Order of Operations

[DougJustDoug]

I've been heads down coding for quite some time. I haven't ventured too far outside of the CAP forum for a couple weeks, but I would like to get my votes in on this. As the admin of a popular Shoddy server, I see a LOT of talk and logs regarding the current metagame. Even if some of the users have dubious battle credentials, there is still quite of bit of information there. That is the data informing my rankings below.


1. Garchomp
The only thing more obvious than the need for this decision, is the outcome. As much as I cringe at the idea of yet-another "Is Garchomp Uber?" discussion, if it yields a definitive result -- I welcome it.

2. UU Tiers
Considering that we will be running a UU ladder on the server, we need to get this settled somewhat. The bitching has already started on the current UU list. It will only intensify when the ladder is up. I do not think the decisions affecting the upper end of the OU tier, preclude a concurrent evaluation of the UU tier. The overlapping effects on each other are negligible.

3. Evasion Clause
There's a whole generation of new metagame players that think Evasion isn't the great evil that the "old timers" make it out to be. Almost all top players despise all forms of hax, with evasion at the top of the list. Brightpowder Chomp has made this issue white-hot in the current game. This needs public scrutiny. Although I'm doubtful there will be a change in policy.

4. Manaphy
This is the only uber I think will be moved, if it comes to a vote. Therefore it should be decided first. Even if slightly broken, I like the thought of a pokemon that might make rain a common strategy in OU.

5. Lati@s
6. Mew
7. Darkrai
These three are listed in the order I think they have a chance to move. All of these are remote in my opinion. But, they should have their day in court.

8. OHKO Clause
9. Species Clause
10. Arceus
Non-issues IMO. I don't think any of these pose a pressing need.

 

[makiri]

1. Garchomp
Garchomp is knocking on our door, and seems to be the most pressing issue to most battlers at the moment.

2, 3, 4. Evasion Clause, Species Clause, OHKO Clause
These seem easy to resolve, and we should get a final ruleset before diving into anymore Ubers should be OU.

5, 6. Mew, Manaphy
Clumped together because while they are different, they are also similar, and are quite commonly compared to other Pokemon like Deoxys-S, Celebi, Jirachi, etc.

7. Lati@s
If Manaphy seems broken, these two might balance it out, and should these two be allowed, a revisit to Garchomp may be necessary.

8. Darkrai
No reason, I just feel it has the lowest chance of getting into OU, but if others are allowed in, Darkrai may make an appearance.

9. UU Tiers
I think these will sort themselves out after time, and if we introduce several current Ubers into OU, the creation of UU tiers may have been done for nothing.

10. Arceus
Seems like a non-factor and could even be done first, theres no "legitimate" way to obtain it and until an event pops up I doubt we will be seeing this anytime soon.

11. Garchomp
Like I said should several ubers make it to OU Garchomp will need a revisit.

 

[skarm]

While I do not play too often anymore I'll weigh in here since Jumpman asked me to check his threads in Policy Review the other day. It should be noted that while I do not consistently play, I do take a peak at the forums every now and then, and have just recently started playing on Shoddy again.

1. Evasion Clause/Species Clause/OHKO Clause

-Before even looking at the participants for such an OU game environment we should all make sure we're clear on the accepted rules as they have been since the days of RBY, GSBot, and so on. Perhaps in this new environment certain arguments are meaninglessly. Such as, while I am sure people can find a way to abuse Sheer Cold, I would argue how effective it would be to place an OHKO user on a standard team with an offensive game element seen today.

2. Latios/Latias and possibly aside: With Soul Dew, or not?

- I think this is probably an easy debate. However, the real debate will consist of whether or not to allow Latios and Latias with Soul Dew or not. Regardless, as with the rankings below for most Uber-OU tier discussions, they will take extensive testing, and possibly not individually. Allowing all of Latios, Latias, Mew, Manaphy, Darkrai, Deoxys-E, and Garchomp (more on Garchomp later, though, but I'm only adding it to this list to keep some people happy) at once will show that perhaps they bring each other balance. I could see, for instance, Latios and Latias perhaps bringing Garchomp some balance as a revenge killer, or Manaphy giving us another bulky water type to fight back with that also has sweeping potential (and landed it in the Uber tier straight off).

3. Manaphy

- I think Manaphy was banned too quickly, but I also don't entirely disagree with that. However, if perhaps Latios, Latias, Deoxys-E, and other parties are allowed, I believe Manaphy could easily be allowed back in. However, when this comes up for discussion and test we will have to find out what exactly are valid IVs and Nature combinations for Manaphy. As far as I know it only is available through the TRU mystery gift(?)

4. Darkrai

-Beyond Dark Hall I don't really see what the big deal is. (Aside: Hi Tekky say hello to Lucius =D) Its not overly powerful and I think it could fit in well with other "ubers" being allowed back in. Most probably won't even use it since it doesn't quite have the potential of even Deoxys-E. Maybe I'll eat my words, but we'll leave that for the tests to decide.

5. Mew

-This is still a toss up in my mind. It'll take testing either way.

6. Arceus

-I hope this discussion is of the mind that it is whether or not to allow Arceus period in Ubers until it is released. If its as easy as that we may as well move it higher. If not die.

7. Garchomp

-Seeing this even on the list makes me sad. I suggest leaving it until all the other tier discussion aspects above are finished. With Manaphy, Latios, etc. Garchomp may find more balance. I personally have no issue with it. It is a good Pokemon, yes, but there seems to be ample counters I've seen to it.

8. UU Tiers

-I don't play UU, but I think it can wait until after the standard metagame is down pat.

I would emplore you guys all to, rather than test things individually, allow Deoxys-E, Latios, Latias, Manaphy, Darkrai, and what not perhaps all at once. We may find some balance others very well.

 

[Jumpman16]

ok, can someone tally up the numbers, and rank them golf style (lowest score is more important)?

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

bored so i'm on it

1. Garchomp (66)
2. Lati@s (105)
3. Evasion Clause (114)
4. Manaphy (116)
5. Species Clause (120)
6. OHKO Clause (126)
7. UU Tiers (135)
8. Mew (141)
9. Arceus (153)
10. Darkrai (156)

i had to make some judgement calls on how to count some votes (listing issues under the same number and whatnot) so if you don't trust my judgment feel free to double check me.

 

[Brawley]

1.Lati@s
2.Manaphy
3.Darkai
4.Mew
5. Garchomp I think having this last on the OU agenda is important to see how the other 4 if unbanned change the metagame
6.Arceus
7. UU tiers
8. Evasion
9. Species
10. Ohko clause

 

[Jumpman16]

bored so i'm on it

1. Garchomp (66)
2. Lati@s (105)
3. Evasion Clause (114)
4. Manaphy (116)
5. Species Clause (120)
6. OHKO Clause (126)
7. UU Tiers (135)
8. Mew (141)
9. Arceus (153)
10. Darkrai (156)

i had to make some judgement calls on how to count some votes (listing issues under the same number and whatnot) so if you don't trust my judgment feel free to double check me.

no, this is good enough, thanks

counting the votes under it we have:


1. Garchomp (75)
2. Lati@s (116)
3. Evasion Clause (126)
4. Manaphy (127)
5. Species Clause (136)
6. OHKO Clause (150)
7. UU Tiers (158)
8. Mew (159)
9. Arceus (172)
10. Darkrai (176)


give our take a few maybe, whatever. voting's closed now

it's pretty clear to me that we need to implement this no-garchomp ladder on shoddy asap because garchomp is a big dick. however, it is also clear to me that getting rid of stealth rock is something that we may want to decide on before doing any of this stuff. it's a pretty big question...maybe the question is now to run a "no-SR ladder" before a "no-Garchomp ladder"? what do you guys think, your input is pretty important on this one since SR affects the metagame immensely

 

[skarm]

it's pretty clear to me that we need to implement this no-garchomp ladder on shoddy asap because garchomp is a big dick. however, it is also clear to me that getting rid of stealth rock is something that we may want to decide on before doing any of this stuff. it's a pretty big question...maybe the question is now to run a "no-SR ladder" before a "no-Garchomp ladder"? what do you guys think, your input is pretty important on this one since SR affects the metagame immensely

It is clear that people whining is more effective than people contentedly playing the metagame! Of course I will argue against the banning of both Garchomp and Stealth Rock. While both are major components of the current metagame, one should note some famous quotes from NetBattle user information:

"NO SPIKES NO SKARMORY NO SALAMENCE NO CURSE etc." Rough translation: No anything that beats me. Regardless, if the community cares so much about Garchomp and Stealth Rock, sure, try a ladder, but I personally would find it foolish.

Naturally of course we should be realizing that the people who do not want to see Garchomp banned (either through apathy or they believe that it is not as bad as others) are not going to be posting things like "Garchomp is fine!" in the forums. While it may seem there is a huge public outcry, we should remember that people who are for something are less likely to say anything than people are less likely to not say anything.

Also, I'll take something from the context of my job, the hospitality industry to prove a further point: "Only 10% of our customers will tell us how they feel. Our customers are more likely to tell us when they are disatisfied with our service than happy." Basically put, the people who are unhappy with concepts such as Garchomp and Stealth Rock are more likely to say so and create a stink so to speak than those who believe they are fine.

Just my two cents.

 

[Jumpman16]

Well, I agree with your sentiment skarm, but I will remind you of the ultimate effect of the bold voting process: anyone whining had better have a great reason for either side, or their vote will be discarded. I hope the Deoxys-S vote will be remembered in this regard—while I may not tally future votes and certainly won't force anyone to tally votes as strictly as I did, I think it's pretty clear that no one is doing anyone any favors by listening to "NO SPIKES NO SKARMORY NO SALAMENCE NO CURSE etc."

If the community "cares so much about Garchomp and Stealth Rock" etc, then they had better be willing to weigh in convincingly on the only stage that really matters: when we do a bold vote. Until a better idea is offered as to how we are going to fairly decide on any of these issues, we are going to have to stick with the bold voting process, as much as I don't feel it's necessarily the fairest way. But we will do it justice by chucking both "NO SPIKES NO SKARMORY NO SALAMENCE NO CURSE etc." and "Garchomp is fine!" votes if neither are thoroughly expounded on. And while it may normally be true that 10% of people will tell us how they feel, I feel that more applies to Stark Mountain threads than a bold voting process that begins in PR. There's seriously no excuse for pretty much everybody who care about any of our issues to not only bold vote on them when it comes time for the issues to be weigh in on (both in this forum and in Stark), but to vote on them convincingly, because I feel we have made it clear that this is the way we will be deciding on issues until a better alternative is suggested and agreed upon.

I certainly have no problem making that clear at the beginning of every bold vote going forward as part of the "bold voting template" or whatever...but seriously, if any of you have a better idea of how strict or lax someone should be when he or she tallies votes, please weigh in in this thread. Even if I were to volunteer to tally all bold votes from now on, I would appreciate hearing from those of you who felt I may have been a little too strict on the votes (with examples, of course).

 

[Cynthia]

I personally feel that there should be testing for a ladder without Garchomp/Stealth Rock before any bold voting, so that a similar process to Deoxys-E/Wobbuffet are followed. People played D/P with and without Deoxys-E and Wobbuffet and Garchomp/SR should be given the same opportunities. The order in which Garchomp and Stealth Rock are tested is fairly unimportant, though they should not be tested simultaneously.

Also Jumpman, while I appreciate your efforts to count all the bold votes I do feel you were a bit on the harsh side. Like some votes were eliminated for being "too short" while other votes were counted that has similar length to eliminated votes. Just something I noticed.

 

[Jumpman16]

We're definitely going to actually have experience with a no-Garchomp or -SR metagame first before we do any bold voting, don't worry about that.

As for how I tallied the votes, which again I am bringing up more because I want myself and/or anyone else who tallies votes in the future to get it right than to rehash an old argument for no reason, what do you mean when you say "too harsh"? Was it because I discounted all the ones I too strictly felt were too short, or because I counted (I assume you meant that instead of "discounted" here because the sentence doesn't make sense otherwise) votes of a similar length? I ask because one speaks of harshness and one speaks of bias and I want to be clear which one you mean (again, pointing to examples will help not only me but everyone else out here).

 

[Cynthia]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=146 this one for example, was rejected for being too short.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=222 this one was accepted. Note how similar the length of the posts actually are.

I'm not suggesting you were horribly biased or anything, but in general, votes should probably be accepted unless the user offers no explananation whatsoever or just comes off as a total idiot.

 

[Jumpman16]

Thank you. To look at little more closely at those posts, the rejected one has 77 words, the accepted one 84, so yes, similar in length. The reason I didn't like "146" is because, for the "Garchomp is counterable" argument he took, he was not detailed enough, which has a lot to do with the fact that for whatever reason over 25% of his post included a "kills choice scarf" counterargument that's poor regardless. That's why I thought it was too short. In contrast, all of the words in "222" serve to support his "I think that's asking too much" conclusion, which is the most important thing to do in a bold vote: state your conclusion, and back it up convincingly.

And what I actually think the main point here is that the vote I rejected was an OU vote, and the vote I accepted was an Uber vote. If anything, when I tallied I demonstated a bias towards accepting OU votes (25) and rejecting Uber votes (6), not the exact opposite. To address the second half of your last sentence, I personally think we should ask a little more of our users on these important issues.

 

[Aldaron]

Uhh, I am completely against even the testing of banning Stealth Rock without SIGNIFICANTLY more debate.

So far, even the most "comprehensive" of debates have said that Stealth Rock increases the viability of X (for example, Focus Sash Pokemon and Articuno / Charizard), but then it also keeps Y in check (Gyarados, Salamence FOCUS SASH (lol))

Seriously (it may seem like I am oversimplifying the debate and therefore ignoring the efforts of the many individuals who participated in it), I have to agree with skarm 100% regarding his sentiments on Stealth Rock.

It really seems to me that people against it are just complaining for the sake of complaining. Unlike Garchomp, which has shown a significant increase in usage over the past few months, which has reduced the number of OU Pokemon (the "objective" side) and which a majority of the knowledgable players believe is broken due to its inability to be safely checked, let alone countered (since killing with two hits Yache Chomp in Sand is only a 64% chance), the Stealth Rock issue is really a "fledgling" one.

Garchomp has been debated ad nauseam, and while there may be plenty of disagreement with what to do regarding its tiering, there is little disagreement regarding what action we need to take: play a Garchomp-less ladder.

The Stealth Rock issue needs more time, frankly. I really need to see something other than "increases the viability of X...but then also keeps Y in check" because (ignoring the fact that statements like these are very similar to statements like "Deoxys-S destroys the viability of offensive teams that rely on resistances") that's what every damn variable in the metagame does. If opponents of Stealth Rock are claiming that it does it to an extreme extent, I am going to need to see much more proof.

Because (cue my subjective statement), I have never seen Stealth Rock make any sort of a HUGE impact on a game. It has always been an auxilary factor, made to HELP me sweep with something.

Is an auxilary strategy really so detrimental to the metagame that it deserves banning? If so, how can you prove this to me other than using theorymon, while potentially true (note I don't care if it is true or not), that may or not be relevant? I say this because...well, anything can increase the viability of X.

I'd also like to point out that in no way do we have to defend Stealth Rock. A Stealth Rock metagame is the accepted status quo, which means the responsibility is solely on the ban Stealth Rock crowd. I'm not going to say what Stealth Rock does for the metagame; I just want to know specifically why it is detrimental for it.

I don't consider the "objective" or "centralizing" arguments to be the sole determining factors in these kinds of debates, so if you guys want to present more logs in that Stealth Rock topic demonstrating specifically how Stealth Rock made a huge impact that could not be played around, I'll be more than happy to review it.

 

[RBG]

The reason no one has seen the Stealth Rock impact on this metagame like you describe is because we have always played DP with Stealth Rock. Stealth Rock has been used from the beginning the same way it is now. Garchomp, however, has been fleshed out, with new sets being used. There are many ways to use Garchomp some of which only came around recently, while there is only one way to use Stealth Rock. If we really want to see the impact it has, then a Stealth Rockless metagame should be tested.

 

[Aldaron]

Uh what? "We don't know X's impact on the metagame, so let's test one without it!"

No. Obviously that is the wrong sort of thinking. We're not going to test every potentially problematic factor in the metagame. There has to be reason for testing it. I want reasoning. At least more than "X is made more viable...but wait, it might actually be good by making Y less viable."

Also, to be honest I don't really understand your point, RBGolbat, can you clarify the following for me:

1.) "The reason no one has seen the Stealth Rock impact on this metagame like you describe is because we have always played DP with Stealth Rock."

You mean we cannot determine the impact X has on Y else unless we know how Y is without X? I disagree. I can certainly state the impact Stealth Rock has on the metagame. What I cannot do, and I am finding difficult to do, is stating some sort of detrimental impact it has.

2.) "Stealth Rock has been used from the beginning the same way it is now. Garchomp, however, has been fleshed out, with new sets being used. There are many ways to use Garchomp some of which only came around recently, while there is only one way to use Stealth Rock."

What do you mean it has been used the same way? Do you mean we still click "Select move" (or whatever) to use a move? Because uh...duh >_> If you mean the same types of Pokemon use it...then I have to flatly disagree. If you mean it has the same purpose...well obviously the move hasnt changed, but it certainly does not have one purpose. It helps teams deal with surprise Focus Sash, helps teams turn 3HKOs and 2HKOs into 2HKOs and OHKOs, helps teams build up residual damage, and helps keep various threats in check etc. etc.

But the second part of this makes it seem that if you are right and we have been using Stealth Rock similarly from the beginning that it would be easier to determine its impact on the metagame. Or am I missing something there?

3. "If we really want to see the impact it has, then a Stealth Rockless metagame should be tested."

Again, why can't we determine the impact now? Granted, playing a metagame without it would help us determine the full impact, but is this even necessary? I don't think we should waste our time with it without significantly more evidence from the anti-Stealth Rock sect regarding the negative impact it currently has on the metagame.

A little clarification, please ^_^

 

[Aldaron]

O, I really hate to do this, since I personally would love the current OU metagame without Garchomp, and I know that Jump has said that voting is closed...but um I think this is kind of necessary.

So let's assume that all this definition of ubers stuff will have us continuing to dance around like prancing ponies, and we won't actually get anywhere. With that in mind...it seems making subjectively intelligent decisions regarding the status quo is, unless some sort of miracle occurs and we suddenly find AND agree on an acceptable definition for uber, the best course of action for now.

Well, for now it seems that testing OU without Garchomp is a viable (and extremely attractive to people like me) option.

But what about these questionable ubers? Deoxys-S (yes I know it was basically decided to be OU but that was in an environment with Garchomp and Wobbuffet and without the questionable ubers), Deoxys-D (I know it hasn't been brought up officially but it is certainly a questionable uber), Darkrai, Manaphy, Mew, Lati@s (without Soul Dew) and Wobbuffet (probably will always be banned due to our intrinsic hatred for its effect (potential effect even) on the metagame, so you can remove this from the list) all are considered questionable ubers.

Are we going to test all of these simultaneously?

I assume my misgivings won't prevent the Garchomp-less ladder from being implemented, so I'll assume the realistic outcome. Let's say after some arbitrary period of time, the Garchomp-less ladder has (using whatever subjectively based or objectively based methods we have) determined Garchomp is in fact uber, and Garchomp is now banned.

What are we doing with these other questionable ubers? I know the definition of uber bit isn't an issue, as it isn't going to be an issue (evidently anyway) with Garchomp. So once Garchomp is banned, what are we doing with them?

Are we going to take the flawed approach currently taken in the UU / BL topic by unbanning or two at a time, or will we unban and test simultaneously. You all know my views on it...I think we should unban and test them at the same time.

But since we're going ahead with this Garchomp-less ladder, won't this mean that we will have to unban Garchomp again?

Or are we in effect saying we don't really care about these questionable ubers, we have the OU metagame that we want and Garchomp (and some clauses which honestly I never see being unbanned. People can say whatever about OHKO, Evasion, and Species clause but popular demand will have them remain as clauses) is the only questionable variable?

Because it seems kind of weird to spend so much time and energy with this Garchomp-less ladder when we will in effect have to unban it again for the ladder that simultaneously tests all the questionable ubers (if that is in fact the decision).

 

[Cynthia]

I was under the impression that they would be tested one at a time. This shows whether they imbalance current OU, regardless of whether they counter each other or not.

 

[Jumpman16]

The question is: why shouldn't we regard whether or not they counter each other? It's a very important and pertinent question, and it's one we haven't given much thought to, but must now.

I don't think there's an argument that we can't say for sure how "throwing them all in at once" will affect the metagame, so I think we all should agree that, if we're willing to have a "No-Garchomp" Ladder, we should be as willing to have a "Suspect Test" Ladder (I have previous defined "suspect" as any pokemon currently currently in OU or Uber that may be better suited for the respective other tier). I certainly don't think this:

Or are we in effect saying we don't really care about these questionable ubers, we have the OU metagame that we want and Garchomp (and some clauses which honestly I never see being unbanned. People can say whatever about OHKO, Evasion, and Species clause but popular demand will have them remain as clauses) is the only questionable variable?

is even remotely true, though.

So, the concept is about as simple as you can conceive of. Put all the current suspects together on an alternate ladder and see what happens. The hard part is attempting to make sense of:

"well Lati@s checks Garchomp including Yachechomp which is good but it is kind of broken in itself but wait Darkrai checks Lati@s kind of but it especially does with Tyranitar and/or Metagross support and Pursuit Metagross already checks DX-S so it's viable but Manaphy doesn't give a shit about Metagross and gets rid of Tyranitar's Sand but this makes every non-Garchomp suspect harder to counter BUT it makes Garchomp easier to counter which is good right but what about NP/BP/Hyp/Psychic Mew..."

I honestly don't see the harm in throwing them all in there together to see what happens, under the premise that we agree that an alternative ladder that won't disrupt the real metagame/ladder is a good idea. The issue is how easily we will be able to analyze what we see. Please weigh in on this one, guys, as by definition it's at least six times as important as the issue of Manaphy, Mew, Darkrai, Lati@s and Garchomp by themselves.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

What you create in that situation is nothing short of a mess. We have to be methodical when approaching this process. If we throw everything together how exactly do we determine what Pokemon out of the pack are broken and which ones aren't?

And I absolutely abhor the idea that lowering a "check" makes something like Garchomp any less uber. None of these Pokemon are direct counters to one another. Testing Garchomp and Lati@s at the same time is in no way similar to say testing Groudon and Lugia at the same time. I've seen people mention this several times in response to the Garchompless ladder. "We should test the other suspects first because Lati@s checks Garchomp" is a ridiculous statement. None of the "suspects" directly counter Garchomp and since it really is the pressing issue in the metagame I truly feel we should get it out of the way first, by itself.

As far as the other suspects I feel, rather than lumping them all together, we should test them individually starting with the most likely to end up OU (which happens to be the order they landed in on the list). I'm using the same reasoning here as I did for Garchomp. None of these Pokemon directly counter each other so therefore testing them together just creates an indiscernible mess. Say in this situation we test Lati@s first and find that it isn't too overpowering for the metagame, well then Lati@s moves on to what I'll call "Stage 2" of testing. However if the general consensus is that Lati@s is completely broken, Lati@s is kept in ubers. When Manaphy is tested next, we test the metagame without Lati@s even if Lati@s passed Stage 1. We do this for all Uber suspects. When we've completed all 4 tests, we then test a metagame with all suspects that passed Stage 1. This is to see if a combination of Pokemon, while not individually overwhelming to the metagame, places too large of a burden on the game. For instance, Lati@s and Manaphy both may fit into OU just fine, but when they're combined they might break the metagame (highly unlikely, but it's a necessary step). Then of course we bold vote :D.

Yes it sounds like a long and tedious process. But if we're trying to be precise we simply can't do everything at once. It'd be a mistake if we did.

 

[Aldaron]

Wait, the entire point of moving them down together is because a metagame with different Pokemon is a different metagame. How can you move Deoxys-D down, test it or whatever, and then ban it, and then assume the ban for Latios is fair with the the presence of Deoxys-D?

You need to ban them all at once. You see the metagame as it stabalizes, and then you determine what is the issue.

Banning one at a time really makes no scientific sense lol.

Each different banning is a different metagame lol.

In fact, I completely disagree with Jabba when he says banning at once is more work. Banning one at a time and deciding one at a time is more work.

Banning all at once allows us to simply wait for the metagame to reach basic stability, and then we can decide which Pokemon in that stablized metagame are problematic.

Basically, banning one at a time makes no sense lol, primarily because a different metagame is created each time, and you won't get a consistent test each time.

Ban altogether, let that metagame stabalize, then introduce problematic Pokemon. I don't see why that is an issue.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

First

In fact, I completely disagree with Jabba when he says banning at once is more work. Banning one at a time and deciding one at a time is more work.

i agree...you misunderstood me or something :/

And onto the main points of your post. The problem I see is that the metagame isn't going to "stabilize" with that many threats just plopped into the game. Like I said, I believe the result of unbanning all 5 at once creates an indiscernible mess. Also take in to account that these Pokemon are offensive Pokemon for the most part (mew, latias and manaphy can be used defensively but that's not really the reason they were banned in the first place!). 5 extremely potent offensive threats is going to completely fuck up the game, especially if we do this with Garchomp still present. We're already looking at a metagame that's been leaning offensively. Add these 5 threats and that shift will be complete. Now with a majority of teams being 6 sweeper teams, how exactly do you determine exactly which sweeper is the broken one? I know this is all theorymon but I'm just pointing out huge potential problems that exist in unbanning them all at once.

I know each unbanning results in a completely different metagame. But stage 1 isn't for determining whether a Pokemon should be unbanned. It's to determine whether or not the Pokemon is inherently broken in OU. This method only works with these 5 Pokemon because none of them are direct counters to one another. After each Pokemon is tested we then test the metagame only with the ones we find are not inherently broken to make sure everything stabilizes and the metagame is healthy with all at once.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

And I absolutely abhor the idea that lowering a "check" makes something like Garchomp any less uber. None of these Pokemon are direct counters to one another. Testing Garchomp and Lati@s at the same time is in no way similar to say testing Groudon and Lugia at the same time. I've seen people mention this several times in response to the Garchompless ladder. "We should test the other suspects first because Lati@s checks Garchomp" is a ridiculous statement. None of the "suspects" directly counter Garchomp and since it really is the pressing issue in the metagame I truly feel we should get it out of the way first, by itself.

I am inclined to agree with this. "Let's unban more Uber pokemon to make Garchomp look worse!" is a terrible idea.

I also agree that unbanning all of the "suspects" at once would create a mess in the game so bad that we wouldn't be able to tell if anything is broken or not, especially since none of them actually counter each other like Jabba said. If we use the idea of unbanning solely to keep current OU pokemon in check, I can see this slowly turning into "well +Speed nature Groudon is faster than neutral Manaphy and its sun cancels out Rain Dance and Sand Veil and its 140 base Defense can help counter Garchomp so maybe Groudon is OU material after all" etc. I mean, just look at what happened when Deoxys and Wobbuffet were unbanned within only a few months of each other. Their usages fluctuated constantly (and still do) and each of them just created a huge distraction when discussion about the other was brought up. There isn't any real way to discern whether or not something is broken already, so how would a system like that even work? If we say "usages will determine it", Garchomp should be banned already. If it's "too overpowering", we get people who say "well MY teams dont have trouble beating it!" I don't think that dropping Mew/Deoxys-D/Lati@s/Manaphy etc at the same time is a good idea and its akin to just throwing random chemicals into a tub of acid for no reason and hoping that it doesnt explode.

Plus, if the only way to keep a certain OU pokemon in check is to unban Ubers, doesn't that say something about the OU pokemon in question?

 

[Aldaron]

Who said anything about this having anything to do with checks?

I am speaking in strictly scientific terms. We have a set of Pokemon we deemed to be questionable.

All I'm saying is that it makes ten times more sense to test that altogether than testing them one at a time in intrinsically different metagames.

I have no idea why you two are going on about this check stuff. We have a group of Pokemon that are considered questionable...so we move them down.

I thought the only issue here was one at a time or altogether?

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Not everything said is directed towards you. The idea of "checks" has been thrown around by a lot of people recently so me and jrrrr were just elaborating upon our positions on the subject.