SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)

[fenyxofshadows]

Last time I checked, coins and d4's were completely different things.

Paralysis spreading is a legitimate tactic for lowering a speedy opponent's speed; the 25% chance of a free turn is a bonus for the T-Wave user. Ground types and Electric types are immune and plentiful enough that either can easily be put on a team without being dead weight.

Swagger more or less forces a 50-50 on an opponent with little (if any) counterplay involved when Prankster is added to the equation. All "counters", barring everyone switching to Stall (which is overcentralizing just to counter ONE playstyle), are sub-optimal or just plain stupid to use in OU.

So it's legitimate to abuse RNG to steal free turns when your goal isn't to steal the free turns. Riiiiight.

It doesn't matter that it's on a d4 or not, free turns gained purely through RNG are free turns, and the fact that Paralysis does not go away if you switch or wait it out evens out the lower per-turn percentage.

I was simply explaining why choosing to globally ban Swagger outright is a terrible idea. I do recognize that there is a problem with absurdly fast status spreading combined with ways to easily abuse the free turns gained by it. But banning the single move changes nothing about the problem and creates a terrible precedent moving forward; Thunder Wave was just an example that draws parallels.

 

[Yuelia]

Complex Banning Swagger + Prankster isn't going to stop that question either. This strategy is now under a microscope, and at this point the question should no longer be "Is this a degenerate uncompetitive strategy" but instead what most people are now asking is "What do we need to get rid off to make sure this degeneracy goes away?"

Agreed, and for one I'm really glad that it seems like we've at least gotten to this point.

I'm inclined to say that we should simply ban Swagger. Originally I supported the Swagger + Prankster complex ban, but Jukain's post above convinced me otherwise; Weavile is another example of a mon that gets enough Speed to make the absence of Prankster only a minor issue, and it gets STAB on Foul Play on top of that.

Yes, this does mean that the strategy of Swagger + Ditto will be largely lost, but as fenyxofshadows said above, you can't catch everything without collateral damage. I remember (though for some reason can't find) threads after the Endless Battle ban where some players were saying that viable strategies involving Leppa Berry got caught in the crossfire. Besides, if you really want to stick with that Ditto strategy, there's still Flatter.

 

[Ajwf]

Weavile is also 4x weak to priority mach punch... Again with the taking more than is needed.

 

[Dragontamer]

So you're telling me a strategy based around hax and a coinflip is legitimate? We may just have differing views on this, but to me it's clear as day that this is far from legitimate. That's introducing a stupid element of luck to the metagame. Buying free turns because it has a 50/50 chance to make the opponent hurt itself? This is not a strategy that belongs in a competitive metagame.

The problem Jukain, is that yes, some of us are familiar with playing far more luck-based games than Pokemon. (Every game of MTG has a large chance for a poor mana-draw... forcing Mulligans or leading to poor matches). Nevertheless, like Magic The Gathering, Pokemon has always represented a heavy statistics / probability slant to me. The fact is, reasoning and calculating probabilities is one of the hardest math subjects in existence, but those who will be able to calculate and "see the future" will win over the long run.

Part of the problem is the extremely two-faced nature of the anti-Swagger users. It looks like some feel like Swagger is an overpowered strategy, while others deride it as a "inconsistent strategy" that screws people over. However, ANY team that gets to 2200+ on the ladder deserves mention. As you know, the Glicko2 system rewards consistency AND wins. Losses against weaker players greatly deminishes your score.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/supreme-swaggotry.3497647/

SwagPlay has been employed as a legitimate strategy by a high ranking team. It isn't a crap strategy, when used correctly it is truly a strategy that can punish opponents who go Heavy Offensive.

If at very least, the anti-Swag people on this topic can agree whether Swagger is:

1. A Poor strategy that sometimes get wins
OR
2. An actually useful strategy that demands respect

Then maybe I'll be more open to a Swagger ban. #1 supports those who think Swagger is "uncompetitive", while #2 supports the "overpowered" arguments. But inherently, the anti-Swagger posters seem to consistently try to argue both #1 AND #2 at the same time. Which greatly diminishes my respect for that side of the argument.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Agreed, and for one I'm really glad that it seems like we've at least gotten to this point.

I'm inclined to say that we should simply ban Swagger. Originally I supported the Swagger + Prankster complex ban, but Jukain's post above convinced me otherwise; Weavile is another example of a mon that gets enough Speed to make the absence of Prankster only a minor issue, and it gets STAB on Foul Play on top of that.

Yes, this does mean that the strategy of Swagger + Ditto will be largely lost, but as fenyxofshadows said above, you can't catch everything without collateral damage. I remember (though for some reason can't find) threads after the Endless Battle ban where some players were saying that viable strategies involving Leppa Berry got caught in the crossfire. Besides, if you really want to stick with that Ditto strategy, there's still Flatter.

Speed isn't really the concern; a very bulky monster could effectively do the same thing even without speed on its side. It's what makes it a real pain in the neck to deal with (since it reduces the number of switch-in counters significantly), but the strategy doesn't magically go away when your users aren't as fast.

Banning Swagger might be the most simple ban you could do to neuter the power of the users, but Confuse Ray doesn't magically go away. Like using another move (like Draining Kiss or Thunderbolt) rather than Foul Play, it simply increases the lifespan of the affected monster.

 

[Sinning]

Banning swagger is probably the best thing to do if we're going to implement a ban.

Confusion itself is not a problem, and if Confuse Ray were used instead of swagger on these sets, it would probably be fair enough. The problem with Swag Play is that it is so easy to force your opponent into slighted coin flips - not even 50/50 chances once confusion and paralysis have been achieved. Also, we must address the boost to attack that swagger forces upon the target. This is huge, and allows klefki, an otherwise fine utility/defensive mon, to become a one man wrecking crew against heavy offense, and against balanced teams, can quickly do away with sweepers. Without the boost, and without the accuracy of swagger, this would not be so much of an issue. Confuse Ray does not have the dire consequences that swagger does when confusion damage activates. This makes para fusion a perfectly competitive tactic, but does not make swag play a competitive tactic.

The degree of luck that a player utilizing swag play can force into the opponent is simply too high.


Edited for facts. I confused confuse ray with supersonic.

 

[Legitimate Username]

I highly disagree here. How is it any better for a speedy as hell Tornadus-T to go around spamming Swagger than a Prankster user? It achieves the same effect, for the most part. Is the coinflip uncompetitive or not? Because Prankster + Swagger is just a band-aid -- the coinflip caused by Swagger is the issue at fault here. Oh, and I'm tired of this crap:

So you're telling me a strategy based around hax and a coinflip is legitimate? We may just have differing views on this, but to me it's clear as day that this is far from legitimate. That's introducing a stupid element of luck to the metagame. Buying free turns because it has a 50/50 chance to make the opponent hurt itself? This is not a strategy that belongs in a competitive metagame.

Having Swagger Tornadus-T running around the metagame is actually much better, because it CAN be outsped. I don't want to go into details, but with smart switching, it's far more possible to get a good Scarf user or something with strong priority onto the field in order to deal hefty damage. Against Prankster, the options availible for hitting them before taking a Swagger are far more limited. (Also, Prankster users don't need to invest in Speed, unlike Tornadus, giving them an edge in tanking priority. This isn't that big of a big deal, though.)

As for the whole luck thing, I couldn't care less how much hax is involved with Swagger. What matters is how uncompetitive it is, not how luck-involved. Swagger does not cause the opponent to lose control over the match, because they retain the option to switch out. Their switching cannot be capitalized on with a follow-up Swagger without Prankster, so the player can actually effectively deal with the Swagger user without restarting the chain.

I sincerely think that Swagger will NOT persist as the problem it is if it is banned in conjunction with Prankster. That'll put an end to Purrloin sweeps and all those annoyances without going unnecessarily overboard on the war against dice rolls. You can't fight Evasion, you're basically just stuck spamming moves hoping to get lucky, and phazing only postpones the problem rather than solves it. Therefore, it's uncompetitive. Confusion as a whole does not suffer from that problem at all. Therefore, there's little to no reason to rush ahead with banning it.

Also, I'm not even going to respond to the Swift Swim Magikarp argument, that was hilarious.

Essentially, there's pretty much a fundamental difference in opinions as to what specific aspect of Swagger makes it uncompetitive. I just happen to think that it wouldn't be very threatening at all without Prankster to back it up.





Actually, I'm having more and more trouble seeing the point of posting here if several people have already made such similar points, while several others made counters to them, and while ALL of the posts seem to be based on little more than personal philosophy of "how much hax is too much hax". I know for sure that I'm guilty of this. Second post in and I already feel done with this thread. Peace out.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Banning swagger is probably the best thing to do if we're going to implement a ban.

Confusion itself is not a problem, and if Confuse Ray were used instead of swagger on these sets, it would probably be fair enough. The problem with Swag Play is that it is so easy to force your opponent into slighted coin flips - not even 50/50 chances once confusion and paralysis have been achieved. Confuse Ray has a low enough accuracy to create an opening for the other play to act. Also, we must address the boost to attack that swagger forces upon the target. This is huge, and allows klefki, an otherwise fine utility/defensive mon, to become a one man wrecking crew. Without the boost, and without the accuracy of swagger, this would not be so much of an issue. Confuse Ray can not consistently subject the opponent to a game of such a degree of luck, and also does not have the dire consequences that swagger does when confusion damage activates. This makes para fusion a perfectly competitive tactic, but does not make swag play a competitive tactic.

The degree of luck that a player utilizing swag play can force into the opponent is simply too high.

Confuse Ray is literally 100% accuracy, unlike Swagger's 90%. So, Confuse Ray would actually be slightly more consistent, if less powerful.

The only thing Swagger has going for it, and why you're therefore targeting it, is the +2 boost to Attack. This is the main issue, not the accuracy of confusion moves in general. However, without a large body to soak hits if things go wrong, it cannot easily be abused. This is why you never really saw a lot of Liepard sweeps with the same swagplay set in Gen V.

 

[the-bumper-car]

The problem Jukain, is that yes, some of us are familiar with playing far more luck-based games than Pokemon. (Every game of MTG has a large chance for a poor mana-draw... forcing Mulligans or leading to poor matches). Nevertheless, like Magic The Gathering, Pokemon has always represented a heavy statistics / probability slant to me. The fact is, reasoning and calculating probabilities is one of the hardest math subjects in existence, but those who will be able to calculate and "see the future" will win over the long run.

Are you sure you want to bring up MTG as a counter-example? Because MTG is not shy about banning cards that lead to degenerate strategies that the opponent has little to no choice of countering, on top of most tournaments giving players access to a a 15 card sideboard that lets them bring in silver bullet counters to strategies they're weak to after the first match.

Part of the problem is the extremely two-faced nature of the anti-Swagger users. It looks like some feel like Swagger is an overpowered strategy, while others deride it as a "inconsistent strategy" that screws people over. However, ANY team that gets to 2200+ on the ladder deserves mention. As you know, the Glicko2 system rewards consistency AND wins. Losses against weaker players greatly deminishes your score.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/supreme-swaggotry.3497647/

SwagPlay has been employed as a legitimate strategy by a high ranking team. It isn't a crap strategy, when used correctly it is truly a strategy that can punish opponents who go Heavy Offensive.

Just because something is uncompetitive doesn't mean it can't be successful.

If at very least, the anti-Swag people on this topic can agree whether Swagger is:

1. A Poor strategy that sometimes get wins
OR
2. An actually useful strategy that demands respect

Then maybe I'll be more open to a Swagger ban. #1 supports those who think Swagger is "uncompetitive", while #2 supports the "overpowered" arguments. But inherently, the anti-Swagger posters seem to consistently try to argue both #1 AND #2 at the same time. Which greatly diminishes my respect for that side of the argument.

You're asking the wrong question. Is Swagger a degenerate strategy that removes skill from the metagame by making the outcome entirely dependent on a couple of RNG rolls, or is it not? I think the fact that SwagPlay can backfire so dramatically on the user just adds more to the "degenerate, please ban" rather than the anti-ban side. Somebody brought up OHKO moves as a good analog for SwagPlay, and I'd have to agree with it - OHKO moves, assuming no resistances, Sturdy, or immunities, will kill your opponent 50% of the time, and do nothing the rest of the time.

 

[Sinning]

Confuse Ray is literally 100% accuracy, unlike Swagger's 90%. So, Confuse Ray would actually be slightly more consistent, if less powerful.

The only thing Swagger has going for it, and why you're therefore targeting it, is the +2 boost to Attack. This is the main issue, not the accuracy of confusion moves in general. However, without a large body to soak hits if things go wrong, it cannot easily be abused. This is why you never really saw a lot of Liepard sweeps with the same swagplay set in Gen V.

I confused confuse ray for supersonic. I'm going to stop posting for the night because I'm pretty brain dead at the moment.

 

[DinaIsha]

I was very bored one day and tried to play the OU ladder with just SwagPlay Klefki on my team. The server threw Lum Berry-holding Ground types at me for some time. And after I got to a team that didn't have one, I swept him, trust me, I did.

So, a Confusion Clause would be the best bet, seeing as how it is wholly dependent on luck.

I would also suggest that there should be a ladder where there are no clauses and any Pokemon can be used (Just like in Wifi).

 

[Chou Toshio]

The problem Jukain, is that yes, some of us are familiar with playing far more luck-based games than Pokemon. (Every game of MTG has a large chance for a poor mana-draw... forcing Mulligans or leading to poor matches). Nevertheless, like Magic The Gathering, Pokemon has always represented a heavy statistics / probability slant to me. The fact is, reasoning and calculating probabilities is one of the hardest math subjects in existence, but those who will be able to calculate and "see the future" will win over the long run.

Part of the problem is the extremely two-faced nature of the anti-Swagger users. It looks like some feel like Swagger is an overpowered strategy, while others deride it as a "inconsistent strategy" that screws people over. However, ANY team that gets to 2200+ on the ladder deserves mention. As you know, the Glicko2 system rewards consistency AND wins. Losses against weaker players greatly deminishes your score.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/supreme-swaggotry.3497647/

SwagPlay has been employed as a legitimate strategy by a high ranking team. It isn't a crap strategy, when used correctly it is truly a strategy that can punish opponents who go Heavy Offensive.

If at very least, the anti-Swag people on this topic can agree whether Swagger is:

1. A Poor strategy that sometimes get wins
OR
2. An actually useful strategy that demands respect

Then maybe I'll be more open to a Swagger ban. #1 supports those who think Swagger is "uncompetitive", while #2 supports the "overpowered" arguments. But inherently, the anti-Swagger posters seem to consistently try to argue both #1 AND #2 at the same time. Which greatly diminishes my respect for that side of the argument.

You're making a logical fallacy DT. Being able to get wins consistently is not a proof against uncompetitiveness.

Also, game aspects or Pokemon can be banned for being BOTH uncompetitive AND overpowered simultaneously (see 4th Gen Shaymin-S, and 4th Gen Deoxys-S). Shaymin-S's hax spam was ridiculous, and Deo-S was the ultimate suicide lead who was basically unstoppable at doing its job; both were also VERY over-powered.

Many anti-swag posters have inaccurately described "giving worse players the chance to beat good players" as a definition of uncompetitiveness. They're wrong. While that is something that occurs frequently as a result of the abuse of uncompetitive tactics, the real definition lies in the degree of control removed from the responding player to deal with the strategy-- this has nothing to do with consistency; actually, a certain degree of effectiveness is required for the community to care about an uncompetitive game aspect at all.


You can be a "respectable strategy" and still be "uncompetitive." 4th Gen Wobb was a VERY respectable strategy (in terms of consistency and effectiveness), and when piloted by a top player, almost guaranteed a near 100% win rate (ipl's domination of the ladder was truly ridiculous-- and he did it to PROVE wobb's uncompetitiveness). Against a wide variety of teams. However, it was considered uncompetitive due to its ability to remove the opponent's ability to respond to it.

The key to uncompetitiveness is taking away the enemy's ability to respond through decision making-- and doing it to a degree that's considering a severe problem to the competitiveness of the game.


The ability to take away the opponent's autonomy is obviously not limited just to Swagger-Prankster, and you'd always want your opponent to have less options than more. A fast U-Turn or Volt Switch against a weakened opponent; A Pursuit Tyranitar against Latios/Latias; Trapping abilities; Scald-- there are lots of game mechanics that remove or eliminate the opponent's ability to respond, and many are considered staples to the metagame.

The question comes back to-- is it a degree of control removal that should be deemed uncompetitive?

This is a completely subjective question-- comes down to opinion, nothing quantitative or number crunching. There are many members in our community who would like to see Scald banned as uncompetitive, and there was even a period in 5th gen where players raised the question of suspecting U-turn or Volt Switch. In all these cases, nothing was done (yet), but for Moody and Sand Veil action WAS taken.

Here we are with Swagger/Prankster-- if you don't think there's enough anti-Swagger/Prankster sentiment in this thread (and in the larger community) to warrant restriction against it, you're blind.



Prankster Swagger removes a LOT of control from the player. It doesn't matter if this makes it highly successful, or inconsistent. The point that is that it removes a high degree of player autonomy while being effective enough to incite community outrage.

 

[the-bumper-car]

Which is why I never suggested Swagger + Prankster; it's just like using it with high Speed. I'm not certain what will stop the strategy, but it seems that it has only shown up with the right users (Klefki and Thundurus), as it was present and yet ineffective last generation.

This is just theorymonning, but I believe the reason why it wasn't so prevalent is a combination of the following reasons:
1. 2 new users that weren't OU (Thundurus) or in the game at all in Gen V (Klefki) that are far superior in terms of stats and typing to the previous ones.
2. Gen V being the "Fighting Generation", having lots of strong Fighting type attackers, when most of the Gen 5 users had glaring weaknesses to Fighting. The diminished presence of Fighting types in OU, thanks to a combination of factors not limited to Fairy-types being resistant to them, and the two new SwagPlayers being either resistant or neutral to Fighting, means they wouldn't check SwagPlayers anyway.
3. Gen V also being ridiculously overpowered in general - the previous SwagPlayers all ended up in NU or somewhere in that neighborhood because they couldn't survive the Rain-boosted Surfs, among other attacks, that were flying around in OU.
4. The Base Power nerf on a multitude of moves. In Gen V, the risk of a SwagPlayer getting KOd if their target got lucky on the Confusion roll, was too high.
5. There now being enough SwagPlayer pokemon for a dedicated SwagTeam to have both critical mass and redundancy. If one gets taken out, there's more where that came from.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

But, once Prankster/Swagger is seen to remove far too much control from the player, there remains a couple questions.

Is the removal of control due to the Confusion status effect, or the combination of both Confusion and the threat of Foul Play? In other words, is Prankster/Confuse Ray or Prankster/Swagger without the teeth provided by Foul Play uncompetitive by removing too much control if you cannot do much with the control earned?

In addition, if the removal of control is due to the nature of Confusion status rather than the actions you may take with the extra turns, what does that say about several other moves that Pranksters can use?

the-bumper-car I feel that point 5 is irrelevant because a well-balanced team utilizing Pranksters wouldn't be so stupid as to run 6 and nothing else; it may get you to 1400 but you'll have a very hard time running any higher since you won't be able to adapt to enemies, just as with anyone else simply running a team list as opposed to building and playing a team.

 

[JuliAnn]

After facing three swagplay teams in a row, I can now say that it shouldn't be banned. I preceded to destroy all of them with Chansey, Rotom, Sylveon, and even freaking Garchomp. Plus I barely see these teams being over centralizing in the slightest and there are only a handful of these teams on Showdown and PO. Oh and Lum berry completely screws them over. Also make sure all your special attackers' attack IV is 0.

 

[TooMuchSugar]

But, once Prankster/Swagger is seen to remove far too much control from the player, there remains a couple questions.

Is the removal of control due to the Confusion status effect, or the combination of both Confusion and the threat of Foul Play? In other words, is Prankster/Confuse Ray or Prankster/Swagger without the teeth provided by Foul Play uncompetitive by removing too much control if you cannot do much with the control earned?

In addition, if the removal of control is due to the nature of Confusion status rather than the actions you may take with the extra turns, what does that say about several other moves that Pranksters can use?

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you can do anything with the control you take away from the opponent. Confusion + Prankster takes away the opponent's control. Taking away the opponent's control is uncompetitive. Therefore, Confusion + Prankster is uncompetitive.

After facing three swagplay teams in a row, I can now say that it shouldn't be banned. I preceded to destroy all of them with Chansey, Rotom, Sylveon, and even freaking Garchomp. Plus I barely see these teams being over centralizing in the slightest and there are only a handful of these teams on Showdown and PO. Oh and Lum berry completely screws them over. Also make sure all your special attackers' attack IV is 0.

Well, if your team includes Chansey, Sylveon, and Rotom-W, then no, you wouldn't have much trouble - you're using the three best OU viable swagplay checks.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you can do anything with the control you take away from the opponent. Confusion + Prankster takes away the opponent's control. Taking away the opponent's control is uncompetitive. Therefore, Confusion + Prankster is uncompetitive.

The ability to take away the opponent's autonomy is obviously not limited just to Swagger-Prankster, and you'd always want your opponent to have less options than more. A fast U-Turn or Volt Switch against a weakened opponent; A Pursuit Tyranitar against Latios/Latias; Trapping abilities; Scald-- there are lots of game mechanics that remove or eliminate the opponent's ability to respond, and many are considered staples to the metagame.

Taking away opponent's control is not inherently uncompetitive. It is the ultimate goal of the game to take away as much control as possible, eventually winning the match. It's simply a matter of how easy it is to use, and how effective it is. It's clearly easy to use Prankster with confusing moves. That's why I'm asking if only having Prankster/Confusion without the threat of a boosted Foul Play (either through using Confuse Ray or by using a lesser attacking move) is still too effective since you don't have a way to capitalize on the control.

If you alternate Protect and Detect for 16 turns, you have taken away your opponent's control for those 16 turns almost entirely. But you didn't capitalize on it at all without prior Poison/Burn status spreading.

 

[TooMuchSugar]

Taking away opponent's control is not inherently uncompetitive. It is the ultimate goal of the game to take away as much control as possible, eventually winning the match. It's simply a matter of how easy it is to use, and how effective it is. It's clearly easy to use Prankster with confusing moves. That's why I'm asking if only having Prankster/Confusion without the threat of a boosted Foul Play (either through using Confuse Ray or by using a lesser attacking move) is still too effective since you don't have a way to capitalize on the control.

If you alternate Protect and Detect for 16 turns, you have taken away your opponent's control for those 16 turns almost entirely. But you didn't capitalize on it at all without prior Poison/Burn status spreading.

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events)

Also, you can't alternate between Protect and Detect (or Endure). The chance decreases as if you had been constantly using Protect.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Also, you can't alternate between Protect and Detect (or Endure). The chance decreases as if you had been constantly using Protect.

Didn't know that; there was no point in running both on the same set so I never tested that. Still, you can do a similar thing with Poison Heal, Substitute, and Protect (for 32 turns, although admittedly lacking priority on Substitute).

But you're quoting literally the same person I am. Here's where he posted that (informal) definition that is now in the OP. It's the degree to which you take away control, the effectiveness of the control gained, and the difficulty of what you do to take away control. Reducing your opponent's choices is by no means a bad thing. In fact, it's the core of what you do in the game; every KO removes an opponent's 4 moves and 1 monster, and therefore their ability to turn the game around.

Obviously Prankster/Confusion takes away control to a high degree, and does not take much difficulty. What I'm asking is whether taking away the power of a boosted Foul Play, either through using Confuse Ray or using a non-Foul Play attacking move, removes the effectiveness of the control gained since it would not have nearly as much of an impact; you would have to switch or use heavy stall techniques to deal major damage, which takes skill and prediction despite the RNG.

Basically, is it Prankster/Swagger or Prankster/Confusion that is for question right now?

 

[Red Cat]

The question comes back to-- is it a degree of control removal that should be deemed uncompetitive?

This is a completely subjective question-- comes down to opinion, nothing quantitative or number crunching.

Then why is this thread even still here? For everyone to vent? Wouldn't a poll or something be quicker and cleaner than this? Or hey, since the coin flip analogy has been used so much, let's do that to decide Swagger's fate. It is amazing that this thread got 300+ posts more already than the last suspect test when there was actual objective content to discuss for that one.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Then why is this thread even still here? For everyone to vent? Wouldn't a poll or something be quicker and cleaner than this? Or hey, since the coin flip analogy has been used so much, let's do that to decide Swagger's fate. It is amazing that this thread got 300+ posts more already than the last suspect test when there was actual objective content to discuss for that one.

Because it isn't Swagger alone that is overpowered. Not at all. It's a combination of factors, and this thread exists mostly to explore options to remove the uncompetitive aspects of this combination while minimizing the impact on legitimate uses of the individual pieces. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Chou Toshio]

What's obvious is that:
a) There is a lot of pro-ban sentiment
b) Amongst pro-ban, there are also users who feel strongly about "Swagger Ban" v. "Swagger + Prankster Ban" which they are entitled to
c) There are many pro-ban users who don't really care which it is as long as it gets banned, and ideally-- gets banned sooner. This too is a fine sentiment.


I've been avoiding posting my own opinion (since I already did in the Badge-user-only thread), but I'll post it here hoping it gives some users guidance.


Since taking the time to suspect Prankster-Swagger is highly undesirable and testing "Swagger Ban" v. "S+P Ban" would be both unproductive and likely vague (the difference between the two metagames would be SO hard to distinguish...) I propose we just ban S+P as it has the least effect-- and if non-prankster Swagger or Prankster+(other confusion Moves) is still an issue afterwords, we can always just quick-ban it then.

However, I would not be opposed to a full Swagger ban-- whatever we can agree on to do faster.

Then why is this thread even still here? For everyone to vent? Wouldn't a poll or something be quicker and cleaner than this? Or hey, since the coin flip analogy has been used so much, let's do that to decide Swagger's fate. It is amazing that this thread got 300+ posts more already than the last suspect test when there was actual objective content to discuss for that one.

To be perfectly honest (as an OU mod), it's clear that this thread has served it's purpose and is becoming worse and worse in content.

As to why it's not closed yet-- well, I'd close it right now if I had the authority. Until the tiering leaders decide that this thread is finished, it will have to remain open.

 

[Bluemew.]

Magnezone with magicoat does the job http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-92628180

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Magnezone with magicoat does the job http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-92628180

Judging by the team, it was a poor player running the Klefki.

Going for Foul Play to break the Sub and put your Magnezone on the defensive would have been the smarter choice by far.

 

[VanguardSoul]

PLEASE BAN SWAGGER. It is the most annoying and lucky move ever, ever match I've played where someone has had it has been a disaster for either me or them. It takes control and competitive play away, it's ridiculous. I mean sure, people mainly use it alongside Prankster, right? So it would make sense to simply do a complex ban. I vote just ban Swagger altogether, as no matter how it's used, the experience is never fun and quite frankly makes the game boring and frustrating, at least for me, when my opponent insists upon using Prankster Klefki with Swagger. If I'm using a physical sweeper, what happens is either A. I lose a main sweeper of my team due to PURE luck OR B. I end up sweeping half his team because he was stupid enough to use a move as uncompetitive as that.

I vote ban Swagger altogether. It causes too many problems.

Why is this a problem, exactly?

Because there's a little thing called Spikes out there. And Stealth Rock. And annoying things like that that will get you KOd.