Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Guys, can we please keep the topic on Dragon-types outside of direct comparisons please?
Anyway, in regards to the discussion:
Personally, I don't think Dragon-types are over-rated. To be over-rated means to receive loads of hype when they're not actually good. The thing is though, dragon types are good. Latios and Garchomp in particular are huge in the current VGC metagame - few Pokémon can withstand a Dragon Gem boosted Draco Meteor from a Latios. Dragon-types having very few weaknesses (only Dragon and Ice) and a fair few useful resistances only helps matters.
So no, I don't think they're overrated. Overpowered though? Possibly.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
I don't think dragons are overrated, mainly because I actually have no idea who exactly is rating them at all. Perhaps I missed the last meeting of the Pokémon Fandom Senate, in which it was decreed, "Dragons are officially great", but I rather doubt that.
Aside from that, though, I'd think that labeling any one type as "overrated" would be kind of pointless. There are Pokémon of varying usefulness in each type - the same type that gives us Gengar is the same one that gives us Sableye and Banette. The same type that gives us Volcarona also bives us Butterfree. Different types have different strategies that suit them, and as the old adage goes, you shouldn't berate a pony for not being a horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor 
1.) I don't care if dragons have a wide move pool. I loves me the STAB. Killing rampages just aren't the same if you don't get STAB.
Dragons do get STAB though. Everything gets STAB. Moreover, it's not like the game actually points it out to you when you get STAB, your attack is just stronger. It's like saying that you only like catching Pokémon with low catch rates: you can see the general results, but other than that it's more or less invisible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor 2.) I love landing super effective hits, and dragons aren't widely used enough to make a dragon worth the slot on my team. For me, super effective moves are like STAB: mindless slaughter of my opponents just is't the same without "It's super effective!"
So a three-word phrase that pops up every time an Azurill uses Bubble on a Heatran has that much impact on your enjoyment of a battle? Interesting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor I use phrases like "mindless slaughter" because I am implying that even if a "not very effective" move that doesn't get STAB does a one-hit KO I don't get the same satisfaction I get from doing the most amount of damage possible.
That might be just you. An OHKO is still an OHKO, no matter how you slice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor I mean, it's purely subjective.
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor It's very hard to do significant damage to a dragon; they're worth a slot in a person's party just for that. They just don't mesh with my style of battle (which would probably get me killed to death competitively; the STAB and Super Effective bonuses are just for personal satisfaction, not strategy).
Then why are you insisting on calling them overrated? If they don't mesh with your style, then that's exactly what they're not good at. It doesn't mean that they're overvalued, merely that your personal strategy has no use for them. To quote Albert Einstein, "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor Charizard, though not an official dragon, is my second favorite starter after Feraligatr.
Charizard isn't a Dragon type at all, and as such has nothing to do with the core components of this argument. Why not mention Gyarados if we're going to also count Pokémon that just look like dragons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor But as a type I just personally don't have any use for them and I get kind of annoyed when people think a team of all-dragons is the greatest thing ever. Strategically that's far from true and as someone who gets rather attached to her team I usually feel a bit insulted.
Ignore them? I mean, they clearly don't know what they're talking about, from a strategical standpoint, unless they've somehow worked out a strategy for an all-dragon team that avoids the various pitfalls of monotyping a team. Or they're speaking in in-game terms, in which case nothing matters and they can make an all-Sunkern team if they want and get away with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor Does anyone else find dragons overrated or unnecessary? Or think other types get the job done better?
Again: Dragons do some jobs better than others and some jobs worse. They don't mesh with your strategy? Then they're just not meant for you. That doesn't make them overrated, that just makes them incompatible with your line of thought. There are plenty of other people, though, that have found plenty of use for them.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
I remember back at a point in suspect gen 4 players would just take teams of three dragons and three steels and blow the outdated fire-water-grass cores into millions of pieces.
I think now a days I would say underrated. Perhaps not in the fandom but in battling, yes. Although Dragonite is 3rd in usage, Salamence is 15th in the PO usage statistics. Remember...that thing that used to win games in a heartbeat and could single handedly obliterate almost any team style with minor support? Yeah, it is still just as good and nothing has been introduced to say differently (other than maybe scarf Genesect meaning that you have to run naive on a boosting set but on dragmag you can afford a sack anyway). As a general balance though, I would say Dragonite it overrated (especially the offensive spreads) as well as Latias (setup bait anyone?) but I would say that former suspects Salamence and Latias (a thing that beats rain teams on its own) are getting nowhere near enough limelight. Lets not forget that regardless of the new metagame, the mass use of steel types on every team still shows that dragon STAB moves are unparallelled in terms of both coverage and pure power. Hydreigon is another underrated one with awesome coverage and typing as well as sexy defenses stats that make it a real team player.
I forgot to mention Kyurem-B above. It may be slow, it may have no good ice STAB and awful defensive typing...but it can 2HKO everything in the game. Also Haxorus that hits like a monster can deal some serious damage. Sadly its speed tier lets it down. Things like these two really only work in dragmag though because their main job is just to wear down the counters of dragons who can actually sweep.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joshawott Personally, I don't think Dragon-types are over-rated. To be over-rated means to receive loads of hype when they're not actually good.
A Pokemon can still be overrated even if it's still good. Dragonite, as @Takaki; pointed out, has screwed over a lot of dragons, in terms of usage, because of Multiscale, thus leaving others like Haxorus and Hydreigon underappreciated.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghetsis-Dennis You forgot Flygon, who is UU.
Yes, but it did spend its first two generations in OU. And UU is actually a high tier compared to the likes of NU and RU. The same with Kingdra - it was in BL and OU in its first three generations, so it also spended the majority of its time in OU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metalamor They are AWFUL in-game. They take longer to get really good than it does to beat the game. You either spend a huge amount of time grinding or you have a slot that could go to a more efficient Pokemon. At least that's my experience. The only slot I would save for a dragon in-game is if it's a personal favorite. Dragons are mostly upper-level combatants. If you know how to use them and what you're doing, though, you can get some really powerful Pokemon. It takes a great amount of patience. I'm still not a fan of them, though. I think...well, what I think is posted all over the thread xD
Not really. The only one that could be a pain would be Dragonite in Gen I, as it tends to either evolve to late or not at all. But ever since FRLG, it's been easy to get your Pokemon up to their mid 60s (mid 70s in B2W2), so there's really no problem, other than Hydreigon I guess, but it's all up to your personal opinion, I suppose.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
I think that Dragon is the only type that you can run a team of all the same type and still have reasonable success with. Maybe Fighting and Steel but these have some really horrible potential match ups.
There is this girl who I played against a few times on the Japanese server who used a team of only dragon types, using Druddigon to set up rocks, and then focussing on hyper offense. She also got to the front ranking page on the American/European server but did really struggle against certain match ups.
Obviously, the only way this strategy is particularly viable is through ridiculous hyper offense and intelligent sacrifices.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pidgeot Yes, but it did spend its first two generations in OU. And UU is actually a high tier compared to the likes of NU and RU. The same with Kingdra - it was in BL and OU in its first three generations, so it also spended the majority of its time in OU.
From White Kyurem's analysis:
"Once upon a time, there lived a sad third brother named Kyurem. Day and night, it would be humiliated by its brothers Reshiram and Zekrom, the rest of the dragon tribe of the OU metagame, and millions of Pokemon trainers around the globe. The abuse was so horrific that the poor thing descended into UU, the land of mediocre Arcanine and Milotic."
Doesn't sound like a high tier to me, which means Flygon and Kingdra really are suffering.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Usage statistics for current month | Pok One dragon in the top ten of OU.
Usage statistics for current month | Pok Thre in the top ten of ubers. If anything, the current game is weather dominant rather than dragon dominant. If you think this is dragon dominant then let me guide you to a typical pre-Garchomp ban OU usage statistic:
1: Garchompinator
2: Latias
3: steel type.
4: steel type.
5: suicide lead to support dragon types with hazards.
6: Magnezone.
7: Salamence.
It's funny because that is actually quite accurate.
EDIT: lol@ Arceus-Dragon getting less usage than Starapter in ubers.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghetsis-Dennis Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pidgeot Yes, but it did spend its first two generations in OU. And UU is actually a high tier compared to the likes of NU and RU. The same with Kingdra - it was in BL and OU in its first three generations, so it also spended the majority of its time in OU.
From White Kyurem's analysis:
"Once upon a time, there lived a sad third brother named Kyurem. Day and night, it would be humiliated by its brothers Reshiram and Zekrom, the rest of the dragon tribe of the OU metagame, and millions of Pokemon trainers around the globe. The abuse was so horrific that
the poor thing descended into UU, the land of mediocre Arcanine and Milotic."
Doesn't sound like a high tier to me, which means Flygon and Kingdra really are suffering.
Yes, but I'm saying that Kingdra and Flygon have spent the majority of their time in the higher tiers.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
There are only 107 Pokemon (pre BW2 but including arceus typings) above the UU tier making it comparatively quite good compared to the rest of the game as a whole. The smog article is only saying that Arcanine and Milotic are bad relative to the tier Kyurem was from.
@Ghetsis-Dennis;
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Personally, I love dragons. They're my favorite type of Pokemon. Charizard is my favorite by far to this day. :)
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Takaki Usage statistics for current month | Pok One dragon in the top ten of OU.
Usage statistics for current month | Pok Thre in the top ten of ubers. If anything, the current game is weather dominant rather than dragon dominant. If you think this is dragon dominant then let me guide you to a typical pre-Garchomp ban OU usage statistic:
1: Garchompinator
2: Latias
3: steel type.
4: steel type.
5: suicide lead to support dragon types with hazards.
6: Magnezone.
7: Salamence.
It's funny because that is actually quite accurate.
EDIT: lol@ Arceus-Dragon getting less usage than Starapter in ubers.
Well, there you go.
Dragons are the best type! Yaay!
*Only two or three in the top tiers*
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
I'm starting to get annoyed at the people throwing around the word "overrated" without knowing what it actually means (you know who you are.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Draconias Personally, I love dragons. They're my favorite type of Pokemon. Charizard is my favorite by far to this day. :)
Charizard is not a Dragon. He just looks like one.
Re: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ranger Jack Walker Currently, the top 5 most used Pokemon according to Smogon's OU tier include Ferrothorn, Scizor and Genesect. All 3 are bug/steel types. So yeah, Steel types are not overrated.
Fire Types are both overrated and underrated at the same time. Those who praise Fire Types greatly exaggerate while those who criticize Fire Types ignore all good points completely.
Actually, I believe Ferrothorn's a Grass/Steel, not Bug/Steel.
