Meta Battle Subway PokeBase - Pokemon Q&A

Can I get some help understanding BSTs?

0 votes

I've heard 50-something described as "God-awful" but mid/high 60's "fairly decent." Right now I'm not getting the right perspective on BST values.

asked Dec 1, 2013 by [InsertUsernameHere]
I just realized it shouldn't be BST's cuz the 'T' stands for 'Total.' And I would edit that, but removing the 'T' would make it awkward.

2 Answers

2 votes
 
Best answer

Albeit there is a excellent answer, wherever a stat is good or not is very much relative to what competition it faces.
The best example of this is the Speed stat. Salamances speed of 100 is great compared to Tyranitars 61. But if you instead compare Salamance with Garchomp who have 102 Speed, Salamance is relatively speaking not so good (and trust me, those two extra speed can be absolutely crucial).

And this is really the case of every stat. Gardevoir is almost never used in higher competative batteling because it's stats is incredibly similar to Alakazams, and it's just to relatively weak to properly function. That being said, it's stat still aren't so terrible it's never used. In the certain division it's actually used Gardevoir is a powerhouse, since it's stronger than its competition.

So there is no set value of a stat being good or bad.
97 Speed in OU is below avarage and isn't that good because of the myriad of faster Pokemon.
97 Speed in UU is quite fantastic since almost the entire tier is slower than 97.

With all this being said, some extreme stats are, relatively speaking or not, are really really good. Blisseys HP or Ninjasks Speed is really really good, no matter how you look at it. But this is only in extreme cases. Generally stats are relative to the most common oponenent, and it's only in extreme cases the can be properly solidified as good or bad.

I know this is a very fuzzy answer, but I hope it helped.

answered Dec 1, 2013 by Flafpert
selected Dec 1, 2013 by [InsertUsernameHere]
You just proved that an in-gamer and competitor's point of view on stats are different. Kudos to you. xD
I now have much less confusion. Thanks.
2 votes

Oh, there's no official stat rater of the internet, but IMO:

-60: Terrible, awful. Seriously, quite bad. xD
60-70: I guess you could call it "indecent" or "unsatisfactory".
70-80: Decent, satisfactory stat. I think stats below 80 deserve attention.
80-90: Good, "over-average" stat.
90-100: Great stat!
100+: Impeccable stat, use it to your advantage.

...Yeah. Normally, if there is a problem with a Pokemon's stat, you just EV train-up that stat, and it will be all better in competitive battle. But from my point of view, these are my opinions. I see you're learning about competitive battling though, but an in-gamer's and a competitive-battler's point of view is probably the same, unless it isn't. If so, then I'm probably never gonna learn competitive. Just sayin'. o_o

Hope I helped. :)

answered Dec 1, 2013 by !'•-Indigo-•'!
IMO anything under 80 is mediocre.
Well this is MO. So stop IMOing my MO or I'll IMO your FTSIMO!
:3