Why do you think there are terrible Pokemon?

[jesusfreak94]

I am of the unpopular opinion that this narrative of "every Pokemon is good in its own special way" is wrong, at least from a statistical standpoint (which, judging from the OP, appears to be the focus of this topic). Unless you dip into highly subjective aspects of a Pokemon, such as aesthetics, there will usually be a fairly objective measure of how "good" a Pokemon is (i.e. how well it performs) based upon its stats, movepool, etc. However, while stats and such are objective, they are also relative, as is viability. As new Pokemon, game mechanics, and tools of battle (such as moves and abilities) are introduced, previous Pokemon have a tendency to either improve in relation to the changing game around them or fade from glory. As an example, Tauros is generally considered to be the king of RBY OU, while nowadays it serves as merely a decent sweeper in lower tiers. Tauros in and of itself is arguably better now with Intimidate, Sheer Force, and many new move options. However, what changed is the game around it. The loss of the old RBY crit and Hyper Beam mechanics hurt it, but more important was the change in Pokemon. In GSC OU, new threats like Skarmory and Forretress gave it a very hard time, and the power it used to claim became fairly unimpressive in the light of powerhouses like Tyranitar and Curse Snorlax.

That said, I think that's why Game Freak decides to make Pokemon with such varying levels of usefulness (although some might be more intentional than others). If we didn't have less useful Pokemon, we would have no standard by which to appreciate the more useful Pokemon. To quote Syndrome from The Incredibles, "When everyone's super, no one will be." The same honestly applies here; if every Pokemon was really good by the standard we define "good" by now, then no Pokemon would actually seem good since all would have a similar level of viability.

 

[Ausgirl]

Well everyone has different ideas about what makes a pokemon "good."

 

[Phenomental1ty]

The game wouldn't be unique if there were only 50~ or less Pokemon a region.

 

[Atratus]

For the same reason animals in the real world have the alpha predators and the "weaklings," I believe. Not every being has to be a powerhouse, and while it is not obligatory in-game, I think it makes sense.

 

[BladedScizor]

Thanks for all the replies, although a lot of people seem to think I was talking about competitive battles, I honestly wasn't. I was more referring to the fact that there are some pokemon with such abysmal stats that using them just feels like a waste of time. Again, for Luvdisc, it brings absolutely nothing to a team as far as I can tell. Low stats and a movepool that can be beaten by basically any water pokemon out there. I didn't mean that all pokemon should be amazing, I just wonder why some pokemon are basically just...there. My fiance still always uses it, she thinks it's adorable, so there's that I suppose. Cute can beat power?

Personally I despise the competitive scene, I avoid it like the plague. I used to use Smogon for advice but I started to find the way I enjoyed the game to be completely warped by their whole idea of tiers. I don't normally PvP at all except with friends, we have a blast, but Smogon seemed to almost...corrupt I guess...my idea of what was fun with Pokemon. I always, always, have a Gardevoir in my team as soon as possible. By Smogon standards she's worthless but she's still my favorite.

I really don't get the hate for Smogon; is everyone just going to a different site than I am?

I'm seeing tiers set up so that people can play in a specific one to use their favorites without worry of getting completely outclassed by something with absurdly better stats or movepools, articles giving ideas of how to make less effective Pokemon as effective as possible in battles against more effective ones, and forumgoers who came up with an unofficial PU Tier just to have a place where people can battle with the likes of Farfetch'd and still have a shot at doing something with him.

Am I just missing something?

 

[AmbipomMaster]

I really don't get the hate for Smogon; is everyone just going to a different site than I am?

I'm seeing tiers set up so that people can play in a specific one to use their favorites without worry of getting completely outclassed by something with absurdly better stats or movepools, articles giving ideas of how to make less effective Pokemon as effective as possible in battles against more effective ones, and forumgoers who came up with an unofficial PU Tier just to have a place where people can battle with the likes of Farfetch'd and still have a shot at doing something with him.

Am I just missing something?

What I don't like with the tiers (as well as many others) is having people "ranking" Pokémon and, in essence, putting lesser value on them.

Smogon in itself is great. With such competitive advice, it really helps!

But what I don't like is how people from here and Smogon (though it probably wasn't intentional) think that Pokémon of different tiers should not be on the same team. Though it is not explicitly said, it is highly discouraged. But I feel that Smogon tiers were used for the purpose of categorizing Pokémon based off of BST. People have manipulated it to the point to where it's a rule that everyone must follow. For example, no one is going to stop me from using my Excadrill in my (would-be) OU team just because a Pokémon site "banned" it.

 

[Everlasting]

I don't think any Pokémon is terrible, useless or even weak. It all depends on their trainer, that's all. For example, I caught a Luvdisc in my Sapphire game and I used it to battle. That's a normal fact. But if this Pokémon is weak and only useful for Heart Scales, I do not agree. My Luvdisc managed to defeat a Gyarados approximatively with the same level and this Luvdisc also defeated Steven Stone's Aggron with the same level while Aggron is much bigger and had a lot of super effective moves.
It only depends on their trainer, that's what I'm saying. If you're using a great strategy and things like that, Pokémon like Luvdisc and Delibird could be very useful Pokémon in your team as well.

 

[AmbipomMaster]

I don't think any Pokémon is terrible, useless or even weak. It all depends on their trainer, that's all. For example, I caught a Luvdisc in my Sapphire game and I used it to battle. That's a normal fact. But if this Pokémon is weak and only useful for Heart Scales, I do not agree. My Luvdisc managed to defeat a Gyarados approximatively with the same level and this Luvdisc also defeated Steven Stone's Aggron with the same level while Aggron is much bigger and had a lot of super effective moves.
It only depends on their trainer, that's what I'm saying. If you're using a great strategy and things like that, Pokémon like Luvdisc and Delibird could be very useful Pokémon in your team as well.

^This. So much this. Every Pokémon can be useful; for example, there is a guy on Youtube that sweeps Legendary teams with "useless" Pokémon, i.e. Weedle, Magikarp, Delibird, etc.

 

[BladedScizor]

What I don't like with the tiers (as well as many others) is having people "ranking" Pokémon and, in essence, putting lesser value on them.

If you want to put it the worst possible way, it's possible to interpret it that way. I personally see it like weight classes in boxing. Are you going to put up a featherweight against a heavyweight? Except in very specific circumstances, no, there's no way you're gonna do that.

But what I don't like is how people from here and Smogon (though it probably wasn't intentional) think that Pokémon of different tiers should not be on the same team. Though it is not explicitly said, it is highly discouraged.

Admittedly, I don't go to the forums much, so I don't know all that much about that. All I've seen on that subject is that many low tier Pokemon have Smogon articles giving advice on their best options for use in higher tiers, so I'm not sure where that perception is supposed to show.

But I feel that Smogon tiers were used for the purpose of categorizing Pokémon based off of BST.

Off the top of my head, Breloom and Smeargle would greatly disagree with you on that. Tiers are based off of which Pokemon are used the most, anyway; BST helps, but that's about it.

People have manipulated it to the point to where it's a rule that everyone must follow. For example, no one is going to stop me from using my Excadrill in my (would-be) OU team just because a Pokémon site "banned" it.

That's about the only thing I don't really have anything say to. Well, except that, from what I've seen, Excadrill is pretty ridiculous; team building isn't quite as fun when you're absolutely forced to have a counter for one specific thing, or you can say goodbye to your entire team when you come across everyone and their mom who's using it.

^This. So much this. Every Pokémon can be useful; for example, there is a guy on Youtube that sweeps Legendary teams with "useless" Pokémon, i.e. Weedle, Magikarp, Delibird, etc.

Of course, he outright admits he deliberately goes up against unskilled opponents, and even then has to get several battles in before getting the kinds of results those videos show. Not to say I don't love those videos myself, I'm just saying that those aren't barometers of how consistently useful a Pokemon is.

 

[yasei]

Hmmm if we are talking on stats, then i guess is the need of a balance: if there are strong pokemon, then you need weak ones too...however im not an expert in the stats field

 

[Lion Demon]

Just like 50 Cent says "Position Of Power". Pokémon have a diverse stat/type/ability/movepool category to show what's worthwhile to have & what isn't in the Pokémon world.

 

[AmbipomMaster]

Of course, he outright admits he deliberately goes up against unskilled opponents, and even then has to get several battles in before getting the kinds of results those videos show. Not to say I don't love those videos myself, I'm just saying that those aren't barometers of how consistently useful a Pokemon is.

Exactly! But the same can be said with most competitive teams; you're not always going to win, and sometimes your star Pokémon can disappoint.
Edit: I read your post wrong. But my above statement still rings true. And I've still seen a Lv 1 Rattata take down many skilled opponents in regular competitive gameplay.

But from the Smogon conversation, You're right about a lot of the stuff. But what torks me is when people take the Smogon tiers for the Bible and think nothing should deviate from it. I also don't agree with Smogon in the sense that Evasion-raising moves are banned (I might be wrong here but I'm 70% positive they do this).

But I do think every Pokémon family should have at least one edge against the others. Give Delibird, Luvdisc, Farfetch'd, and all the other "useless" Pokémon something that can make them become a little more common in competitive teams.

 

[jesusfreak94]

Before this discussion goes downhill, I'd just like to sort out a few things.

First, Smogon's tiering system isn't based on some arbitrary decision or BST totals or anything; it's based on usage. Pokemon in a certain tier are there because they are used enough to be there. There are exceptions, namely bans, but those are also not arbitrary or subjective. The decision to ban something follows an extensive suspect process by which the object of discussion is tested for brokenness. Then the players that have proven themselves to be experienced in the current metagame vote on whether or not to ban the suspect.

Second, a Pokemon in a lower tier is not necessarily unviable in an upper tier, and no serious competitive player will tell you otherwise. Pokemon are used in upper tiers not because they are in that tier, but because they have a valuable niche that gives reason for their usage. Even Pokemon in the depths of NU might have a niche in OU, while some UU Pokemon might have little of a niche and are overall outclassed. For example, let's look at Chansey. It was recently banned from UU to BL due to a number of issues often stemming from access to the Eviolite, but let's pretend we have a game where Eviolite doesn't exist. My guess is that in this hypothetical situation, Chansey would be in a similar situation to in DPP where it is UU while Blissey is OU. The reason for this is that Blissey completely outclasses Chansey. Chansey is still a good special wall with low physical bulk and plenty of support options, but Blissey is literally Chansey with better stats. There would be no reason to use Chansey in OU, while it would really shine in UU where it has no such competition. This is what competitive players usually mean when they encourage the use of certain Pokemon over others.

Lower tier Pokemon can also be used in upper tiers to a great extent, and every experienced competitive player knows this. Some Pokemon even rise to upper tiers because players discover a new niche that they excel at, perhaps the greatest example being Dugtrio. It rose from NU to OU in a single tier shift after everyone realized how effective it was at helping to win weather wars. Likewise, Gastrodon rose from RU to OU when people began to use it as a check to Rain teams due to its immunity to Surf/Hydro Pump and Thunder. There's also this team, which utilized six non-OU Pokemon in the OU environment and actually performed fairly well. Each Pokemon was chosen not because it was a favorite of the user or for the "surprise factor," but because it fulfilled a specific niche that made it a part of an anti-metagame team.

So as far as lower tier vs upper tier Pokemon goes, many lower tier Pokemon can be good in an upper tier provided they fulfill a specific niche that makes them worthwhile. If you're using a Pokemon in a tier in which it is completely outclassed, then more power to ya, but you're simply not being competitive. In a situation where the goal is to win (i.e. being "competitive"), you'll want to use Pokemon that fulfill viable niches, and that's all that really matters.

 

[UbersSuck20]

Regigigigigigigas is terrible. Ugly as hell, horrible ability, extremely hard to get(And to catch too!) and impossible to spell! I also think the following Pokemon are horrible:

Luvdisc: Really, GameFreak?
Ledian: For those moments when a Prankster Copycat Riolu sweeps your team, that's where Mach Punch comes in. Another use? Nope. It's simply pointless.
Glalie: 80 base stats across the board don't cut it. It's ugly as hell too.
Spiritomb: Hard to get, mediocre defenses, ugly as hell and a typing that makes it purely overrated. WonderTomb anyone? Oh wait we can only use it in Hackmons.
Emolga: Also known as "Pikasuck", because it's even worse than its precedessors (Plusle, Minun, Pachirisu). It can't even learn Fly.

 

[Meeker]

There has to be a good to be a bad, there has to be a worst for there to be a best. It's how it is on every game, there are things that are awesome, and things that just suck. It's also for balance. That's just how things are.

 

[☭Azimuth_055☣]

To balance it out, I guess. There's no fun if there aren't any negative stuff.

 

[Mew The Gato]

Every Pokemon has their good and bad points. If a Pokemon is though to be useless, then they should be compared to humans, who are not as strong as those Pokemon are. Also Pokemon are not tools. They are not there simply for the use of humans. Not just a Pokemon's power, but a Pokemon's intelligence and personality should also be considered.

 

[AuroriumX]

To add variety, it would be quite boring if every Pokemon was something uber powerful. Where is the fun if every Pokemon has almost the same stats?

 

[Joely]

Because there can't be strong Pokemon without weak Pokemon, you judge a Pokemon's power by its comparison to other Pokemon. Weedle would be legendary if all other Pokemon were magikarp.

 

[ParaChomp]

I don't know if someone said this yet but in all honesty I think it's to balance the difficulty out by giving you weaker monsters to battle in the beginning and stronger ones later.