np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[Downf4ll]

Just because you don't know if it's broken does not mean it's broken. Just because he didn't say I shouldn't ban him doesn't mean I should.

I think he meant the opposite; if you don't know weather it's broken or not, it probably isn't broken. Regardless, abstain pretty much means "idfk" and since suspects are usually OU until proven ubers (unless I'm mistaken), voting abstain is the equivalent to "do not ban", only it splits the vote up.

Also @ Icyman28

I never said to not fight if someone disagrees with you, I said you don't have to restart a fight where you have no opposition anymore. Also, the people who want to ban things that shouldn't be banned are usually the minority, and there are just as many people (sometimes more) who don't want change as there are people who do. The forums are a perfect example of that; do you honestly believe that people who didn't care post anything here?

 

[Fvm]

I agree, since being on the fence about a suspect means to vote OU, there is really no purpose for the Abstain option, its completely useless

 

[TheFonz]

so from now on we will use gravity magnetons to counter SVchomps

 

[Vladimir]

Did you even read this post before submitting it? Your hypothetical scenario is pointless because it doesn't exist. The fact that we are playing an emulator (not everyone does this; some people play wifi and you really can't do shit about freeze there anyway) doesn't mean that we can alter game mechanics as we please, otherwise we aren't emulating, we are creating.

You cite the change of unfreezing (which is actually 20%) to be equal to the chances of flamethrower's burn. Getting frozen in the first place is equally as unlikely. In fact, you have twice the chance of defrosting as you do getting frozen in the first place. Furthermore, anyone who is relying on the chance of freeze will fail miserably. "Lol using ice moves is luck-based because of freeze" is the stupidest argument I've seen as of yet, which is saying something given the recent Giratina-A discussion.

Next we will be getting rid of critical hits, allowing illegal breeding combination, and suddenly allowing 252 EVs in every stat because "we are playing a simulator."

Quit your bitching about hax and just play the game you were given.

The hypothetical scenario was used in order for people with half a brain to realize how broken freeze is (meaning that i never expected you to do so).

"Lol using ice moves is luck-based because of freeze" is the stupidest argument I've seen as of yet

This is a clear example of trying to troll and failing miserably, because i never claimed that. I reported the status freeze as broken, not the moves that cause it. And you absolutely have to get an argument heated, amirite? Go to the toilet if you wanna piss, not the forums.

And yet your low-capacity brain didn't manage to figure out the point of my post even in the slightest, which was: If Freeze Clause is, indeed, a battle rule, as stated at the start of every match, it should be implemented properly.

And if we are going to play the game... "as we were given", we might as well remove Evasion, OHKO, and Sleep Clause. All these clauses exist for a reason, and this reason is that what they ban introduce an unwanted and unnecessary lack-reliant factor in the game.

At the very least remove Freeze Clause from the Battle rules (since it isn't actually implemented). It's misleading.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

I'm not quite sure I follow.

Battle between XXX and Mario With Lasers started!

Tier: BW OU
Variation: +14, -17
Rule: Rated
Rule: Sleep Clause
Rule: Species Clause
Rule: Wifi Battle

Mario With Lasers sent out Ninetales!
XXX sent out Dragonite!
Ninetales's Drought intensified the sun's rays!

I see no Freeze Clause.

 

[Vladimir]

Yeah, i just laddered and saw it too... seems like they removed it yesterday or something. A log i have that's a week old lists Freeze Clause in the battle rules. I guess now it's not misleading at least...

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Uh...no. I have logs from March/April showing no freeze clause.

 

[Razza]

Also sand veil and snow need ability bans, not complex ones, when i use a 100% accuracy move and i am not paralysed i expect to hit with my move, people abusing sv garchomp is just unfair it wont be long before rough skin is released and sv just gives sd sub chomp an unfair advantage. many a time my team has faced a sand team and i have played better than my opponent and am 4-2 up and can easily win when sv strikes and chomp sd then sweeps my whole team. It is unfair and uncompetitive and needs a vote at least for a ban at the end of this round. That way everyone wins as those who dont want it banned can get voting rights and vote against and others can vote for if they want it banned.

 

[IcyMan28]

The hypothetical scenario was used in order for people with half a brain to realize how broken freeze is (meaning that i never expected you to do so). This is a clear example of trying to troll and failing miserably, because i never claimed that. I reported the status freeze as broken, not the moves that cause it. And you absolutely have to get an argument heated, amirite? Go to the toilet if you wanna piss, not the forums.

And yet your low-capacity brain didn't manage to figure out the point of my post even in the slightest, which was: If Freeze Clause is, indeed, a battle rule, as stated at the start of every match, it should be implemented properly.

And if we are going to play the game... "as we were given", we might as well remove Evasion, OHKO, and Sleep Clause. All these clauses exist for a reason, and this reyason is that what they ban introduce an unwanted and unnecessary lack-reliant factor in the game.

At the very least remove Freeze Clause from the Battle rules (since it isn't actually implemented). It's misleading.

If you really want to make the stupidity argument, go learn the difference between the current Sleep/Evasion/OHKO clauses and the freeze clause you suggest.

 

[capefeather]

*sigh* Look at what the Brightpowder / Lax Incense ban has wrought... But seriously, the Freeze Clause was ruled obsolete by informal discussion on PR quite a while ago (unfortunately I can't find it within the time interval that I'm allowing myself to post itt). I don't think it's ever been implemented in this gen. It's fitting that IcyMan28 mentioned reliance on hoping for the freeze because that's pretty much how a lot of RBY worked, which was why the Freeze Clause existed at all.

 

[AlphaSpade]

Also sand veil and snow need ability bans, not complex ones, when i use a 100% accuracy move and i am not paralysed i expect to hit with my move, people abusing sv garchomp is just unfair it wont be long before rough skin is released and sv just gives sd sub chomp an unfair advantage. many a time my team has faced a sand team and i have played better than my opponent and am 4-2 up and can easily win when sv strikes and chomp sd then sweeps my whole team. It is unfair and uncompetitive and needs a vote at least for a ban at the end of this round. That way everyone wins as those who dont want it banned can get voting rights and vote against and others can vote for if they want it banned.

I hope you're aware that a direct ability ban soft bans Garchomp, Sandslash, Cacturne, and Froslass. You also cut deep in Glaceon's already small movepool.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Also sand veil and snow need ability bans, not complex ones, when i use a 100% accuracy move and i am not paralysed i expect to hit with my move

Yet another thing I don't quite follow. You are facing a Garchomp. Under Sandstorm. Shouldn't you expect your moves will have 80% accuracy? I mean... that's the point after all... Specially because you said "and I am not paralyzed". What makes having 75% accuracy something you "can expect", but not Sand Veil activating?

But seriously, the Freeze Clause was ruled obsolete by informal discussion on PR quite a while ago (unfortunately I can't find it within the time interval that I'm allowing myself to post itt).

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61474

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

So what if there is no point in abstain? I will admit, a vote for adstain is a vote for no ban. But the reason it exists is the idea behind it, they truely don't know if it should be banned or not, so we should not force them to decide. I could point out to various examples in real life, but I don't even have to. In the metagame exists OU and BL, now realistically, anything in OU or BL is limited to OU, and OU only, so BL is actually pointless in that respect, so why not join up those two with that logic? No, BL has a point, it shows pokemon which are banned from UU, and those just used enough in OU, to be OU. Umbreon ended up as OU last generation, even though it was no where near broken in UU. The same can be said for various OU pokemon, like Tentacruel, Electrivire, and Weavile. If you joined up BL and OU, you might end up with a UU metagame, with lots of OU pokemon, that aren't "broken" in UU. Sure its a subjective reason, but its a decent one, UU players don't want OU in UU, hence the name.

 

[Miscellaneous]

On the point of abstain: (why it should be removed)

The voters who qualify must have played >20 matches in suspect. They must have come across said suspect(s) at least once. The whole point of the suspect test is to have a "feel" for each suspect, see if they are broken or not. I think most intelligent voters (who will be good players due to the rating requirements) should have a basic idea about how broken a pokemon is. It's a pretty major decision to actually ban a pokemon, so if the voter is in two minds (considering they have played with/ against the suspect) they should vote to not ban.

That's under the assumption that very often something that is broken is easily apparent. If you've played >20 games and most of the time; a Rayquaza team really gives you trouble, you never feel as if you can win. Alternatively; you use Rayquaza, realise most of your wins come from having that pokemon, etc. It should really be axiomatic that Rayquaza is broken in this case. If a pokemon is "almost" or "sort of" broken, that probably means it's one of the top in the tier, but is not ridiculously effective and unbeatable. i.e. Not broken. I really think people should trust their instincts in this case. If you're unsure, don't ban.

And if players are playing less than 20 games, something is wrong. If players never come across Rayquaza in a Rayquaza suspect test, then again axiomatically it shows Rayquaza is not broken.

Writing this out really makes me appreciate the suspect test. If done properly, it does seem the best way of dealing with suspects.

Abstain: I don't like.
Anything middle-ground: I don't like.
Keeping it simple and easy and transparent ("ban" or "do not ban") is a fantastic system, in my eyes at least.

 

[Thorns]

i like dragon type pokemon in this testing period

 

[Miscellaneous]

^ I think Excadrill was made just to troll that chart.
>Magnezone with choice scarf herp derp
And I'm actually being 100% serious about that.

 

[adman2]

^ I think Excadrill was made just to troll that chart.
>Magnezone with choice scarf herp derp
And I'm actually being 100% serious about that.

As far as I can tell (calculations done with the old Metalkid IV calc; Steelix with stats changed to represent Excadrill), HP Fire will never OHKO Excadrill with Air Balloon Magnezone. The mole really does troll that flowchart. Charts only work with Ken I guess! :)

 

[Katakiri]

I read through the past 4 pages of this thread. Christ.

Sand Veil is what we're all up in arms about? Sand Veil?

Okay. Let's ban Speed Boost, Intimidate, Huge Power, Sheer Force, Swift Swim, Chlorophyll, really any stat/power boosting ability.

It's all the same thing.

"Guh! I'm not supposed to have 80 acc!"
"Guh! I'm not supposed to get OHKO'd by that!"
"Guh! I'm supposed to out-speed that Pokemon!"
"GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!"

Hell, that godawful logic aside, 80 acc isn't exactly that bad. I guaran-damn-tee that the vast majority of you Drizzle Teams and all of you Sand Storm Teams are running 80 Acc moves in the form of Stone Edge & Hydro Pump or even worse, Sleep Powder, Will-O-Wisp, Focus Miss, Hypnosis.

CLEARLY the problem is not Sand Veil or...Snow Cloak, (REALLY?) it's Garchomp you're pissed at.

Don't even begin to tell me that Sand Veil Gliscor (the whole TWO of them on the ladder) and Snow Cloak Froslass are just completely sweeping your teams.



On a less pointless subject, are we just going soft on Excadrill now? Now that we realize he has about 3 true counters & about 5 soft counters if they're at 100% HP, he's just off the radar now?

This 400+ Attack Stat Steel/Ground Pokemon with Swords Dance & perfect coverage coming from a speed Deoxys-S needs a Choice Scarf to hit?

We're all just happy to have Gliscor or Bronzong eating up that team slot, eh?


I think I've ranted enough. Gotta stop before I get started on Latios.

 

[capefeather]

Remember that by abstaining you help the side that's winning. This matters when the vote comes between a simple majority and a supermajority. It's inherently harder to unban than it is to ban. So unless you REALLY don't care or have some other really compelling reason NOT TO VOTE, vote "ban" or "do not ban".

 

[JSND]

Because everyone and their mother like using gliscor on their team when it wall several things like crazy and trolling excadrill without rest.

Yeah Excadriill is not as broken as many think it was back in round 1,2 and 3

 

[Miscellaneous]

Remember that by abstaining you help the side that's winning. This matters when the vote comes between a simple majority and a supermajority. It's inherently harder to unban than it is to ban. So unless you REALLY don't care or have some other really compelling reason NOT TO VOTE, vote "ban" or "do not ban".

This is very true. I believe Philip put it as something like "abstain is an option for those who do not want to vote". It's good that abstains aren't cast as neutral but are literally a non-vote as opposed to a neutral.

I'm just questioning the validity of that situation even arising. Like I mentioned in my previous post, there can never be a "not enough information has been aquired for this suspect, therefore I cannot vote" if you've managed to secure voting rights. And people "not having an opinion" seems like complete rubbish. How can you not have an opinion on a pokemon's tiering? Voters have already made it clear they want to vote.

The main snipe I have with this is the point that capefeather touched upon. Potentially a situation could arise where there are 40 voters; 33 vote abstain; 5 vote ban; 2 votes "do not ban". In this case the suspect is banned by 5 voters out of the many hundreds that play. Even worse you could potentially have 39 abstains and 1 ban. This would be unlikely to happen, but the fact that it could happen is wrong.

There's also some ambiguity that I don't like between "abstain" and "neither" that I don't like. True, the difference is made quite clear, but when a vote is commonly worth >2% of the overall verdict then just one ambiguation could make the difference between a no-ban, 50% or 2/3+1.

It seems a bit "eh" to "make" people vote one way or the other. But I'd prefer that. They will always have enough expericence and information on all suspects and they have voluntarily consented to vote.

 

[Drawler]

I read through the past 4 pages of this thread. Christ.

Sand Veil is what we're all up in arms about? Sand Veil?

Okay. Let's ban Speed Boost, Intimidate, Huge Power, Sheer Force, Swift Swim, Chlorophyll, really any stat/power boosting ability.

It's all the same thing.

"Guh! I'm not supposed to have 80 acc!"
"Guh! I'm not supposed to get OHKO'd by that!"
"Guh! I'm supposed to out-speed that Pokemon!"
"GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!"

Actually no, its not the same thing at all. I suggest you at least read the arguments proposed for banning it before throwing a hissy fit.

Hell, that godawful logic aside, 80 acc isn't exactly that bad. I guaran-damn-tee that the vast majority of you Drizzle Teams and all of you Sand Storm Teams are running 80 Acc moves in the form of Stone Edge & Hydro Pump or even worse, Sleep Powder, Will-O-Wisp, Focus Miss, Hypnosis.

The presence of those common low accuracy moves is a good point actually, one that supports the argument of those who wish to see a ban on veil/cloak far more than it does yours. The previously usable accuracy of those moves is reduced to something not quite so usable after sand veil kicks in.

 

[LionKingMax]

People using low accuracy moves know that it will miss sometimes. Some people prefer using more accurate moves to ensure that they hit, reducing the luck factor in their games.

But then abilities like Sand Veil and Snowcloak kicks in. People have been trying to reduce the luck factor to a maximum, preventing evasive moves or lucky items, because people like having a fair game. Missing 4 times in a row because of stuff like Sand Veil or Snow Cloak is a rage factor.

It is sad to see that Luck > Skills when factoring Evasive abilities, even though they had it in the bag -players might still lose because of something stupid like that.

 

[TorchicBlaziken]

When you post a rage log of Snow Cloak then we might consider taking the idea of a Snow Cloak ban seriously.

The Brightpowder/Lax Incense ban turned out to be more of a slippery slope than anything that people kept accusing.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

When you post a rage log of Snow Cloak then we might consider taking the idea of a Snow Cloak ban seriously.

I get bs haxed by Froslass every single match I face one under Hail in UU (HP Fire missing thrice in a row and then Destiny Bonding me when I hit, Encore missing then three FPs, CH Blizzard freezing while I miss Shadow Ball, even Quick Claw Froslass wtf), and yet I do not think a "rage log" would be enough reason for us to consider a ban. Decisions made on impulse are never a good idea, after all.