Pokémon.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Overcomplicating? It seems pretty straightforward to me. It's just Dekka's explanation for why it seems that offensive Pokémon are always the ones to be banned (which Dudeman summed up very nicely) in response to your claim that Smogon hardly ever bans defensive OU Pokémon.

No, it's overcomplicating it, and completely missing the original point as well. There are plenty of pure offensive Pokemon that have been banned, both in this gen and in the past, while you're pretty much never going to see Pokemon like Ferrothorn or Toxapex banned.

EDIT: In other words, in the current state, the majority of Pokemon banned are pretty much guaranteed not to be banned for their defensive ability by itself, but rather, they are either banned because of their pure offensive capabilities, plain and simple, or because their defensive abilities are used to complement their offensive abilities.

[mastersuperfan]

But didn't you say this yourself?

In OU, Aegislash was primarily offensive, while in Ubers, it takes more of a defensive role.

Dekka gave some other examples of this as well, of Pokémon that served offensive roles in OU but defensive roles after being banned to Ubers. Just because some purely offensive Pokémon have been banned doesn't mean that Smogon always bans offensive Pokémon and never defense Pokémon, because these other examples of banned Pokémon are similarly or equally strong in both offense and defense.

[Dudeman]

Just because some purely offensive Pokémon have been banned doesn't mean that Smogon always bans offensive Pokémon and never defense Pokémon,

I think that's exactly the point he's making though? Because there's a difference between being banned for being obnoxiously defensive and being banned for what you immediately followed up that statement with:

because these other examples of banned Pokémon are similarly or equally strong in both offense and defense.

Pokemon are getting banned for being overly offensive or equally offensive and defensive, but not for defense. Some just end up turning to defense in that latter case because their offense is suddenly outmatched by the other monsters in that tier.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

But didn't you say this yourself?

Yes, I did, and that does not contradict my point at all. Aegislash was banned for its offensive capabilities, which were augmented by its defensive capabilities. However, being relegated to Ubers, it was mostly forced to drop its offensive uses because its defensive uses were more viable (I believe most Aegislash are used against Geomancy Xerneas, or at least they were in Gen 6).

Dekka gave some other examples of this as well, of Pokémon that served offensive roles in OU but defensive roles after being banned to Ubers. Just because some purely offensive Pokémon have been banned doesn't mean that Smogon always bans offensive Pokémon and never defense Pokémon, because these other examples of banned Pokémon are similarly or equally strong in both offense and defense.

Once again, that does not contradict my point at all. You're way overthinking it.

[mastersuperfan]

Fair point, I understand; I misinterpreted the original point you were trying to argue.

[mikey]

is celebi an offensive or defensive pokemon

[Dudeman]

is celebi an o   n i   o      n     pokemon

Yes.

[mikey]

I'll admit that was pretty creative

but I still made a really good point