np: OU Suspect Testing Round 5 - Sandstorm (Excadrill/Thundurus Banned)

[jas61292]

I'm only responding to this because this is pretty much the point of my entire post and it's obvious that this is where our points differ.

You believe that Drizzle is the metagame that Game Freak gave us but I don't believe that. Game Freak doesn't give us the metagame. We make it ourselves using what Game Freak Gave us. Say someone else made a metagame and banned drizzle from that. Game Freak gave them a metagame the same as us but they dont have drizzle in it. Drizzle is just one more factor in the metagame. It can be banned just the same as anything else.

Drought was banned in UU yet it basically made the gen 4 uu metagame just the same as Drought.

Nothing can be unbannable because everything is apart of the metagame. Drizzle isn't the metagame so it can be banned just like Drought in UU.

A competitive metagame can and will arise from any set of Pokemon and rules if you can get enough people to play. That is a fact. However it is Smogon's policy to stick as closely to in-game play as possible while still making a competitive metagame. As far as I am concerned that means keeping things like Drizzle if it is at all possible to make a balanced metagame with it. Especially since it is not a Pokemon, and shapes the metagame much more than any one Pokemon could.

As for UU with Drought, Drought became completely dominating. Unlike Rain in OU, Drought did not have competition for setting up weather, and made Pokemon that benefit for it have almost no downside. As I said in my last post, it is when this happens that banning something like Drought is OK, but this was a much bigger problem than Drizzle in OU.

Oh, and for the record, I was against the Drought ban, but not to the same extent as I am against banning Drizzle.

 

[KurashiDragon]

...The same thing applies to Drizzle. It may break Kingdra and god knows how many other pokémon, but so many others became viable, good, very good or whatever in a Drizzle metagame. As I've said, this is a matter of quality, not quantity. If Drizzle breaks 10 pokémon and make other 100 viable, what exactly is the problem here, the broken pokémon or the weather? And if Drought made 4 pokémon broken and other 30 viable, would you say it's less "broken" than Drizzle?

This is a very common misinterpretation of Drizzle.

In the may Statistics I counted 3 OU pokemon that were mainly brought to OU because of Drizzle. (Tornadus, Politoed, and Toxicroak) It is true that alot of OU pokemon are effected by drizzle to the point they can make 1 - 2 movesets or survive longer and sweep in Drizzle, if drizzle were to go from OU only 3 pokemon would be majorly effected to the point of changing tier. Everything else would shift positions in some way or another but nothing else would be effected to the point of lowering their tier. Meanwhile there are an Unknown number of pokemon that were nerfed because of Drizzle to the point of being UU and a few pokemon were banned / Complex Banned because of Drizzle. If Drizzle were to go these pokemon would make their way back to OU.

In pokemon, quantity and quality are both factors in making a successful metagame. Without a high enough number of pokemon in the metagame it's nothing more than a failure, however the metagame has to be fun to be successful. You can argue all day and night that fun should have nothing to do with the metagame but what you seem to forget is that Pokemon is a GAME! When I get on PO, I would like to have a good time playing a good game. Winning is fun yes, but I really don't care if I win or lose so long as I have fun playing the game. Drizzle is not fun. It's both broken and boring. It breaks many pokemon and doesn't increase the viability. (As explained in my last paragraph)

A competitive metagame can and will arise from any set of Pokemon and rules if you can get enough people to play. That is a fact. However it is Smogon's policy to stick as closely to in-game play as possible while still making a competitive metagame. As far as I am concerned that means keeping things like Drizzle if it is at all possible to make a balanced metagame with it. Especially since it is not a Pokemon, and shapes the metagame much more than any one Pokemon could.

As for UU with Drought, Drought became completely dominating. Unlike Rain in OU, Drought did not have competition for setting up weather, and made Pokemon that benefit for it have almost no downside. As I said in my last post, it is when this happens that banning something like Drought is OK, but this was a much bigger problem than Drizzle in OU.

Oh, and for the record, I was against the Drought ban, but not to the same extent as I am against banning Drizzle.

Like I said, this is where our opinion's differ. I believe Drizzle isn't the metagame but apart of the metagame the same as sand and Drought is.

As for the Drought Dominating UU, Hail was dominating UU as well. None of the abusers of Hail were OU so every single abuser of hail can make it in UU. Yet that wasn't banned.

 

[Ninja_13]

Just wanted to pop in and say that jas61292 and Mario with Lasers' last couple of posts were actually exactly what I meant with my post from several pages ago. I blame the fact that I was angry, tired from a 10-hour work shift at my worst job site, hyped up on caffeine, and typing it at about 6:30-7 in the morning for any misrepresentation of my thoughts in that last post.

I'm going to press my luck and make a more thought-out metaphor than my terrible last one on the Drizzle situation. Let's talk football, even though I'm not really interested in it myself. Say the players are the coach, the Pokemon are the players, and Drizzle is a sexy, sexy cheerleader, who became a cheerleader because her boyfriend is on the team. The cheerleader obviously cheers her boyfriend's team on, and they get confidence (Drizzle's boosts) that makes them play better. The other team, on the other hand, gets a moral boost because they're horny young adults (did I mention this is college football? Cause it is) and think, "Man, that sexy sexy teenager is pretty hot, I'll impress her so that she might want me so bad". Even though both teams are getting a boost, the cheerleader's boyfriend's team gets a bigger boost because she came with them, and is cheering them on directly, rather than just being gratified with it's presence.

Now, on the team with the cheerleader, there are different types of players. There are some who aren't very good players, and only the cheerleader's boosts make them even average players. Then there are the average players, who become really good because of the cheerleader. After that, there are the players who are like the last two, only they become so good thanks to the cheerleader that they run circles around the other players, and break bones when they tackle the other team. Finally, there are the all-star players who are already that good without the cheerleader, and she just makes them even better. Now, with these different players getting boosted by this cheerleader, who do you think should be signed to the pros? The cheerleader? No, because she's not the one making plays. You would try to get those last two types of players to sign, since they are a league above the college players.

Also, I'm quite disappointed that nobody said a single thing about the only point I actually cared about, the first hide tag. I mean, it didn't have to be agreement, hell it could have been an embarrassingly harsh criticism for all I cared, I just wanted opinions on it. Maybe it isn't quite topical atm, but oh well.

For the whole "Testing the individual Swift Swimmers back into OU" thing, I was kinda thinking about this for a while, and was wondering if we might be able to test them backwards at a quicker pace while continuing Suspect Testing (if we would need to at all). What I mean is, we take all the Pokemon that we know are shitty even with Swift Swim, like Magikarp and Luvdisc, and we throw them back into OU. We wait a week, and then have a quick vote on whether anything is too overpowering somehow. If not, then we add in the next-weakest Pokemon in the line and repeat the above. We continue until we reach a point where the newly-added Pokemon breaks OU, at which point we keep that Pokemon in Ubers, and we can either skip to the next one to check if it's broken too, or just preempt how that will end up and keep the other Pokemon above said broken Pokemon in Ubers as well. Either way, Aldaron's Proposal is repealed and the Pokemon found broken are banned as a whole. As far as I can tell, here are some Pros and Cons:

Pros:
1. Can relatively quickly get through SSers
2. Doesn't overwhelm us with shit we are already 99% certain are broken
3. With a list made beforehand, players looking to abuse the more possibly-broken Pokemon can prepare for their temporary unban before it happens.
4. Can be done alongside any standard Suspect testing that may need to be done.

Cons:
1. Said weakest-to-strongest list would have to be made, and even then might not be accurate thanks to being mostly theorymon.
2. Shorter period may not be enough to accurately size each Pokemon up metagame-wise.
3. Would have to assume that Drizzle stays in the metagame, or to prevent that, would have to make Drizzle exempt from suspect testing (which I'm guessing some would not like that).

There are more that I thought of, but I'm such a scatterbrain that I already forgot them.

Thoughts?

 

[alexwolf]

Drizzle is the common factor in any pokemon banned in part because of Drizzle. It unhealthy for the metagame when people ban part of the problem instead of the whole.

While it is true that Drizzle is only a factor in these pokemon bans, it is the common factor in all bans concerning it.

These 2 sentences don't make any sense at all.You are saying that when we examine x threats for a z characteristic then all these threats that are broken have a common factor z.Of course thay have it,we examined them based on this factor...

I probably should've made myself more clear of that.


That depends on how controversial it is. My opinion on outrage and Draco Meteor is that they aren't broken but that was only because the moves themselves aren't inherently broken on everything that uses them. Draco Meteor and Outrage are broken on Salamence. Congrats, does that mean that they are broken on Dragonite, Kingdra, or Flygon? No they weren't so they weren't broken. Drizzle has already proven that it's broken with many users. If drizzle is broken on a few things then whatever but if Drizzle is the deciding factor on many bans then its obvious that people aren't paying attention to drizzle itself.

I will only answer to this 'cause evrything else has been answered by someone else already...
Drizzle doesn't break the majority of it's abusers...Drizzle contributes as a factor to the overpowerness of some pokes...These pokes are not even the majority.
And when i say these pokes i refer to every rain abuser meaning every poke who can use thunder,hurricane,water moves,rain activated abilites and types that have weakness to fire.
If drizzle broke half or more of all these pokes then we could safely assume that something is wrong with drizzle 'cause it breaks more than half of its abusers which means that it is a so big and infuelncial factor that all the other factors(moves,movepool etc)almost don't matter or play a very little role to the brokeness of said pokes...
But this is clearly not the case...As outrage,DM etc,Drizzle only breaks a few of it's abusers so it's not drizzles fault.

 

[KurashiDragon]

These 2 sentences don't make any sense at all.You are saying that when we examine x threats for a z characteristic then all these threats that are broken have a common factor z.Of course thay have it,we examined them based on this factor...

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if enough pokemon are broken under specific Circumstances, (I.e if enough pokemon are broken under drizzle) drizzle should be the one discussed not the abusers.

Drizzle doesn't break the majority of it's abusers...Drizzle contributes as a factor to the overpowerness of some pokes...These pokes are not even the majority.

If Drizzle breaks enough abusers then it shoudl be banned. It doesn't need to be the majority of it's abusers. Only enough so that people start to notice a pattern that these pokemon are being broken because of Drizzle.

The fact that drizzle pokemon aren't among the majority of OU is entirely irrevelent. If Drizzle breaks enough pokemon it is broken.

And when i say these pokes i refer to every rain abuser meaning every poke who can use thunder,hurricane,water moves,rain activated abilites and types that have weakness to fire.

Like I said, these pokemon not being the majority of the metagame is irrevelent. If drizzle breaks enough pokemon, it is broken.

But this is clearly not the case...As outrage,DM etc,Drizzle only breaks a few of it's abusers so it's not drizzles fault.

Do you really think Kingdra is broken without Drizzle. Wait that question was already answered with the Aldaron Proposal. How many more pokemon do you think would be banned if the Aldaron Proposal hadn't happened. Way to many. At least the 3 main abusers for 1. Mabye Gorybess, Floatzel, Omastar, and maybe MAYBE Carracosta. So 5 in addition to Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops would've possibly been broken enough to ban. That is of course going into only the SwSw. If those 8 has actually been banned (I don't think most of them would've been banned but this is a Hypothetical situation) I think that would've been enough to warrent a Drizzle test considering none of these pokemon are anywhere near broken without Drizzle.

 

[alexwolf]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if enough pokemon are broken under specific Circumstances, (I.e if enough pokemon are broken under drizzle) drizzle should be the one discussed not the abusers.

First of all it is logical to not understand you the way wrote it...And what do you mean enough?Enough for you that you are biased against drizzle may be even 3 pokes...But thankfully this is not the case with most people here...

If Drizzle breaks enough abusers then it shoudl be banned. It doesn't need to be the majority of it's abusers. Only enough so that people start to notice a pattern that these pokemon are being broken because of Drizzle.

Again enough,enough,enough..Enough is a highly subjective term and is a very unfitting word for this situation...In the other hand thinking that if drizzle broke at least half of its abusers then it will merit a ban,is highly logical and not a so subjective viepoint in the problem as your 'enough' reasoning...

The fact that drizzle pokemon aren't among the majority of OU is entirely irrevelent. If Drizzle breaks enough pokemon it is broken.

Enough with the enough and pls explain us...

Like I said, these pokemon not being the majority of the metagame is irrevelent. If drizzle breaks enough pokemon, it is broken.

....

Do you really think Kingdra is broken without Drizzle. Wait that question was already answered with the Aldaron Proposal. How many more pokemon do you think would be banned if the Aldaron Proposal hadn't happened. Way to many. At least the 3 main abusers for 1. Mabye Gorybess, Floatzel, Omastar, and maybe MAYBE Carracosta. So 5 in addition to Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops would've possibly been broken enough to ban. That is of course going into only the SwSw. If those 8 has actually been banned (I don't think most of them would've been banned but this is a Hypothetical situation) I think that would've been enough to warrent a Drizzle test considering none of these pokemon are anywhere near broken without Drizzle.

Do you really think that salamence and latios would have been broken in 4th gen without outrage and draco meteor respcetively???
Also saying arbitary that if 8 rain abusers are banned then it will be enough for drizzle to get banned is so much subjective and unjustified...Sry but we can't let the metagame develop according to your needs...I don't know why you think that the number 8 is good but to me,and to every logical person i think,at least half of the abusers must be broken to prove drizzle's brokeness and not some random small numbers that fit your likings...Sry but when there are like 50(just saying,i am sure there are more) viable rain abusers,and you call 8 broken abusers(which is not even justified to begin with,i am sure that not more than 3 SSers would be banned in addition to the broken trio)a representative number to show drizzle's brokeness then sry but you are not convincing anyone...

 

[Matthew]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that if enough pokemon are broken under specific Circumstances, (I.e if enough pokemon are broken under drizzle) drizzle should be the one discussed not the abusers.

While I agree with the notion that if so many pokemon are banned due to Drizzle then Drizzle itself may have to go, but the other problem is I would only think that if 10 pokemon or so would be banned due to Drizzle, simply because I honestly don't care about pokemon remaining in OU. We have no way to say whether or not Drizzle limits diversity. So it's hard to really take a solid stance on these kind of things.

If Drizzle breaks enough abusers then it shoudl be banned. It doesn't need to be the majority of it's abusers. Only enough so that people start to notice a pattern that these pokemon are being broken because of Drizzle.

The fact that drizzle pokemon aren't among the majority of OU is entirely irrevelent. If Drizzle breaks enough pokemon it is broken.

This just again goes to my point of: how many pokemon is needed for this? I want a relative high number while people want it banned even with 0 pokemon removed into ubers

Like I said, these pokemon not being the majority of the metagame is irrevelent. If drizzle breaks enough pokemon, it is broken.

Do you really think Kingdra is broken without Drizzle. Wait that question was already answered with the Aldaron Proposal. How many more pokemon do you think would be banned if the Aldaron Proposal hadn't happened. Way to many. At least the 3 main abusers for 1. Mabye Gorybess, Floatzel, Omastar, and maybe MAYBE Carracosta. So 5 in addition to Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops would've possibly been broken enough to ban. That is of course going into only the SwSw. If those 8 has actually been banned (I don't think most of them would've been banned but this is a Hypothetical situation) I think that would've been enough to warrent a Drizzle test considering none of these pokemon are anywhere near broken without Drizzle.

See the pokemon who can effectively abuse Drizzle are the broken pokemon. Drizzle is just a useful tool that they can abuse better than anyone else, kind of like Soul Dew Lati@s (it's a stretch). Drizzle has really helped a ton of pokemon become better this generation (even some UUs from last gen) and, personally, I think that is outstanding! Now, you talk about a lot of SwiftSwimmers that are going to be banned and I really have to question it. Floatzel? It's good and fast, but it lacks the power that Kabutops and Kingdra have, and it lacks the bulk that Ludicolo has. Omastar would probably take over Kingdra's position in rain teams if Kingdra was ever banned. High Special Attack and Shell Smash is really awesome, though I'm not sure if it would be broken.

In any case, I think that it's good that Drizzle is around with Aldaron's Proposal -- while I love Swift Swim I think getting rid of it with Drizzle was the best step for the metagame.

 

[AuntAcid]

I know the staff doesn't want to unban non-Speed Boosting Blaziken because they don't want to make complex bans. My question, what's so complex about saying "Speed Boost Blaziken is banned not Blaze Blaziken"? It's not exactly rocket science, I wouldn't even call it complex, the catch rate formula is more complex than that.

 

[KurashiDragon]

Again enough,enough,enough..Enough is a highly subjective term and is a very unfitting word for this situation...In the other hand thinking that if drizzle broke at least half of its abusers then it will merit a ban,is highly logical and not a so subjective viepoint in the problem as your 'enough' reasoning...

Enough with the enough and pls explain us...

Enough as in when enough pokemon are banned so that people start to realize that these pokemon are being banned because of a broken factor in all of them. It doesn't matter how many are actually broken (Unless its more than 10 in which case I'd call that favoritism.) however, if to many are broken then it's obvious that Drizzle would be broken as that is the common factor in every one of those bans.

Do you really think that salamence and latios would have been broken in 4th gen without outrage and draco meteor respcetively???
Also saying arbitary that if 8 rain abusers are banned then it will be enough for drizzle to get banned is so much subjective and unjustified...Sry but we can't let the metagame develop according to your needs...I don't know why you think that the number 8 is good but to me,and to every logical person i think,at least half of the abusers must be broken to prove drizzle's brokeness and not some random small numbers that fit your likings...Sry but when there are like 50(just saying,i am sure there are more) viable rain abusers,and you call 8 broken abusers(which is not even justified to begin with,i am sure that not more than 3 SSers would be banned in addition to the broken trio)a representative number to show drizzle's brokeness then sry but you are not convincing anyone...

"We cant let the metagame develop according to your needs? "You are not convincing anyone?" "you and every logical person think that half of the abusers must be broken." I'm sorry but your being hypocritical in that you just told me that not everyone agrees with my opinion. I'll say the same thing then. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.

However, that remains beside the point. In response to the first part of this post, no I don't like complex bans. I'd be against Banning Draco Meteor and/or Outrage like that. They're clearly not broken on everything except Latios and Salamence. However, blanket banning Drizzle is not a complex ban in any sense. If enough pokemon are broken under drizzle, drizzle is broken. Also to make sense of that sentence because you don't seem to understand it, what I mean is if enough pokemon are broken under drizzle people will start discussing the brokenness of Drizzle because drizzle is the thing that's broken. I don't mean enough pokemon as in a number of pokemon, I mean enough pokemon so that people will start realizing that the common factor of these banned pokemon is Drizzle. It doesn't matter if it's half (Although that'd be a really short sited number for people to start realizing their oh so perfect drizzle is broken.) of the drizzle abusers were broken. It only matters that enough are broken for people to start realizing it.

Also half of the abusers of drizzle need to be broken under drizzle for it to be broken is as suggestive and unjustified as if I said 8. (At least 8 is a little more reasonable. Half of the drizzle abusers would be favoritism in any sense of the word and imo a little pathetic.) Also even 8 is to much to ban. I can semi understand 3 - 5. 8 is the line though. Smogon tries not to ban so many pokemon in any metagame but at the same time tries to make it enjoyable for everyone. Therefore I can semi understand 3 - 5 bans concerning Drizzle (Though I still wouldn't be to happy about it because in my personal opinion drizzle is broken) however, 8 and over is going way to far just to keep Drizzle. It shouldn't be treated special just because it's a playstyle. If it's broken ban it.

While I agree with the notion that if so many pokemon are banned due to Drizzle then Drizzle itself may have to go, but the other problem is I would only think that if 10 pokemon or so would be banned due to Drizzle, simply because I honestly don't care about pokemon remaining in OU. We have no way to say whether or not Drizzle limits diversity. So it's hard to really take a solid stance on these kind of things.

It would be enough for people to ask just how much Drizzle is really needed for the metagame. If Drizzle were at least partially responsible for banning 10 pokemon I'd be against it 100%. However, what it really comes down to is "Is Drizzle really important enough to justify this many bans it's responsible for?"

See the pokemon who can effectively abuse Drizzle are the broken pokemon. Drizzle is just a useful tool that they can abuse better than anyone else, kind of like Soul Dew Lati@s (it's a stretch). Drizzle has really helped a ton of pokemon become better this generation (even some UUs from last gen) and, personally, I think that is outstanding! Now, you talk about a lot of SwiftSwimmers that are going to be banned and I really have to question it. Floatzel? It's good and fast, but it lacks the power that Kabutops and Kingdra have, and it lacks the bulk that Ludicolo has. Omastar would probably take over Kingdra's position in rain teams if Kingdra was ever banned. High Special Attack and Shell Smash is really awesome, though I'm not sure if it would be broken.

Well first and formost, I looked in the Statistics and saw only 3 pokemon that Drizzle pushed up to the OU tier (Tornadus, Toxicroak, and Politoed) Other than that no other pokemon in OU effectively abuse Drizzle to the point where, if drizzle were gone, it would significantly affect their usage to the point where their tiering would drop.

The Swift Swim pokemon were nothing more than Hypothetical Situations. I wouldn't bet my money on Floatzel being banned though Omastar is a maybe.

In any case, I think that it's good that Drizzle is around with Aldaron's Proposal -- while I love Swift Swim I think getting rid of it with Drizzle was the best step for the metagame.

The Aldaron Proposal was made in part so the swift swimmers wouldn't be banned so needlessly but it was also because Drizzle was also on the chopping block. Back in the 2nd suspect round, the metagame was still young and if Drizzle wasn't banned there would be a huge chopping block which would've just been bad for the metagame. People mostly wanted to know if Drizzle would still be broken without Swift Swim (Which I believe it is.) without having a ban fest.

 

[Ninja_13]

I know the staff doesn't want to unban non-Speed Boosting Blaziken because they don't want to make complex bans. My question, what's so complex about saying "Speed Boost Blaziken is banned not Blaze Blaziken"? It's not exactly rocket science, I wouldn't even call it complex, the catch rate formula is more complex than that.

It's not really that it's complex in itself; it's that it is relatively more complex than saying "Blaziken is banned".

 

[KurashiDragon]

I know the staff doesn't want to unban non-Speed Boosting Blaziken because they don't want to make complex bans. My question, what's so complex about saying "Speed Boost Blaziken is banned not Blaze Blaziken"? It's not exactly rocket science, I wouldn't even call it complex, the catch rate formula is more complex than that.

I personally think that it's more along the lines of "We're not gonna treat Blaziken Special because there's no point in doing so." which I agree with. What seperates Blaziken from every other uber pokemon out there. You can just as easily say "Blaziken Shouldn't be banned with Speed Boost" as you can say "Darkrai shouldn't be banned with Dark Void." Smogon isn't gonna treat any pokemon special because almost nobody wants a nerfed metagame. That's basically what a complex ban is. Your nerfing something to keep it in the metagame.

 

[fidgety]

while of the SS pokes Kingdra and debatably Ludicolo and Kabutops were broken how many others have a real case polwrath how Common are T-Spikes and Jellicent on stall/balance teams how common is Sand and Priority on offensive/balance ones, same goes for Floatzel etc.

as for the suspect ladder PO is in the back end of a toed test ban (i swear if ppl ignore this post just for that) the meta got worse it is so painfully stale. sun teams with dugtrio to stop Tar/Tran from having their way weatherless may be up but that is aided by Boostiken/among other things ou is more centralized than ever (though hard to prove since the stats there are horribly outdated) there are probably 20-25 pokes of which nearly every team uses at least 3 or 4.

i'll add in more later as i have to get off for now.

 

[kryn]

How much must a Pokemon benefit from the rain to get called a rain abuser?

Of course we can not call any Pokemon with tunder, huricane, or a good water attack and not having problems with decreased power of fire and increased power of water attacks a rain abuser, but there are pokèmon like dragonite that can use a set that benefit from rain but has equal/better sets that do not benefit from rain and should those pokèmon be called rain abusers?

 

[Baldafor]

I dunno about the whole Drizzle argument in general. If Swift Swim wasn't banned, and several pokemon had to be banned because they were too good in the metagame, isn't it therefore simpler to ban Drizzle? Isn't that the cause of the problem in the first place?

Yes, Rain Stall is a thing, I guess. It's a strategy that never, ever, ever worked without permanent rain, and it would die a horrible, miserable death if Drizzle was banned. We went without that strategy for many, many years. Would people really miss it that much?

 

[alexwolf]

Enough as in when enough pokemon are banned so that people start to realize that these pokemon are being banned because of a broken factor in all of them. It doesn't matter how many are actually broken (Unless its more than 10 in which case I'd call that favoritism.) however, if to many are broken then it's obvious that Drizzle would be broken as that is the common factor in every one of those bans.

Drizzle is the common factor in all of them???Think again for a second pls...All the SSers have share many common things except from their ability to shne in drizzle conditions...All the SSers have water stab and the ability SS!So can you pls explain me are you targeting drizzle and not the other factors???

"We cant let the metagame develop according to your needs? "You are not convincing anyone?" "you and every logical person think that half of the abusers must be broken." I'm sorry but your being hypocritical in that you just told me that not everyone agrees with my opinion. I'll say the same thing then. Not everyone agrees with your opinion.

That's why i said half the abusers or the majority.Because most of the times the majority gives you evidence that you need and makes the rules.So for example if 55% of adult men prefer vodka then vodka is the average drink for adults.
In the same manner if the majority of the rain abusers is broken under drizzle then it would be logical to assume that the average Drizzle abuser is broken which means that it is drizzle's fault!I didn't thought that it would be so difficult for you to understand why i said half the abusers or the majority...And i put these number as a condition because i want to avoid being subjective unlike you...If i wanted to be subjective i would raise the limit even further for drizzle to get banned...But because not everyone thinks like me i did the most logical think...I let the majority decide what is broken and not...So if the majority proves to be broken then it is very logical to assume that indeed Drizzle is broken(not in everything of course but in a very big part).

However, that remains beside the point. In response to the first part of this post, no I don't like complex bans. I'd be against Banning Draco Meteor and/or Outrage like that. They're clearly not broken on everything except Latios and Salamence. However, blanket banning Drizzle is not a complex ban in any sense. If enough pokemon are broken under drizzle, drizzle is broken. Also to make sense of that sentence because you don't seem to understand it, what I mean is if enough pokemon are broken under drizzle people will start discussing the brokenness of Drizzle because drizzle is the thing that's broken. I don't mean enough pokemon as in a number of pokemon, I mean enough pokemon so that people will start realizing that the common factor of these banned pokemon is Drizzle. It doesn't matter if it's half (Although that'd be a really short sited number for people to start realizing their oh so perfect drizzle is broken.) of the drizzle abusers were broken. It only matters that enough are broken for people to start realizing it.

As i said to you before why drizzle is not the ony common factor in these pokes.Why aren't you targeting their stabs or SS?Why are you chosing Drizzle instead???

Also half of the abusers of drizzle need to be broken under drizzle for it to be broken is as suggestive and unjustified as if I said 8. (At least 8 is a little more reasonable. Half of the drizzle abusers would be favoritism in any sense of the word and imo a little pathetic.) Also even 8 is to much to ban. I can semi understand 3 - 5. 8 is the line though. Smogon tries not to ban so many pokemon in any metagame but at the same time tries to make it enjoyable for everyone. Therefore I can semi understand 3 - 5 bans concerning Drizzle (Though I still wouldn't be to happy about it because in my personal opinion drizzle is broken) however, 8 and over is going way to far just to keep Drizzle. It shouldn't be treated special just because it's a playstyle. If it's broken ban it.

As you said smogon tries to ban as less things as possible...So you honestly tell me that you don't get that banning drizzle equals to banning more than 10 pokes from ou huh???Drizzle affects so many pokes some of which are Tornadus,Toxicroak,Parasect,Rain Dish ludicolo and every SSer(and more but this is an example)...!So if you ban drizzle all these pokes are instantly wiped out from ou...So yes it is much better banning even 8 pokes than banning 2 to 3 whole playstyles(rain offense,rain balance,rain stall)...

It would be enough for people to ask just how much Drizzle is really needed for the metagame. If Drizzle were at least partially responsible for banning 10 pokemon I'd be against it 100%. However, what it really comes down to is "Is Drizzle really important enough to justify this many bans it's responsible for?"

Again i will say it to you for one last time...Drizzle is not the only common factor in these pokes..Stop playing favouritism...All the pokes that were banned when abusing drizzle had many similar traits like their ability and their stabs...!So why are you targeting drizzle which is not a broken ability????Why?Drizzle is a common battle condition just like SR and some poke are broken under this condition.So we ban the pokes not the ability...If only you could shhow me that drizzle broke even half of the abusers then i would say that you have a point but now i don't really get what is your problem with drizzle???

Well first and formost, I looked in the Statistics and saw only 3 pokemon that Drizzle pushed up to the OU tier (Tornadus, Toxicroak, and Politoed) Other than that no other pokemon in OU effectively abuse Drizzle to the point where, if drizzle were gone, it would significantly affect their usage to the point where their tiering would drop.

We don't count how many pokes became ou in drizzle conditions..What matters how many pokes now have unique niches to fill in ou under drizzle comditions like parasect...Many pokes that aren't ou can be used in it and that is what matters!

The Swift Swim pokemon were nothing more than Hypothetical Situations. I wouldn't bet my money on Floatzel being banned though Omastar is a maybe.

Only actual experience could tell us...

The Aldaron Proposal was made in part so the swift swimmers wouldn't be banned so needlessly but it was also because Drizzle was also on the chopping block. Back in the 2nd suspect round, the metagame was still young and if Drizzle wasn't banned there would be a huge chopping block which would've just been bad for the metagame. People mostly wanted to know if Drizzle would still be broken without Swift Swim (Which I believe it is.) without having a ban fest.

Most people now have understood that drizzle is not the problem right now and this is all that matters!!!

I know the staff doesn't want to unban non-Speed Boosting Blaziken because they don't want to make complex bans. My question, what's so complex about saying "Speed Boost Blaziken is banned not Blaze Blaziken"? It's not exactly rocket science, I wouldn't even call it complex, the catch rate formula is more complex than that.

So if we ban speed boost on blaziken then that means that we can start tiering all pokes differently based on their abilites huh?So MM espeon is uu but sunchronize espeon is ru right???Starting to realize the problem???Abilties are no different from moves,typing and other attributes that make a pokemon!They are all factors that make a pokemon!And we ban pokes not their factors...

 

[TheCanadianKid]

Drizzle FTW

 

[Charro]

It's called complex because is a mess for people who want to start in the competitive world, is easier to say "you can't use this pokémon (s)" than saying "you can't use Blaziken with speed boost, but is fine with Blaze, also Rough Skin Garchomp is fine, Sand Veil is banned, you can use Drizzle, but without any pokémon with Swift Swim on the same team, you can use Gorebyss, but without Shell Smash + Baton Pass on the same set, Shell Smash or Baton Pass alone is fine...also remember to not use Swift Swim on her if you're using Drizzle Politoed on your team "
If you tell me that when I want to start into the game I will probably say "fuck this shit!"

 

[iSkittles]

Getting away from the weather debate for a minute, has anyone see any surprising yet effective pokemon in the current meta? I've had some success with Mixmence and Fatmence. I'm really loving his intimidate.

I was also surprised how good Tentacruel is.

 

[MetaGross66]

Gastrodon is actually very anti-metagame this time around. I wonder, why? >.>

Edit: KurashiDragon, I was being sarcastic. I know why. ;p

 

[Ewil]

Really love Stall-breaker Mew, it's so annoying and burn everything.

 

[KurashiDragon]

Gastrodon is actually very anti-metagame this time around. I wonder, why? >.>

A water ground with storm drain seems just right to take down the 3 major weathers. (Storm Drain + water typing = Anti Drizzle, Ground typing + Fire resist + reasonable bulk = Anti Sand + Drought)

To tired to respond to your post Alex. I'll do it tomorrow ;D

 

[Blightbringer]

A water ground with storm drain seems just right to take down the 3 major weathers. (Storm Drain + water typing = Anti Drizzle, Ground typing + Fire resist + reasonable bulk = Anti Sand + Drought)

To tired to respond to your post Alex. I'll do it tomorrow ;D

I wouldn't let it handle Drought teams on its own...

 

[Kefka Palazzo™]

I wouldn't let it handle Drought teams on its own...

Balloon Tran can deal with Sun and Sand, but you also wouldn't let it handle Rain on its own...that's why you have 5 other pokemon.

Gastrodon has good bulk, and can handle TWO playstyles. I think that's fantastic.
Mine just has a tendency to attract Toxic/WoW like a super magnet :L

Gastrodon is great this gen. USE IT. Leave Swampert behind >:U



Btw, this is a little off-topic, but what can really check Tornadus aside from Zapdos, Thundurus, Rotom, and Blissey/Chansey?

 

[Ewil]

Sdef jirachi & Gastrodon are another two checks

 

[Kefka Palazzo™]

Sdef jirachi & Gastrodon are another two checks

Well, I'd rather not use Jirachi.(But if I have no choice....), and my Gastrodon kinda doesn't want to go Specially defensive.