np: OU Suspect Testing Round 1 - ...wait, I'm not Jumpman16!

[Raikaria]

May I just point out, on the logic of banning Dark Void for singles, we'd have to logically ban Spore as well, as it's a better sleep move. That's the only way to justify banning Dark Void, without making it obvious that it's being done just to stop Darkrai from being Uber.

Spore is a better version of Dark Void, after all. If Dark Void is broken, Spore is moreso.

 

[fidgety]

Please, learn to fucking read. I've said many, many times that we cannot ban Dark Pulse or Nasty Plot or whatever on Darkrai, because OTHER POKEMON USE THOSE MOVES WITHOUT BEING BROKEN. This DOES NOT apply to Dark Void - Darkrai is the only pokemon who uses the move, and he's broken with it. Ergo it's possible to simply ban the move, which cannot be done with any other move unless all pokemon who use it are broken (this could be an argument for banning Judgement or something, but there wouldn't be much point since Arceus would still almost certainly be Uber, whereas Dark Void being banned could realistically stop Darkrai being broken). So no we won't have to deal with this for every Uber pokemon, since very few are made uber purely on the basis of their signature moves, which are the only moves that could be banned in this way.



Wow. So instead of countering my points (or even reading them, it seems), you question my motives? I'm going to ignore your bullshit claims about my motives because they're entirely irrelevant to the argument. Now, let's dispell some of the other lies you're spouting:

I have at no point ever expressed the opinion that Darkrai can be the only pokemon to have a move banned instead of it. If somebody made a decent argument for Ho-Oh being OU without Sacred Fire, then it too would deserve a test. Ditto for any other Ubers or Suspects whose signature moves are pushing them over the edge. It just happens that the most relavent example of this currently is Darkrai.
I never 'held claims' on anything regarding Doubles Sleep Clause; I said that DV would probably be banned in Doubles under Sleep Clause; I did not claim to know this for sure, and in any case if Smogon does develop its own Doubles metagame independant of the VGC, then it should not be using the singles ruleset, but rather its own independant one, so this debate won't affect anything in a properly-built Doubles metagame.
I am not 'completely oblivious' to Darkrai's other qualities; I have said on numerous occaisons that Darkrai may well still be Uber without Dark Void. However, I, unlike you, am supporting a test of this theory, rather than acting on pure theorymon. The fact that Darkrai's best set (Nasty Plot) relies heavily on Dark Void to set up, and the fact that almost every Darkrai set utilises Dark Void is enough to show that removing Darkrai would make a big difference to Darkrai's power, which may or may not be enough to render him OU-worthy. The only way to find this out is to test it.
Also, you seem to be unaware of how arguments work. If somebody asks question X and I respond with response Y, then if you believe that response Y is weak (or 'doesn't cut it' as you put it), then you respond with response Z. You do not go back to question X. That will just give you response Y again.

I find it rather amusing that you insult my 'argumentative skills' when it seems you haven't been able to master the most basic of all of them; reading. Besides the Doubles argument (and the irrelevant claims as to my 'bias'), everything you said here I've countered before, many times. If you think my counters are weak, then counter them yourself. Don't just ask the same questions again.



I'm not sure about this, but I think your argument is that things will get screwed up if another Dark Void user comes up at some point, yes? Well in that situation we would of course simply have to revise the ban, and if any user of the move was found to be not broken with it, then it could not be banned, and the other users would have to be banned outright if they were broken with it.
On the slippery slope, the only door it opens is to banning other signature moves, since almost all other moves will have at least one non-broken user. For most Ubers, their signature moves (if they have them) aren't the reason they're broken. However, if an argument was made for Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire or similar, then I'd be open to a suspect test. What this system does prevent is the shitstorm created by things like 'Rayquaza minus X-Speed, Outrage, DD, SD, DM, EQ, FB, etc. could be OU!'.
Finally, I sincerely doubt this movepool situation is temporary; GF very rarely distributes legendary signature moves to other pokemon (the exception being the Dragon trio's signatures on event Arceus and Darkrai). However, if another pokemon was to learn DV, then we would simply revise the ban as I described earlier.



As I said to UltiMario, I'm not restricting anything in Doubles since Doubles should be using a different ruleset to OU. Also, of course Darkrai is the problem, but that's because, as I've said on numerous occasions, a move is only as good as its users. Dark Void is in the movepool of a pokemon designed to abuse it, making it more dangerous than Spore. You can't only look at the numerical stats of a move when deciding its brokenness; you must look at which pokemon get the move. Also, you claim that I'm making claims on a 'purely hypothetical basis', when in fact it is you who is guilty of this. I am calling for a test to find out whether or not my hypothesis is correct, while you are dismissing said test based on hypothetical knowledge.



Sorry, your post is way too long and my laptop's running out of battery, but I will say this: yes, we could test Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire or Mewtwo sans Psycho Break in OU, but it's unlikely they'd be found OU, thus they'd be sent back to Ubers. However, if somebody made a very good argument that they'd be OU, a test could be conducted. Water Spout however could not be banned, as no matter how little the pokemon are used, if there are pokemon who use the move to good effect, then the move cannot be banned. I believe Octillery learns it and he can be used to good effect on TR or BP teams (assuming Inconsistent is banned of course, since currently that's his top use).

Regarding abilities, we already are allowing outright ability bans such as Drizzle. In fact, there's a poll on that very thing right now in PR.

Also, on your last point, if you can't see why effectively removing one move from one pokemon's movepool is 'less of a ban' than remocing a whole pokemon, then I'm not going to explain it to you.

I may counter your other points later, but I don't have time atm.

darkrai only needs 1 round of setup + the thing forces switch bs it needs void 2 set up it only needs 1 round. you can't say oh there are plenty pokes other than scarfers that don't suck that can revenge it since 1 most of those are headed for ubers @ the end of round 1, + 2 that doesn't do anythng 2 stop it from being a free kill or 2 at least. also if anything is a ban + a half since your taking it out of 2 pokemons move-pools (applying your own flawed logic). um we've been discussing inconsistant 4 how long now here as well as drizzle. also if you are going to say void is broken on darkrai then so is hypnosis so what r u going 2 say, ban the best distributed sleep move in the game in the name of your apparent fettish 4 darkrai.

 

[domeface]

Please, learn to fucking rationalize. The ONLY reason you're saying Dark Void is broken is because DARKRAI LEARNS IT, meaning Darkrai itself is the problem and not the move. The move itself is NOT broken, because if it were you would automatically have to ban Spore and even Sleep Powder by default as well.

And FYI, Smeargle can learn EVERY SINGLE MOVE IN THE ENTIRE GAME. If Smeargle isn't broken with Dark Void, then Dark Void is NOT a broken move.

And don't act so arrogant on a Pokemon forum. Just because you answered questions that challenge your thought process multiple times does not mean that you were right, so you can't go "Answered already, moving on!"

Yes, well done. Dark Void is broken because it is learned by a pokemon designed to abuse it. As I have said many times, a move is only as good as its users. Flamethrower is to Ember as Spore is to Dark Void, but if the only pokemon that learned Flamethrower was Smeargle and the only pokemon that learned Ember was Reshiram, Ember would be better as the pokemon that can use it is better built to do so. A move isn't entirely defined by its numerical values of power, accuracy and secondary effect.

I don't understand what relevance Smeargle learning every move in the game has to this argument. Obviously I know that DV is learned by Smeargle, and no other move is relevant, so what's your point? As an aside btw, Smeargle doesn't actually learn every move in the game.
As to "Smeargle isn't broken with it", that's irrelevant because Smeargle doesn't USE it. On no set in existance for singles play would Smeargle ever, ever use Dark Void, so him not being broken with it is irrelevant.

As to my 'arrogance', my apologies if I've offended you, but when I'm required to answer the same question countless times I tend to get a bit pissed off. As I said earlier, if you think my answer was wrong or flawed, then counter it with a new argument. Don't just ask the same question again. And FYI, whether I'm right or not, if I've answered a quesiton already and nobody has bothered to actually counter what I said, then I'm fully justified to say, 'Answered already, moving on!'

May I just point out, on the logic of banning Dark Void for singles, we'd have to logically ban Spore as well, as it's a better sleep move. That's the only way to justify banning Dark Void, without making it obvious that it's being done just to stop Darkrai from being Uber.

Spore is a better version of Dark Void, after all. If Dark Void is broken, Spore is moreso.

A move is more than its numerical stats.

darkrai only needs 1 round of setup + the thing forces switch bs it needs void 2 set up it only needs 1 round. you can't say oh there are plenty pokes other than scarfers that don't suck that can revenge it since 1 most of those are headed for ubers @ the end of round 1, + 2 that doesn't do anythng 2 stop it from being a free kill or 2 at least. also if anything is a ban + a half since your taking it out of 2 pokemons move-pools (applying your own flawed logic). um we've been discussing inconsistant 4 how long now here as well as drizzle. also if you are going to say void is broken on darkrai then so is hypnosis so what r u going 2 say, ban the best distributed sleep move in the game in the name of your apparent fettish 4 darkrai.

I'm not even going to bother reading this, it's too painful. It seems you're trying to give me some more theorymon as to why Darkrai would still be Uber without Dark Void. Unfortunately, theorymon means nothing without testing, so your post is meaningless.

 

[More Cowbell]

What the hell is this discussion about anyways? I think banning moves is too risky (or slippery, as one might say), as every idiot can then say ''Rayquaza without ES and DD ain't that good, so dump it in OU''. Why would it actually be a problem if Darkrai got banned? I don't see the fucking deal.

 

[alexwolf]

Sorry, your post is way too long and my laptop's running out of battery, but I will say this: yes, we could test Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire or Mewtwo sans Psycho Break in OU, but it's unlikely they'd be found OU, thus they'd be sent back to Ubers. However, if somebody made a very good argument that they'd be OU, a test could be conducted. Water Spout however could not be banned, as no matter how little the pokemon are used, if there are pokemon who use the move to good effect, then the move cannot be banned. I believe Octillery learns it and he can be used to good effect on TR or BP teams (assuming Inconsistent is banned of course, since currently that's his top use).

Regarding abilities, we already are allowing outright ability bans such as Drizzle. In fact, there's a poll on that very thing right now in PR.

Also, on your last point, if you can't see why effectively removing one move from one pokemon's movepool is 'less of a ban' than remocing a whole pokemon, then I'm not going to explain it to you.

I may counter your other points later, but I don't have time atm.

the point which i want you to think is that by taking away a pokemon's signature move which is a basic aspect of it,u are not anymore using that pokemon..and i don't understand why u believe that if a move is broken in all of it's users it should be banned and not if a combination of pokemon and move is broken then the move should be banned...why do u think that it is a valid arguement to ban a move completely from ou play(which equals to banning the move in just one pokemon in darkrai's case,and this convenient condition is letting u form that arguement)and not ban a move only in the pokemon that is becoming broken with it,without banning it in all other pokes that use that move without being broken...so why banning draco meteor only on latios or seed flare only on skymin is not a valid arguement and your's is?just explain me...

 

[fidgety]

Yes, well done. Dark Void is broken because it is learned by a pokemon designed to abuse it. As I have said many times, a move is only as good as its users. Flamethrower is to Ember as Spore is to Dark Void, but if the only pokemon that learned Flamethrower was Smeargle and the only pokemon that learned Ember was Reshiram, Ember would be better as the pokemon that can use it is better built to do so. A move isn't entirely defined by its numerical values of power, accuracy and secondary effect.

I don't understand what relevance Smeargle learning every move in the game has to this argument. Obviously I know that DV is learned by Smeargle, and no other move is relevant, so what's your point? As an aside btw, Smeargle doesn't actually learn every move in the game.
As to "Smeargle isn't broken with it", that's irrelevant because Smeargle doesn't USE it. On no set in existance for singles play would Smeargle ever, ever use Dark Void, so him not being broken with it is irrelevant.

As to my 'arrogance', my apologies if I've offended you, but when I'm required to answer the same question countless times I tend to get a bit pissed off. As I said earlier, if you think my answer was wrong or flawed, then counter it with a new argument. Don't just ask the same question again. And FYI, whether I'm right or not, if I've answered a quesiton already and nobody has bothered to actually counter what I said, then I'm fully justified to say, 'Answered already, moving on!'



A move is more than its numerical stats.



I'm not even going to bother reading this, it's too painful. It seems you're trying to give me some more theorymon as to why Darkrai would still be Uber without Dark Void. Unfortunately, theorymon means nothing without testing, so your post is meaningless.

darkrai fits the offensive + support aspects of an uber. offensive since it in the right hands can rape the entire meta w/ 3 move np/dark pulse/fb/filler. support due to it having enough bulk + speed to use it's many support moves trick/WOW/void(or hypnosis)/t-wave/taunt/torment/nightmare/toxic to name those that i can think of off the top of my head.

 

[domeface]

What the hell is this discussion about anyways? I think banning moves is too risky (or slippery, as one might say), as every idiot can then say ''Rayquaza without ES and DD ain't that good, so dump it in OU''. Why would it actually be a problem if Darkrai got banned? I don't see the fucking deal.

ES and DD have other non-broken users. And true it's not that big of a deal, but I still think it's worth a test, since less bans is better according to Philoshophy.

@fidgety: care to share how you know Darkrai fits these characteristics without Dark Void? Have you tested this yourself?

 

[fidgety]

@fidgety: care to share how you know Darkrai fits these characteristics without Dark Void? Have you tested this yourself?

actually yes i have in ubers it's still a force w/o void so now imagine ou in fact some rimes when i do have void even i don't use it + still get more than i need from darkrai.

 

[Lamppost]

ES and DD have other non-broken users. And true it's not that big of a deal, but I still think it's worth a test, since less bans is better according to Philoshophy.

@fidgety: care to share how you know Darkrai fits these characteristics without Dark Void? Have you tested this yourself?

I'm against banning moves on pokemon, if they have a move and it's "broken" then it should be in ubers end of story. Plus even if we did test it the tiering proccess would be slowed down and i don't think anyone wants that.

 

[haunter]

ES and DD have other non-broken users. And true it's not that big of a deal, but I still think it's worth a test, since less bans is better according to Philoshophy.

I can't see your logic here. What does the underlined mean? If you're trying to get the least possible bans by banning certain moves on certain Pokemon, then you should also accept that without ES and DD Rayquaza may be OU, without sacred fire oh-ho may be OU, without roost Lugia would be probably OU, without air slash and earth power we would not even discuss about Skymin's tiering, the list goes on.

The fact that Drakrai is the only Pokemon (barring Smeargle) that learns DV doens't mean much. If DV is a "broken move" itself, then spore and sleep powder are broken as well. In this case you're basically suggesting to ban sleep moves in general.

My point is that, even from a philosophical standpoint, it really makes little sense to ban DV on Darkrai, especially since it sets a very dangerous precedent.

That said, I believe that even without DV, Darkrai would still be too powerful for OU.

 

[PokéMontage]

As I have said many times, a move is only as good as its users

That's why we ban the users and not the moves.

The only way a move could be broken all on its own is if an significant amount of competitive Pokemon would become broken with said move, meaning that the move is universally broken.

As to "Smeargle isn't broken with it", that's irrelevant because Smeargle doesn't USE it. On no set in existance for singles play would Smeargle ever, ever use Dark Void, so him not being broken with it is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether it uses it or not. It can learn it, and its not broken with it, so why should Smeargle be banned from using it?

It is impossible for just Dark Void to be broken without Spore and even Sleep Powder being broken as well.

 

[Chomper The Sharptooth]

By precedent (Soul Dew clause) we've shown we can allow ourselves to tweak our Pokemon to keep them OU. While I didn't like Soul Dew clause for that reason I don't see how it's any different than banning Dark Void, after all Soul Dew wouldn't be broken if Rampardos had it.

I still think we shouldn't ban anything but Pokemon (and inconsistent -_-) but domeface isn't wrong because we've done this sort of thing before.

 

[haunter]

Banning items doesn't set any precedent about banning moves, if anything because there are no broken items other that SD on the Lati twins. And anyway, nobody in their right mind would actually support Giratina\Palkia\Dialga in OU without their signature item (they would be still broken).

 

[domeface]

I can't see your logic here. What does the underlined mean? If you're trying to get the least possible bans by banning certain moves on certain Pokemon, then you should also accept that without ES and DD Rayquaza may be OU, without sacred fire oh-ho may be OU, without roost Lugia would be probably OU, without air slash and earth power we would not even discuss about Skymin's tiering, the list goes on.

I'm not suggesting banning certain moves on certain pokemon, for that very reason - it opens a huge can of worms that results in a hugely slippery slope. However, in this somewhat unique situation, we can ban a move outright and only affect broken pokemon, possibly to the extent of them becoming OU-worthy, similar to the Soul Dew Clause last gen - it applied to all pokémon, but only actually affected Lati@s.

The fact that Drakrai is the only Pokemon (barring Smeargle) that learns DV doens't mean much. If DV is a "broken move" itself, then spore and sleep powder are broken as well. In this case you're basically suggesting to ban sleep moves in general.

But by this reasoning, couldn't one argue that if Soul Dew is a broken item, so too is Light Ball? Since the net boost it provides is +2/+2, while Soul Dew only grants a +1/+1, and the stats boosted by Light Ball are definitely as useful as Soul Dew's, possibly even moreso. The key difference that makes Soul Dew broken and Light Ball not is that the pokemon who can use the boosts are much better built to abuse them in Soul Dew's case than Light Ball's. If Light Ball had been available to Latios it would have been unbelievably broken, but relegating it only to Pikachu prevented this.

I understand that the analogy is not perfect, as there is no hold item which grants a +2/+2 to SpA and SpD, but we all know that if such an item did exist and only worked on Luvdisc, nobody would find an issue with it.

So is the case with Dark Void and Spore; despite Spore being numerically superior and Sleep Powder numerically almost identical, neither move is available to a pokemon as well-equipped to abuse Sleep as Darkrai. His stat spread, access to Nasty Plot and near-perfect two-move coverage make him absolutely perfect for a Sleep abuser. This doesn't apply to the likes of Breloom, who has mediocre two-move coverage and low speed preventing him from being the monster Darkrai is despite Spore being numerically superior.

You may argue that as it's the fault of the pokemon and not the move, why should the move be banned and not the pokemon? While this is a valid viewpoint, we have precedent for going against it in the form of the Soul Dew clause - 491 of the pokemon that could hold it weren't broken with it (or at least weren't any more broken with it), and yet it was banned rather than the 2 pokemon it was broken on. This is because the other 491 pokemon wouldn't use it anyway, so the banning of the item only directly affected the two broken ones.

My point is that, even from a philosophical standpoint, it really makes little sense to ban DV on Darkrai, especially since it sets a very dangerous precedent.

That said, I believe that even without DV, Darkrai would still be too powerful for OU.

But if we were to phrase it carefully, we are merely following a precedent that has already been set, by the Soul Dew clause. We would make it very clear that only outright bans on moves are allowed. This could open the door to Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire and similar things, but not Rayquaza sans ES or DD, as outright bans on ES or DD would massively affect a large number of perfectly non-broken pokemon.

As to Darkrai still being broken sans Dark Void, I happily admit that that is indeed very possible; however, I'm of the opinion that since Darkrai's best set, Nasty Plot, relies heavily on DV to set up, and almost every common Darkrai set utilises DV (and even sets that don't run DV may rely on the opponent assuming you are to work properly), the removal of DV will make enough of a difference to Darkrai that it's impossible to accurately theorymon whether or not it will still be broken, thus necessitating a test.

EDIT: @PokéMontage:

That's why we ban the pokemon and not the items.

The only way an item could be broken all on its own is if an significant amount of competitive Pokemon would become broken with said item, meaning that the item is universally broken.



It doesn't matter whether it uses it or not. It can hold it, and its not broken with it, so why should Kakuna be banned from holding it?

It is (almost) impossible for just Soul Dew to be broken without Light Ball and even DeepSeaTooth being broken as well.

Oh, wait...

 

[haunter]

I'm not suggesting banning certain moves on certain pokemon, for that very reason - it opens a huge can of worms that results in a hugely slippery slope. However, in this somewhat unique situation, we can ban a move outright and only affect broken pokemon, possibly to the extent of them becoming OU-worthy, similar to the Soul Dew Clause last gen - it applied to all pokémon, but only actually affected Lati@s.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how banning items affects a possible banning move policy. Anyway, if I recall correctly, on Shoddy Battle, the soul dew clause didn't prevent you from using Soul Dew on Lati@s, it just made the item have no effect when equipped. So you could technically equip the item, but without gaining any stat boost.

So is the case with Dark Void and Spore; despite Spore being numerically superior and Sleep Powder numerically almost identical, neither move is available to a pokemon as well-equipped to abuse Sleep as Darkrai. His stat spread, access to Nasty Plot and near-perfect two-move coverage make him absolutely perfect for a Sleep abuser. This doesn't apply to the likes of Breloom, who has mediocre two-move coverage and low speed preventing him from being the monster Darkrai is despite Spore being numerically superior.

Eh, I kind of agree here, but I'm sure that somebody may say that Breloom has 130 base Atk, access to swords dance and technician mach punch, bla bla bla. So yeah, theoretically Breloom is a well equipped sleep abuser as well.

You may argue that as it's the fault of the pokemon and not the move, why should the move be banned and not the pokemon? While this is a valid viewpoint, we have precedent for going against it in the form of the Soul Dew clause - 491 of the pokemon that could hold it weren't broken with it (or at least weren't any more broken with it), and yet it was banned rather than the 2 pokemon it was broken on. This is because the other 491 pokemon wouldn't use it anyway, so the banning of the item only directly affected the two broken ones.

Then again you can technically equip every Pokemon with sould dew, you can do it in-game and I'm sure it may be programmed on PO as well if need be. Though this a pretty dumb argument to be honest.

But if we were to phrase it carefully, we are merely following a precedent that has already been set, by the Soul Dew clause. We would make it very clear that only outright bans on moves are allowed. This could open the door to Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire and similar things, but not Rayquaza sans ES or DD, as outright bans on ES or DD would massively affect a large number of perfectly non-broken pokemon.

Again I don't support the use of the SD analogy here. It's not really relevant whether a move is one Pokemon exclusive or it can be learned by a large number of Pokemon. The point is that, from a philosophical standpoint, trying to avoid Pokemon bans by banning certain moves on certain Pokemon should also apply to non-exclusive moves such as ES and DD.

Anyway since this argumet is becoming quite slippery, I'll just stop here.

Also @ people posting in here: since I had to delete\edit some semi-inflammatory posts earlier, I suggest everybody to think twice before posting as I'll start infracting that kind of post, thanks.

 

[Ice-eyes]

The bottom line is this: the following should be the criteria for banning moves / abilities. If a move / ability is so good that it breaks several pokemon with that move, and is a significant factor in the brokenness of those pokemon (think Inconsistent), then it should be banned. If, however, the move / ability itself is not good enough to break multiple pokemon, then any one pokemon that is broken with that move should be banned. In the case of exclusives, it has to be applied a little differently, but think. Soul Dew is an exclusive item that is a massive factor in Lati@s' brokenness, and many pokemon would be broken with an item that gives +50% to SpA and SpD. Dark Void, however, is not broken in and of itself. Many other pokemon have comparable (even better in the former case) sleep moves like Spore and Sleep Powder, yet none of these are broken.

 

[B-Lulz]

The bottom line is this: the following should be the criteria for banning moves / abilities. If a move / ability is so good that it breaks several pokemon with that move, and is a significant factor in the brokenness of those pokemon (think Inconsistent), then it should be banned. If, however, the move / ability itself is not good enough to break multiple pokemon, then any one pokemon that is broken with that move should be banned. In the case of exclusives, it has to be applied a little differently, but think. Soul Dew is an exclusive item that is a massive factor in Lati@s' brokenness, and many pokemon would be broken with an item that gives +50% to SpA and SpD. Dark Void, however, is not broken in and of itself. Many other pokemon have comparable (even better in the former case) sleep moves like Spore and Sleep Powder, yet none of these are broken.

The bolded bit is the exact reason why I think Inconsistent should be banned, and not Sand Veil/Snow Cloak. This post hit the nail on the head for me. Banning abilities really should be a last resort imo.

 

[alexwolf]

And something else to domeface...if you are saying that we should nerf a pokemon with a move,which makes the combination of those 2 broken,why not put a lvl clause...for example why ban dark void and not restrict darkrai being only lvl 80 or 90 to make up for the possesion of dark void...ur arguement was that if we ban a move completely from ou it shoudn't create any slippery slope,'cause only if all of the move's users were broken with that move it would be banned,which funny enough happens only to darkrai...and u support that banning a move is better than banning a poke...so if we decrease the lvl of said pokemon it would be even better, cause a restriction on lvl is even less of a ban than a ban of a move...do u support putting a lvl clause???

 

[dragonmaster951753]

Alexwolf.... i think you are going too far

But i would like to hear the reasons as to IF dark void was to be banned, how would Darkrai survive? I want to hear this from the people saying he is OU without DV. I still believe he would be Uber, i feel like without DV he would run specs and how Dark Pulse, Psychic, Focus Blast, Spacial Rend (maybe not Psychic but couldn't hurt) and with him being able to hit ANYTHING unresisted backed with specs and fast speed, he would still wreck OU by himself

 

[More Cowbell]

Alexwolf, just keep this on the topic, don't start about level clauses, as it doesn't have shit to do with this.

 

[domeface]

Alexwolf.... i think you are going too far

But i would like to hear the reasons as to IF dark void was to be banned, how would Darkrai survive? I want to hear this from the people saying he is OU without DV. I still believe he would be Uber, i feel like without DV he would run specs and how Dark Pulse, Psychic, Focus Blast, Spacial Rend (maybe not Psychic but couldn't hurt) and with him being able to hit ANYTHING unresisted backed with specs and fast speed, he would still wreck OU by himself

Such a debate would be pointless as theorymon is never a match for actual evidence. To turn down a DV ban because Darkrai would still be Uber is ridiculous, since it's impossible to know that without testing. I'm by no means claiming Darkrai will definitely be OU without DV, I'm saying that given what we know, there is a good enough chance of it that it warrants a test.

@alexwolf: aside from everything else, a level clause would create yet another slippery slope where Kyogre, Arceus et al will all have to downleveled to fit in OU. The only way for a level clause to work would be to make everything Lv90, which defeats the whole point.

EDIT: @Haunter Soul Dew being equipable but having no effect would be impossible to implement with our new strict mechanics policy, so I believe the point still stands. As to the relevance of Soul Dew Clause where moves are concerned, it basically shows that elements that can be added to a pokemon but aren't necessarily always present (ie, items/moves/abilities, not stats or typing) can be banned outright if they are only used by pokemon who are broken with them, even if numerically superior items/moves/abilities exist but are not broken on the pokemon who can use them. An item is effectively a move that is used by default either every turn (Life Orb, Leftovers, Soul Dew) or once when prompted (Berries, Focus Sash), so if we can outright ban an item that is technically numerically inferior to others and can be used on pokemon who are not broken with it, but do not use it because it's useless on them, then why can't we do the same for a move?

 

[Raikaria]

A move is more than its numerical stats.

Just on this point:

Yes, several moves are more then their numerical stats. Take Stealth Rock, for example, or Thunder Wave.

However, I'm compareing two moves which are identical except for their numerical stats. Don't mention the type, as there's roughly the same number of pokemon with an immunity ability [Justice Heart and Herbivore]

As soon as you bring in Breloom or Darkrai into the logic [IE: Darkrai can abuse the move more] you're supporting that Darkrai is broken, not Dark Void.

The point is, if Dark Void is broken, every pokemon with a move that did the same, or better, would, logically, be broken, unless they had a very good reason otherwise.

This is not the case. Spore is better than Dark Void. Breloom is a perfectly good pokemon, armed to abuse Spore as well as Darkrai can abuse Dark Void. Vrey few claims of Breloom being broken are in my memory.

So, by this logic, Dark Void is not broken. If Darkrai is too much for the metagame to handle, it's Darkrai that is broken, not Dark Void.

Oh, and, to draw some paralells between Darkrai and Breloom:

Both have a 90%+ accurace Sleep Move.
Both have a move which gives them +2 in their stongest attack stat, and can then use a STAB which will outspeed most [Dark Pulse/Mach Punch]
Both have a very high attack stat.
Both have reasonable ability to switch in [Breloom by type and Poision Heal, Darkrai by natural bulk.]
Both can abuse their sleep move to almost ensure at least one KO. [SubPunch Breloom, NP Darkrai]

What breaks Darkrai is probobly not Dark Void, but it's high speed coupled with it. Dark Void helps, yes, but if it was Breloom's speed, it would be nowhere near as much of a threat. Imagine Breloom with Base 125, or even 110, Speed. He'd probobly be out of OU before you could argue otherwise. [And he'd still have a lower BST than most of 4th Gen OU too!]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. By logic, banning Dark Void would entail banning Spore, which is a superior version of a 'broken' move, so, logically, is broken itself. There's no logical argument as to how Dark Void would be broken, while Spore is not. Unless you're talking Doubles/Triples. But then it's banned via the Sleep Clause.

I will hold this veiw about Spore and Dark Void unless someone can give me a VERY good reason otherwise. And that would be a reason that dosen't include the ability of the pokemon that carry the move to abuse it, as we are argueing if a move is broken, so the ability of a carrier to abuse said move is a moot point.

tl;dr:
Compareing the numerical values on Spore and Dark Void is perfectly acceptable, as it's the only comparison to make.
Darkrai is broken, Dark Void itself not, although it is a contibuteing factor.

 

[fidgety]

Such a debate would be pointless as theorymon is never a match for actual evidence. To turn down a DV ban because Darkrai would still be Uber is ridiculous, since it's impossible to know that without testing. I'm by no means claiming Darkrai will definitely be OU without DV, I'm saying that given what we know, there is a good enough chance of it that it warrants a test.

@alexwolf: aside from everything else, a level clause would create yet another slippery slope where Kyogre, Arceus et al will all have to downleveled to fit in OU. The only way for a level clause to work would be to make everything Lv90, which defeats the whole point.

EDIT: @Haunter Soul Dew being equipable but having no effect would be impossible to implement with our new strict mechanics policy, so I believe the point still stands. As to the relevance of Soul Dew Clause where moves are concerned, it basically shows that elements that can be added to a pokemon but aren't necessarily always present (ie, items/moves/abilities, not stats or typing) can be banned outright if they are only used by pokemon who are broken with them, even if numerically superior items/moves/abilities exist but are not broken on the pokemon who can use them. An item is effectively a move that is used by default either every turn (Life Orb, Leftovers, Soul Dew) or once when prompted (Berries, Focus Sash), so if we can outright ban an item that is technically numerically inferior to others and can be used on pokemon who are not broken with it, but do not use it because it's useless on them, then why can't we do the same for a move?

the difference is latias actually had a very good chance of being ou without soul dew. darkrai already has more spa than latios more speed than most of ou. only 4 that likely exist or will be used after a couple rounds of suspect that outspeed darkrai w/o a speed up + ko back: jolteon, ninjask(is outclassed now), agirudaa, aerodactl, crowbat, meloetta-step(unreleased), + swellow/weavile have a speed tie (unreliable) while latias was on the high end of the average @ the time (100-110). darkrai can go +2 in a single round latias could only +1 in that time.
+ you criticize alexwolf/gravityzero about opening a slippery slope when you were opening 1 yourself in fact gravityzero's give or take no less.

 

[domeface]

the difference is latias actually had a very good chance of being ou without soul dew. darkrai already has more spa than latios more speed than most of ou. only 4 that likely exist or will be used after a couple rounds of suspect that outspeed darkrai w/o a speed up + ko back: jolteon, ninjask(is outclassed now), agirudaa, aerodactl, crowbat, meloetta-step(unreleased), + swellow/weavile have a speed tie (unreliable) while latias was on the high end of the average @ the time (100-110). darkrai can go +2 in a single round latias could only +1 in that time.
+ you criticize alexwolf/gravityzero about opening a slippery slope when you were opening 1 yourself in fact gravityzero's give or take no less.

Please, that was actually painful to read. Is it really that difficult to use the Shift key every once in a while? And does it really take that much longer to type 'at' or 'and' instead of '@' or '+'?

Onto your actual argument. You seem unable to grasp the concept that you cannot make these assertions without evidence. You have not played in a metagame where Dark Void is banned and Darkrai allowed, so you cannot possibly know that Darkrai would still be Uber without the move. You may share your opinion on the matter, and state that you are of the belief that Darkrai is still Uber without Dark Void, but your opinion is not a fact. You have no evidence to back up your claims (you say that you've used Darkrai in Ubers without DV and that it's powerful there, therefore it must be too powerful for OU. This is universally accepted as utter bullshit reasoning that means absolutely nothing. A pokemon's performance in Ubers has nothing to do with its performance in OU), therefore they are mere opinions, and should be expressed as such. Haunter, cosmicexplorer and the other intelligent people who disagree with me have managed to express their opinions as just that (not to mention complete with capital letters and all), while you seem intent on spouting your opinion as fact.

As to the 'slippery slope' I am supposedly creating, the furthest it can go would be to the banning of Sacred Fire on Ho-Oh or Psycho Break on Mewtwo, but the number of situations where the banning of a signature move results in an otherwise Uber pokemon becoming OU is sufficiently few that the 'slipperyness' is minimised.

 

[fidgety]

Please, that was actually painful to read. Is it really that difficult to use the Shift key every once in a while? And does it really take that much longer to type 'at' or 'and' instead of '@' or '+'?

Onto your actual argument. You seem unable to grasp the concept that you cannot make these assertions without evidence. You have not played in a metagame where Dark Void is banned and Darkrai allowed, so you cannot possibly know that Darkrai would still be Uber without the move. You may share your opinion on the matter, and state that you are of the belief that Darkrai is still Uber without Dark Void, but your opinion is not a fact. You have no evidence to back up your claims (you say that you've used Darkrai in Ubers without DV and that it's powerful there, therefore it must be too powerful for OU. This is universally accepted as utter bullshit reasoning that means absolutely nothing. A pokemon's performance in Ubers has nothing to do with its performance in OU), therefore they are mere opinions, and should be expressed as such. Haunter, cosmicexplorer and the other intelligent people who disagree with me have managed to express their opinions as just that (not to mention complete with capital letters and all), while you seem intent on spouting your opinion as fact.

As to the 'slippery slope' I am supposedly creating, the furthest it can go would be to the banning of Sacred Fire on Ho-Oh or Psycho Break on Mewtwo, but the number of situations where the banning of a signature move results in an otherwise Uber pokemon becoming OU is sufficiently few that the 'slipperyness' is minimised.

so your saying with darkrai even if it doesn't have void around ALL PLAY SYLES will be viable (that is the definition of a healthy meta-game). no, stall will be non-existant. mence ban ring a bell, before it stall could not hold it's own, afterwards it was usable since the things that blocked it were gone and a healthy meta was established. with darkrai 1 to 2 shotting every wall in existence that will not be the case.