np: LC - Smells Like Teen Spirits

[Moo]

I agree with Crux
AcroGligar is a perfect example of what needs to be done, rather than banning.

 

[Heysup]

I wish you had read my edit or listened to my warning on IRC so that you didn't waste so much time trying to respond.

Heysup, you have missed the entire point of my post. Of course it is my opinion, any argument regarding the brokenness of any suspect is an opinion, you can back it up with what ever facts or rhetoric you want, but it is still an opinion. The fact that it is an opinion however, does not make it any less valid, and suggesting that it does is, as you claim some of my arguments to be, fallacious.

Don't take this as condescending but I think it needs to be explained to you how a logical argument works. Think of it as a formula: Evidence + Assumption = Conclusion. Usually you can evaluate whether the argument is valid or not is where the assumption comes into play. Your conclusion is

The Little Cup community is ridiculously ban-happy

with the evidence being "LCers want to ban all of these Pokemon". There is nothing wrong with this yet. What I mean is, that's proper evidence to support the conclusion given the right assumption. Yours is:

The fact is, none of the Pokemon that have been suggested are remotely close to broken, with the possible exception of Carvahna.

This would almost be a perfect example for teaching someone what a fallacious argument is because of how extreme your statement is and how you make it easy to pin point the main area of fallacy by stating an opinion after saying "The fact is". The terms "remotely close" are the extreme part, usually extremities are indication of fallacy (not always though, but definitely in this case).

In other words, the problem is: You are assuming this statement to be fact. FACT. You state it there. I don't know why you'd even think to try and deny it - it's right there. This makes your argument fallacious since it is the support for your conclusion. Without this being certainly true (which it isn't because it's an opinion) your conclusion is very weak.

And your response suggests "oh well if it's an opinion it isn't less valid". This is not true because you aren't stating your opinion as an opinion but as a fact to support your conclusion. The FACT that your opinion is in fact (lol) an opinion and not a certainly true statement makes your conclusion weak, which is why it was so easily refuted.

The formal logic is: if A (Pokemon are banned) is true, B (people are ban-happy) can be true. You're saying if A is true, B is true. It's that simple of a mistake but your whole argument relies on it. There is no "absolute" here.

As I said in the post my post was not about the suspects at all, so I dont really know why you spent so much time arguing with me about them. I have never had trouble with any of the suspects. That is why I don't think they are broken. I am not going to share with you my various checks and counters because they are mine and give me an advantage.

So basically, you missed the entire point of my post and addressed the important part far less substantially than you did the practically irrelevant parts.

Is it unreasonable to focus on the large hole in your argument? The whole fallacy stems from the fact that your statement was not a fact or even remotely provable, in fact the opposite (as far as this specific discussion has gone) has been shown to be a much stronger argument.

Declaring a point that your argument rides on to be irrelevant doesn't help your case. Remember that just because Pokemon are probably going to be banned does not mean that people are ban happy. It only means that if the Pokemon aren't broken in the first place - which is what you're calling irrelevant. See the issue? You must understand this by now....

My post was calling for players to rethink how they view the banning of suspects.

Banning should be a very last resort, when you have tried all options available to you. In my opinion the Little Cup community is to quick to ban things that have very viable checks and counters. Your Kyogre analogy is false as it refers to checks and counters that are not viable outside of checking Kyogre (although, in the case of Gastrodon and Ludicolo that is debatable). I can think of many checks to all of the "suspects", all of them are equally viable outside of being checks and all of them are good.

To an extent yes, but you haven't proven that. Kyogre's extreme is not to be confused with precedent. It is just a basic example of something having checks but still being stupidly broken.

I can think of some viable checks, but in the metagame they make your team very weak to others. For example, Timburr, Croagunk, Scraggy, etc are counters to various suspects but Meditite comes in there and dominates something (nothing is a safe switch-in...).

A lot of your post seems to be looking for holes in my argument or misunderstanding of what I have posted and you can do this all you like. The fact is, my post was obviously opinionated, and any sound-minded person could see that. But implying that because it is my opinion it is less valid is fallacious.

Of course this is my opinion, I am not confusing them at all. The only confusion here is you thinking I'm attempting to pass my opinion off as fact. I am posting my opinion because I honestly believe there is something fundamentally wrong with this ban happy attitude.

I didn't go into your post looking for holes, they kind of jump out at you when evaluating an argument. You keep misunderstanding how an argument works. Your OPINION is valid (though I disagree with it). Your ARGUMENT is not valid because it's based on your opinion being a true fact (which it isn't). I don't want to have to explain this again, to be honest, but I guess I've already made it my mission to show you and everyone reading this why it is fallacious.

For the ban happy attitude to exist you need to have people incorrectly banning Pokemon that aren't broken. This isn't a true fact. Of course there is something wrong with being ban happy but it isn't necessarily a problem here. You haven't shown it to be. Here's an analogy: Person A is saying there's something wrong with person B being prejudice / racist without actually proving person B is in fact prejudice / racist (they might be but they might not be). Would that make sense to do? No, it wouldn't. In addition to this, person B suggests "but I'm not racist....." and then person A responds "irrelevant!". Hopefully that fully illustrates my point so that you understand it.

I am posting my opinion because I believe it is right, and I dont want to sit idly by while you ruin the metagame that I like most.

Edit: Also, you can respond to this post if you want, but arguing with me wont change my opinion and Im catching my flight in like an hour. It is up to you now not to ruin Little Cup. (In my opinion)

Edit2: I just saw your edit, so I should probably respond to that. I believe this is equally as relevant as the brokenness of the suspects, which is equally an opinion and nearly as unprovable. As it stands, the attitude the Little Cup community has regarding the suspect testing process is bad, in my opinion. This is equally, if not more relevant to the discussion of suspects, as the mindset people have directly influences their feelings about the suspects, and the mindset people have now is not what it should be. (In my opinion).

You can say in your opinion all you want but your argument is based on an uncertainty. It is saying there's something wrong with it the result of something that isn't certainly there. That's fundamentally flawed.

And sorry if this is a surprise to you but it is almost (apparently..since you disagree) unanimously a hated metagame because its so stale. You can't innovate or have fun with it like Gen 4 LC used to be (it's still possible but innovating seems to be only limited to suspects (like AcroGligar, Sub Misdreavus, Eviolite Meditite). That was the biggest draw to LC for me, I could innovate and have loads of fun with it (I had a blast coming up with sets like SubSneak Missy (who previously wasn't even seen to be broken), Spore utility Paras, a bunch of leads and the like. While obviously anti-leads aren't super important I (and others) would still like to have some freedom to try and pinpoint the anti-metagame sets and have fun with them without getting stomped by the nearly unstoppable suspects.

Acrobatics Gligar is VERY similar to the invention of SubSneak Misdreavus in Gen 4, it was very anti-metagame but made Missy inherently broken because it was basically unstoppable give or take a few checks (they existed but were not reliable, except Stunky). I'm not saying Gligar is like that in this case, but dismissing it as not broken solely because it's an innovation is illogical.

One last thing, I'm not aiming this at you, except to maybe help you make your point in a way that can actually be addressed. I am aiming this at what your post stands for and I, like you, do not want to see the metagame be ruined (or in this case, stay bland) - I care too much about it to let it keep it in the terrible side of the metagame spectrum. Everything that drew me to LC in the first place is gone besides the community, and in the community I trust to hopefully make the right decision this time.

EDIT: I said the word "fact" ~15 times.

 

[Zephyr]

Acrobatics Gligar has indeed rose to be quite an interesting Pokemon this metagame. As far as suspects go I still only believe Carvanha truly fits the bill, although a lot of people find Meditite and Misdreavus also broken, I find them underwhelming compared to the capabilities of Mixvanha. Another under-looked Pokemon (at least from the discussions I've been observing) is Deep Sea Tooth Clamperl with Shell Smash. Once set up; most defensively based teams or offensive teams lacking priority are torn to shreds.

 

[masterful]

Acrobatics Gligar has indeed rose to be quite an interesting Pokemon this metagame. As far as suspects go I still only believe Carvanha truly fits the bill, although a lot of people find Meditite and Misdreavus also broken, I find them underwhelming compared to the capabilities of Mixvanha. Another under-looked Pokemon (at least from the discussions I've been observing) is Deep Sea Tooth Clamperl with Shell Smash. Once set up; most defensively based teams or offensive teams lacking priority are torn to shreds.

Are those really things?

 

[Zephyr]

Are those really things?

I wouldn't say balanced-defensive teams are totally uncommon as I know a fair portion of good ladder players in Little Cup use them. Also it's not overly hard to be able to take an educated guess on what carries priority on your opponent's team and what doesn't just by glancing at it before the match starts, and then removing what does before attempting the sweep.

 

[Blue_Star]

The problem is that carvanha resists almost every common priority attack (ice shard, aqua jet, sucker punch, bullet punch, shadow sneak and can use protect to render fake out useless). Deep Sea Tooth clamperl is also pretty strong, but it's not unbeatable because it's very frail after seting up (eviolite stunky does 90% with sucker punch) and can be revenged by stuff like scarf misdreavus, scarf gastly, etc.

 

[fatty]

with those terrible defenses, it's hard to say carvanha truely resists anything, even priority, as relatively any move will still take a fairly big chunk of damage out of it. that, coupled with LO recoil and it's inability to switch-in effectively often makes vanha's life terribly short. there are also pretty solid checks / counters in the form of eviolite croagunk, spd timburr, lileep and deino (i guess, at least i had success with him lol). the problem that i see with vanha though is that these counters make you weak to the other top threats in the metagame, as most either give a free switch-in to missy or gligar, or are severely weak to the omnipresent bulky fighters.

 

[Zephyr]

with those terrible defenses, it's hard to say carvanha truely resists anything, even priority, as relatively any move will still take a fairly big chunk of damage out of it. that, coupled with LO recoil and it's inability to switch-in effectively often makes vanha's life terribly short. there are also pretty solid checks / counters in the form of eviolite croagunk, spd timburr, lileep and deino (i guess, at least i had success with him lol). the problem that i see with vanha though is that these counters make you weak to the other top threats in the metagame, as most either give a free switch-in to missy or gligar, or are severely weak to the omnipresent bulky fighters.

I agree with you. In a sense it seems more like Carvanha and some of the other suspects are broken because what doesn't get shit on by one suspect gets rampaged by another suspect. (This is true to an extent as it has become obvious that Carvanha / Misdreavus / Meditite core teams with fillers and a scarf Pokemon tend to be the base for most teams now, it can be hard to truly identify a single problem due to the other variables)

 

[sax king]

While I do agree with Crux that the community has become very ban-happy, I do think that we have made some very intelligent bans in the past. For example, I still strongly believe that Vulpix was broken beyond belief. But Zeph is right. With teams running Carvanha/Missy/Meditite with a bit of filler, I think that there is not way to find the clear suspect or to even see if there is a real broken mon. While these suspects do tend to check each other, I propose an experiment of sorts.

Why don't we establish a small LC Suspect Ladder. Once a week, just for this suspect testing round, why don't we ban one different suspect. For example, the first week is a Carvanha ban, the second week is a Meditite ban, the third week is a Misdreavus ban. Based on how each metagame plays and feels, we can take serious steps in trying to figure out what is the true culprit. Maybe in the fourth and final week, we can try multiple bans (ie. Meditite and Carvanha are all banned). It's just a proposal to try and single out suspects and make sure we don't ban the wrong pokemon.

 

[Heysup]

That way of testing has been proven to be useless. It wastes time and encourages bias depending on which metagame was more suited to the user not which Pokemon were broken. A broken metagame doesn't necessarily mean not fun. Additionally removing a suspect just as likely introduces more, meaning it's hard to actually tell what the removal of the suspect actually did.

Finally, but also more importantly, why on earth would be test something by not testing it? That's a bit backwards isn't it? The metagame in which the suspects exists are the current one, removing a factor from it makes it a different metagame.

 

[Dubulous]

We don't have enough traffic on our regular ladder to warrant an additional Suspect ladder, to add on to the reasons that Heysup has already given.

 

[Moo]

OMG reqs end tomorrow and smogon is down and Im right at 1250 but not quite -.-

Btw is it ending today at midnight or tomorrow at midnight? The 30th isn't that clear

 

[Fireworks]

I'm really new to LC, so sorry if this is completely stupid...
But wouldn't Yamask be a viable counter to Meditite?
I mean, providing Meditite doesn't use a stat increasing move or drain punch, it'll either deal a lot of damage to meditite (hjk) or change his pure power ability (pretty much any other physical move).

 

[fatty]

yamask would probably be a very good meditite check. the problem is that it has trouble doing anything else, which makes it a liability on the team. if you find a way to abuse yamask to it's fullest while keeping the tite countering ability, please share it!

 

[Al_Alchemist]

Yamask is very viable in countering Meditite, probably one of the best next to Elgyem, hell they pretty much wall almost all Meditite from hell and back. The problem is, they suck so horribly bad outside of that. For example, they are both set up bait for Scraggy, are Misdreavus snacks, Carvanha eats them both alive (although they probably survive a Crunch at full health, but Carvanha teams usually run hazards), are slow, one of them lacks any kind of healing move, and the other is just a horrible psychic who is outclassed by Slowpoke in every way except in countering countering Meditite, etc.

Pretty much they are completely horrible in this metagame and are arguably not viable (or at least not very smart), outside of walling Meditite.

 

[sax king]

Yamask is actually alright. But it can't check Meditite repeatedly. An Adamant LO Meditite's Zen Headbutt does 52.2% - 65.2% to a max defense Eviolite Yamask. Yamask can OHKO Meditite in return, but the fact is, after hitting it on the switch, Meditite's switching out. And, because most teams have a Meditite/Misdreavus/Carvanha core, the opponent is probably switching out to a Carvanha, who will then proceed to murder your Yamask.

 

[PokeManiacBill]

Yamask is actually alright. But it can't check Meditite repeatedly. An Adamant LO Meditite's Zen Headbutt does 52.2% - 65.2% to a max defense Eviolite Yamask. Yamask can OHKO Meditite in return, but the fact is, after hitting it on the switch, Meditite's switching out. And, because most teams have a Meditite/Misdreavus/Carvanha core, the opponent is probably switching out to a Carvanha, who will then proceed to murder your Yamask.

Mummy. Derp.

Anyway, the core of Stunky and Meditite is just so dang good. Almost uncounterable. Then you just throw on your Gligar check and your Carvahna check and fillerx2 and then you have a team. There are about 7 viable Pokemon in little cup. It just makes it not fun.

I think what would free up the metagame is to ban Meditite. It's almost unbeatable when paired with Stunky.

99% of my LC games go like this: Send out Meditite, predict a Misdreavus switch in, and Pursuit it to death with Stunky.
Proceed to surprise my opponent with HP Ice Drilbur (in order to beat Gligar) (It actually works) And Meditite can sweep fairly cleanly.

This is a major problem to the metagame if two counters exist, and those counters can die fairly easily. An early game sweep with Drilbur weakened all of Meditites counters enough to sweep.

If I sound totally stupid, feel free to tell me to shut up. But I think Meditite is just too strong for the Metagame. With proper team support, his counters are killed, and he sweeps.

It's just so strong.



Edit: reqs need to be in tommorow? Must... Ladder... And Smogon is down argh this is like the only thing I have a chance of getting reqs in. :(

 

[AlphaJolt]

Can there be an extension for this round? The server has been down a ton and it was kinda a shorter round to begin with.

 

[Heysup]

I would not be opposed to lowering the requirements a bit and ending the round now...who knows how long until the server comes back and becomes actually stable / playable...

 

[Dubulous]

Don't worry everyone! As Heysup said we really have no idea when the server will be functional again, though my hope is that it will be soon. However, not having a server to play on really limits Suspect testing. I think it would be most fair to extend the deadline a bit in the hopes that the server will be restored shortly!

The new deadline is 3 July 11:59 PM EST.

 

[Heysup]

what goes up must come down

 

[awyp]

Don't worry everyone! As Heysup said we really have no idea when the server will be functional again, though my hope is that it will be soon. However, not having a server to play on really limits Suspect testing. I think it would be most fair to extend the deadline a bit in the hopes that the server will be restored shortly!

The new deadline is 3 June 11:59 PM EST.

That's fair, even though I did make reqs, it's nice to have extra time for the others who didn't have time to accomplish that.

So thanks for the new deadline, hopefully R_D gets on soon.

 

[AlphaJolt]

Don't worry everyone! As Heysup said we really have no idea when the server will be functional again, though my hope is that it will be soon. However, not having a server to play on really limits Suspect testing. I think it would be most fair to extend the deadline a bit in the hopes that the server will be restored shortly!

The new deadline is 3 June 11:59 PM EST.

This seems a bit long. Can you lower it from 11 monthes to like 5 days please?

 

[masterful]

(approximately 5 minutes later....)

(and approximately 5 minutes later)

 

[comatthew6]

Don't worry everyone! As Heysup said we really have no idea when the server will be functional again, though my hope is that it will be soon. However, not having a server to play on really limits Suspect testing. I think it would be most fair to extend the deadline a bit in the hopes that the server will be restored shortly!

The new deadline is 3 July 11:59 PM EST.

Thank you!