5th gen - Where do we draw the line?

[Rosey Oak]

Where do we draw the line?


In order to make the correct decision based on our knowledge, it is clear that we must consider the key factors in which enabled us to draw that conclusion in the first place. If the key factors differ, person A. and person B. will draw different conclusions from the same question. Therefore I think that is essential for us to come to some sort of mutual understanding on what makes a Pokemon ‘fit’ for OU or Uber. Only then can we make an accurate decision on what is best for the Metagame.

Side Note: This thread is NOT an outright dedication towards getting something banned or unbanned, I am merely asking everyone to contribute their opinions on why something should or shouldn’t be banned in general. Additionally, we should also keep in mind what we plan to achieve by banning or unbanning something. What is a desirable Metagame, and how will banning or unbanning ‘IT’ help us accomplish this?

 

[Rosey Oak]

I have recently been reading through past threads which centre around this current issue; however one thing I cannot comprehend is why such a crucial factor in decision making back then is some sort of a “huge joke of an argument” now.

What changed in 5th gen that made the highly regarded argument of ‘overcentralization’ all of a sudden invalid?

Where we less informed on what truly made a Metagame less balanced back then or did something new over right our previous judgement?


Below is a strong argument I found based on the prospect of decentralization.

Hide

I think there is something we need to consider here: Why is it we want a less centralized metagame? This has been discussed here somewhat, but I think it is talking too much about creating a healthy metagame? Why is it that we want a healthy metagame? I think that a thorough look at our motivations will help us make a better decision.

I feel that the reasoning for decentralizing the metagame is due to the fact that we want different/newer threats. Now, I understand that many of the pokemon that would rise to the forefront are/have already been used, but they would be more "fresh" so to speak than Garchomp. People want different pokemon to build their teams around. Team building is a core aspect of pokemon and one that many people greatly enjoy. We enjoy the creativity sparked by trying to design a new strategy or path to victory. So, I think one of the core questions here is, "How much restriction on team building does Garchomp's presence place?" This is pretty much completely tied to Tangerine's idea of, "How many counters are too much?" I think we need to find how many slots we are donating to Garchomp-related purposes when we build a team. Most teams are going to attempt to include Garchomp since he is such a dominating threat. Now, you can't just use Garchomp and not have an answer, so most players will likely devote 1 or more slots to a counter. Now, some teams may choose not to use Garchomp, but instead just carry counters. So, I think that it would average out to about 2 slots per team in direct relation to Garchomp. (1 Chomp + 1 Counter, 2 Counters, etc.) However, we must also consider how other pokemon one the team are restricted in their movesets/EVs/whatever because of Garchomp. Do you have HP Ice on a pokemon just in case your normal plan fails? Does a pokemon on your team have Reflect to allow your counters to truly counter Garchomp? I think the top players should take a look at their teams and take a look at how many slots we are actually devoting to one pokemon, and not just counters.

A good counterpoint is, "The removal of Garchomp will just mean another pokemon will take its place." This may indeed happen and is extremely valid. What I think we need to look at before deciding to ban a pokemon is how many options become viable as a result of the banning. Where will Garchomp's now vacated usage be distributed. Many feel that it will eventually end up in 1 different threat that will become just as overused. Then what have we accomplished? Pretty much nothing. But, what if Garchomp's place as the top threat was now shared by three other threats? Now people have variety on what to center the teams around and what to counter. Team building will become more difficult. It may actually be harder to come up with a good stall team now that you have to handle three more common threats rather than one extremely common one. Is that what we want? I think we need to look at why we are doing this again. I, personally, would prefer it. It becomes harder to handle, but prediction of what you are facing becomes much more important, and more variety is available. It excites my creative side.

What we are looking for is to create a metagame that has several "strong" strategies, but also includes counters strategies that can attack the top competitors and actually win. This would create leading trends (A), which then become countered by other trends (B), forming new leading trends. When those trends become dominant, new strategies (C) form to attack them. Now, with the first set of counter-strategies (B) being weakened by the new counters (C), the original threats (A) can now make a comeback. This pushes an ever evolving and shifting metagame that requires not only great players, but great inventors as well.

So, in my opinion, the real question is, "How many options does the removal of Garchomp open up?" Now, the best way to find this out would be testing. Some people have said that it will take a long time to discover what will rise after Garchomp's removal, (should we decide to do it) and that is almost certainly true. But isn't that what we want? This is why we need to look at why we want Garchomp banned. We want to have FUN, and that's what it all comes down to. If we are looking to shake things up, banning Garchomp is certainly going to change things for while. I guess the point I'm getting at is that we need some innovation, but I don't want us to do something that is just a quick fix. We should really evaluate what is opening up and if that is the direction we want to take.

So, what become more viable when Garchomp leaves? Don't say defense. That isn't necessarily true. Like I said earlier, three common threats may prove harder to counter than one very common one. For example, let's say 66% (this is completely arbitrary) of the threats you expect to face are Garchomp. Now, having a good answer to this one threat will earn you a fair number of victories, especially if you can answer the other threats decently. Remove Garchomp. Let's say, for instance that you now are looking at 25% Gengar, 25% Tyranitar, and 25% Salamence. Now, even if you use less resources for each one individually, you are going to still need to devote more slots to cover a similar percentage of threats. The metagame would then still be more offensively oriented since it will be more difficult ot counter a good number of things. I'm not saying this will definitely be the case, but it is a possibility.

Ultimately if Garchomp getting removed makes SEVERAL other things viable, it might be a good idea. If almost all of its absence goes to something else, we really haven't accomplished much.

Do we want to take on the difficult task of balancing the metagame? It would likely take multiple moves until we could achieve a balanced state that would allow the most different options possible. I think people fear the slippery slope. We might overdo it and just end up eliminating a metagame. This is why we need to be careful and making this decision is taking so long. Everyone needs to be patient and wait for the best solution to come forth. If we dive right in, we could take a poor direction and just have to backtrack.

The question we have to ask ourselves then is: Does anything in the current metagame cause so much overcentralization that we no longer have any variety in our teams? So much so that it should be banned from the metagame?

Basically this argument focuses on ‘variety’ - one of smogon’s key characteristics of a desirable Metagame. On the other hand if something is too good, it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be banned, however we need to stop and think - how much does Pokemon ‘X’ restrict the process of team building? If Pokemon ‘X’ was banned how many Pokemon would rise up from the ashes of disparity? I suppose without a suspect ladder we do not have 'undeniable' proof on how Pokemon ‘X’ impacts the Metagame and if it impacts it to the extent that it is undoubtedly limiting a great number of Pokemon not only in terms of team building restriction but in actual usage too. This therefore means either way it all comes down to individual knowledge and opinion. Looking at the current Metagame can we easily say nothing is so far out 'overcentralizing' that we either need to use it, or use Strategy 'B' to counter it? However an even more important question is ‘where do we draw the line?’ How much does ‘X’ need to restrict in order to be deemed unhealthy for the Metagame? Or moreover a better question in today’s standards would be: does ‘X’ promote more than it restricts?

Mekkah: "Testing different sets of 'suspects' gives you different results, which makes the picture incomplete. If Kyogre countered Rayquaza, that's nice and maybe balanced, but Kyogre may still be too strong. Still, if it's all that holds back Rayquaza, both should be banned. This may in turn cause other suspects to be stronger or weaker. It's ever-shifting and hard to measure."

In this hypothetical scenario, the suspect test revealed that Kyogre was too over powered without the existent of Rayquaza. If such an event where to occur, and both ‘X’ and ‘Y’ where broken in their own right, would both be kept in OU because they balance each other out or would they be banished to Uber? Indeed a difficult question to answer...


Whilst banning Pokemon is necessary in some scenario’s we should always keep in mind what we plan to achieve by banning ‘X’. After researching past threads I found an important article in the Smogon policy review which highlights the key characteristics of a desirable Metagame: Competitive, Variety and Balance, Stability, Adherence, Skill, Luck and Efficiency.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66515

Do we still strive for all these characteristics? Does the current Metagame reflect all these characteristics in a positive light?


Side Note: Once again I’m not asking you, what should or shouldn’t be banned. I want to know what you personally strive for in a Metagame, and to what point does Pokemon ‘X’ impact the Metagame to the extent that it should be banned?

Lastly, would creating a suspect ladder be beneficial in the process of banning - as it would allow us to obtain 'fundamental proof’?

 

[Jibaku]

I don't have much to say at this point but this is something to keep in mind.

Smogon attempts to avoid bans as much as possible—only when it becomes very apparent that a Pokémon is far too powerful to be in line with a balanced metagame is it banished permanently from the standard arena

The sentence in question may be subjective, but to me it implies doing very few to no bans while keeping the metagame relatively stable. Smogon's Philosophy stood as part of my motivation to take my stances in the Suspect Rounds I have voted in.

 

[FearZeCrawdaunt]

A pokemon is considered bannable if it completely overcentralizes the metagame (why legendary Ubers are banned in the first place) or conquers the metagame with few (if any) counters available (Skymin being a good example).

how much does Pokemon ‘X’ restrict the process of team building? If Pokemon ‘X’ was banned how many Pokemon would rise up from the ashes of disparity?

Yup

 

[alphatron]

I'm gonna keep it simple here.

For me, something should be banned if it's broken or overpowering. If you need a ridiculous strategy to beat it or if all teams are centered around abusing that SAME strategy or beating that same strategy, then it should be banned.

Something should also be banned if it degenerates the game into a luck fest while also qualifying as an effective strategy to win games on its own. Moody is like this. To an extent, sand veil garchomp is the same way. He can win games, but also introduces unwanted luck into the mix. A bit of a stretch though...

Something should also be banned if it dominates the metagame to a ridiculous level. For example, if the majority of teams in the metagame were teams that were all teams that relied on the single same weather, then that weather condition should probably be banned in order to make the metagame a more enjoyable and worthwhile experience. MtG banned Jace the Mind Sculptor because he was literally everywhere, and the game was becoming stale. If a single pokemon or factor were to cause that here, then that should probably be banned.

 

[kryn]

For something to be banned it should make the outcome of the matches depends on chance or centralise the game to an unhealthy level.

Centralising is not bad, unless it go to the point where you have to use a specific counter or that it seems everyone it and/or its counters.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Pretty much what alphatron said, ban if its so powerful that you need at least 2 dedicated counters (Deoxys/Ubers), ban if it introduces excessive luck i.e. Moody or Skymin, ban if it in general makes the game unfun (this would be a category Chomp falls into).

By that token something like Excadrill isn't banworhty because while powerful all it takes is one counter, or 2 checks, or 1 strong counter, or weather and its neutered while also not introducing excessive luck and also not making the meta unfun (although Snunch's {?} post about speed tiers allows some debate here).

The main I think the community as a whole needs to do is trust in the voting process and adapt to the metagame that is presented. I see far too many posts whining about something's brokeness and too many attacks on the process.

Here's the deal people, the suspect process is not exclusive. If you want to vote play your way up. If you don't want to play your way, shut up and adapt. Do I have the skills to play my way to the top of the ladder? Yes. Do I have the inclination? No. Do I agree with the Garchomp ban? No. Do I sit around the Suspect Thread whining about it? No.

I trust in the suspect process and the ability for users to have a say in voting. If I'd wanted Chomp to stay out that badly I would have played up and voted so. Because I didn't I sit back and adapt to what the metagame brings us after each round of voting. The suspect process works. It's that simple.

(On a side note, if any weather is ever brought up for serious banning consideration you can bet your ass I'll play my way to the top of the ladder to stop its ban)

 

[spweasel]

I have recently been reading through past threads which centre around this current issue; however one thing I cannot comprehend is why such a crucial factor in decision making back then is some sort of a “huge joke of an argument” now.

What changed in 5th gen that made the highly regarded argument of ‘overcentralization’ all of a sudden invalid?

Where we less informed on what truly made a Metagame less balanced back then or did something new over right our previous judgement?

There's nothing wrong with the concept of banning to prevent centralization. It's just that we aren't at that point.

how much does Pokemon ‘X’ restrict the process of team building?

This is a valid consideration. If you need to run 2 dedicated counters for something, then yes it's a problem. But simply being unable to run three Fire types without Sun to get rid of Rain is not a big enough restriction to deserve banning anything. There's always the restriction that you can't run a crappy team. That means preparing for the top threats and not using outclassed Pokemon.

If Pokemon ‘X’ was banned how many Pokemon would rise up from the ashes of disparity?

This is not a valid consideration. Banning stuff simply because we think banning it will make the metagame better isn't what we should be doing. If banning Ferrothorn makes 10 Pokemon viable, should we ban it? If banning Stealth Rock makes 20 Pokemon viable, should we ban it? Ice Beam? Magnezone?

Before you know it, we're left with a metagame that looks like NU's nerfed cousin.

Now, I realize that the slippery slope scenario probably won't occur, but the idea of banning things to make the metagame better is harmful when applied casually. It should only be applied as a last resort to something that has taken over to a disgusting degree. A metagame where nothing has broken 22% use doesn't have that problem.

In this hypothetical scenario, the suspect test revealed that Kyogre was too over powered without the existent of Rayquaza. If such an event where to occur, and both ‘X’ and ‘Y’ where broken in their own right, would both be kept in OU because they balance each other out or would they be banished to Uber? Indeed a difficult question to answer...

A powerful Pokemon in an unforgiving metagame shouldn't be banned. If Kyogre, Rayquaza, and Groudon were all countered by Ferrothorn to the point where they didn't see the usage to remain OU, then they should not be banned even if they're crazy overpowered in a vacuum.

If we were looking at three completely broken Pokemon where everybody had to use at least one of the three and they reduced the game to Rock-Paper-Scissors, than yes there would be a problem. As much as the antiweathers would like to claim that's what we have right now, our current metagame does not look like that.

Since we're needlessly beating around the bush here, I'll talk about the current metagame. The weather inducers we have are hardly broken, even in the proper weather. This is the fundamental difference between the OU inducers and the Uber ones. Not only are all the weather inducers counterable, for the most part they are quite easy to defeat. The only issue is how powerful weather itself is. In that case, the fact that the weathers counter each other is just fine. If your team is weak to weather, you'll need to run something to change the weather yourself. That's not much different from needing Rapid Spin if your team is Stealth Rock weak.

Side Note: Once again I’m not asking you, what should or shouldn’t be banned. I want to know what you personally strive for in a Metagame, and to what point does Pokemon ‘X’ impact the Metagame to the extent that it should be banned?

-Don't ban things that we want banned, only ban things that absolutely need to be banned in order for the metagame to not be focused around a single Pokemon or strategy ("weather" is not a strategy).

-Don't ban based on theorymon, since theorymon is biased and shortsighted (and sometimes flatly wrong). Don't ban based on high usage alone. Extremely high usage is indicative of a problem that needs to be addressed, though.

-Don't ban things we choose not to counter, only ban things that can't be reasonably countered.

Unless something concrete (meaning not something as vague as "weather") is completely taking over the metagame to the point where the only other thing that sees play is its counters, nothing should be banned. If something doesn't even see play on 1 in 5 teams, chances are it's not actually as broken as theorymon would lead you to believe.

Lastly, would creating a suspect ladder be beneficial in the process of banning - as it would allow us to obtain fundamental ‘proof’?

No. It really wouldn't give us "proof" of anything unless we let it run until the metagame stabilized (which means we'd probably need to run it for at least two months before getting usable, post-stabilization numbers). And even then, it's often not a case of which metagame is better, but which one people like more (which are certainly not the same concept).

Moreover, a Suspect Ladder starts off with the premise that something should be banned and then sees how bad the fall out would be. That's not how we should be banning things. We should only be banning stuff that absolutely cannot remain in the metagame. If we are so unsure that something needs to be banned that a Suspect Ladder is necessary or desirable, then it is a good sign that it should not be banned.

 

[NDenizen]

I think if anything, people just need to bear with stuff they don't like until they are truly convinced it's something worth banning.

Too often I am seeing bans that simply favour the most OU pokemon, either getting rid of a pokemon that easily kills them, or neutering another unrelated element as an excuse to keep an unhealthily strong OU pokemon there. Essentially, pokemon elitism - the idea that only certain pokemon and certain playstyles should be allowed, and that anything challenging those should be prevented.

People complained readily about Blaziken's ban, but how can we be sure they weren't all just using the same OU pokemon with the same weaknesses that were just asking to be exploited? Maybe it deserved the ban, but the process to decide this was just weak and unconvincing, simply because it could have been entirely made by people defending their own playstyles and wanting to remove the thing that got in their way. People had the same attitude to Reuinclus at one point, they wanted to play Stall, but their way of dealing with Reuniclus was to complain with little attempt at actually adapting and then assume it was zomg broken. Turns out it's not, because it's stuck around long enough for people to actually rethink how they play. Perhaps if Blaziken was still here, the metagame would have eventually settled into a pattern that didn't make it so desirable to use, whilst still relying on relevant and reliable team players.

In regards to bans of pokemon based on being "overpowered", people should never judge by how much they have a problem with it. Instead you should use the suspect, and see how much it's turning games in your favour, and how well you can use it. That way we can all be sure the voting process is sacrificial and truly in the name of a healthy metagame, and not a bunch of laddering nuts simply voting for what they personally like.

 

[moonbound]

All I can say is, if you don't like they way smogon handles tiering and banning, then play with someone else's tiers on someone else's server.

 

[jas61292]

I was going to write out a long response to the OP, but then I read spweasel's post and decided everything I was going to say was already said.

Basically to summarize my opinions, we really can only ban something that is truly broken and restricts the number of viable pokemon simply because it requires the use of multiple counters.

How the metagame might, or even will, look after a ban should never be taken into account. Our job is to make a balanced meta, not a balanced one that is better than the current balanced one. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[min min]

Weather is interesting because it sort of counters itself out, and sun, sand and rain have all characteristics of being extremely powerful, and weather teams in general have an advantage over non-weather teams. In everyone's opinion, should any part of weather be banned at all? If you completely remove one weather, the others will rise in dominance (see: current PO ladder with incredibly powerful sun teams and no Politoed). Another example closer to home is UU. Blizzspam is a very effective tactic in UU from what I heard, and it's not much of a surprise Abomasnow is used rather commonly in it. Hence, even though each weather is 'broken' in some aspects, are we keeping them all around to balance each other out?

 

[NDenizen]

All I can say is, if you don't like they way smogon handles tiering and banning, then play with someone else's tiers on someone else's server.

It's more logical to stick around with something you know and want to improve or comment upon it, then just constantly leave something over a mild disagreement. It's especially true in Smogon's case, as alot of its decisions do affect other communities and how they play things.