Lifting the burden of rulemaker

[Articuno64]

This is a post about the tiering process, but at the same time, it is not. It is really much simpler and more fundamental. It has nothing to do with Salamence, Garchomp, ladders, councils, or any of that.

I've felt this way for a long time, but I've hesitated to speak up because it goes right to the heart of a project that is the brainchild of people who are very good friends of mine. The reasons that I'm bringing it up now are that a) I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm not alone in this opinion and b) with Black and White coming up, we all agree that it's important to start on the right path.

I'm calling into question the assumption that having the freedom to control the rules of the game makes the game more enjoyable. In fact, the thesis of this post is the opposite: The very act of opening up the rules of the game for discussion makes the game less enjoyable.

This is an idea that is counter-intuitive but, given some thought, makes a lot of sense. To better explain it, I'm linking to a TED talk called "The paradox of choice" by Barry Schwartz. It's 20 minutes long, and it's a worthwhile listen even if you don't care about this thread. (not all of the talk applies to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we are not qualified to decide what the rules should be; what I'm saying is that doing so makes us enjoy it less)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM

One of the problems that Barry talks about is decision paralysis. We seem to have passed that by moving onto the faster council system. That's fine, I'm willing to accept that we've solved decision paralysis for this.

I would like to focus more on the point made in the story about jeans. The fact is that even if, after all of our hard work, we end up with a metagame that is 'better' or 'more balanced' than we started with, we will actually feel worse about it than if we had just picked a "reasonable default" set of rules and left them untouched.

Before, when you had a problem with a pokemon, your only choice was to figure out how to counter it. Now, you have two choices. You could figure out how to counter it, or you could question whether the pokemon should be banned. Simply having the option to ban things fucks with the way that metagame processes work. You can not play properly because there is always an undercurrent of thoughts about whether something should be banned, will be banned, etc. The foundation is unstable, and although it would be worth having an unstable foundation if it resulted in a better metagame, as I've said, we would not actually feel better about a better metagame anyway. It is a sacrifice which feels noble but is for a perceived benefit which does not actually exist.

It sounds weird, but we need to absolve ourselves of the responsibility for coming up with rule decisions. We need to be desperate to pass the buck as far as we possibly can. How to pass the buck? There are a few ways to do it. Following the rules in official Nintendo tournaments or the stadium game modes is one way. Going with a traditional competitive community ban list (banning the Mewtwos and equivalent stat totals along with the pokemon that have 100 in each base stat) is another way. Really, ANYTHING at all that provides a simple, reasonable, default set of rules that does not need to be constantly up for debate is a preferable system. Then we can finally just play the damn game.

 

[DM]

I remember talking about this at VGC. I know my opinion on pokemon carries little to no weight, but I think this is about more than pokemon (like Arti's video shows). Now that I'm getting into competitive pokemon, I like the discussion this thread will produce.

 

[lilyhollow]

I think the best motivation to get people to "just play the game" is to introduce prizes for tournament wins/ladder performance, but whatever. =) I agree with all of this completely, as long as it applies to other tiers of play as well (so assuming we created an Underused tier, even if Overused developed in such a way that caused some overlap between the tiers, Underused wouldn't change).

 

[mtr]

I disagree, the changing tiers add to the fun of the game. I got into competitive Pokemon at the time of the Stage 2 Latias tests, and we all remember how centralized things were around Dragons and Steels. Now, all that has changed, and Scizor, the old poster-boy of OU, is set to plummet in usage in the new metagame, likely going to be centered around Heatran and Water-types.

Keep in mind that Smogon, at least in the past, rarely makes bans quickly. It took a while to get rid of everything, Deo-E, Garchomp, Salamence, whatever. The set that's widely considered to have defined Latias' Uberness, the Choice Specs set, didn't see widespread use until months after Latias was allowed. It's clear that players take a while to analyze the various sets, and make decisions accordingly.

 

[lilyhollow]

Keep in mind that Smogon, at least in the past, rarely makes bans quickly. It took a while to get rid of everything, Deo-E, Garchomp, Salamence, whatever. The set that's widely considered to have defined Latias' Uberness, the Choice Specs set, didn't see widespread use until months after Latias was allowed. It's clear that players take a while to analyze the various sets, and make decisions accordingly.

The fact that the testing/banning process is often obscenely long is just another reason to avoid it altogether. I'm actually not entirely clear on why you brought this up.

I disagree, the changing tiers add to the fun of the game.

There are plenty of "gimmick" tournaments with a huge variety of rules, and I would support having even more of them were the official tiers made static. I totally understand why people find nonstatic metagames appealing, but they are not in short supply. They dominate this community, in fact, and the proposal in the OP in no way threatens their existence.

 

[Jackal]

this has been my opinion from day one, and is why I have really not tried to get involved with the whole tiering process, I just run the tournaments.

Not worrying about it keeps it much more fun, and id rather play the game than worry about the game or talk about the game.

It is why I quit YuGiOh when I did (the minute they started banning cards) and it is probably the reason DP is my least favourite metagame. RBY is categorized by Tauros, GSC by Snorlax, ADV by Tyranitar and DP by... arguing, theorymon and tier changes. I just don't like it.

I have never been very vocal about any of this, and really I don't have the time or patience to actually fight for the cause because I would rather just put every ounce of time I have for pokemon into the Tournaments forum, but I really do feel for B/W we really need to be careful of the mindset we attack it with.

I would rather people approach that game with an idea in their heads that they need to try to adapt and find ways to beat big threats, and not just set out on day 1 searching for potential suspects already.

I am not trying to fault anyone involved in the tiering process, as it is impossible to fault either their intentions or execution. However, I just believe that is not the best way to approach it.

Basically the point of my post is not to attack anything or anyone, or even try to change anything that has already happen, it is merely to state that I think Jason's point has merit and I think we should really try to approach gen 5 at the very least in the same way we approached gen 4, that being that no one had any idea there would even be a tiering process, and that no one was under any sort of preconcieved notion that we could just cast anything that seemed to strong as a "suspect".

 

[Aeolus]

I agree that a stable game is desirable and should be set as a goal for the next generation. I do not believe adopting the Nintendo rule set is the best way to do it.

 

[TAY]

I also enjoy the changing of tiers and the re-tiering process. It is fun for players (or at least for me) to have to adapt to a new set of circumstances.

Another issue is that it is difficult to pick a "reasonable default" when the game is frequently changing due to the new release of games and events. I think it is fair to say that the changes in platinum have defined the metagame - Outrage Salamence, Bullet Punch Scizor, and the Rotom forms. Even recent additions, such as Nasty Plot Celebi and Eruption Heatran, are potentially extremely powerful (note that neither of these has yet been added to shoddybattle) If nintendo makes an addition that makes a Pokemon possibly banworthy, then we will need to reassess our "reasonable default" - in other words, we will need to create and execute a re-tiering process. This, of course, entirely defeats the porpoise of the "reasonable default".

It's easy to pick the default settings when the game pieces never change, but when they are different every month it seems difficult to decide on a reasonable standard.

EDIT: Also, as pokemon get more powerful in general, it is difficult to avoid banning for power reasons. Comparing DPP to previous generations isn't really fair, since there was a huge jump in power and attacking versatility from ADV to this gen due to Life Orb, Choice Specs, the physical/special split, stronger base power moves (e.g. CC, Outrage, Brave Bird, Draco Meteor and the other 140 base power moves), and high base power moves becoming more common (Superpower tutor aaaaa).

Also, we are trying to create an environment for a game with a strong competitive element. It is silly to say that we should pick default settings just because some people think it would be easier and more fun. That seems contradictory to Smogon's role as a competitive Pokemon community; my impression has been that Smogon is for players who think that the competitive aspect is itself what makes pokemon an enjoyable game. If we aren't doing all we can reasonably do to make the game better for competitive players then in my opinion we are doing something wrong.

 

[Firestorm]

I'm really with Jackal and Articuno here. I still can't figure out what we're trying to achieve with all these changes that are made to the ban list even after reading Doug's old topic about the "desirable" metagame.

I'll be honest in saying that I'm also looking at this thing from a PR perspective. People on regular gaming sites who post in Pokemon topics think Smogon's going crazy lately. And by this I mean people who start learning about competitive Pokemon under the assumption that Smogon is the authority on it (which it is whether we say it is or not).

As for what we're deciding when it comes to tiers:

Is it possible to win without using [Pokemon]?
Is it fun to play in a game with [Pokemon]?

If the answers to either of these were not true, I don't think we'd have had all these people playing in a metagame with [Pokemon] for the past four years. If people are still playing and having fun with it, then it seems we've already reached a desirable metagame. It's the one that has been played for the past four years.

Stability won't be reached by changing the banlist every few months. I appreciate what the tiering process is trying to do - create a more fun game for people to play. But I don't think that's what we're getting at the end of all this.

I like Jason's idea of just starting with the Base 600+ (or Nintendo's Battle Tower banlist) or some other created list. It's just not feasible to continue what has been going on in a game with as many chess pieces as Pokemon.

 

[Aeolus]

I like Jason's idea of just starting with the Base 600+ (or Nintendo's Battle Tower banlist) or some other created list. It's just not feasible to continue what has been going on in a game with as many chess pieces as Pokemon.

Personally, I think we should go with the portion I bolded. If we just do that in the beginning of the fifth generation and stick with it until new games are released or an obvious problem arises then I think we'll be fine. Everyone really had the best intentions at the start of the current process that grew to be so large... but I think going back to the way things were done before might just be the best way.

 

[Great Sage]

I disagree with setting a certain tier list in stone. At any single point in time, we have far from all the information that is available; often, the progression of the metagame reveals previously undiscovered sets that may change our thinking about a specific Pokemon. For example, Garchomp was generally considered powerful, but not overpowered, until its Yache Berry set became popular, after which most people decided it should be Uber. There's a few other examples for which I won't get into specific detail right now.

Firestorm notes the excessively "many chess pieces" as an argument against the Suspect Test process. I see it as the opposite: in a game with so many distinct and different units, it is impossible to achieve the static nature that is required for a locked tier list to be beneficial.

 

[lilyhollow]

I disagree with setting a certain tier list in stone. At any single point in time, we have far from all the information that is available; often, the progression of the metagame reveals previously undiscovered sets that may change our thinking about a specific Pokemon. For example, Garchomp was generally considered powerful, but not overpowered, until its Yache Berry set became popular, after which most people decided it should be Uber. There's a few other examples for which I won't get into specific detail right now.

Firestorm notes the excessively "many chess pieces" as an argument against the Suspect Test process. I see it as the opposite: in a game with so many distinct and different units, it is impossible to achieve the static nature that is required for a locked tier list to be beneficial.

We do not need a static metagame for a locked tier list to be beneficial. The point is that a set-in-stone banlist allows people to focus on dealing with metagame threats using strategy and innovation instead of bans. Whether that metagame is static or not is irrelevant.

Your point seems to be that "well, what if something pops up that is clearly broken? Surely we cannot have a static banlist for fear that these sorts of situations may arise and ruin the metagame forever." And the answer to that is "yeah, you're right, if something completely ridiculous shows up, we'll have to make a small exception. Otherwise, the banlist will still remain entirely static. No big deal." Surely "but this has happened before, once, ever, in the history of competitive Pokemon, unless you ask certain people" does not translate into "the metagame is too inherently variable for us to trust a static banlist at all, let's continue babying it forever." If we run into something devastatingly broken, okay, we'll deal with that when it happens. Doesn't seem like a problem.

If nintendo makes an addition that makes a Pokemon possibly banworthy, then we will need to reassess our "reasonable default" - in other words, we will need to create and execute a re-tiering process. This, of course, entirely defeats the porpoise of the "reasonable default".

Yes, and so we wouldn't do that (barring exceptional circumstances as discussed above).

EDIT: Also, as pokemon get more powerful in general, it is difficult to avoid banning for power reasons. Comparing DPP to previous generations isn't really fair, since there was a huge jump in power and attacking versatility from ADV to this gen due to Life Orb, Choice Specs, the physical/special split, stronger base power moves (e.g. CC, Outrage, Brave Bird, Draco Meteor and the other 140 base power moves), and high base power moves becoming more common (Superpower tutor aaaaa).

I don't even understand this. Yes, DPPt is more offensive than Advance and GSC. It is less offensive than RBY. These are just observations? I mean yeah, people are more likely to freak out about big numbers, or fast games or whatever. Those people are misguided and usually wrong, so I don't know why they're being discussed here.

Also, we are trying to create an environment for a game with a strong competitive element. It is silly to say that we should pick default settings just because some people think it would be easier and more fun.

This is the exact opposite of everyone's point and I am totally shocked to even read it. Where are these members who are supposedly advocating a static banlist for "fun" purposes? Meanwhile, many members such as yourself have suggested that a shifting banlist is better because it is more fun for players to adapt to a changing metagame. I don't know where this is coming from at all.

That seems contradictory to Smogon's role as a competitive Pokemon community; my impression has been that Smogon is for players who think that the competitive aspect is itself what makes pokemon an enjoyable game. If we aren't doing all we can reasonably do to make the game better for competitive players then in my opinion we are doing something wrong.

In our haste to improve the competitive nature of the game, all we've done is turn our attention away from that aspect of the community. Instead of "just playing the game," everyone is focused on what the next order of business is, or whether the latest ban was a "good idea after all." There is nothing competitive about this, and it should be avoided from now on. If that means sticking to a metagame that some people aren't thrilled about (so far that seems to be all of them anyway?), that's fine with me, and should be fine to anyone else who wants to see competitive Pokemon thrive as well.

 

[Firestorm]

I disagree with setting a certain tier list in stone. At any single point in time, we have far from all the information that is available; often, the progression of the metagame reveals previously undiscovered sets that may change our thinking about a specific Pokemon. For example, Garchomp was generally considered powerful, but not overpowered, until its Yache Berry set became popular, after which most people decided it should be Uber. There's a few other examples for which I won't get into specific detail right now.

Firestorm notes the excessively "many chess pieces" as an argument against the Suspect Test process. I see it as the opposite: in a game with so many distinct and different units, it is impossible to achieve the static nature that is required for a locked tier list to be beneficial.

In a game with so many distinct and different units, it is impossible to achieve a static nature so we shouldn't be banning things as the situation arises. That isn't healthy. It's only at the point where the game is no longer fun to play competitively that we should be banning Pokemon from use. Banning something because we think it's overpowered just makes us shitty players who don't want to deal with a problem. A competitive game does not involve this type of behaviour.

I understand the banning of the Pokemon clearly created with the intention of breaking the game - the Mewtwos, Kyogres, etc - but we're obviously going overboard here.

I think one of the problems is the leftover notion that a counter must be able to switch in safely on a Pokemon and anything that doesn't have that is banned. It doesn't seem to apply this gen. I'm just throwing this out there as an idea as again, I really don't play Smogon OU enough anymore to know.

 

[cim]

I don't think any of Smogon's OU voters use that logic anymore. Perhaps the "average Starker", but none of the Council members.

 

[DM]

With yet another generation with 100+ pokemon coming out, is it really possible that there can still be pokes that can't/will not be reasonably countered in some way?

 

[TAY]

Your point seems to be that "well, what if something pops up that is clearly broken? Surely we cannot have a static banlist for fear that these sorts of situations may arise and ruin the metagame forever." And the answer to that is "yeah, you're right, if something completely ridiculous shows up, we'll have to make a small exception. Otherwise, the banlist will still remain entirely static. No big deal." Surely "but this has happened before, once, ever, in the history of competitive Pokemon, unless you ask certain people" does not translate into "the metagame is too inherently variable for us to trust a static banlist at all, let's continue babying it forever." If we run into something devastatingly broken, okay, we'll deal with that when it happens. Doesn't seem like a problem.

Different people have different ideas of what is "clearly broken". You could say that something like 90% of players agreeing that something is broken makes it "clearly broken", but even then you are using your own subjective definition, and we would have to go through a certain process in order to institute a ban. Keep in mind that once you agree that we should allow for bans in any (even an extreme) case, you cannot possibly argue for a static ban list...

Yes, and so we wouldn't do that (barring exceptional circumstances as discussed above).

...Saying "well we should only have bans in extreme cases" is really just saying that we should amend the re-tiering process to tend much more strongly towards OU. In both cases you are trying to make the game better by removing/adding pokemon. Either you want a static ban list or you don't; there is no in between.

I don't even understand this. Yes, DPPt is more offensive than Advance and GSC. It is less offensive than RBY. These are just observations? I mean yeah, people are more likely to freak out about big numbers, or fast games or whatever. Those people are misguided and usually wrong, so I don't know why they're being discussed here.

I was responding to jackal saying that various gens have been defined by certain pokemon, but DPP has been defined by the re-tiering process. I pointed out the differences (specifically, the incredible jump in offensive power) in order to explain why the re-tiering process has taken such a firm hold, and thus why it didn't really make sense to suggest that DPP is somehow worse because of it. In my mind, it was absolutely necessary. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear.

This is the exact opposite of everyone's point and I am totally shocked to even read it. Where are these members who are supposedly advocating a static banlist for "fun" purposes? Meanwhile, many members such as yourself have suggested that a shifting banlist is better because it is more fun for players to adapt to a changing metagame. I don't know where this is coming from at all.

Are you serious? Arti's thesis, in bold, has to do with making the game more or less enjoyable. Fun. Also:

Not worrying about it keeps it much more fun

which is clearly an argument for keeping a static ban list because it is more fun. To continue...

As for what we're deciding when it comes to tiers:

Is it possible to win without using [Pokemon]?
Is it fun to play in a game with [Pokemon]?

It's pretty clear that the amount of "fun" is being used in the arguments for a static ban list. So my argument stands. Besides, you can't possibly argue that we are being more competitive by keeping a static ban list. The entire point of the re-tiering process is to make a more competitive game. And since Smogon is primarily focused on competitive battling, are you saying that the re-tiering process has failed in that respect? If it succeeded there would be no reason to outright reject the process (other than fun or ease).

And I guess I did say that I enjoyed the shifting ban list, but that was just an opinion, and was pretty clearly not a real argument in the sense that it wasn't backed up at all. If changing ban lists are more or less enjoyable to you or me, that's fine, but it isn't an argument.

In our haste to improve the competitive nature of the game, all we've done is turn our attention away from that aspect of the community. Instead of "just playing the game," everyone is focused on what the next order of business is, or whether the latest ban was a "good idea after all." There is nothing competitive about this, and it should be avoided from now on. If that means sticking to a metagame that some people aren't thrilled about (so far that seems to be all of them anyway?), that's fine with me, and should be fine to anyone else who wants to see competitive Pokemon thrive as well.

I think you are struggling to separate your roles as a rulemaker in this community and as a player. The rulemaker's job in this case is to create a metagame with a certain level of competition. The player's job is to "just play the game". So yeah, everyone is focused on "what the next order of business is". And there is nothing wrong with that, because that is the role of the rulemaker.

In order to justify ending the re-tiering process, you must demonstrate the the re-tiering process makes the game less competitive (unless you place value in our [the rulemaker us'] personal enjoyment of the game). The only argument which does that is:

Simply having the option to ban things fucks with the way that metagame processes work. You can not play properly because there is always an undercurrent of thoughts about whether something should be banned, will be banned, etc. The foundation is unstable, and although it would be worth having an unstable foundation if it resulted in a better metagame, as I've said, we would not actually feel better about a better metagame anyway. It is a sacrifice which feels noble but is for a perceived benefit which does not actually exist.

This is actually a rather brilliant argument, but I believe that it falls a bit short when practically applied to competitive pokemon. The flaw is that it assumes that the "unstable foundation" cannot be significantly improved in a short amount of time. I believe that this is false. The removal of Skymin from OU, for example, was a very significant improvement. The council proves that it can be done in a timely fashion.

What it really comes down to is a combination of "competitiveness" (or "stability of foundation") and time; the two multiplied together represent the ultimate total quality of the game over its lifetime. If we can take steps to significantly improve the foundation early on in the lifetime of the game, it will absolutely be beneficial - the perceived benefit of our "noble sacrifice" really will exist.

Arti's argument assumes that we continue the re-tiering process indefinitely, which is what we have done for gen IV. While I think that a re-tiering process is important, if we continue it for an entire generation, we really will be playing with an unstable foundation. Players will half-ass their attempts to counter a certain pokemon if they assume it will be banned. I propose that we run some sort of re-tiering process for a pre-determined amount of time (maybe six or eight months?) and after that time stop completely until a significant change is made (new game release, maybe some other changes?), at which point we wait some amount of time (two months?) and then run the re-tiering process once. Something like this should create a high ultimate total quality of the metagame, and should result in a high-quality ending metagame for people to play once gen VI is (presumably) released. This is obviously a really rough sketch of an idea but I believe that it holds merit.

I would like to emphasize, however, the need to form an entire ban list. Our current process bans or adds only one pokemon at a time, which certainly does not conclusively tell if a pokemon could be viable in a stable metagame. We would need players well versed in the theory of the game to help in its formation. I don't want to go into too much detail about this since this post is already horribly long, so I'll stop here.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

rbygscadv was a lot more fun we just did things on a whim (aka w/e justin felt like atm)......but everythings politics now sigh :(

 

[Aeolus]

for gen 5, i think we should just go back to that, MoP

 

[lilyhollow]

...Saying "well we should only have bans in extreme cases" is really just saying that we should amend the re-tiering process to tend much more strongly towards OU.

No. We would have no re-tiering process. Then, if something arose that absolutely killed the game, it would be intuitively obvious to almost everyone that we should ban it. You can call that a "non-static tier list" if that makes you happy, but I'm pretty sure most of us will be just fine classifying it as a static tier list with a small failsafe built in for crazy, unlikely scenarios.

Are you serious? Arti's thesis, in bold, has to do with making the game more or less enjoyable. Fun. Also:

Yeah, okay, so both sides have argued that their tiering method results in a "more fun" game for everyone. That is pretty unsurprising since it would be pretty difficult to argue for a process that is self-admittedly "less fun" than its alternative. Not sure why you're surprised that I took issue with your post though, since it seemed to imply that the only reason for having a static tier list would be for fun, or to make things easier on us. Those are both probably true, but they are in no way the main point to having a static banlist. Certainly not from my perspective, at the very least.

If it succeeded there would be no reason to outright reject the process (other than fun or ease).

Right, but yes there would be: without it, the community would be able to focus on participating competitively in this "competitive" community. Maybe this falls under "ease?"

While I think that a re-tiering process is important, if we continue it for an entire generation, we really will be playing with an unstable foundation. Players will half-ass their attempts to counter a certain pokemon if they assume it will be banned.

Huh. I really don't understand why your initial post talked about how fun it is for players to adapt to new rules, but okay, this makes me happy.

I propose that we run some sort of re-tiering process for a pre-determined amount of time (maybe six or eight months?) and after that time stop completely until a significant change is made (new game release, maybe some other changes?), at which point we wait some amount of time (two months?) and then run the re-tiering process once. Something like this should create a high ultimate total quality of the metagame, and should result in a high-quality ending metagame for people to play once gen VI is (presumably) released. This is obviously a really rough sketch of an idea but I believe that it holds merit.

Again, this is almost sort of alien for me to read given your other post, but okay. I would make the initial process maybe two months at most though, preferably less. And the "after a new game is released" process, like, no months, or maybe a couple weeks or something if a potential fringe case like Skymin were to arise. I'm not really concerned with whether this would be literally classified as a purely "static banlist." Certainly seems static enough to me, though.

 

[Great Sage]

I can't help but feel that a substantial amount of consternation stems from the fact that the Suspect Test process was a new concept, and inevitably had a few kinks that needed to be smoothed. We learn and adapt as we go on, and it's important that we not trash a new concept just because it didn't work as perfectly as we expected. We went around a couple of circles this generation in attempting to fix the problems that we noticed, and those detours prolonged the process beyond what we anticipated. Does the Suspect Test process still have some problems? It would be foolish to brazenly claim that it does not, but it would be equally foolish to simply give up and not consider that this generation, the process was on its first try.

 

[skarm]

I agree with Arti on this. I personally felt, after Garchomp's ban, a little "dirty" in that I had done something that was incorrect. Granted, there was a myriad of good reasons to remove Garchomp, but now that we've progressed to Salamence as MoP colourfully put it, "the next strongest thing" we're getting a little off track.

However, I do not play DPPt enough to truly argue whether the correct decision was made. Don't you remember when people used to laugh at seemingly 'stupid' bans like Japan's typical ban on Heracross? Well, I wonder what they're thinking right now with the Salamence ban.

I am not suggesting we change anything in DPPt. We should continue with the course that has been set. However, I would suggest starting with the Battle Tower Ban-list in Black and White, and then wait a long while and see how things develop. We may have to then debate whether it is correct to ban anything regardless of how many people complain.

Recall "Skarmbliss" the most evil and fearsome combo ever... ;/

 

[Firestorm]

It's pretty clear that the amount of "fun" is being used in the arguments for a static ban list. So my argument stands. Besides, you can't possibly argue that we are being more competitive by keeping a static ban list. The entire point of the re-tiering process is to make a more competitive game. And since Smogon is primarily focused on competitive battling, are you saying that the re-tiering process has failed in that respect? If it succeeded there would be no reason to outright reject the process (other than fun or ease).

And I guess I did say that I enjoyed the shifting ban list, but that was just an opinion, and was pretty clearly not a real argument in the sense that it wasn't backed up at all. If changing ban lists are more or less enjoyable to you or me, that's fine, but it isn't an argument.

Yes.

I guess I should explain that I do like to think of competitive games in terms of Sirlin's Playing to Win article (which I also saw was linked to in Doug's post back a long time ago in Policy Review). Here's the section on Banning which seems to have been updated since I last read it:

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted.

We don't need to worry about enforceable and discrete as an outright ban on characters in the game is both of these. It's warranted that's the problem.

Much of the article is on tactics, but there's a section at the bottom about characters in Super Street Fighter II Turbo. Just looking at the usage charts, I really don't think what we're doing is healthy to the game.

Personally, I've always thought we should have been looking at reversing bans that were grandfathered in (Evasion and OHKO moves) before moving on to banning more elements of the game.

 

[cookie]

With yet another generation with 100+ pokemon coming out, is it really possible that there can still be pokes that can't/will not be reasonably countered in some way?

No. I've noticed that as the generations have progressed team-building has become a lot harder: in GSC it was very easy to whip up a team because you could counter pretty much everything and still have a fair amount of redundancy in terms of moveslots and even Pokemon. In ADV there was little or no redundancy, but you could reasonably counter everything. In DPPt that all went out the window and the new philosophy adopted was that you made a team that had a particular gameplan (I remember Surgo making a long sticky thread about this) because it was impossible to counter everything in the normal sense of the word.

Pokemon has gotten ridiculous. It's been like this the moment Pt came out and shook the game up so much that we're reeling from its effects even NOW (Salamence wouldn't have been banned if it never had access to Outrage). It's pretty obvious to me that there are so many variables in this game now that trying to regulate it with some elaborate bureaucratic system is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[cim]

Why are we still talking about the concept of a counter? With no offense intended to old veterans, people talking nostalgically about the changes in Pokemon and whether or not you can build a team that defensively responds to "everything" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The concept of "let's make sure my team can counter everything" has been gone for a very long time, and I can't remember a single tiering decision made that was based on the concept of a Pokemon having a "counter" or not. Whether or not a Pokemon has a textbook 100% safe switch in shouldn't be a reason to throw out the entire concept of banning Pokemon or not.

 

[Jackal]

he is not talking about "if a pokemon has a counter", he is just saying that given the fact that it is impossible to make a team that has solid checks for everything, manually fixing the metagame is pretty much impossible. We will never be able to recreate a situation where you could build a team that has a good check for everything, and thus any tier change we make will just change the metagame slightly but never make it better or worse, just more likeable or less likeable. It wont take long for someone to figure out how to "decentralize" this new metagame either, and then we are back at square one.

The best argument there is for continuing along on this circle of tier changes is that it does solidify smogon as the leader in competitive pokemon as we are constantly moving towards advancing things/making things "better". If we stay with some sort of status quo that will invariably make a lot of people angry and they are likely to be a more dangerous group of people when angry than us people wanting status quo, as they can claim smogon is not on the "cutting edge" anymore and blah blah blah.

I am not sure what resolution will come of this thread (if any lol) but really people need to learn the difference between good (great?) and broken. In RBY you could be losing 6-1 and have a last pokemon Tauros and win. If there was anything like that in today's metagame it would be banned instantly. Salamence isn't even close to that. But if you ask any RBY vet who has played more rby games than you can imagine if Tauros should be banned, they would laugh in your face. This has been the prevailing attitude for 3 generations and is the root of why us "vets" are kind of laughing at all these newer people getting their panties in a bunch.

EDIT: To again clarify I am not against the tiering process and I am happy Smogon is trying to be "cutting edge" (at fear of the consequences I stated) and we certainly aren't making things worse but I think it is a bit foolish to think we are making them better either. Which at the end of the day mostly doesn't matter as long as we put up some sort of facade to make people think we are improving things.