np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[XienZo]

And I really can't see banning Politoed because "there are too many abusers" as lazy at all (though to quoted post didn't say that, I've seen it before). Smogon typically wants to ban as few things as possible as well, so banning one Pokemon causing things to be broken would be closer to policy than banning multiple Pokemon who are only there because of a certain threat.

It's only banning "more" pokemon in technicality, not in reality.

Banning Politoed bans Drizzle, which cuts the use of many rain-abusers to negligible levels where they're hardly better off from being banned altogether.


Claiming that banning "one" Pokemon in Politoed versus "many" individually, would thus better follow smogon policy, is just a political loophole if anything.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that the claim that a SwSw ban would ban "no" pokemon, since they also have an alternate ability, is likewise just political euphemism that hardly reflects the actual effects it would have.

 

[alexwolf]

Yay, someone else who has my view on Aldaron's Proposal. Banning individuals is a much better solution than banning combos. However, I don't like the evasion idea. If Alderon's Proposal is repealed, the additional usage of rain will mostly mitigate the need for something like that anyways. But if not, people are really just using that as an excuse to hinder Garchomp (and to a lesser extent Sand Veil Gliscor). If you can prove that Pokemon like Sandslash and Glaceon, or anyone else for that matter, is broken because of it then we can talk about its ban. But if not, always go for individual Pokemon before Abilities.

i don't need to prove anything...the point with sand veil and snow cloak is not brokeness...it has been said several times...it is uncompetitiveness!!!

it's the same principle that got brightpowder and double team banned(or do you really think that brightpowder and double team were broken?)....this point has to be made clear eventually...
everyone is saying that if sand veil was broken it would be in any pokemon not only on garchomp when the real issue is not brokeness but uncopetitiveness...

it's pure introduction of luck without any benefits to the metagame....!

bans don't happen only on broken things....evasion raising moves and items weren't banned 'cause of brokeness but 'cause of uncompetitiveness!this point has to be made clear to the community so we can all speak on the same basis...

 

[Diana]

It's only banning "more" pokemon in technicality, not in reality.

Banning Politoed bans Drizzle, which cuts the use of many rain-abusers to negligible levels where they're hardly better off from being banned altogether.


Claiming that banning "one" Pokemon in Politoed versus "many" individually, would thus better follow smogon policy, is just a political loophole if anything.

I really believe it would better follow policy, just because you don't agree doesn't make it a political loophole.

Things not being as viable if Politoed would be banned doesn't ban those Pokemon, just cuts off the source of what makes some of those too good collectively.

That said, I do wish we could get a hard ruling on what the policy really means nowadays because it seems like everyone's view of it is quite different. I think it would make a good bit of difference.

 

[Lightning Tiger]

If you really want that, provide some reasons. Just saying what we should do without an reason is not constructive. I don't want to pick on you specifically, but it just keeps happening. If you really want it banned, just give a good reason why.

Reason?

2 choices

1) Ban drizzle, problems of rain being ridiculous solved.

2) Ban pokemon that are stronger thanks to drizzle and keep doing it until rain isnt ridiculously powerful anymore.

Id rather #1 happened... less pokemon banned to ubers.

 

[jas61292]

i don't need to prove anything...the point with sand veil and snow cloak is not brokeness...it has been said several times...it is uncompetitiveness!!!

it's the same principle that got brightpowder and double team banned(or do you really think that brightpowder and double team were broken?)....this point has to be made clear eventually...
everyone is saying that if sand veil was broken it would be in any pokemon not only on garchomp when the real issue is not brokeness but uncompetitiveness...

it's pure introduction of luck without any benefits to the metagame....!

bans don't happen only on broken things....evasion raising moves and items weren't banned 'cause of brokeness but 'cause of uncompetitiveness!this point has to be made clear to the community so we can all speak on the same basis...

First, I have to say there is a major difference between Brightpowder/Double Team and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak. The former can be used at any time. The latter only during specific conditions.

Additionally, I do not really get what you mean by uncompetitiveness. It seems you are saying that it is not broken, but just something that we do not want in our game. That is a perfectly legitimate argument.

However, I believe these abilities are too situational and minor to really warrant a ban.

Reason?

2 choices

1) Ban drizzle, problems of rain being ridiculous solved.

2) Ban pokemon that are stronger thanks to drizzle and keep doing it until rain isnt ridiculously powerful anymore.

Id rather #1 happened... less pokemon banned to ubers.

Ummm.... Those aren't really reasons. Those are options of what could happen. I just want to know why you prefer the option you chose, not just which one it is.

 

[XienZo]

I really believe it would better follow policy, just because you don't agree doesn't make it a political loophole.

Things not being as viable if Politoed would be banned doesn't ban those Pokemon, just cuts off the source of what makes some of those too good collectively.

You're missing the point; you have to understand the REASONING behind the smogon policy to get it:

The idea goes:

Less bans => less restrictions => more choices => better metagame

thus

More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

However, if you "ban" politoed, you have:

Ban Politoed => Ban Drizzle => Cut viability of rain abusers
----------------------------------------|
----------------------------------------V
More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

Sure, it doesn't create "more bans", but in the end, it does the same thing as more bans would, and in the end, is just as detrimental.

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that this is obviously a simplified version of the policy and doesn't reflect every single detail of the policy, but it captures the gist of what I was getting at.

 

[Lightning Tiger]

Ummm.... Those aren't really reasons. Those are options of what could happen. I just want to know why you prefer the option you chose, not just which one it is.

I prefer it because it would mean less pokemon banned to Ubers, yes thats a reason.

 

[Diana]

You're missing the point; you have to understand the REASONING behind the smogon policy to get it:

The idea goes:

Less bans => less restrictions => more choices => better metagame

thus

More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

However, if you "ban" politoed, you have:

Ban Politoed => Ban Drizzle => Cut usage of rain abusers
---------------------------------------| |
----------------------------------------V
More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

Sure, it doesn't create "more bans", but in the end, it does the same thing as more bans would, and in the end, is just as detrimental.

I understand that too, but I disagree that it will necessarily create less choices. Pokemon rise and fall in usage all the time, and if rain abusers are used less something else could very well get more usage because they can function in a metagame without Politoed more nicely, meanwhile still having the option to use said rain sweepers with Rain Dance, something that banning rain sweepers themselves would not allow.

In the end you still end up with more options to choose from in the long run.

 

[Lightning Tiger]

Hey, let's just get rid of 100+ BP moves and NOTHING needs to be banned!

There are multiple 100+ BP moves and theres only one Drizzle. Banning drizzle to save multiple pokes is worth the sacrifice, banning all the 100+ BP moves would not be (thats a lot of moves).

 

[XienZo]

I understand that too, but I disagree that it will necessarily create less choices. Pokemon rise and fall in usage all the time, and if rain abusers are used less something else could very well get more usage because they can function in a metagame without Politoed more nicely, meanwhile still having the option to use said rain sweepers with Rain Dance, something that banning rain sweepers themselves would not allow.

Whoa, whoa, stop right there. Now, I want to make sure you understand that we're not blanket banning rain sweepers. We're suspect TESTING the rain sweepers; some like Kingdra WILL inevitably get the boot, while those like Huntail likely won't. Ultimately, only Kingdra, and possibly Ludi/Kabutops/Gorebyss/RainGenies would go for sure, leaving the VAST majority of rain abusers to have the freedom to go for rain offense OR rain stall, granting much greater options than Rain Dance + Sweepers alone.

There are multiple 100+ BP moves and theres only one Drizzle. Banning drizzle to save multiple pokes is worth the sacrifice, banning all the 100+ BP moves would not be (thats a lot of moves).

Drizzle would only save a handful, but the moves would save much, much more. You're basically banning Drizzle in bulk; more stuff banned, but more stuff saved. Besides, Drizzle takes up like, what, 1/3rd of Politoed's potential abilities? I assure you that 100+ BP moves make up MUCH, MUCH less than 1/3rd of pokemon's movesets.

Oh, you say that's not an accurate representation of usage?

Well, I assure you that the percentage of teams that depend on Drizzle is greater than the percentage of moves on a team that have 100+BP.

 

[Diana]

Whoa, whoa, stop right there. Now, I want to make sure you understand that we're not blanket banning rain sweepers. We're suspect TESTING the rain sweepers; some like Kingdra WILL inevitably get the boot, while those like Huntail likely won't. Ultimately, only Kingdra, and possibly Ludi/Kabutops/Gorebyss/RainGenies would go for sure, leaving the VAST majority of rain abusers to have the freedom to go for rain offense OR rain stall, granting much greater options than Rain Dance + Sweepers alone.

Oh I definitely know, but my argument is basically that Politoed is the driving force behind this, and you don't agree. That's fine, it's going to happen, but I think it's better to ban the driving force behind things being broken and not the result, if that makes sense. I guess it's just two ways of looking at the same problem.

That all being said I'll admit there's a long way to go in this particular test, and I can't rule out changing my mind later. I'll think it over and keep battling.

Edit: Sorry I can't keep this going but I have to get going before it's too late.

 

[Ulevo]

You're missing the point; you have to understand the REASONING behind the smogon policy to get it:

The idea goes:

Less bans => less restrictions => more choices => better metagame

thus

More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

However, if you "ban" politoed, you have:

Ban Politoed => Ban Drizzle => Cut viability of rain abusers
----------------------------------------|
----------------------------------------V
More bans => more restrictions => less choices => worse metagame

Sure, it doesn't create "more bans", but in the end, it does the same thing as more bans would, and in the end, is just as detrimental.

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that this is obviously a simplified version of the policy and doesn't reflect every single detail of the policy, but it captures the gist of what I was getting at.

I see the thread has turned to crap again.

Bans are supposed to be limited because they're meant to be a last resort, not to increase variety. That subsequently follows after the effects of the ban.

Also, the idea of you guys talking about Aldaron's proposal at this point when we still have people complaining about Drizzle without it being even better boggles my mind.

 

[XienZo]

I see the thread has turned to crap again.

Bans are supposed to be limited because they're meant to be a last resort, not to increase variety. That subsequently follows after the effects of the ban.

And what, do you think, is actually the reason as to why they're a last resort?

Also, the idea of you guys talking about Aldaron's proposal at this point when we still have people complaining about Drizzle without it being even better boggles my mind.

Who said the alternative would make Drizzle better, that is, who said that Aldaron's proposal was the best way to limit Drizzle either?

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that the "limitation" on bans is built INTO the suspect testing; if we suspect test too many, the system will ensure that we don't actually ban that many. There's no reason to subjectively pick and choose what will be nominated for testing if the meaningless ones will be filtered out in a far more objective manner anyway.

 

[Ray Jay]

I just would like to make the point that bans do not always make a worse metagame. For example, Blaziken was such a potent threat that basically every team had to come up with a solid check or in the rare instance, counter to Blaziken. In other words, banning something like Blaziken actually diversifies the metagame and makes it better with more viable choices, as you essentially have one more free moveslot to work with. This isn't true of all bans, just true of overcentralizing mons (where overcentralization, IMO, should be reason enough to quantify a proposal of a ban).

 

[XienZo]

I just would like to make the point that bans do not always make a worse metagame. For example, Blaziken was such a potent threat that basically every team had to come up with a solid check or in the rare instance, counter to Blaziken. In other words, banning something like Blaziken actually diversifies the metagame and makes it better with more viable choices, as you essentially have one more free moveslot to work with. This isn't true of all bans, just true of overcentralizing mons (where overcentralization, IMO, should be reason enough to quantify a proposal of a ban).

Yeah, as I said, that was a simplified reasoning behind bans; it assumes that everything else besides the number of bans,(such as the resulting centralization), is held equal in either situation to better illustrate the point.

After all, I'd say it's fair to assume that both a Drizzle ban and a proper individual threat ban will both reduce the centralization around rain teams.

 

[Ulevo]

And what, do you think, is actually the reason as to why they're a last resort?

To ensure they're not carelessly handed out, which results in a system we are in now that allows a player to ban a Pokemon for finding it irritating, either because they find it easier to win without it on the ladder (self interest) or simply don't want to adapt to that threat.

Who said the alternative would make Drizzle better, that is, who said that Aldaron's proposal was the best way to limit Drizzle either?

Eh, I never implied Adalron's proposal was the best way to limit Drizzle. In fact, it wasn't, even if it did serve its purpose for a time.

I was implying that this talk of allowing Swift Swimmers back in to the game and individually suspect testing Pokemon like Kingdra and friends won't be very productive at this point because they'll be added on top of what players already are complaining about right now.

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out that the "limitation" on bans is built INTO the suspect testing; if we suspect test too many, the system will ensure that we don't actually ban that many. There's no reason to subjectively pick and choose what will be nominated for testing if the meaningless ones will be filtered out in a far more objective manner anyway.

That made absolutely no sense. Nor do I really see what it has to do with what I said.

I just would like to make the point that bans do not always make a worse metagame. For example, Blaziken was such a potent threat that basically every team had to come up with a solid check or in the rare instance, counter to Blaziken. In other words, banning something like Blaziken actually diversifies the metagame and makes it better with more viable choices, as you essentially have one more free moveslot to work with. This isn't true of all bans, just true of overcentralizing mons (where overcentralization, IMO, should be reason enough to quantify a proposal of a ban).

I wouldn't assume a ban would be ideally used to ensure a "worse" metagame, but that's hardly the relevant point.

Worse or better is a matter of opinion, and unless you poll the players and statistically decide what is most enjoyable, the entire discussion or what is "worse" or "better" is completely meaningless, and shouldn't be a considering factor.

If you can't actually handle said threat to a point where it is meaningless to play without having to resort to that strategy; that constitutes a ban, because at that point the game is no longer about playing Pokemon, its about playing X suspect with 5 filler.

 

[XienZo]

To ensure they're not carelessly handed out, which results in a system we are in now that allows a player to ban a Pokemon for finding it irritating, either because they find it easier to win without it on the ladder (self interest) or simply don't want to adapt to that threat.

And now, tell me the how that would negatively impact the metagame itself if they're "carelessly handed out".

Eh, I never implied Adalron's proposal was the best way to limit Drizzle. In fact, it wasn't, even if it did serve its purpose for a time.

I was implying that this talk of allowing Swift Swimmers back in to the game and individually suspect testing Pokemon like Kingdra and friends won't be very productive at this point because they'll be added on top of what players already are complaining about right now.

Who said we can't nominate Thunderous and Tornadous on top of Kingdra and co?

That made absolutely no sense. Nor do I really see what it has to do with what I said.

Well, if we suspect test EVERY SINGLE rain sweeper for whatever reason, which is clearly overkill, it's still only going to ban the minimalist amount; it'll have no effect on Huntail or w/e, since they clearly won't make it through the other side of suspect testing. Simple as that.

 

[jas61292]

I was implying that this talk of allowing Swift Swimmers back in to the game and individually suspect testing Pokemon like Kingdra and friends won't be very productive at this point because they'll be added on top of what players already are complaining about right now.

So we should not do it because people will whine? Seriously, all that putting it off will do is give us more stuff to RE-do.

 

[alexwolf]

First, I have to say there is a major difference between Brightpowder/Double Team and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak. The former can be used at any time. The latter only during specific conditions.

Additionally, I do not really get what you mean by uncompetitiveness. It seems you are saying that it is not broken, but just something that we do not want in our game. That is a perfectly legitimate argument.

However, I believe these abilities are too situational and minor to really warrant a ban.

you have a point for the major difference of the items and the abilities...and that's the only reason why the abilities haven't already got banned...'cause they depend on their weather....

but when those conditions are met these abilities create an uncompetitive enviroment causing you to have succesful attacks only 80% of the time....

that's why i am supporting the ban of the evasion raising abilities only when their activation requirememnts are met...to make it more simple it seems very logical to me to ban sand veil and snow cloak only when they are active and that means when they are used in conjuction with their respective weather...

also you said that these abilities are too situational and minor to warrant a ban...
if brightpowder and lax incease deserved a ban for making the game less skill based then these abilities definitely deserve it too...
it's not only a matter of practical use it's also a matter of principle.
if there is a factor that makes the game less skill based even by a very small amount(like 'causing you to miss 1 out of 100 times)without introducing nothing else,then of course it should be banned!
why let something in a competitive metagame that doesn't provide anything except luck?
why should we let a player that deserved to win,lose(even in 1 out of 100 battles)if we can avoid it without having any downfall???

 

[IcyMan28]

Whining aside, it would be adding significant buffs to the most powerful weather as is.

As for the banning of Drizzle leading to the decreased use of certain abusers...so what? You'll still see the better threats used (I've mentioned them before). I personally don't care if Parasect and Toxicroak only make an appearance once every 100 matches instead of once every 10 matches. Nobody seemed to care that they were not OU last gen, so why must they be OU this gen? Where is the memo that I missed? Besides, other pokemon may start seeing the light of day if Drizzle ends up getting banned.

And I haven't run into Rain Stall in quite some time, either, but its loss isn't really that big of a deal to me considering that weatherless teams would become that much more viable. Some of the better pokemon on those teams, such as Tentacruel and Ferrothorn, would still see some use as well.

Finally, people keep pretending that this metagame is "diverse." That we have more "choices" because Drizzle is still allowed.

Where are they? I'm seeing the same team archetypes over and over.

Politoed + 2 sweepers + 1 steel + 1 anti-weather + 1 wildcard.
Ninetales + Venusuar + 2 Sun Sweepers + 1 Spinner + 1 wildcard.
Tyranitar/Hippowdon + Excadrill + Gliscor/Garchomp + Ferrothorn + Latios + 1wildcard.

In my opinion (which is all these suspect tests really are, honestly), Drizzle is actually reducing what you can viably run this metagame. You either run one of the other two weathers to check it, or you run Drizzle itself and use the same top-tier pokemon as everyone else, because you'll find yourself at a disadvantage if you use "creative" stuff against Tornadus and Starmie. It needs to go.

why should we let a player that deserved to win,lose(even in 1 out of 100 battles)if we can avoid it without having any downfall???

Because it takes out an important part of the metagame, or at least I think it is. Garchomp checks quite a few things, and is a solid choice in and of itself even without Sand Veil. By this logic, we should remove the chance every move has to land a critical hit, or remove the freezing/burning/paralyzing side effects of Ice, Fire, and Electrical attacks.

There was a post in response to my opinion on Garchomp a few pages back noting how they lost to Garchomp because attack after attack missed a Garchomp in range of being revenge. It sucks that that happened, sorry, but oh well. The chances of that happening are extremely low, and I'm sure there were plenty of Garchomp they defeated before and after that happened.

"Hax" tends to stick out in our minds because it is not the norm. This makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is, because when things go as planned, we don't say "OMG my Thunderbolt didn't paralyze his Rotom-W switchin that's crazy." Before someone takes this the wrong way, I'm not saying that we should. I'm just saying that hax tends to stick out in our minds more easily.

 

[XienZo]

The whole point of individual banning is that you can actually suspect test Tornadus and Starmie, y'know...

I don't get why people say individual bans would buff Drizzle if done properly.

Mid-level SwSw threats like Floatzel will return, while high-level non SwSw threats like Tornadus and Thunderous will likely get the boot after ACTUALLY BEING SUSPECT TESTED.

And last time I checked, removing the high-level threats while only adding mid-level threats is hardly a "buff".

 

[Thorhammer]

If Ludicolo is banned because of freaking Drizzle i may just bust a nut. Id rather just ban freaking Politoed, the all problems will be solved.

How many pokemon must you people ban to preserve drizzle?, its ridiculous just get rid of Drizzle and then nobody needs to be banned.

Smogon's policy is to ban less content from the metagame. Drizzle is a considerable portion of content in the metagame. Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops, and any other Swift Swim users that may need to be banned all add up to less content than Drizzle. Having a lower number of bans but banning more stuff overall is not what Smogon's policy is meant to accomplish.

 

[Ulevo]

And now, tell me the how that would negatively impact the metagame itself if they're "carelessly handed out".

1) The metagame doesn't stabilize. Pokemon is inherently imbalanced; the moment a new threat rises, it gives the community the justification to nominate that threat rather than adapt to it. If that threat is banned, the metagame shifts yet again.

2) It eliminates a degree of player skill. Players who adapt win, players who don't lose. When you eliminate the need to adapt to dominate tactics, you eliminate a competitive layer required by players to play the game.

3) It sets precedent, and if it gets out of hand, leads the rules to be more complex than they need to be. Concise rules are the most efficient, and the most well respected.

Who said we can't nominate Thunderous and Tornadous on top of Kingdra and co?

Do you even know why Aldaron's proposal was considered in the first place? Because if an alternative to the metagame at the time wasn't given, a landslide of bans along with Drizzle might have ensued. Yes, Thunderous, Tornadus, Kingdra, et cetera could all be nominated. But how exactly would we know what would be sufficient to nominate to alleviate the stress rain is producing? Odds are we'd wind up back where we started before the proposal was being suggested.

Well, if we suspect test EVERY SINGLE rain sweeper for whatever reason, which is clearly overkill, it's still only going to ban the minimalist amount; it'll have no effect on Huntail or w/e, since they clearly won't make it through the other side of suspect testing. Simple as that.

I'm glad we have a psychic in the thread. It adds nicely to the rest of the flavor.

 

[Ray Jay]

Finally, people keep pretending that this metagame is "diverse." That we have more "choices" because Drizzle is still allowed.

Absolutely. Many people would argue that Drizzle is the reason for the prevalence of the other weathers. Also, you have the added bonus of anti-weather Pokemon being viable. Finally, so many rain Pokemon (like your example, Toxicroak) aren't really viable outside of Drizzle, so Drizzle being legal adds those mons to the mix.

 

[TheValkyries]

Icyman you've been deluded for too long that people are "protecting" Drizzle from being banned as if everyone agrees it's broken. Reality is, we're not protecting it for diversity, we're protecting it because it's just flat not broken. Pokemon with Drizzle support are broken. To ban Drizzle on the grounds that "It causes them to be broken" is as idiotic as saying "Ban Stealth Rock, because with SR support a few Pokemon become too overwhelming." Always ban the Pokemon first unless the support is so useful that literally everything can abuse it. Not everything can abuse Drizzle, so it's not a broken support ability. It's just a very good one for a small minority of Pokemon, of which a few of the minority become broken with it.

The problem is far more minimal then everyone makes it out to be.