(Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Endurr on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:22 am

LegendaryBoy wrote:
Endurr wrote:The problem about Kyurem-Black, is that it can't function as well as it does in OU. In OU Kyu-B can have a bunch of mons that can support it. Are the same mons Ice Type? no, so Kyu-B will not be moving up. most likely, if it is the case, it'll be in B Rank or something

I guess B works.

Oh, and, I think you should change the name of the thread to 'Conquest Viability Ranking for Pokemon', since there's already a 'Type' viability thread.
And possibly, add a tag next to the pokemon, since Pokemon's viability depends on the types their being used on as well. Like, Heatran is a nice option for Steel, but not so good on Fire.

E.g. change Kyurem-W to Kyurem-W(Ice)

the thing is, it'll happen on it's own. like these ranks were for ice and ice only, thus kyu-white is S rank on here. When I make the dragon rankings, Kyu-White won't be S rank for dragon, more like B Rank. (also, if it's something that's warlords only e.g: blaziken for fire, that'll be marked.)
avatar
Endurr

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Galom on Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:50 pm

Ice should not even be attempting to "wall" physical attackers. Because of its horrible defensive typing and awful defensive mons (like Avalugg), the only way it can play is hyper-offensive. When facing an offensive attacker/sweeper should just fodder a mon and bring in something fast like Weavile, a strong priority user like Mamoswine, or your Uber (Kyurem-White) to revenge kill.

It is super weak to hazards but has no offensive spinners or defoggers, so there's little you can do except try to Taunt with Froslass or pressure the opponent's SR user with aggressive switches, usually into Mamoswine, which hits the many Rock, Steel, and Ground types that try to set them up pretty hard.

You are heavily overrating Froslass as well. It's nice since it functions as a suicide lead and is one of the few Ice-types that gets Taunt to prevent hazard leads, but suicide leading is not really a role, it's more of a niche. After you get off any two of Taunt, Spikes, or Destiny Bond, you're useless. It makes the battle 5 vs. 6, which is super bad for offense, which has to make trades often. B rank would fit it better, perhaps lower.

Also restating: Avalugg either needs to get wiped off this list or moved to D-rank; it's hilariously bad and essentially setup fodder for almost every type not called Dragon.

_________________
Nothing to see here...
avatar
Galom
Room Owner
Room Owner

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 278
Join date : 2014-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Hydre(Hydreigon) on Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:13 pm

... Galom. I'm just gonna jump to the defense of avalugg and say, ok, it dies to specual attacks. But how the hell is it a setup fodder?

Unless you build it with the 'horrible' curse build, for ice, it just won't. Put a rocky helm on it, and wall any physical attack, sustain on them with recover and get back into sturdy. Uf the opponent tries to get a DD, gyro ball. If it's rock, fire, etc? EQ the hell out of it. And if dragon/etc, avalanche. Yes, I use recover + 3 attacks, AND cloyster as a spinner.

And yes, that team works fine if not actually great. I do agree with the rest of the analysis (I hate froslass) even tho I use lead mamo with rocks, and some things you'd kill me for using (hi special abomasnow). There are bad points in ice, many weaknesses but with time and practice, you can get around them. Even if it means having to use builds pulling the hair of other people.

_________________
Never give up. If you give up, you prove people you are weak. If you are weak, you can't protect the ones you love.

sig links:



avatar
Hydre(Hydreigon)

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 824
Join date : 2015-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Endurr on Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:24 pm

The thing about Ice is that you only have a few viable mons, so you have to start thinking creative. You can't just run every casual set if you don't want to be predicted an absurd couple of times.


on a side note, building the Dark type viability rankings soon
avatar
Endurr

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 118
Join date : 2014-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Nebulous on Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:34 pm

Galom wrote:
Also restating: Avalugg either needs to get wiped off this list or moved to D-rank; it's hilariously bad and essentially setup fodder for almost every type not called Dragon.

Actually, Avalugg is mandatory for ANY serious ice monotype team. Its role as a spinner and physical wall cannot be understated. Whenever I ladder on Monotype and run into an ice team, even though I rarely do, they ALWAYS have Avalugg. The fact that Avalugg can spin away stealth rocks and tank almost any physical hit makes it an excellent pokemon for ice Monotypes. Of course, it's incredibly weak on the special defense side, but that weakness can be easily played around with the proper team support. Honestly, B rank is just fine for it, or maybe even A rank.
avatar
Nebulous

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 208
Join date : 2015-11-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Hydre(Hydreigon) on Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:26 pm

Thanks Nebulous.

At least someone else thinks this too, and voices it.

_________________
Never give up. If you give up, you prove people you are weak. If you are weak, you can't protect the ones you love.

sig links:



avatar
Hydre(Hydreigon)

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 824
Join date : 2015-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Nebulous on Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:06 pm

Mikhail97 wrote:Well, since the topic is Ice...

Cryogonal for B

Cryogonal @ Light Clay  
Ability: Levitate  
EVs: 248 HP / 8 SpA / 252 Spe  
Timid Nature  
- Rapid Spin  
- Freeze-Dry  
- Reflect  
- Light Screen

What I have learned about Ice is that, it's annoying to use. It's more annoying when rocks are set up to you. It's very, very annoying when Kyu-B takes damage. So, Cryo is a good solution, in terms of Rapid Spin and Dual Screens. Also, you can use this version :

Cryogonal @ Focus Sash  
Ability: Levitate  
EVs: 252 SpA / 4 SpD / 252 Spe  
Hasty Nature  
- Rapid Spin  
- Freeze-Dry  
- Hidden Power [Fire] / HP Ground
- Knock Off / Toxic

This set is usually the lead set, against stuff like Ferrothorn. Turn 1, just HP Fire it. On Ice, damage against Ferro is appreciated (Even with Kyu-W, cause it could switch out to dodge a Fusion Flare, and when Kyu-W is down, Ferro can run rampant against Ice). HP Ground hits Heatran, just incase. Knock Off to clear off Lefties from Skarmory (So they can't get back Sturdy without Roost), or you can use Toxic to whittle down the opponent Pokemon that you'll have trouble KOing.


Lol, No. Cryogonal is an awful pokemon, any decently powerful physical priority move kills it.
avatar
Nebulous

Status :
Online
Offline

Posts : 208
Join date : 2015-11-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Official, I guess.) Conquest Viability Rankings for certain types.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum