Salamence—should it be tested?

[Anti]

Typing: Dragon / Flying
Ability: Intimidate
Base Stats:
HP: 95
Atk: 135
Def: 80
Spd: 100
SAtk: 110
SDef: 80

It's one controversial dragon.

In the DCC I noticed rational and irrational opposition to the test alike. Either way, what do you think of the test? Before posting, remember that posting your opinion for the sake of posting it and not adding anything to the discussion is frowned upon.

Discuss.

NOTE: This is not to discuss whether or not you think Salamence is Uber but whether or not you think a test is justified and should be undertaken. Any posts that do not stick to the topic will be deleted and possibly infracted.

 

[Malicious Metang]

I think the testing of Salamence is justified, if only by the constant theorymon that has been spewed out by nearly every advocate for a Salamence test. To be honest, anytime so called "respected battlers" bring up the discussion of a suspect, said Pokemon automatically becomes more threatening in the eyes of others. To me, Salamence is definately not worthy of a suspect test, however, any arguments I could create as to why it's not broken can be countered by ridiculous theorymon that is literally the reverse of my statements. There is no way to prove a Pokemon such as Salamence is broken or not basing it off pure conversation; it must be tested and proved to be stable in the OU metagame, and not a dominating force. The sad thing about this process, is that now that the threads on Smogon have gained popularity, anyone who is relatively new or inexperienced to competitive battling will view Salamence is worthy of a suspect test, further adding to this vicious circle of idiocy that will never cease until a test is done. Basically, as long as people resort to damage calculations and "what if" situations, which are by the way cleverly disguised theorymon, we will never be able to prove Pokemon are not broken by ACTUALLY PLAYING POKEMON.

tl ; dr: Test it

 

[Dark Azelf]

To be fair based on the general opinion i.e the poll, S+M regulars and pretty much everyone ive spoken too thinks it is not uber. Whilst this thread isnt to discuss that, i feel a test would be pointless due to the general consensus that people dont think it is broken so ultimately by testing it "what would the test achieve when everyone is going to vote it OU anyway?". Its almost as if we know what the answer is going to be. I mean if its for a specific reason, i.e "so we can gauge what effects it has for reference in regards to future suspects so we can compare them" then go ahead i guess.

Personally i wouldn't care if its tested, on one hand it severely cripples offensive teams which is not particularly healthy for the metagame whilst on the other hand it makes stall (i.e cuteness) even better lol.

 

[Aquilae]

Why would you want to spend some more time on the test? Given the rate it's going now it doesn't look like it's going to finish anytime soon whatwith all the different stages with different combinations of suspects, and putting Salamence in is a waste of time as people will just vote it OU anyway. I personally believe Salamence is nowhere near Uber.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I agree with DA. Most players besides a few theorymoners from Smogon (lemme stop there)... anyways most players don't feel he's Uber therefore a test would probably be a waste of time because of a consensus he's OU and the Suspect test would be just a formality really.

Salamence isn't broken at all. Today's metagame has Ice moves and Steel-types everywhere Mence is pretty easy to counter or revenge kill. Why test when she's already OU and we can already see she's not broken there?

By no means is Salamence not a threat, she's one of the biggest threats in the OU metagame, but so are things like Scizor, Blissey, Heatran, Infernape, Jirachi, Latias, etc. Does just being a threat make them broken? No.

Steels and Bulky waters can come in on Mence's STAB moves easily and the latter can usually OHKO back due to their tendencie to carry Ice moves.

 

[Skip Shot]

I've felt that the majority of arguments that I have seen have either come from theorymon or damage calculations of Pokemon that should not be staying in on Salamence. I feel that there really isn't much logic or proof bar the calcs about the brokenness of Salamence and how it deserves a suspect test. Most people at Smogon are still stuck on the mentality of a Pokemon requiring a counter,and use that as their reasoning that Salamence should be a suspect. If that were a criteria for being a suspect, we could test a bunch of other Pokemon based off of versatility, or just how the Pokemon is played by a skilled battler.

Overall, I say that Salamence does not deserve a suspect test.

 

[Aurafire]

I don't understand why a Salamence test would be brought up now, it would have made more sense if they did it when it got Outrage during Platinum. I mean, there's nothing that warrants a test besides the "suspicion" that it might be too powerful for OU. The metagame has long since adapted to Salamence's power, and there are multiple and effective ways of dealing with it. I highly doubt its negative effects on the metagame are worth a test.

 

[Anti]

I've felt that the majority of arguments that I have seen have either come from theorymon or damage calculations of Pokemon that should not be staying in on Salamence. I feel that there really isn't much logic or proof bar the calcs about the brokenness of Salamence and how it deserves a suspect test. Most people at Smogon are still stuck on the mentality of a Pokemon requiring a counter,and use that as their reasoning that Salamence should be a suspect. If that were a criteria for being a suspect, we could test a bunch of other Pokemon based off of versatility, or just how the Pokemon is played by a skilled battler.

Overall, I say that Salamence does not deserve a suspect test.

I especially love the part about how these things should not be staying in on Salamence. I'm sorry, what exactly can stay in on a set as versatile as Draco/Outrage/FB/EQ? I could go through every defensive Pokemon in the game and almost all of them would be either killed or significantly damaged by one of those attacks. The only Pokemon staying in on that set are Cresselia, Thunder Wave or Ice Beam Blissey (if it avoids coming in on Outrage, which is not very difficult), and whatever is faster that can OHKO it--and Salamence is not going to come in on either of these itself. Cresselia and sometimes Blissey can come in on it. If you want to bring in your Scarf Latias, be my guest.

As for the whole "counter mentality" thing, it's more that Salamence does not have many good checks, and its "checks," when they come in on the "right" move (aka the resisted one), they still take a lot of damage--this is why damage calculations are to a degree important. Revenge killing something that requires absolutely no set-up is in a lot of ways like the French army chasing the Germans back to the border and disbanding when Germany could easily launch another attack...it's a temporary solution only. With DDMence it's different since, given SR and LO recoil, it's usually only going to have one chance to sweep, two maximum (under common battle conditions). But for MixMence, having only two chances to kill is plenty.when you bring it in on Skarmory, you'd be amazed at how often people will switch in Latias and get burned--not by Fire Blast of course, but by Draco Meteor.

But yes, MixMence has almost no counters, its so-called checks take a ton of damage from resisted Draco Meteors, and revenge killing it is rarely going to accomplish much. But nah, those stupid Smogoners are all just theroymoning with those damage calculations never mind their complete relevance to something being tested under the support characteristic, which when applied to offensive Pokemon is basically defined as doing a lot of damage.


Desafortunadamente I have to cut this short =(

 

[Skip Shot]

But nah, those stupid Smogoners are all just theroymoning with those damage calculations never mind their complete relevance to something being tested under the support characteristic, which when applied to offensive Pokemon is basically defined as doing a lot of damage.
Desafortunadamente I have to cut this short =(

I can name a lot of Pokemon that can do a lot of damage as well(Infernape,Lucario,Bounce Gyarados,etc.). Should they be tested under the support characteristic also?

Personally though I think the characterisitcs are really broad and with them you could put almost any Pokemon into suspect testing. They really need to be looked over and redone imo.


The thing is that the prediction game can go both ways, and whoever loses is going to get burned. That's really what most of the game has come to be besides the free passes that are supplied by Baton Pass(not rlly used much anymore) or U-Turn(largely used) on a switch. Playing conservatively is really the best way to play now (which is why stuff like elfstall and semi-stall do so well).

For everything else you wrote, you really made it clear your points on that (way better than some people made claims for DD Mence), so I really can't find any holes in it. I still personally feel that Salamence doesn't need the test though.

I also don't see why Mence is being tested now. HG/SS really only made huge changes to the UU tier, and OU was barely affected bar the rise of Roserade to OU and a new anti-lead in Dragonite. If Mence was really as broken as people are now screaming it is when Platinum came out, then a test should have been called for after the first month or so after Platinum, when Mence was huge.

Also Mence's moves that it commonly uses come at huge prices that force it to switch out, and get worn down continually by Stealth Rock and its own Life Orb. Outrage leaves it trapped, meaning that Zone or another steel can come in and either kill it or set up residual damage/a sweep on it. Scizor can revenge kill it with Bullet Punch if it is worn down enough or Pursuit it after a Draco Meteor, which lowers Special Attack by 2 stages.

Overall Mence's powerful attacks are costly enough that make it easier to play around, so it does not deserve a suspect test.

 

[Malicious Metang]

I can name a lot of Pokemon that can do a lot of damage as well(Infernape,Lucario,Bounce Gyarados,etc.). Should they be tested under the support characteristic also?

This is the only time where I agree with Smogon's defense of a Salamence test; mentality like this being used against the testing of Salamence. No, this logic does not validate your point toward not testing Salamence. Unlike Salamence, these Pokemon do have hard counters that can take 90% of their sets, in fact, I would go so far as to say this only aids in the testing of Salamence, as it shows even the biggest threats in OU have hard counters, whereas Salamence does not. Something like Infernape cannot "punch holes" into an opposing team with Latias around, similarly with Lucario being unable to be sweep while Gliscor is present.

Personally though I think the characterisitcs are really broad and with them you could put almost any Pokemon into suspect testing. They really need to be looked over and redone imo.

You can put any Pokemon into Suspect testing; whether or not it is worth testing or is properly evaluated is what is important. I can nominate Charizard for a Suspect test and pull out random calculations showing it OHKOs nearly everything after a Belly Drum, resists Bullet Punch, and can set up on the likes of Forretress, Skarmory, Gliscor etc...all of which are common Pokemon.

The thing is that the prediction game can go both ways, and whoever loses is going to get burned. That's really what most of the game has come to be besides the free passes that are supplied by Baton Pass(not rlly used much anymore) or U-Turn(largely used) on a switch. Playing conservatively is really the best way to play now (which is why stuff like elfstall and semi-stall do so well).

Um, what is this proving? We all know conservative style is the safer route, but it does not necessarily mean it will work better than playing aggressively. For example, if you're using a Choice Band Scizor, the conservative move would be to U-turn, as there is literally no drawbacks of using it, however, if you take the higher road and go for the Superpower, and manage to land a Heatran on the switch, you've gotten more bang for your buck. Sure, the chances of hitting a Zapdos or Rotom-A, or allowing a Gyarados to set-up causing a loss of momentum is possible, but please, being too conservative has its own disadvantages as well.

Overall Mence's powerful attacks are costly enough that make it easier to play around, so it does not deserve a suspect test.

Agreed, it's definately not worthy of a Suspect test.

 

[Anti]

I can name a lot of Pokemon that can do a lot of damage as well(Infernape,Lucario,Bounce Gyarados,etc.). Should they be tested under the support characteristic also?

Personally though I think the characterisitcs are really broad and with them you could put almost any Pokemon into suspect testing. They really need to be looked over and redone imo.


The thing is that the prediction game can go both ways, and whoever loses is going to get burned. That's really what most of the game has come to be besides the free passes that are supplied by Baton Pass(not rlly used much anymore) or U-Turn(largely used) on a switch. Playing conservatively is really the best way to play now (which is why stuff like elfstall and semi-stall do so well).

For everything else you wrote, you really made it clear your points on that (way better than some people made claims for DD Mence), so I really can't find any holes in it. I still personally feel that Salamence doesn't need the test though.

I also don't see why Mence is being tested now. HG/SS really only made huge changes to the UU tier, and OU was barely affected bar the rise of Roserade to OU and a new anti-lead in Dragonite. If Mence was really as broken as people are now screaming it is when Platinum came out, then a test should have been called for after the first month or so after Platinum, when Mence was huge.

Also Mence's moves that it commonly uses come at huge prices that force it to switch out, and get worn down continually by Stealth Rock and its own Life Orb. Outrage leaves it trapped, meaning that Zone or another steel can come in and either kill it or set up residual damage/a sweep on it. Scizor can revenge kill it with Bullet Punch if it is worn down enough or Pursuit it after a Draco Meteor, which lowers Special Attack by 2 stages.

Overall Mence's powerful attacks are costly enough that make it easier to play around, so it does not deserve a suspect test.

By doing a lot of damage I meant an excessive amount of damage, something that isn't seen in other OU Pokemon. I kind of thought that was a given lol? But no, the characteristics are perfectly fine. They are broad, but most if not every Pokemon in OU does not fit any of the characteristics while most if not every Pokemon in the Uber tier does. Sorry, I don't really see how Salamence neutering Steel-types with resisted moves doesn't at least give it consideration for a test, especially when that's when the Salamence user is outpredicted.

There has been clamor for a Salamence test for awhile. You seem to forget that the Shaymin-S test failed horribly and it became a top priority, while Manaphy, Lati@s (neiterh or which were OU when Plat came out, you must remember), and Garchomp were all controversial though to a lesser extent. Salamence took a back seat to all of that. To say that because Salamence wasn't tested earlier it wasn't/isn't broken or worthy of a test seems a little silly to me, lol. The timing was pretty horrible though. Nothing quite like potentially making the lethargic suspect testing process even slower.

As for prediction, I'm glad you said it goes both ways because that means it goes Salamence's way sometimes too. And as I mentioned, when it does, it's usually very costly. When you play with fire you're bound to get burned eventually, and playing with fire is exactly what playing around Salamence is. Even if you play conservatively, you still have to outpredict Salamence unless you're running Cresselia or something similar. The reason I don't think Salamence is Uber is because it can't break conservative play styles very well, but it poses enough of a threat to them that at the very least a test is plausible, certainly not a crusade of theorymon as you and others have mentioned in this thread.

Also, the only attack with a significant downside with regard to playing around it is Outrage. If you predict correctly on Outrage, Salamence is stuck. Draco Meteor does not commit Salamence to continue to attack, and even though its SAtk drops, Scizor can still get torched by Fire Blast for an easy OHKO if you get overconfident and try to Pursuit it. Even a weakened Salamence poses an enormous threat to what supposedly beats it. Lastly, Bullet Punch isn't even guaranteed to KO MixMence after Stealth Rock damage and one round of Life Orb recoil. Salamence would die killing your Scizor, but Scizor still dies which is obviously of great importance. The point I'm trying to make is that even when Salamence is weakened or it is "stopped," it can beat you or do significant damage. Outside of Outrage (which is exclusively used to hit Blissey and late-game sweep and that's about it), Salamence's moves, though they have their problems, aren't going to keep it from doing what it's supposed to do, which is hammer away at the opponent.


Lastly, the characteristic says under common battle conditions, so Stealth Rock is assumed. However, should the prospect of Salamence not taking Stealth Rock damage be ignored? After all, with all of the Taunt+SR leads out there, one of them isn't going to get SR up. Not really a serious argument but something I thought I'd throw out there. When thinking about it keep in mind the example of Ho-oh--I believe that has some relevance.

I will eventually finish my post summarizing my thoughts on the test. But for now this will do.

 

[Archer]

I have to be honest. I think there is enough reasonable doubt for a test. There is no doubt that it is powerful enough to cause this controversy in the first place. And after all, Competitive Pokemon, to some degree is a democracy - if people speak out, the Smogon staff are required to hear their plea - regardless of what they make of it in the long run. Because we are only testing it. The carrying out of a test, especially one with such strong OU support, does not mean it will be banned and it rules it out for the near future.

Despite this, I honestly think that if Salamence was so clearly broken, it would have had more usage than anything. It has been consistently outnumbered by Scizor; by up to 50% in September and 66% in October, in which month (Oct) it hit 5th Place on the usage charts. Garchomp on the other hand, overtook Blissey's throne not long after the birth of DP and retained 1st place every month until its ban at the beginning of August 2008 (by an insane lead, at that). These are not just Theorymon stats - I'm trying to display that if Salamence was really that broken or essential, it would have the highest usage and things like Cresselia would by higher. Although, part of the Scizor usage is as a result of Salamence, so that needs to be accounted for.

I'm trying to keep this as close to the original question as I can.

 

[Malicious Metang]

Despite this, I honestly think that if Salamence was so clearly broken, it would have had more usage than anything. It has been consistently outnumbered by Scizor; by up to 50% in September and 66% in October, in which month (Oct) it hit 5th Place on the usage charts.

Wobbuffet at 43rd would like to have a word with you.

Garchomp on the other hand, overtook Blissey's throne not long after the birth of DP and retained 1st place every month until its ban at the beginning of August 2008 (by an insane lead, at that). These are not just Theorymon stats - I'm trying to display that if Salamence was really that broken or essential, it would have the highest usage and things like Cresselia would by higher. Although, part of the Scizor usage is as a result of Salamence, so that needs to be accounted for.

What are you saying? Usage = Brokeness? If that's the case, then you're argument is majorly flawed my friend. Scizor has remained number 1, regardless if it was "a result of Salamence". Scizor is not broken whatsoever.

 

[Archer]

Wobbuffet at 43rd would like to have a word with you.

I think that was a case of people not wanting to use it. If you look here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42223 , check the first post. The good players used it, it just didn't achieve high usage overall.

What are you saying? Usage = Brokeness? If that's the case, then you're argument is majorly flawed my friend. Scizor has remained number 1, regardless if it was "a result of Salamence". Scizor is not broken whatsoever.

Of course not, that's not what I said at all. I said that, if Salamence truly was broken, people would quite likely take advantage of it to the same degree that Garchomp was. God, Blissey had #1 for a long, long time, through multiple generations. Would I be calling that Uber? I'm saying it should be a by-product of an Uber, if it infact was one. Which the exception of cheap pokemon, such as Wobbuffet and to a degree, Deoxys.

We're not trying to decide it's status, just whether it should be tested.

 

[Skip Shot]

I agree with MM. Usage can't be brought up as an argument, and the only reason that scizor was brought in usage because of Mence at all would be because of Bullet Punch, which can be used to revenge many other Pokemon, so that argument is moot. Scizor is high in usage because it can easily spam U-Turn and create a situation where the Scizor user has the upper hand (which is a scout's role, and scouting is what Scizor does best imo).

EDIT(saw archer's new post): I can use this post to argue that useage =/= brokenness as well. Look at where Garchomp is on the "expert players". It didn't even crack the top ten. Still, people considered it to be broken enough to move to the Uber tier, when Pokemon like Azelf, Zapdos, Wobbuffet, and Mesprit were beating it out. Also, why would people not be wanting to "use" Wobbuffet as much when it is the most used Pokemon by expert players according to this list? According to your logic of usage= brokenness, If Wobb was broken enough to move to Ubers, then it should have been the most used Pokemon in OU, not 43rd.

 

[Archer]

I agree with MM. Usage can't be brought up as an argument, and the only reason that scizor was brought in usage because of Mence at all would be because of Bullet Punch, which can be used to revenge many other Pokemon, so that argument is moot. Scizor is high in usage because it can easily spam U-Turn and create a situation where the Scizor user has the upper hand (which is a scout's role, and scouting is what Scizor does best imo).

Did you even read my post? I said that Salamence's usage was not #1, unlike Garchomp.

 

[Anti]

Did you even read my post? I said that Salamence's usage was not #1, unlike Garchomp.

Usage has absolutely no relevance to any of the three characteristics at all. End of story. Yeah, being number one in usage supports the thesis that something could potentially be Uber, but just because Salamence is (gasp!) number two doesn't mean that any argument for or even against the Salamence test is strengthened or weakened.

 

[Skip Shot]

Did you even read my post? I said that Salamence's usage was not #1, unlike Garchomp.

I read your post, but I never even included Garchomp in my arguments against it 0.0 because there is no point in showing how Garchomp was #1 for a long time then moved to Ubers and Mence's usage has not been #1. Mence and Chomp are also in completely different dominated styles of metagame, where Chomp was in a stall-heavy/bulky offense metagame because it was broken, Platinum changes brought about a new hyperoffensive metagame where scouting became a key role in battles, which is why Scizor is used so much, since it is considered to be one of OU's best scouts. Factors besides brokenness can contribute to the usage of a Pokemon so it can't be used when determining if a Pokemon should be suspect or not.

 

[Malicious Metang]

I think that was a case of people not wanting to use it. If you look here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42223 , check the first post. The good players used it, it just didn't achieve high usage overall.

You're missing the point; you stated this:

Despite this, I honestly think that if Salamence was so clearly broken, it would have had more usage than anything.

Whether or not a Pokemon is used highly doesn't determine its status in a tier. If something was obviously broken, it would be abused by all players, according to your logic, but Wobbuffet was at a lowly 43rd. So...yeah, what's up with that?

 

[Anti]

Finally I've typed this up, lol.

You all know at this point that I support the test to a certain extent. Salamence is probably not Uber. No one here thinks it is that I know of. However, I don't see how this makes a test unnecessary or its result a foregone conclusion. For a long time just just assumed that Latios and Latias were Uber and that Garchomp was OU, as if it was just so obvious that it was out of the question. However, once they were tested, two of them switched tiers, and Latios was to some extent controversial. Given that history, I don't necessarily see what bad could come out of the test, assuming paragraph submissions are required. Poor logic will not ruin the test, and we could find that Salamence was more dominant than we thought. I'm not saying that this is likely (since IMO it's quite unlikely), but it is possible. Keep that in mind.

The main reason I am a proponent of the test is because I either disagree with or am disgusted by the arguments (or random hyperbole) against the suspect test. The hyperbole speaks for itself in its large amounts of inaccuracies and annoyances. But this thread is for serious arguments, not stupid and useless ones, so I'll move on to those.

The first serious argument against the test is that everything (or most everything, aka the damage calculations) is theorymon...just look at D_A's signature/practically all of Vance's post. Really, all damage calculations do is demonstrate something's power. With both the support and offensive characteristics, the amount of damage Salamence does is directly related to how it fits or does not fit one or both of the characteristics. In order to sweep a significant portion of the metagame with little effort, you have to do a lot of damage. How the damage calculations that show how much damage Salamence does is theorymon is beyond me. After all, if Scizor comes in on a Draco Meteor, will it not do 49-58% damage? I mean, I know D_A has cited that as his way of beating New MixMence, so if he does that in actual battles, that certainly can't be theorymon. Of course, they can't be the only argument since damage calculations are just facts and evidence. If you don't link how they are important to the original claim--this is either "A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it is capable of sweeping through a significant portion of teams in the metagame with little effort" or "A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it can consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep," and the fact that the OP in the policy review thread makes it seem like theorymon. But this isn't "let's find the weakest argument on Smogon and then counter that." This is "find the strongest argument on Smogon and then counter that" (since I would imagine the burden of "proof" is on those in favor of the test, though it's unclear how much evidence or proof you need to actually get a test rolling). If you guys are picking on Phil's post specifically, then it's really hard to disagree with you (considering I would then agree with you lol...), but just because the OP was bad does not mean that the damage calculations in it are not important. I will get to their importance later.

The other serious argument that I've seen with regard to the mixed set (which I think is much more worthy of a test that DDMence) is that you can outplay it. Outside of Outrage (which is exclusive used as a Blissey killer and a late-game sweeping move), outplaying Salamence will always be a temporary solution. In my opinion, this is what sets it apart from the Dragon Dancer, whose main sweeping move is Outrage, so being outplayed will end its sweep and likely get it killed. However, with the mixed set (and this is where damage calculations come into play), there is not the same price to pay for being outplayed. First of all, MixMence will do damage right away, and despite Draco Meteor being resisted, it does a load of damage to things like Scizor, as the damage calculations show. How is this relevant to the support characteristic? Significantly weakening some of the best defensive Pokemon in the game despite predicting incorrectly sure sounds like setting up another Pokemon to sweep to me. That bolded part brings me to my next point, which is that the main logical flaw I find in the "outplay it" argument is that it is assuming that it is reliable and you will always or nearly always be able to win the prediction battle. I think on PC this comes from the fact that people using this argument (D_A especially) are so good and such a step above most of their competition that it is an expectation to outpredict them, and rightfully so. But remember, when something is essentially a 50/50 chance, you can't say something will happen nearly 100% of the time (or at least enough that the risk is rendered hardly relevant) just because of your skill. I was always under the impression that you had to assume for the purposes of this test (or argument for/against it) that both the user of Salamence and the defender would be of the same skill level. After all, very good players like the D_As of the world aren't the only people playing on the ladder--in fact, as many of you have cited before, skilled players tend to be in the minority on the ladder. I see the "outplay it" argument in the same light as someone who says that you should go to Vegas because "you will win a lot of money" rather than "you could win a lot of money." The idea that outplaying it someone will suffice in beating the monster that is MixMence baffles me a bit. Not only does it seem to fail to take the risk into account but it also assumes that the defender is more skilled than the user of Salamence, and hopefully I covered these points earlier. Now I will go back to the damage calculations (and yes I realize this argument is not very well-organized, so hopefully you won't miss the forest for the trees in the inevitable disagreeing with me). I'm going to take risk out of it hypothetically for a minute. Let's say you outplay MixMence and thus can always outpredict it when it first comes in. You send in Scizor without the risk of being OHKOed (even though in real battles that exists), but it still takes 50% from a Draco Meteor (average damage of Naive MixMence vs CB Scizor), which becomes 62% with Stealth Rock down. This leaves your Scizor at 38% health assuming it has not taken any prior damage. If you Bullet Punch, assuming Salamence has taken SR damage (plus LO recoil from Draco), you still are not guaranteed to KO Salamence, so if it stays in, it could beat your Scizor; given how important Scizor is to most teams, this is a huge loss. Why does this matter? My point is that D_A pointed this out as an ideal situation for dealing with MixMence yet Scizor still has a chance to lose (especially if it thinks you will switch and uses Pursuit only to find out that Salamence used Fire Blast and didn't switch). I know the theorymon police will be at me on this, but that would be missing the point. I know that these situations are unlikely and I'm not saying they would happen. But, even if Salamence dies, the minimum impact it has is pretty good. But, as a user of Salamence, and I'd like to think a good one at that, I rarely get the minimum impact out of it. My opponents have been burned before thinking that I will Fire Blast specially defensive Skarmory when his Scarf Latias gets massacred by Draco Meteor. Sometimes Scizor is weakened early (or any other Steel-type really, as not all teams carry 3 Steels lol), and Draco Meteor and Outrage can just run through everything. These possibilities do not always happen. But they are important too. Note that this whole paragraph is more or less my opinion on the "outplay it" argument and these are not my reasons for being for the test. I will get to those now.

As I mentioned earlier, those in favor of a test have the burden of proof. However, in this case, all we need to prove is that there is a reasonable concern that Salamence could be Uber. I will ignore DDMence since I do not believe there is reasonable concern that it is Uber, and though I think I briefly mentioned it earlier, I will elaborate further if anyone wants me to. MixMence and the support characteristic is what I want to prove. So I'll get to it now.

Support Characteristic
A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it can consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep.

First of all, I would like to mention that MixMence has almost no good counters or checks. You have to "outplay it" to win, which I covered a few moments ago pretty extensively. Why is this relevant to the support characteristic? Because you can't clear the way for other sweeps if you are just stopped by a common counter and forced out. Then your Pokemon has not accomplished anything. The fact that unless your opponent has Cresselia, a well-played Blissey, or a few others I'm sure I have forgotten about, they will risk losing an important Pokemon every time Salamence comes in because they are forced to outplay it. With losing an important Pokemon comes potentially opening up a sweep. We all know this, but this is if Salamence wins the prediction war. what if it does not? Salamence still does a ton of damage, even when its attacks are resisted. a Scizor at 40% health is no longer much of an answer to Latias. In my experiences, Salamence usually does far more to Steel-types since they will have to switch in again on it or Draco rolls max damage and it already had to come in on a Latias Dragon Pulse earlier, or some similar situation. Even when Salamence is thoroughly outpredicted, it still has a notable impact, and even when it is outpredicted all but once, its impact becomes much larger. This, I believe, is enough to nominate MixMence under the support characteristic. If you don't feel like that's enough, I'm only going to agree to disagree since I can see why some people don't think it is. If you want to argue with how I logically came to that conclusion, I would be happy to argue =)

However, I did mention Blissey earlier. My one and only major doubt about the conclusion I have come to is that MixMence does have trouble with Stall teams--indeed, only they can truly be prepared for any form of Salamence with the possible exception of the Choice Bander, but that is hampered by being locked into one move, something MixMence does not have to worry about unless it foolishly uses Outrage. However, since almost all stall teams run Blissey, Salamence will be forced to use Outrage (and thus sign its own death warrant) or it will have to remove Blissey by luring it with another Pokemon. This certainly goes against the consistently part in the support characteristic, something that I don't even think is violated by needing at least decent prediction (since it's rare that Salamence is thoroughly outpredicted, as I covered earlier). However, stall teams wear it down very quickly and can play around it with a much less significant risk than other styles do, in large part thanks to Blissey. While I do think that a Salamence test is justified, I find difficulty being completely confident in what I have said except for my disagreements with what has been said about theorymon and merely "outplaying it." When the need to outplay MixMence fades to a certain extent (which some stall teams accomplish), it becomes much more average compared to its huge impact against offensive teams. Indeed, such a threat (one that is only dominant against certain play styles) might not need tested at all. In my opinion this is completely subjective. I don't see how a test that could potentially erase any doubt (or confirm it) is harming anyone.

Cute Note: This post is ~500 words shorter than the first set in the Giratina-O analysis. LOL