Aldaron's proposal: Satisfied?

[Quixim]

So you're against it as a permanent solution, but you're fine with letting it stay until time isn't a concern.

Anyone else feel this way? I certainly feel that it would at least be better than leaving it as a permanent solution, and would help as a compromise with those concerned about time.

I feel this way too. The metagame's probably going to change when Grey comes out, so we're in a slightly transitional period here. Also, this will let the current metagame settle and see how people react to the change and built teams around it. Rain is indeed a very good weather type, but if you build your team around assuming it will be up via drizzle, you leave yourself open to having your powerful and accurate moves hurt by a shift in weather, which isn't going to happen with other weather teams. Then again, this is something that we'd discover in the metagame as time goes on


Once again, I have to ask: What's the issue with banning the swift swim versions of kingdra, kabutops, ludicolo, and omastar (Or whatever's decided to be broken)? I don't think I've gotten an answer to this.

 

[Limewire]

I too am content with Aldaron's proposal as a temporary solution. The "weather wars", so to speak, are still raging all over the metagame, but Drizzle is more manageable now than the pre-Aldaron metagame.

Once again, I have to ask: What's the issue with banning the swift swim versions of kingdra, kabutops, ludicolo, and omastar (Or whatever's decided to be broken)? I don't think I've gotten an answer to this.

Not too sure about this (I rarely post here), but I believe that the issues are:

• Complexity. It appears that some players oppose banning Swift Swim because it is more complicated, messy and time-consuming than outright banning Drizzle. This can also slow down the suspect testing process by quite a bit.
• Incorrect Targets. Drizzle is the main culprit that makes these Pokemon broken, not the ability itself. Also, banning Swift Swim creates a blanket ban over Pokemon who may not be broken with the ability.

These aren't my viewpoints on this issue necessarily, I'm just using examples.

 

[Benlisted]

But that is where the doors slam shut, and no floodgates are opened. For that is the extent to which there is actually a good reason to ban something for weather-related reasons, whether for brokenness or uncompetitiveness. No Pokemon or ability has been indicated to be either broken or uncompetitive when and only when combined with Drought. We should consider such bans to be an option, but they should still only be used when there is something to ban. The fact that we can ban certain things under that rule does not mean that we can or should ban everything under that rule. Not everything warrants a ban.

The problem with this ideal in particular - no floodgates - is self-evident in your suggestions. Aldaron's proposal was passed under much speculation about the things it would lead people to suggest banning in a complex manner, like many people such as yourself and me in the past have done. People were assured that this was the only exception due to the matter of Rain being exceptionally unique and affecting so many things. Though most of your suggestions only aim to refine the proposal, for instance you propose a SV+SS ban, an extension of the procedure started but held to stop at Aldaron's proposal.

I don't mean to say that this is bad, merely that you cannot say floodgates will not open. Even if they do not in actual policy, they will in the forums - heck this thread is an example of that. And that creates a huge storm of uncertainty and wasted time which smogon would be better off avoiding. That is the reason why I, amongst others I'm sure, don't want to extend Aldaron's proposal's spirit to more complex bans.

On a side note, I can't help but feel like this gen the main issue is boiling down to people who have played pokemon for a long time and like the mechanics of gen 4 and before, where weather was not central; and those who haven't played a lot of gen 4 OU or similar and like the weather centric meta gen 5 is. Though it's fairly obvious which side I fall on, I don't mean to say that either side is wrong, I can see that weather does centralise the meta around a few styles and makes "normal" non-weather teams harder to utilize, but like I think Thorhammer says, it also creates a varied focus for the meta, which some people like and others do not. A little off topic, but I have a feeling this will be the big issue sometime soon in the future.

 

[Thorhammer]

I'd appreciate it if we discussed the topic at hand and the decisions that should be made rather than attempting to relate our relevant topic to something else. You should know that having a blanket ban on Swift Swim doesn't equate to banning Pokemon with 600+ BST because BST is not a sole determining factor of a Pokemons tiering, meanwhile we've discussed, debated, experienced, and on a majority come to the conclusion that (regardless of what the "culprit" is), Drizzle + Water Pokemon + Swift Swim = problematic concern.

Here are the facts. The community mostly agreed amongst a majority that Drizzle with powerful Pokemon that had access to Swift Swim was too overpowering. This topic is to discuss either the potential elimination or the renegotiation of Aldaron's proposal. You have three options.

- Ban Drizzle
- Ban Swift Swim
- Ban Pokemon A, B, C, D, E...et cetera

I've explained why banning Swift Swim is most beneficial. Rather than using relating examples to attempt to explain why my proposal isn't ideal, I'd like to hear some reasons as to why the other two options are preferable. Most notably the third option, because the reasons for banning Drizzle seem pretty cut and dry; I just personally don't agree with them myself.

Anything else leading to a more complex clause or ban, to me, seems like a big waste of political effort.

BST actually pretty much was a sole determiner of a Pokemon's tiering with regard to the initial bans of this gen.

Swift Swim, on the other hand, is not. Luvdisc is a Water-type with Swift Swim, and yet even in Drizzle, it isn't close to being broken. More factors are required. Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops have those factors, and that is why they, as Pokemon, are broken. The same does not automatically apply to all Swift Swim Pokemon.

And that is why we should ban Pokemon A, B, and C. A is broken because is has dual Water/Dragon STAB, which can easily defeat the only types of Pokemon that will ever carry moves that can hit its one weakness for super effective damage. B is broken because it, too, has only unusual weaknesses and can defeat its foes before they use them, and it has a bit of bulk allowing it to survive long enough to heal the damage from those neutral hits with STAB Giga Drain. C is broken because it can Swords Dance and then rip through teams with its high-power dual STABs, while also having great options for coverage on top of that, or even priority to beat opposing priority. They all also have a few alternative sets they can run to great effect, so even if you're prepared for one set, it might whip out another.

Those reasons do not necessarily apply to other Swift Swim users. In fact, many of them don't apply to any other Swift Swim Pokemon, particularly the lack of conventional weaknesses. Others may also be broken, but if so, it's because of their own individual merit, not something inherent to Swift Swim Pokemon.

In short: Individual Pokemon should be addressed because individual Pokemon are broken. Swift Swim is not, on its own, broken, or even when combined with a Water-type, and therefore Swift Swim cannot be blamed for the Pokemon being broken.

 

[Quixim]

I too am content with Aldaron's proposal as a temporary solution. The "weather wars", so to speak, are still raging all over the metagame, but Drizzle is more manageable now than the pre-Aldaron metagame.



Not too sure about this (I rarely post here), but I believe that the issues are:

• Complexity. It appears that some players oppose banning Swift Swim because it is more complicated, messy and time-consuming than outright banning Drizzle. This can also slow down the suspect testing process by quite a bit.
• Incorrect Targets. Drizzle is the main culprit that makes these Pokemon broken, not the ability itself. Also, banning Swift Swim creates a blanket ban over Pokemon who may not be broken with the ability.

These aren't my viewpoints on this issue necessarily, I'm just using examples.

Hmm! As for complexity, some of the alternate bans (Drizzle and the pokemon in question) are similarly complex.

If drizzle is the ability that makes four pokemon broken, and makes a dozen others viable, clearly the broken pokemon should be tested, not the drizzle ability.

 

[Thorhammer]

The problem with this ideal in particular - no floodgates - is self-evident in your suggestions. Aldaron's proposal was passed under much speculation about the things it would lead people to suggest banning in a complex manner, like many people such as yourself and me in the past have done. People were assured that this was the only exception due to the matter of Rain being exceptionally unique and affecting so many things. Though most of your suggestions only aim to refine the proposal, for instance you propose a SV+SS ban, an extension of the procedure started but held to stop at Aldaron's proposal.

I don't mean to say that this is bad, merely that you cannot say floodgates will not open. Even if they do not in actual policy, they will in the forums - heck this thread is an example of that. And that creates a huge storm of uncertainty and wasted time which smogon would be better off avoiding. That is the reason why I, amongst others I'm sure, don't want to extend Aldaron's proposal's spirit to more complex bans.

On a side note, I can't help but feel like this gen the main issue is boiling down to people who have played pokemon for a long time and like the mechanics of gen 4 and before, where weather was not central; and those who haven't played a lot of gen 4 OU or similar and like the weather centric meta gen 5 is. Though it's fairly obvious which side I fall on, I don't mean to say that either side is wrong, I can see that weather does centralise the meta around a few styles and makes "normal" non-weather teams harder to utilize, but like I think Thorhammer says, it also creates a varied focus for the meta, which some people like and others do not. A little off topic, but I have a feeling this will be the big issue sometime soon in the future.

Aldaron's proposal was vague about what it meant for the future. We needed, and still need, an official decision from PR about how to regard future complex bans, if there is any at all. Once we have that, it will be easier to control the future with regard to complex bans. This is equally true whether we stop at Swift Swim + Drizzle or look to alternatives. As long as we have complex bans, we will need to know what to do with them. And we will have people who will ignore those decisions about what to do with them. The most we can do to stop those people from taking up such views is to have no complex bans at all, and even then, that would not completely stop them; nothing would. People who want excessive complex bans have been and will always continue to be a part of Smogon; what matters is that when they are wrong, we ensure that the policy is not changed to be wrong.

For this reason, we should not focus on the negatives. We should focus on the positives - what we really want to get out of this. While we may all have different standpoints now, our highest priorities may not be mutually exclusive. I am sure that when we figure out what is most important and stop worrying about things that are less important, we can find a compromise that may not satisfy everyone, but will satisfy much more than the third or so who are currently satisfied.

To start this off, can we agree all agree that it would be reasonable to re-test Swift Swim users in such a way that does not interfere with other suspect testing? As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any reasoning against this, so can we assume that this would be an acceptable compromise?

 

[MJJobe]

There are two ideas that I feel are important, and which I don't understand the controversy over.

1) Complexity- Personally, I would rather see a fair, yet complex ban, rather than a blanket ban which results in unnecessary exclusion of non-threatening pokemon (Luvdisk). However, I see many posts exhibiting an opposition to complex bans, which confuses me. What is the flaw of a complex ban if it leads to a potentially more fair and balanced metagame? It seems to me that if certain Pokemon, abilities, or combinations thereof are the problem, then that specific problem should be banned (ex. Kingdra with SwSw, as well as others). Obviously, not every pokemon that has Swift Swim is broken under drizzle, so I feel that it is equally obvious that not every pokemon should be banned.

2) Time- I feel that Aldaron's proposal made for a good "quick-fix" solution, but this solution will not hold for long term. I greatly support previously mentioned ideas of testing individual SwSw-ers for brokenness instead of blanket banning them all. While this may take more time, the result is a more fair and balanced metagame, something which I believe is part of the Smogon Charter. This testing does not have to take place in lieu of other (potentially more threatening) Suspects, but it still can take place. Even if the resulting bans and un-bans are not immediate, the long-term fix is a more fair decision. There is no need for speed or immediacy in un-banning non-broken swimmers, seeing as the apparently broken parties have been banned and the metagame intact.

All in all, I would rather see a more fair, albeit more complex, ban that takes time to establish instead of any hasty or poorly thought out bans, even if the cost is more time to really establish what is broken and what is not.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ulevo]

BST actually pretty much was a sole determiner of a Pokemon's tiering with regard to the initial bans of this gen.

Swift Swim, on the other hand, is not. Luvdisc is a Water-type with Swift Swim, and yet even in Drizzle, it isn't close to being broken. More factors are required. Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops have those factors, and that is why they, as Pokemon, are broken. The same does not automatically apply to all Swift Swim Pokemon.

And that is why we should ban Pokemon A, B, and C. A is broken because is has dual Water/Dragon STAB, which can easily defeat the only types of Pokemon that will ever carry moves that can hit its one weakness for super effective damage. B is broken because it, too, has only unusual weaknesses and can defeat its foes before they use them, and it has a bit of bulk allowing it to survive long enough to heal the damage from those neutral hits with STAB Giga Drain. C is broken because it can Swords Dance and then rip through teams with its high-power dual STABs, while also having great options for coverage on top of that, or even priority to beat opposing priority. They all also have a few alternative sets they can run to great effect, so even if you're prepared for one set, it might whip out another.

Those reasons do not necessarily apply to other Swift Swim users. In fact, many of them don't apply to any other Swift Swim Pokemon, particularly the lack of conventional weaknesses. Others may also be broken, but if so, it's because of their own individual merit, not something inherent to Swift Swim Pokemon.

In short: Individual Pokemon should be addressed because individual Pokemon are broken. Swift Swim is not, on its own, broken, or even when combined with a Water-type, and therefore Swift Swim cannot be blamed for the Pokemon being broken.

This is a more satisfactory reply.

Now, where I stand on this issue is that I am happy with what Aldaron's proposal has done. I am not however satisfied with the fact that this result had to be achieved through a complex ban. I believe banning Swift Swim will maintain the desired effects we've been seeing unfold in regards to balancing rain, while removing a ban that could potentially lead to controversial matters down the road.

As for your notes on how Swift Swim does not break every Pokemon, and the Pokemon is broken on its own merit; this is not entirely true. If that were the case, Kingdra would be walking on things without Swift Swim. A Pokemon is not a single entity. It's comprised of multiple components that make it function effectively (or not effectively). It goes both ways. Saying Kingdra is broken with Swift Swim is just as true as saying Ho-Oh is only broken with Sacred Fire and Brave Bird. So where do you draw the line?

The point is that something needs to go. Drizzle doesn't make every Swift Swim user broken, Drizzle doesn't make anything broken by itself, and without either functioning, none of the Pokemon in this discussion are even questionably suspect at all. You can't attempt to point the finger and assume responsibility to justify your bans, because then we get in to these circle arguments.

So. Since something needs to go, and we can't come to a conclusive decision as to what is to blame (since this is pointless, all the factors are at fault), we should go with what is the simplest, and most effective.

Banning Swift Swim accomplishes this. We keep a unique playstyle in OU (+1), we don't ban any Pokemon (+1), and all we lose is an ability that no one is using anyway (+1) when all Pokemon who have said ability already have an alternate ability (+1).

Anything you're proposing just complicates our rule set further.

 

[Benlisted]

Aldaron's proposal was vague about what it meant for the future. We needed, and still need, an official decision from PR about how to regard future complex bans, if there is any at all. Once we have that, it will be easier to control the future with regard to complex bans. This is equally true whether we stop at Swift Swim + Drizzle or look to alternatives. As long as we have complex bans, we will need to know what to do with them. And we will have people who will ignore those decisions about what to do with them. The most we can do to stop those people from taking up such views is to have no complex bans at all, and even then, that would not completely stop them; nothing would. People who want excessive complex bans have been and will always continue to be a part of Smogon; what matters is that when they are wrong, we ensure that the policy is not changed to be wrong.

For this reason, we should not focus on the negatives. We should focus on the positives - what we really want to get out of this. While we may all have different standpoints now, our highest priorities may not be mutually exclusive. I am sure that when we figure out what is most important and stop worrying about things that are less important, we can find a compromise that may not satisfy everyone, but will satisfy much more than the third or so who are currently satisfied.

To start this off, can we agree all agree that it would be reasonable to re-test Swift Swim users in such a way that does not interfere with other suspect testing? As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any reasoning against this, so can we assume that this would be an acceptable compromise?

Admittedly a decision from PR would be helpful with regards to where we now stand on complex bans, and it seems very silent on the issue atm. There is nonetheless an advantage to not extending or trying to extend the banning system until such a decision is reached - not perpetuating the idea that complex bans are fine to people who may not understand the context, which then ends up clogging up the forums with cyclical debate. So for now, I think not going for more complex bans is the best option. If PR give the go-ahead then fine, but until then I'm opposed to the idea.

If we look at the desirable characteristics of the meta, stability is one of said characteristics, and I believe that that should be placed above the rehashing of old bans, even to make them more appropriate, as I agree is the case with Drizzle+SwSw. In the end, whatever we do to Drizzle+SwSw the impact on the meta will be small and the main effects will be in terms of banning with efficiency and/or focus, which to me puts it as a low priority issue until we have a stable meta otherwise. Eventually I would like to take another look at the ban, but I do not see that now is the time for that. Even if we set up a seperate method to look at the issue, it is less critical than suspect testing this early into gen 5, and will nonetheless take away resources which may otherwise have been focused on the suspect process.

EDIT: I believe that the main things your poll excludes is whether people see the need to right this testing period revise the proposal, as this is a key factor in whether some consensus is needed to be reached at all. The second is that it lumps together people who were unhappy with the proposal for essentially technical reasons (me and Ulevo for instance) and people like Reach who believe it doesn't go far enough and that we should, instead, ban Drizzle or similar. The second group, though relevant, is not what this thread is targeting, so unfortunately the poll really doesn't provide that great an outlook on the issue :\.

@the guy posting above Ulevo - take a look at my previos post for the reasons why I believe complex banning is not the way we should be moving.

 

[Ulevo]

I agree with Benlisted regarding the poll. The options given, particularly "No", are too open to interpretation as to the meaning behind that decision. I believe it would be ideal to get an accurate depiction as to how many players feel "No" is appropriate because Drizzle/rain is still too strong despite Aldaron's proposal being introduced, vs other alternative reasons.

 

[Sajak]

1) Complexity- Personally, I would rather see a fair, yet complex ban, rather than a blanket ban which results in unnecessary exclusion of non-threatening pokemon (Luvdisk). However, I see many posts exhibiting an opposition to complex bans, which confuses me. What is the flaw of a complex ban if it leads to a potentially more fair and balanced metagame? It seems to me that if certain Pokemon, abilities, or combinations thereof are the problem, then that specific problem should be banned (ex. Kingdra with SwSw, as well as others). Obviously, not every pokemon that has Swift Swim is broken under drizzle, so I feel that it is equally obvious that not every pokemon should be banned.

The problem with complex bans is that they open the doors for many other unnecessary or complicating bans. We could start by banning SwSw Kingdra + Drizzle, but maybe someone says it's Hydro Pump that makes it broken or Choice Specs or Waterfall + DD. With bans, things are looked at in their entirety, not just piece by piece. Evasion is banned because it inherently makes all Pokemon broken in some way, where as Swift Swim, Drizzle, or Swift Swim + Drizzle do not.

 

[Thorhammer]

This is a more satisfactory reply.

Now, where I stand on this issue is that I am happy with what Aldaron's proposal has done. I am not however satisfied with the fact that this result had to be achieved through a complex ban. I believe banning Swift Swim will maintain the desired effects we've been seeing unfold in regards to balancing rain, while removing a ban that could potentially lead to controversial matters down the road.

As for your notes on how Swift Swim does not break every Pokemon, and the Pokemon is broken on its own merit; this is not entirely true. If that were the case, Kingdra would be walking on things without Swift Swim. A Pokemon is not a single entity. It's comprised of multiple components that make it function effectively (or not effectively). It goes both ways. Saying Kingdra is broken with Swift Swim is just as true as saying Ho-Oh is only broken with Sacred Fire and Brave Bird. So where do you draw the line?

The point is that something needs to go. Drizzle doesn't make every Swift Swim user broken, Drizzle doesn't make anything broken by itself, and without either functioning, none of the Pokemon in this discussion are even questionably suspect at all. You can't attempt to point the finger and assume responsibility to justify your bans, because then we get in to these circle arguments.

So. Since something needs to go, and we can't come to a conclusive decision as to what is to blame (since this is pointless, all the factors are at fault), we should go with what is the simplest, and most effective.

Banning Swift Swim accomplishes this. We keep a unique playstyle in OU (+1), we don't ban any Pokemon (+1), and all we lose is an ability that no one is using anyway (+1) when all Pokemon who have said ability already have an alternate ability (+1).

Anything you're proposing just complicates our rule set further.

In that case, I will rephrase. Kingdra is broken because of a combination of Swift Swim, Drizzle, its Water-typing, and its own merit. Other Pokemon have a combination of Swift Swim and Water-typing, and yet, even with Drizzle, they are not broken because their own merit is not sufficient. Swift Swim alone is not broken, nor is it broken on a Water-type in combination with Drizzle. With regard to Swift Swim, it is always the Pokemon that is broken.

The Ho-oh example only supports this. Even if Ho-oh would not be broken without Brave Bird or Sacred Fire, it is not Brave Bird and Sacred Fire that are broken; it is Ho-oh that is broken.

If we're stuck in a circle, then we should ban what is least damaging to ban. Banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops entirely would allow us to solve the problem with a simple ban that would not impact any Pokemon that are not broken. So according to your logic, why not do so?

As for your arbitrary points system, it needs some work.

Banning Swift Swim keeps a unique playstyle in OU, but in doing so, it eliminates another unique playstyle for no reason. Meanwhile, banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops would keep all Drizzle-related playstyles in OU; both the ones kept by banning Swift Swim and the one eliminated by banning Swift Swim. That may be a point in favor of banning Swift Swim over banning Drizzle, but it's a point very much against banning Swift Swim when the alternative is banning three specific Pokemon.

Not banning broken Pokemon is never a goal of a ban. There is no logic behind giving a ban of Swift Swim a point for that reason.

Your third point is false. People use Rain Dance + Swift Swim teams, and if Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops were banned rather than banning Swift Swim + Drizzle, people would use not broken Swift Swim + Drizzle teams.

Your final point... isn't a point. What exactly are you saying is a benefit here, and why?

As for your final statement, that, too, is false. I am proposing two alternatives. One is to ban Kingdra + Drizzle, Ludicolo + Drizzle, and Kabutops + Drizzle. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banned, but only in combination with Drizzle. That is exactly as complex as the current ban of Swift Swim + Drizzle, and therefore doesn't make the ruleset more complex in the slightest.

My other alternative is the one I have been focusing on in discussion with you, since it seems like the one that you would find more appealing: Ban Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops, entirely, as ubers. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with the combination of Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banished to ubers. This alternative isn't complex in the slightest, and therefore shouldn't cause any issues according to your apparent priorities.

Admittedly a decision from PR would be helpful with regards to where we now stand on complex bans, and it seems very silent on the issue atm. There is nonetheless an advantage to not extending or trying to extend the banning system until such a decision is reached - not perpetuating the idea that complex bans are fine to people who may not understand the context, which then ends up clogging up the forums with cyclical debate. So for now, I think not going for more complex bans is the best option. If PR give the go-ahead then fine, but until then I'm opposed to the idea.

If we look at the desirable characteristics of the meta, stability is one of said characteristics, and I believe that that should be placed above the rehashing of old bans, even to make them more appropriate, as I agree is the case with Drizzle+SwSw. In the end, whatever we do to Drizzle+SwSw the impact on the meta will be small and the main effects will be in terms of banning with efficiency and/or focus, which to me puts it as a low priority issue until we have a stable meta otherwise. Eventually I would like to take another look at the ban, but I do not see that now is the time for that. Even if we set up a seperate method to look at the issue, it is less critical than suspect testing this early into gen 5, and will nonetheless take away resources which may otherwise have been focused on the suspect process.

In that case, what we need is for someone in PR to start a discussion that can lead to an official decision being made.

I'm a bit uncertain about calling a radical policy that a pathetic portion of the community is satisfied with "stable". But nonetheless, it seems we can agree that it would be reasonable to deal with this matter in such a manner that does not interfere with the current suspect testing. Would you consider a separate, simultaneous suspect ladder to be sufficient for that?

 

[Lightning Tiger]

I agree with Benlisted regarding the poll. The options given, particularly "No", are too open to interpretation as to the meaning behind that decision. I believe it would be ideal to get an accurate depiction as to how many players feel "No" is appropriate because Drizzle/rain is still too strong despite Aldaron's proposal being introduced, vs other alternative reasons.

i agree with this.

Its a bad poll as theres no way to differentiate between the "no" voters who either think it went too far and limited too many things or the iones who think it dint do enough and that drizzle is too powerful still.

If possible thornhammer, redo the poll from scartch with 3 options instead of 2.

 

[Thorhammer]

I agree with Benlisted regarding the poll. The options given, particularly "No", are too open to interpretation as to the meaning behind that decision. I believe it would be ideal to get an accurate depiction as to how many players feel "No" is appropriate because Drizzle/rain is still too strong despite Aldaron's proposal being introduced, vs other alternative reasons.

The poll is not meant to show why people are not satisfied. It exists for the purpose of illustrating that there is an issue with community satisfaction, and we need to find a way to solve it one way or another.

The discussion, on the other hand, is meant to show why people are not satisfied, and to discover what would allow people to become satisfied.

i agree with this.

Its a bad poll as theres no way to differentiate between the "no" voters who either think it went too far and limited too many things or the iones who think it dint do enough and that drizzle is too powerful still.

If possible thornhammer, redo the poll from scartch with 3 options instead of 2.

See above. While that is relevant, it is not the point of this poll. I originally created this poll to settle a dispute regarding a claim I made about a huge rift in the community as a result of Aldaron's proposal. All types of dissatisfaction are equally relevant to that matter.

I have attempted to edit the poll to include other matters, but it doesn't seem to be possible.

 

[Benlisted]

I'm a bit uncertain about calling a radical policy that a pathetic portion of the community is satisfied with "stable". But nonetheless, it seems we can agree that it would be reasonable to deal with this matter in such a manner that does not interfere with the current suspect testing. Would you consider a separate, simultaneous suspect ladder to be sufficient for that?

I'm unsure what you refer to as a radical policy a pathetic amount agree with. Presuming it to be Aldaron's proposal - 36% is by no means a small proportion, and as I outline in my EDIT in my last post, the poll is by no means a good judge of that in any case. In any case, the stability I was referring to was the metagame as a whole's, not the ban in itself. And the proposal, ideal or not, did make the meta stabilise - and for that reason, until we have the meta in a (admittedly arbitrarily) more stable state, I don't think we need to alter Aldaron's proposal, which is simply of lesser concern. You could make the case that the meta is stable enough now to do so, but anyway.

Like I said, I don't think that any method of testing this would not detract from the human resources required for the suspect process - if you have such an idea for a non brain-draining approach by all means propose it though. Moreover, I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the retesting of Drizzle+SwSw elements from the suspect process, since what it essentially boils down to is reintroducing banned elements (like say retesting Manaphy or Deo-N) but to ban them in a different manner. Also, if we did seperate it from the suspect process, we would have to do so in a short time frame between suspect tests so we could avoid the non-typical metagame's alterations, making it extremely impractical.

TL:DR leave Aldaron's Proposal as it is until we have a stable metagame and no more pressing matters (hopefully we'll have one soon since so little was banned last round, and we'll soon be able to measure that at all since stats will be coming out).

 

[Lightning Tiger]

The poll is not meant to show why people are not satisfied. It exists for the purpose of illustrating that there is an issue with community satisfaction, and we need to find a way to solve it one way or another.

The discussion, on the other hand, is meant to show why people are not satisfied, and to discover what would allow people to become satisfied.


See above. While that is relevant, it is not the point of this poll. I originally created this poll to settle a dispute regarding a claim I made about a huge rift in the community as a result of Aldaron's proposal. All types of dissatisfaction are equally relevant to that matter.

I think this thread paints a false illusion of the situation. Most of the responders are those who think that the ban went too far and that it should be scaled back, and so it paints a false illusion that the people who voted no all think that.

Its a false illusion because as we all saw in the last nomination thread for suspects, there are still plenty of people who think Drizzle is too powerfull and that the ban actually didn't do enough. It is impossible to know how many of the "no" votes are from those who think the situation is till that rain is too powerful.

 

[Ulevo]

If we're stuck in a circle, then we should ban what is least damaging to ban. Banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops entirely would allow us to solve the problem with a simple ban that would not impact any Pokemon that are not broken. So according to your logic, why not do so?

Because out of the three options not in favor of a complex ban (which is what I am ultimately attempting to avoid), I feel that banning Swift Swim is the least damaging ban. While you may feel that rain still has an offensive playstyle with the use of Rain Dance + Swift Swim, I think that's honestly ridiculous. I would LOVE if statistics would be posted up soon, so that I can further prove this point. However, it is my feeling that no one playing to win is going to fork over infinite rain, free turn rain for temporary rain that requires a move slot, an item slot, and can be inevitably stalled out. Particularly when sand and sun don't need to be placed under the same conditions to reach their peak.

However, while I completely disagree with you on that notion, it is a difference of opinion at this point, as without statistics, I cannot prove or disprove that.

IBanning Swift Swim keeps a unique playstyle in OU, but in doing so, it eliminates another unique playstyle for no reason.

I am only concerned with competitively viable playstyles. I do not feel that Rain Dance has any place in OU as long as Drizzle Politoed is legal. I feel that (assuming others agree on my notion that Rain Dance + Swift Swim strategies are not competitively viable) others share the same sentiments.

IMeanwhile, banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops would keep all Drizzle-related playstyles in OU; both the ones kept by banning Swift Swim and the one eliminated by banning Swift Swim. That may be a point in favor of banning Swift Swim over banning Drizzle, but it's a point very much against banning Swift Swim when the alternative is banning three specific Pokemon.

You need to consider the possibility that Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops are not the only problematic users of Swift Swim. The moment we banned Swift Swim + Drizzle, Blaziken was immediately sent upstairs. A similar effect happened when we banned Darkrai, Shaymin-S, and Moody; soon afterwards, people were crying to have Drizzle axed.

Kingdra, Ludicolo and Kabutops were the top picks for abusing the Swift Swim ability, but we do not know if something else will easily fill their place the moment they leave. I feel this is important to keep in mind. It isn't so much a reason to ban Swift Swim as it is a reason to avoid allowing Drizzle and Swift Swim and just banning any number of those three.

INot banning broken Pokemon is never a goal of a ban. There is no logic behind giving a ban of Swift Swim a point for that reason.

We're not in your usual predicament regarding suspects who are broken. We're not dealing with Garchomp who, as a single entity, is broken in of himself without other outside forces acting inward. Without the three factors at work (Drizzle, Swift Swim, Kingdra/Ludicolo/Kabutops), we have no issue. Therefor we simply cannot assume the Pokemon are broken, and issue a ban. I thought I would have made this rather concise at this point.

IYour third point is false. People use Rain Dance + Swift Swim teams, and if Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops were banned rather than banning Swift Swim + Drizzle, people would use not broken Swift Swim + Drizzle teams.

As I pointed out above, I am not seeing it. If people are using Rain Dance + Swift Swim, I'd hardly call it a notable, effective strategy that the majority of the community even really cares about. It was a nice idea when Aldaron was proposing it, but lets be honest; the benefits don't outweigh the consequences of not running Drizzle.

Statistics will clear this up, or possibly some player input from players who have reached a reasonable rating with said strategy. Until such a time, I see no reason to even make that worthy of consideration.

IYour final point... isn't a point. What exactly are you saying is a benefit here, and why?

As for your final statement, that, too, is false. I am proposing two alternatives. One is to ban Kingdra + Drizzle, Ludicolo + Drizzle, and Kabutops + Drizzle. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banned, but only in combination with Drizzle. That is exactly as complex as the current ban of Swift Swim + Drizzle, and therefore doesn't make the ruleset more complex in the slightest.

I think I've made it obvious at this point that I don't support further continuing the complex ban we have in place, or adding to it (even if you don't consider adding to an existing ban complicating matters further). Simply put I feel it needs to go provided we come to an alternative solution, which as I presented to you I feel is possible.

IMy other alternative is the one I have been focusing on in discussion with you, since it seems like the one that you would find more appealing: Ban Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops, entirely, as ubers. Under this alternative, if any other Pokemon are found to be broken with the combination of Swift Swim + Drizzle, they, too, will be banished to ubers. This alternative isn't complex in the slightest, and therefore shouldn't cause any issues according to your apparent priorities.

It is simplistic and might ultimately be the way to go. However, due to the fact that it isn't the Pokemon themselves (but a contribution of all the factors) that come together to make or break these Pokemon, and thus distributing the blame amongsts different factors, I'd rather choose the option that bans the least amount of Pokemon while solving the problem concisely. Banning Swift Swim does this.

 

[Lightning Tiger]

Because out of the three options not in favor of a complex ban (which is what I am ultimately attempting to avoid), I feel that banning Swift Swim is the least damaging ban. While you may feel that rain still has an offensive playstyle with the use of Rain Dance + Swift Swim, I think that's honestly ridiculous. I would LOVE if statistics would be posted up soon, so that I can further prove this point. However, it is my feeling that no one playing to win is going to fork over infinite rain, free turn rain for temporary rain that requires a move slot, an item slot, and can be inevitably stalled out. Particularly when sand and sun don't need to be placed under the same conditions to reach their peak.

Then i think you should wait for stats beforwe you jump to that conclusion, because i for one have encountered plenty of Mantines and Kingdras that set up rain dance for themselves, and also Tornadus' who set up rain dance with mischeavous heart so that Swift Swimmers can benefit from it as well as its hurricane.

 

[Thorhammer]

I'm unsure what you refer to as a radical policy a pathetic amount agree with. Presuming it to be Aldaron's proposal - 36% is by no means a small proportion, and as I outline in my EDIT in my last post, the poll is by no means a good judge of that in any case. In any case, the stability I was referring to was the metagame as a whole's, not the ban in itself. And the proposal, ideal or not, did make the meta stabilise - and for that reason, until we have the meta in a (admittedly arbitrarily) more stable state, I don't think we need to alter Aldaron's proposal, which is simply of lesser concern. You could make the case that the meta is stable enough now to do so, but anyway.

Like I said, I don't think that any method of testing this would not detract from the human resources required for the suspect process - if you have such an idea for a non brain-draining approach by all means propose it though. Moreover, I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the retesting of Drizzle+SwSw elements from the suspect process, since what it essentially boils down to is reintroducing banned elements (like say retesting Manaphy or Deo-N) but to ban them in a different manner. Also, if we did seperate it from the suspect process, we would have to do so in a short time frame between suspect tests so we could avoid the non-typical metagame's alterations, making it extremely impractical.

TL:DR leave Aldaron's Proposal as it is until we have a stable metagame and no more pressing matters (hopefully we'll have one soon since so little was banned last round, and we'll soon be able to measure that at all since stats will be coming out).

Indeed, I am referring to Aldaron's proposal. While 36% is not an insignificant portion of the community, for most of these matters, people mellow out and for the most past accept the status quo after a short time. The fact that 64% of the community would express satisfaction after more than two months shows that there are serious issues with simply leaving Aldaron's proposal as it is. While the poll may not show anything more specific than that, it certainly shows that much. But if you feel that an alternative poll would get more useful information, I won't stop you from making it.

But while the metagame is more stable now, it was not made completely stable. There are still other issues, and why should they be dealt with first? By banning more before we unban what isn't broken, we allow for the possibility of bans that might later become unnecessary. What if the incredibly fast Water-type Pokemon prohibited by Aldaron's proposal could check Blaziken so well that if they were permitted, Blaziken would not be broken? Questions like this will be a concern for everything that happens throughout the time until we retest the Swift Swim Pokemon.

Brain drain shouldn't be a concern; it's not like suspect ladders are a new concept. I can't tell what you're trying to say in the rest of this paragraph. You seem to be insisting on a number of things without giving a reason. Why would we need to restrict tests to that time frame rather than doing them simultaneously?

 

[Fireburn]

I agree with this whole heartedly, the fact that rain boosts water types power and lowers fire types power is what makes it that much better than sandstorm. The only pokemon that gets an attack / spa boost on its stab moves in sand is Randorosu which is what makes sand much more balanced than rain. The same argument can be made for sun as it boosts fire attacks and reduces water types power, but sun pokemon are weak to priority and stealth rock weak, which put them at a greater disadvantage. Rain still over centralizes and is in general to powerful, if you take rain out of the metagame, I feel like generation 5 is at its best.

Alot of users seem to be making the argument that there are other swift swim users that are not broken in rain. You may be right, but honestly I wouldn't use any of them beside maybe Qwilfish / Floatzel. If I were to run a drizzle team I would abuse bulky steel types, Thunder and Hurricane abusers (as reach mentioned) and things like sub toxicroak that actually work outside of rain. Not to mention the things I mentioned are overall much better in rain than the said swift swimmers excluding Kabutops, Ludicolo and Kingdra.

All in all Drizzle is broken all around as far as I see it, ban it completely.

My opinion as well.

 

[Thorhammer]

Because out of the three options not in favor of a complex ban (which is what I am ultimately attempting to avoid), I feel that banning Swift Swim is the least damaging ban. While you may feel that rain still has an offensive playstyle with the use of Rain Dance + Swift Swim, I think that's honestly ridiculous. I would LOVE if statistics would be posted up soon, so that I can further prove this point. However, it is my feeling that no one playing to win is going to fork over infinite rain, free turn rain for temporary rain that requires a move slot, an item slot, and can be inevitably stalled out. Particularly when sand and sun don't need to be placed under the same conditions to reach their peak.

However, while I completely disagree with you on that notion, it is a difference of opinion at this point, as without statistics, I cannot prove or disprove that.

...What?

I'm not concerned about preserving the existing Rain Dance + Swift Swim playstyle. I'm talking about bringing back the previous Drizzle + Swift Swim playstyle, just without the broken sweepers.

I am only concerned with competitively viable playstyles. I do not feel that Rain Dance has any place in OU as long as Drizzle Politoed is legal. I feel that (assuming others agree on my notion that Rain Dance + Swift Swim strategies are not competitively viable) others share the same sentiments.

See above. Drizzle + Swift Swim is a perfectly viable and balanced OU playstyle as long as Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops, and perhaps others are taken out of it.

You need to consider the possibility that Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops are not the only problematic users of Swift Swim. The moment we banned Swift Swim + Drizzle, Blaziken was immediately sent upstairs. A similar effect happened when we banned Darkrai, Shaymin-S, and Moody; soon afterwards, people were crying to have Drizzle axed.

Kingdra, Ludicolo and Kabutops were the top picks for abusing the Swift Swim ability, but we do not know if something else will easily fill their place the moment they leave. I feel this is important to keep in mind. It isn't so much a reason to ban Swift Swim as it is a reason to avoid allowing Drizzle and Swift Swim and just banning any number of those three.

It's a possibility, but not one we can assume will happen. I already explained this. At the very least, we need to know whether or not anything else will be broken when using Swift Swim + Drizzle before making a decision.

What needs to be kept in mind is that if other Swift Swim Pokemon fill the place of Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops as top-tier OU sweepers, that's perfectly fine. The only thing that's a problem is if they also fill their place as broken, unstoppable OU sweepers, which is far less likely. Even if, say, Omastar, Gorebyss, and Carracosta all turn out to also be broken, then the Swift Swim + Drizzle playstyle will be continued with Qwilfish, Huntail, and Floatzel. The playstyle will always be continued unless all Swift Swim Pokemon which are viable in OU turn out to be broken, and that just isn't plausible to assume.

We're not in your usual predicament regarding suspects who are broken. We're not dealing with Garchomp who, as a single entity, is broken in of himself without other outside forces acting inward. Without the three factors at work (Drizzle, Swift Swim, Kingdra/Ludicolo/Kabutops), we have no issue. Therefor we simply cannot assume the Pokemon are broken, and issue a ban. I thought I would have made this rather concise at this point.

You've stated it, but you have yet to give a reason why that would make banning Swift Swim better than banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops. You seem to be missing that vital step. Any of nthese points apply just as much against banning Swift Swim as against banning Pokemon.

But as I stated before (perhaps not to you; I can't remember), a suspect does not have to be broken on its own. Gen 4 Garchomp was broken. Was a Gen 4 team consisting only of Garchomp broken? No. Garchomp needed basic team support, but that was not sufficient reason not to ban Garchomp entirely.

As I pointed out above, I am not seeing it. If people are using Rain Dance + Swift Swim, I'd hardly call it a notable, effective strategy that the majority of the community even really cares about. It was a nice idea when Aldaron was proposing it, but lets be honest; the benefits don't outweigh the consequences of not running Drizzle.

Statistics will clear this up, or possibly some player input from players who have reached a reasonable rating with said strategy. Until such a time, I see no reason to even make that worthy of consideration.

Drizzle isn't an option with such a team, anyway. And yet again you ignore my point about Swift Swim + Drizzle teams being banned by a ban of Swift Swim.

I think I've made it obvious at this point that I don't support further continuing the complex ban we have in place, or adding to it (even if you don't consider adding to an existing ban complicating matters further). Simply put I feel it needs to go provided we come to an alternative solution, which as I presented to you I feel is possible.

Fair enough.

Only problem is, there are better alternative solutions than the one you proposed.

It is simplistic and might ultimately be the way to go. However, due to the fact that it isn't the Pokemon themselves (but a contribution of all the factors) that come together to make or break these Pokemon, and thus distributing the blame amongsts different factors, I'd rather choose the option that bans the least amount of Pokemon while solving the problem concisely. Banning Swift Swim does this.

That's not a reason. Banning Swift Swim rather than banning the individual broken Pokemon will shrink the number of Pokemon viable in OU and wreck viable lower-tier strategies, and for what? The goal is not to ban less Pokemon; it's to keep the most possible strategies viable.

 

[Sajak]

The goal is not to ban less Pokemon; it's to keep the most possible strategies viable.

I have to disagree here. The purpose of a ban is to remove broken aspects of the game from the metagame.

 

[Benlisted]

Indeed, I am referring to Aldaron's proposal. While 36% is not an insignificant portion of the community, for most of these matters, people mellow out and for the most past accept the status quo after a short time. The fact that 64% of the community would express satisfaction after more than two months shows that there are serious issues with simply leaving Aldaron's proposal as it is. While the poll may not show anything more specific than that, it certainly shows that much. But if you feel that an alternative poll would get more useful information, I won't stop you from making it.

But while the metagame is more stable now, it was not made completely stable. There are still other issues, and why should they be dealt with first? By banning more before we unban what isn't broken, we allow for the possibility of bans that might later become unnecessary. What if the incredibly fast Water-type Pokemon prohibited by Aldaron's proposal could check Blaziken so well that if they were permitted, Blaziken would not be broken? Questions like this will be a concern for everything that happens throughout the time until we retest the Swift Swim Pokemon.

Brain drain shouldn't be a concern; it's not like suspect ladders are a new concept. I can't tell what you're trying to say in the rest of this paragraph. You seem to be insisting on a number of things without giving a reason. Why would we need to restrict tests to that time frame rather than doing them simultaneously?

The assertion that people mellow out and accept the status quo is pretty unprovable either way - for instance some people still complain about Chomp's 4th gen banning, there's absolutely no way to quantify this though. As I've said before, the 64% who are dissatisfied does not say anything about whether those people would want to do anything about it, though you do know this. Moreover, arguably the including of both pro and anti Aldaron elements is unfair, since those anti-Aldaron and pro-Drizzle banning would presumably not care about the content of the ban at all - which like I mentioned is the aim of this thread. Essentially, it means that people irrelevant to the thread's aim are biasing the poll, which is why even the 64% shouldn't be assumed to mean anything at all in terms of potential action, though your assertion of dissatisfaction stands.

I'm not going to make another thread - because there's already enough discussion threads on the matter, and because LightningTiger has made one anyway so I'd be repeat posting even more.

Though I don't think there's any point arguing over a course of action since the poll in no way indicates the support said action would have, I'll go over stuff in detail once here. Other issues should be dealt with first since Aldaron's proposal did what it was intended to - balance Drizzle more. All altering the ban would be doing is fine-tuning Drizzle's balancing, and since I personally do not agree with any complex bans for reasons already discussed, it seems that the primary option open to us if we follow this protocol is banning Swift Swim instead - which would have few impacts on the meta. Individual abusers would be possible but given the length of time it would take, and the huge opposition to banning something not inherently broken like Kingdra I recieved when I proposed it in round 2, I would not think this would be be accepted by the community. Yes this is somewhat of a leap in logic, but I see no point going through with a process unlikely to be accepted when I personally tried very hard to promote individual pokemon bans previously. I also think I've already made clear my reasons for not wanting to go further with complex bans, so hopefully you can see why my logic leads me to this conclusion.

The other reason I advise waiting until the meta is fully stable to alter this is that it gives us something to do. In Gen 4 UU, people were so bored by the end they rejoyced when Hera fell and shook up the tier. When OU stagnates, looking back on the lesser issues and refining them gives the meta chance to shift slightly and not become stagnant. This should have no bearing on the decision however, it's just an advantage to not doing this right now.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Brain Drain would occur if two projects were on at the same time, there is no doubt of it. People testing Aldaron's proposal in isolation from the rest of the suspect process are not people testing suspects. I mention above why I don't like the idea of splitting it off, but the other point I think I didn't make clear is this: if we split off an Aldaron's Proposal test, how will we control when it returns and when it impacts upon the meta? If it hopes to significantly alter AP and hence the meta, then the suspect meta would also be altered by those changes when implemented. If implemented partway through a period, then more time would be needed for the period, delaying suspect testing (effectively the two processes run in serial rather than in parallel anyway). If implemented after or at a supect test period, we could end up with Manaphy syndrome bans, mons no longer broken by things added back into the meta through the parallel AP test, which is obviously an issue.

 

[Ulevo]

...What?

I'm not concerned about preserving the existing Rain Dance + Swift Swim playstyle. I'm talking about bringing back the previous Drizzle + Swift Swim playstyle, just without the broken sweepers.

I understood that. I was under the impression, however, that one of your points for not agreeing with the idea to ban Swift Swim outright was that it would ruin a playstyle, specifically Swift Swim under Rain Dance. If I misinterpreted, then my apologies.

See above. Drizzle + Swift Swim is a perfectly viable and balanced OU playstyle as long as Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops, and perhaps others are taken out of it.

Replied above.

What needs to be kept in mind is that if other Swift Swim Pokemon fill the place of Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops as top-tier OU sweepers, that's perfectly fine. The only thing that's a problem is if they also fill their place as broken, unstoppable OU sweepers, which is far less likely. Even if, say, Omastar, Gorebyss, and Carracosta all turn out to also be broken, then the Swift Swim + Drizzle playstyle will be continued with Qwilfish, Huntail, and Floatzel. The playstyle will always be continued unless all Swift Swim Pokemon which are viable in OU turn out to be broken, and that just isn't plausible to assume.

I fail to see the benefit of preserving a playstyle if it means having to ban Pokemon in the process in order to preserve it. It is in my mind more preferable to have more OU viable Pokemon than it is to have more ways to abuse Drizzle.

You've stated it, but you have yet to give a reason why that would make banning Swift Swim better than banning Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops. You seem to be missing that vital step. Any of nthese points apply just as much against banning Swift Swim as against banning Pokemon.

I already did. It maintains the approach of simple, concise bans while avoiding as many bans as possible.

Drizzle isn't an option with such a team, anyway. And yet again you ignore my point about Swift Swim + Drizzle teams being banned by a ban of Swift Swim.

I think we've misinterpreted what each other is talking about, so I'll just leave this be.

Only problem is, there are better alternative solutions than the one you proposed.

I disagree. As I stated before, Swift Swim and an out right ban of Drizzle are the only bans to help alleviate the problem that ban as few Pokemon as possible. Banning the Pokemon IS an option, but because this is not a usual case, I do not see a reason to put multiple Pokemon on a chopping block.

That's not a reason. Banning Swift Swim rather than banning the individual broken Pokemon will shrink the number of Pokemon viable in OU and wreck viable lower-tier strategies, and for what? The goal is not to ban less Pokemon; it's to keep the most possible strategies viable.

Um. How? Ludicolo and Kingdra certainly didn't become unviable just because they lost Swift Swim? Kabutops, I am unsure. As for UU, if you referring to Rain Dance strategies being ruined due to the absence of Swift Swim, I don't see a reason why Swift Swim could only be banned in OU. But that's my take.

 

[Quixim]

I'm agreeing with Thorhammer here. It's the offending pokemon, Kabutops, Ludicolo, and Kingdra that need to be dealt with. Drizzle can work on its own, adn there are plenty of Swift Swim pokemon that don't need to be banned in the blanket strategy (Or we'll also be -forced- to ban Ninjask and the speed boost ability, or have hypocritical standards).

I still feel that if we feel alright with differentiating between abilities on pokemon (Such as a blazken without speed boost being legal and unbanned), we should do so with these pokemon - nobody can say that the alternate abilities for Ludicolo or Kindra are broken at all, and a rain dish Ludicolo can still be viable.

However, if we decide that an ability on a pokemon doesn't make a difference, we'll be forced to ban those three pokemon outright.