Gen 6 np: XY Ubers Gengarite Suspect Test - In The Shadows [READ POST #71]

Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn't change the fact that Melee lost after outplaying you with the threat of Shadow Tag. I know you made an analogy to China's development later (which I'll address quickly later), I'd suggest you learn something else from the Chinese, a famous saying: "Seek truth from facts". Melee choking is your interpretation, the fact is that he lost. I'm going to look at the game from the facts, and the facts clearly rebuff your notion of Shadow Tag 50/50s are causatively linked to results of matches.
I'll concede that pro-ban players ought to give more evidence why losing a mon to Shadow Tag has such serious implications on the result of the game, but could you please stop looking towards that game as an example of someone making a comeback from a Shadow Tag deficit? First, MM2 used Trick Room; had he not done that, C AllStar would need a crit from Ho-oh to be in the same position. Next, he fumbled around poorly with Gastrodon, probably a bit nervous because he overlooked Clear Smog. Third, he incorrectly guessed on both Kyogre vs Gastrodon/Ho-oh 50/50s (and if you think this is due to skill or being outplayed, that's where we differ). Fourth, he missed a crucial, potentially game-saving fire blast.

Yes, he lost, but I don't understand how you think MM2 didn't throw the game away by not realizing that both Rhyperior and Gastrodon are slower than Gothitelle. You think mind-games and 50/50s are skill-based and part of the game, but even if you look past that, I fail to see how you believe that C AllStar outplayed MM2 by MM2 missing his Fire Blast.

This game simply isn't a good example of a player making a comeback from a Shadow Tag deficit.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
if you're so put off by the dynamic of actually ~banning something~ in ubers, my first and foremost proposal was removing ubers from official tournaments if we wished to maintain the current stature of it. however, trophies and competitiveness are two things that we can all agree are mutually inclusive. it has been clearly stated that this removal will not happen. as such, please do not post or vote on your personal opinion about how you think ubers should stay. instead, focus on the arguments made by each camp and vote accordingly.

i would like everyone to rethink their stance on the issue.

i would also like to reiterate that many players are missing the point on the double switches that shadow tag may cause. shrang may not know this, surprise surprise, ad hominem ad hominem; however, effective double switches made by good players take risk vs reward, the integral concept of pokemon, into play. if shadow isn't involved, typical double switches which are almost always a "if i am correct, i gain an advantage. if i am wrong, i will not become so behind as to where i cannot come back". with tag involved, however, it is truly a crapshoot of intuition for the most part. there is no skill in a 5050 where one option gives you the upper hand and one option can lose you a very important pokemon which can almost acertain a gigantic momentum loss. as i've mentioned previously, on such a busted pokemon as gengar, this simply eliminates what i would consider a barrier of skill and the better player doesn't always win in these situations.

also, arceus is an integral pokemon for a reason. especially in this metagame, it is almost impossible to build a solid team with so many pokemon now requiring individualized checks and counters without it. please do not state that arceus may not be that good of a pokemon after all, since, if you have any experience building a serious team, you would know that it is practically impossible to be competitive without it and it is a necessary "Evil" if you somehow push the best pokemon in the game together with implications of suboptimal.

i'm not going to post any further, but i do wish that all users would consider banning mega gengar as i truly believe it would create a more solid environment and open ubers's doors to a competitive game once again
The problem is, what makes "predict wrong and I am at a bigger disadvantage than if this wasn't Shadow Tag" uncompetitive? This is still more of a "this Pokemon in OP" argument than "it takes the entire game out of your hands". Sure, Shadow Tag increases the stakes, but it does not change the fundamental fact that it is still your prediction that matters. If you're going to point the 50/50s, you're going to have to show that there's a causative relationship between those 50/50s and the result of the game, which I believe I have reasoned that there is no causative relationship, even though I won't deny that it increases your chances. Increasing the chances =/= causation.

About the Arceus thing, I love how you take it out of proportion just like people do with the Shed Shell argument. Sure, I may have knocked Arceus down a peg in terms of you see as utility, but because most Arceus formes are Shadow Tag weak, that's something you're supposed to factor into your team building instead of just saying "omg I can't build a team with Arceus because Shadow Tag ruins it". If you can't avoid running Arceus, then Shadow Tag is something you must take into account into your risk-benefit analyses.
 
Actually, there's no difference. Predicting wrong and sending in your Jirachi into Blue Flare from Reshiram because you're predicting a Draco Meteor means you've lost your Dragon switch-in. Now Reshiram can spam Dragon Pulse/Draco Meteor at will. There's no way to recover from this because you Pokemon is fucking dead. Now unless we want to somehow be allowed to use Revives, you are not changing that fact. The difference between this 50/50 and the 50/50 with Shadow Tag, is again, the timing. Nothing more, nothing less. You are still the one in control of the situation, it is your own fault if you've brought in your Shadow Tag-trappable mon into a Shadow Tag double switch, not the fault of Shadow Tag. If your opponent beats you in a mind-game of when they're going to switch by capitalising on your fear of Shadow Tag, that's kudos to your opponent, not to Shadow Tag.
Protect can be used to scout. Things like Tyranitar, Ho-Oh, Chansey and Blissey, Sp.D. Kyogre, Arceus-Water, and even Arceus-Rock and Arceus-Fairy are all viable Pokemon that can be used to sponge hits and either retaliate or act as a pivot. For example, if I send Ho-oh in on Draco Meteor instead of on Blue Flare, I can pivot out to my Fairy, Roost on a -2 Draco Meteor, or even attack since a -2 Choiced Reshiram can't stay in forever.

Most balanced and stall teams carry one of the above Pokemon and aren't forced into 50/50s every time Reshiram comes in, and even if the wrong move was predicted, a Pokemon was not lost. Hyper Offense also doesn't care too much about a Specs Reshiram because most Pokemon on HO outspeed and KO.

Your example of using a fire-weak Pokemon as your sole Dragon switch-in is questionable when almost every Dragon type in the tier packs one of Fire Blast, V-create, or Blue Flare. Your example blows the threat of Reshiram out of proportion.

If anything, your example serves to support the pro-ban argument. Suppose the team has both Reshiram and Mega Gengar. Now all of the Dragon switch-ins I've listed above barring TTar, Kyogre, and Ho-Oh, and even your curious example of Jirachi, are completely dead weight. TTar can be picked off if weakened. Gengar can Destiny Bond non-Whirlwind Ho-Oh and non-Roar Kyogre. Gothitelle also takes out most of the Pokemon I've listed.

The difference between these two 50/50s is if I guess wrong between Blue Flare and Draco Meteor, my Pokemon aren't going to outright die unless they've already been significantly weakened, and I can (surprise!) switch out if I guess wrong. Can't say that for Shadow Tag, can you?
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Protect can be used to scout. Things like Tyranitar, Ho-Oh, Chansey and Blissey, Sp.D. Kyogre, Arceus-Water, and even Arceus-Rock and Arceus-Fairy are all viable Pokemon that can be used to sponge hits and either retaliate or act as a pivot. For example, if I send Ho-oh in on Draco Meteor instead of on Blue Flare, I can pivot out to my Fairy, Roost on a -2 Draco Meteor, or even attack since a -2 Choiced Reshiram can't stay in forever.

Most balanced and stall teams carry one of the above Pokemon and aren't forced into 50/50s every time Reshiram comes in, and even if the wrong move was predicted, a Pokemon was not lost. Hyper Offense also doesn't care too much about a Specs Reshiram because most Pokemon on HO outspeed and KO.

Your example of using a fire-weak Pokemon as your sole Dragon switch-in is questionable when almost every Dragon type in the tier packs one of Fire Blast, V-create, or Blue Flare. Your example blows the threat of Reshiram out of proportion.

If anything, your example serves to support the pro-ban argument. Suppose the team has both Reshiram and Mega Gengar. Now all of the Dragon switch-ins I've listed above barring TTar, Kyogre, and Ho-Oh, and even your curious example of Jirachi, are completely dead weight. TTar can be picked off if weakened. Gengar can Destiny Bond non-Whirlwind Ho-Oh and non-Roar Kyogre. Gothitelle also takes out most of the Pokemon I've listed.

The difference between these two 50/50s is if I guess wrong between Blue Flare and Draco Meteor, my Pokemon aren't going to outright die unless they've already been significantly weakened, and I can (surprise!) switch out if I guess wrong. Can't say that for Shadow Tag, can you?
Well, if you've switched to Jirachi because you guessed wrong (my example was Reshiram against Groudon), you have lost your Pokemon. There's no "switching out" or whatever. Jirachi's dead. It wasn't there to oversell Reshiram or anything, more of the fact to illustrate that these 50/50s exist and aren't actually uncommon. Rather than nitpick the example itself, it would be nice if you could see the more broad argument that I'm presenting. You can theorymon counters to Reshiram or Zekrom or whatever if you want, it still doesn't change the fact that these 50/50s exist, a 50/50 where it's truly when you lose a mon if you picked the wrong Pokemon. You could say the same thing for Shadow Tag too if you really wanted to nitpick examples. Some Pokemon might carry Shed Shell. Some Pokemon might carry Dragon Tail (like Palkia). Some Pokemon might have U-Turn/Volt Switch/Baton Pass. The point is that the 50/50s you mention that make Shadow Tag uncompetitive exist in the wider Pokemon that have just the same kind of devastating consequences. These things are nothing new. The only difference is the timing of those 50/50s.
 
I've been wondering if there's an objective way to measure whether something is uncompetitive. Going by the definition of "allowing bad players to beat good players", I feel that a statistical analysis could be run on the battles during this suspect test, measuring the degree to which Shadow Tag allows the poorer player to win.

For example, let's suppose that Player A has a ranking of 1600, and Player B has a ranking of 1400. What's the chance that Player B wins? Let's say it's 30%. (That number was completely fabricated, but in theory it could be calculated based on data from battles.)

Now let's suppose Player B has a Mega Gengar, and Player A does not.

EDIT: As 9 Tales of Ninetales points out, the test works better if we look at cases where both players have a Mega Gengar.

What's the chance that Player B wins now? If it's, say, 50% (again, number made up), that would demonstrate that Mega Gengar has a significant effect on whether the better player wins. If it's 30.1%, that would demonstrate that Mega Gengar isn't uncompetitive, according to the above definition.

I'm not sure if PS has enough stored data to make the analysis worthwhile, but it seems like it would demonstrate something more than anecdotes.
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering if there's an objective way to measure whether something is uncompetitive. Going by the definition of "allowing bad players to beat good players", I feel that a statistical analysis could be run on the battles during this suspect test, measuring the degree to which Shadow Tag allows the poorer player to win.

For example, let's suppose that Player A has a ranking of 1600, and Player B has a ranking of 1400. What's the chance that Player B wins? Let's say it's 30%. (That number was completely fabricated, but in theory it could be calculated based on data from battles.)

Now let's suppose Player B has a Mega Gengar, and Player A does not. What's the chance that Player B wins now? If it's, say, 50% (again, number made up), that would demonstrate that Mega Gengar has a significant effect on whether the better player wins. If it's 30.1%, that would demonstrate that Mega Gengar isn't uncompetitive, according to the above definition.

I'm not sure if PS has enough stored data to make the analysis worthwhile, but it seems like it would demonstrate something more than anecdotes.
Kind of an interesting thought. The first potential issue with this would be that all players skilled and unskilled start at 1000, so there could be a player who is definitely more skilled than his/her opponent but has a lower rating than them simply becasue they haven't climbed the ladder much yet. So there would be a lot of deceiving data unless you started collecting it from a pool of players who had all payed a substantial amount of matches amongst each other.

But the bigger issue is that "bad players beating good players" is Not distinctly a feature of an uncompetitive element. It's actually just the feature of a certain strategy or element being better than another or potentially broken. We could say that even though it isn't directly quantifiable Player A actually is more skilled than Player B. Let's say Player A comes to battle with a team made up of only B+ and lower ranked mons while Player B ultalizes the best mons available, and Player B wins. Does that make all the mons ranked above B+ uncompetitive? Of course not. They're just generally better at carrying out what they're meant to. If Player B is given Shadow Tag and beats Player A (who is not using shadow tag) all this proves is that Shadow Tag is better than whatever strategy player A was using. And of course we would expect then to see Player A beat Player B in a battle where only Player A uses Shadow Tag.

So this actually could give you a "measurement" of something but that measurement would be like the relative efficiency of one strategy or team vs another. The bigger the skill difference player A and Player B have at which Player B can still overcome lower skill and win using Shadow Tag, then the better (or potentially more broekn) Shadow Tag is.

Now what we would expect to see form Uncomeptitve Elements is a diminishing of the correlation between skill difference and winning. For the following examples assume that Player A and Player B remain at the same skill level in spite of playing many battles... If Both Player A and Player B begin utalizing the best Pokemon available to them you will see that Player A wins a certain number of battles more than B. Like say, in 200 battles Player A wins 163 times or something (81.5% of wins go to the the more skilled player) Now if Both Players begin utalizing only B+ and lower Pokemon and then do 200 battles Player A will probably still see close to 81.5% of the wins. As the skill gap is still the same.

Now lets take an element that can be universally agreed upon as uncompetitive. Boosting Evasion. If Player B uses this and not Player A, and Player B consistently wins then we can gather that Boosting Evasion is "better" than what Player A was trying to do. But what if both players are using this strategy? We will possibly see Player A winning more often because of the minor impact of their skill differences. But at the same time it'll be something like 53% of the wins go to Player A. Despite remaining at the same difference in skills Player A is now loosing at a much larger rate than in past examples where both players were using the same "best" strategies available to them. If Evasion boosting were competitive Player A would theoretically still be winning close to 81.5% of the time. But evasion is not competitive and so the skill gap between players is not the deciding factor between who does and doesn't win.

..... so.....

Player A and Player B both ultalize Shadow Tag. Do you think that Player A will be losing more frequently?
....no
 
Last edited:
Kind of an interesting thought. The first potential issue with this would be that all players skilled and unskilled start at 1000, so there could be a player who is definitely more skilled than his/her opponent but has a lower rating than them simply becasue they haven't climbed the ladder much yet. So their would be a lot of deceiving data unless you started collecting it from a pool of players who had all payed a substantial amount of matches amongst each other.

But the bigger issue is that "bad players beating good players" is Not distinctly a feature of an uncompetitive element. It's actually just the feature of a certain strategy or element being better than another or potentially broken. We'll say that even though it isn't directly quantifiable player A actually is more skilled than player B. Let's say Player A comes to battle with a team made up of only B+ and lower ranked mons while Player B ultalizes the best mons available and Player B wins. Does that make all the mons ranked above B+ uncompetitive? Of course not. They're just generally better at carrying out what they're meant to. If Player B is given Shadow Tag and beats Player A (who is not using shadow tag) all this proves is that Shadow Tag is better than whatever strategy player A was using. And of course we would expect then to see Player A beat Player B in a battle where only Player A uses Shadow Tag.

So this actually could give you a "measurement" of something but that measurement would be like the relative efficiency of one strategy or team vs another. The bigger the skill difference player A and Player B have at which Player B can still overcome lower skill and win using Shadow Tag, then the better (or potentially more broekn) Shadow Tag is.

Now what we would expect to see form Uncomeptitve Elements is a diminishing of the correlation between skill difference and winning. For the following examples assume that Player A and Player B remain at the same skill level in spite of playing many battles... If Both Player A and Player B begin utalizing the best Pokemon available to them you will see that Player A wins a certain number of battles more than B. Like say, in 200 battles Player A wins 163 times or something (81.5% of wins go to the the more skilled player) Now if Both Players begin utalizing only B+ and lower Pokemon and then do 200 battles Player A will probably still see close to 81.5% of the wins. As the skill gap is still the same.

Now lets take an element that can be universally agreed upon as uncompetitive. Boosting Evasion. If Player B uses this and not Player A, and Player B constiently wins then we can gather that Boosting Evasion is "better" than what Player A was trying to do. But what if both players are using this strategy? We will possibly see Player A winning more often because of the minor impact of their skill differences. But at the same time it'll be something like 53% of the wins go to Player A. Despite remaining at the same difference in skills Player A is now loosing at a much larger rate than in past examples where both players were using the same "best" strategies available to them. If Evasion boosting were competitive Player A would theoretically still be winning close to 81.5% of the time. But evasion is not competitive and so the skill gap between players is not the deciding factor between who does and doesn't win.

..... so.....

Player A and Player B both ultalize Shadow Tag. Do you think that Player A will be losing more frequently?
....no
I agree with your modification, actually; if we only considered cases where Player B has Shadow Tag and Player A doesn't, that would partially be testing for overcentralization (i.e. Player A's team not being sufficiently prepared for Shadow Tag), but we don't care about overcentralization in Ubers. Testing when both players have Shadow Tag would be a better test for whether something is uncompetitive. (We would have significantly fewer datapoints, but hopefully there would still be enough given how many battles take place in a month-long suspect test.)

Would it be possible to retrieve stats for this?
 

truedrew

Banned deucer.
Y'all niggas need jesus.....
any ways to get to a brief and quick point:
mega gengar has an ability called shadowtag
shadow tag make many many many people butt hurt because in a tier like ubers there is a necessity for each and every pokemon which means that even if one pokemon is killed then the team loses its only hope vs one/multiple possible sweepers.
for example
The opponents team depends on grassceus to counter specs ogre
mega gengar traps and kills grassy possibly alongside another pokemon with destinybond
now specs ogre shreds the opponent with ease as the opponent has no switchins

or on another note
You being the internet snob you are realize that gothielle is more terrorizing so you carry that
Gothielle traps and sets up and kills arceus along side again 1 more possible pokemon

In The scenario abovve both people have one big thing in common
SHADOW MOTHERFUCKING TAG

What the community needs is a shadowtag ban as yes, countless people have argued that mega gar forces 50/50 etc but what they dont realize ANY POKEMON with the ability to trap an opponent removes the very FABRICS OF POKEMON WHICH IS TO SWITCH INTO SOMETHING VS SOMETHING ELSE!
ergo the ability shadowtag, which is so broken THAT IT IS BANNED IN FUCKING BALANCED HACKMONS PEOPLE BALANCED HACKMONS
a metagame meant for shit to be experimented on has banned an ability because it is anti pokemon

to conclude ban shadowtag as a whole

and again
Y'all niggas need jesus.....
 
Well, if you've switched to Jirachi because you guessed wrong (my example was Reshiram against Groudon), you have lost your Pokemon. There's no "switching out" or whatever. Jirachi's dead. It wasn't there to oversell Reshiram or anything, more of the fact to illustrate that these 50/50s exist and aren't actually uncommon. Rather than nitpick the example itself, it would be nice if you could see the more broad argument that I'm presenting. You can theorymon counters to Reshiram or Zekrom or whatever if you want, it still doesn't change the fact that these 50/50s exist, a 50/50 where it's truly when you lose a mon if you picked the wrong Pokemon. You could say the same thing for Shadow Tag too if you really wanted to nitpick examples. Some Pokemon might carry Shed Shell. Some Pokemon might carry Dragon Tail (like Palkia). Some Pokemon might have U-Turn/Volt Switch/Baton Pass. The point is that the 50/50s you mention that make Shadow Tag uncompetitive exist in the wider Pokemon that have just the same kind of devastating consequences. These things are nothing new. The only difference is the timing of those 50/50s.
Sure, I guess it seems like I'm nitpicking your examples. But there also is an underlying argument in what I said: for every threatening offensive pokemon, there exist many viable defensive pivots which can mitigate the risk in 50/50s. If I lose the 50/50, I'm guaranteed to lose not too much. Then the kinds of 50/50s which have "the same kind of devastating consequences" really only occur in something like a 2v2 situation with Scarfed Zekrom and some fodder against a weakened ground and fairy, or a Choiced Kyogre and some fodder against a weakened Gastrodon and a Ho-Oh. Towards an even endgame mind-games are sometimes unavoidable. In the middle of an even game, you have the safe option to pivot out of such dangerous offensive threats.

The same cannot be said by losing a Shadow Tag 50/50. You can't pivot out of a Shadow Tag 50/50 without carrying Shed Shell or a fast VoltTurn (but what Gengar stays in on a Scarfed Zekrom or Genesect anyway?). In fact, Shadow Tag thrives because of its ability to take out such defensive pivots.

Ultimately the only way to make up ground for losing a core defensive Pokemon to Shadow Tag is to make a series of equally aggressive plays, as evidenced by C AllStar's game.
 

shrang

General Kenobi
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
The same cannot be said by losing a Shadow Tag 50/50. You can't pivot out of a Shadow Tag 50/50 without carrying Shed Shell or a fast VoltTurn (but what Gengar stays in on a Scarfed Zekrom or Genesect anyway?). In fact, Shadow Tag thrives because of its ability to take out such defensive pivots.
You still need to come back to why this is uncompetitive. Shadow Tag makes taking out defensive threats easier. Why is that such a bad thing? It's the same concept as fitting Choice Band/Specs onto *insert hard hitter* and punching holes left and right in your opponent's team so other Pokemon like Ekiller can clean up. I won't deny that Shadow Tag is in general, better at doing this, but these sort of strategies already exist, they are nothing new.

Ultimately the only way to make up ground for losing a core defensive Pokemon to Shadow Tag is to make a series of equally aggressive plays, as evidenced by C AllStar's game.
Uh, so be it? You do what you need to do to win.
 

truedrew

Banned deucer.
You still need to come back to why this is uncompetitive. Shadow Tag makes taking out defensive threats easier. Why is that such a bad thing? It's the same concept as fitting Choice Band/Specs onto *insert hard hitter* and punching holes left and right in your opponent's team so other Pokemon like Ekiller can clean up. I won't deny that Shadow Tag is in general, better at doing this, but these sort of strategies already exist, they are nothing new.

I would just like to point out that choice bands and specs can be countered and can be dealt with due to the fact that THE OPPONENT CAN SWITCH OUT which means that say a choice specs kyogre is in on your -1 speed gastrodon which has lets say just dealt with some arceus variant and is low on hp, being able to switch means that you can choose whether or not to sacrifice your gastrodon at that moment therefore it allows for the subject of mind games like "will the opponent switch predicting my ice beam" or other such cases.

In the case of shadowtag, IT COMPLETELY UTTERLY REMOVES ANY SUCH MIND GAMES!. Now take the same situation, Mega gar or gothielle enter the field and trap poor ol gastro

there now two possible outcomes:
Mega gar taunts and prevents you from recovering and proceeds to kill you thus allowing choice specs ogre to say with pride ITS ALL OGRE NOW or...
Gothitelle sets up and kills gastro while potentially being at better health than mega gegar since it carries rest and lefties.

Case and point being that shadowtag totally prevents any sort of competitiveness in the sense that many pokemon who have only 1-2 good checks can easily become team breaking as they now can run rampant on your opponents team after said check/counter has been taken out ad on HO teams where there are your standard slew of stacked threats ( geoxern ekiller OGRE scarf/specs to name a few) + mega gar leads to a standardized team building format as i clearly observed on the suspect test ladder. Now yes the whole charm behind HO was to get reqs ASAP, but i saw some really good ones which were used by mid-low level players and they were seemingly brilliant with it as they had the basic knowledge which was "trap counter to x and sweep with x after breaking with y" now although in the proper ladder at the higher level this may not happen that often, but with the use of trappers, the loss of even one pokemon turns the game for good and seeing as mega gengar can skillfully played, take down1-2 pokemon it severly puts the opponent at a disadvantage.

All in all despite there being specs and band, they are not as op and standardizing as shadowtag and mega gengar are and hence i feel that a ban is rudimentry and absolutely healthy for the ubers meta seeing as there is only potential checks for the three musketeers (geoxern, ekiller, scarf ogre from my experience) and if any team were to lose a check then they would be at a serious disadvantage. Also do note that no matter how much a person predicts, they eventually will slip up as we are all mortals and nobody can 100/100 predict everything otw they woudl be a god.[/quote]
 

Haruno

Skadi :)
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
I would just like to point out that choice bands and specs can be countered and can be dealt with due to the fact that THE OPPONENT CAN SWITCH OUT which means that say a choice specs kyogre is in on your -1 speed gastrodon which has lets say just dealt with some arceus variant and is low on hp, being able to switch means that you can choose whether or not to sacrifice your gastrodon at that moment therefore it allows for the subject of mind games like "will the opponent switch predicting my ice beam" or other such cases.

In the case of shadowtag, IT COMPLETELY UTTERLY REMOVES ANY SUCH MIND GAMES!. Now take the same situation, Mega gar or gothielle enter the field and trap poor ol gastro

there now two possible outcomes:
Mega gar taunts and prevents you from recovering and proceeds to kill you thus allowing choice specs ogre to say with pride ITS ALL OGRE NOW or...
Gothitelle sets up and kills gastro while potentially being at better health than mega gegar since it carries rest and lefties.

Case and point being that shadowtag totally prevents any sort of competitiveness in the sense that many pokemon who have only 1-2 good checks can easily become team breaking as they now can run rampant on your opponents team after said check/counter has been taken out ad on HO teams where there are your standard slew of stacked threats ( geoxern ekiller OGRE scarf/specs to name a few) + mega gar leads to a standardized team building format as i clearly observed on the suspect test ladder. Now yes the whole charm behind HO was to get reqs ASAP, but i saw some really good ones which were used by mid-low level players and they were seemingly brilliant with it as they had the basic knowledge which was "trap counter to x and sweep with x after breaking with y" now although in the proper ladder at the higher level this may not happen that often, but with the use of trappers, the loss of even one pokemon turns the game for good and seeing as mega gengar can skillfully played, take down1-2 pokemon it severly puts the opponent at a disadvantage.

All in all despite there being specs and band, they are not as op and standardizing as shadowtag and mega gengar are and hence i feel that a ban is rudimentry and absolutely healthy for the ubers meta seeing as there is only potential checks for the three musketeers (geoxern, ekiller, scarf ogre from my experience) and if any team were to lose a check then they would be at a serious disadvantage. Also do note that no matter how much a person predicts, they eventually will slip up as we are all mortals and nobody can 100/100 predict everything otw they woudl be a god.
[/quote]
Yo what separates the 50-50 caused by mega gengar from something like choice scarf krom against a 30% xerneas that isn't scarfed/boosted? The fact that you can switch in that scenario? Both scenarios provide a huge 50-50 that provides an immense advantage for the winner. The ability to switch does not remove 50-50's and saying otherwise is laughable.

The whole crux of your argument is no switching = no gamebreaking 50-50's which is sadly not true. Unless you can prove that the 50-50's gengar provides is uncompetitive to the extent that it's ban worthy then your whole argument falls apart.

Just FYI I'm for a gengarite ban, but the argument you list just isn't convincing or solely dependent on shadow tag as a whole.
 

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Arguments in Paragraph Form

Too many times I have seen arguments to ban Mega Gengar based on the fact that it is broken / centralizing / whatever. The fact that Uber mons centralize is why they are Uber, the argument that we want the Ubers metagame to be more balanced and therefore more fun is retarded. If you want a balanced metagame play any tier other than Ubers, don’t try to make the only tier left that is imbalanced balanced, that is akin to Nazism. I quote Jackm’s post because it is excellent:

Creating two Ubers tiers (Henceforth referred to as Ubers and Ubers-B, such that Ubers-B excludes the titans of Ubers) would create a definitive error in Ubers's dynamic with OU. OU is intended to be as inclusive a metagame as possible, but it also strives to ensure that none of its members are uncompetitive or broken. Note that there is a distinction between those two descriptors; broken pokemon are simply overpowered and centralizing, but uncompetitive pokemon/strategies lower the overall level of skill necessary to succeed to the point where a much more skilled player has a decent chance of losing to a much less skilled player. Meanwhile, the Ubers tier focuses only on banning uncompetitive pokemon/strategies: Of the extremely paltry selection of entities banned from Ubers, a strong case can be made for all that they violate the skill-based integrity of the metagame.

If you break the tier in two, you come across an interesting conundrum: you are taking the total set of pokemon (minus those which are uncompetitive) and eliminating from play those which overcentralize the metagame with the goal of providing a more inclusive and balanced metagame. Sound familiar? That's because Ubers-B, at its heart, is just OU. At best, Ubers-B represents an OU-style tier above OU (similar to how OU and UU coexist, or UU and RU, or RU and NU).

Now, you may think that this tier could work, that it would just be an OU-style tier with more powerful pokemon. Here is where we hit the problem: You cannot create an OU-style metagame with Ubers. The Ubers tier is unique in that its threats are, by nature, centralizing. They are literally the best that gamefreak has to offer, and many of them (one specific example being the box legendaries) are created by gamefreak to be ridiculous nukes or unbreakable walls. Every single member of the Ubers tier is a centralizing threat, some more than others, and that is a fact that Uberers just deal with. The tier thrives on. But creating a sub-tier with any of these threats that has the option of banning them if they are broken will assuredly fail. You're introducing the weaker Ubers, the ones that had to get tested to leave OU, back into OU. Surely you can see the problem here. There's a reason that they left.


I have also seen some players use the excuse that they want XY Ubers to be fun and thus Mega Gengar should be banned. This is also incredibly stupid. Fun is something that can be very subjective, and for me Pokemon that make XY Ubers less fun are Darkrai and Zekrom, both to use and to battle against. Their success hinges entirely on notoriously inaccurate moves and they force a ridiculous number of prediction coin flips (just as many if not more than Mega Gengar); these things are not fun at all. I have won or lost many battles because Dark Void hit or missed, or because I won or lost a speed tie against my foe’s Zekrom, or because I happened to correctly predict if my opponent was going to Outrage or Bolt Strike. When I won it was not fun, when I lost it was infuriating. In regards to a skilled player vs. a skilled player, risk vs. reward calculation can help you predict because your opponent is more rational, but this is not the case when one player is significantly more skilled than the other. Are we going to ban Zekrom and Darkrai just because some others and myself find these Pokemon not fun? Do you see the inherent problem in this destructive thinking?

There are also some misconceptions about why something shouldn’t be banned from Ubers, and one of the more common is that you shouldn’t ban something from a ban list. This reasoning is flawed because Ubers is not just a ban list but its own tier and metagame that is even included in several official tournaments. Anything uncompetitive to the Ubers metagame should be eliminated and uncompetitive elements have already been banned because they ignore skill (RNG rules) and have little or no practical use. Only things that are uncompetitive are ban worthy from Ubers because they exclusively encourage players that are less skilled to succeed over players that are more skilled (we have a pretty good definition for something that is uncompetitive by the way regardless of the tier it is from).

Shadow Tag when combined with the moves Taunt and Destiny Bond cause a high number of scenarios that force a player to predict one option or the other, but no option is actually any better than the other because the best option is dependent on what move the opponent makes. This is exactly the same as a game of Rock Paper Scissors, which has no skill at all. This forcing of coin flips is somewhat similar to the grounds of banning the move Swagger. However, the issue with using this as justification for a Mega Gengar ban is that there are other Pokemon without Shadow Tag that are able to cause situations where an opponent has two options and the best option is dependent on the opponent’s move. In fact, not only are there other Pokemon that do this without Shadow Tag, but it can happen in basically any matchup at any time. Zekrom arguably causes as many prediction coin flips as Mega Gengar, so why is Zekrom not up for suspect? Deming the causation of prediction coin flips as grounds for banning something would mean that all Pokemon would be banned. Note I say prediction coin flip and not just coin flip because RNG does not decide the outcome, the player does, but it is still basically a coin flip. Do we make an exception for Mega Gengar when compared to others because it is known to cause so many prediction coin flips and therefore we have to draw a line where something causes enough prediction coin flips to be uncompetitive? Where exactly would this line be, what would be the average number of prediction coin flips caused where a mon becomes uncompetitive, and should such a line be drawn at all? For those that went this route, these specifics and problems were never discussed, let alone answered.

The Mega Gengar issue is not so shallow and there is a better reason why it could be seen as uncompetitive. In the singles metagame switching is an incredibly crucial mechanic, in fact most good battles will have about a third to half the turns taken by a player be switches. Shadow Tag eliminates this game mechanic. Some players argue that the ability to remove a player’s choice is uncompetitive, after all, you can’t be held responsible for something you had no control over. However like the previous issue, as to if this is uncompetitive is debatable, as there are many other elements that remove player choice. Moves such as Taunt eliminate players from choosing certain attacks, moves such as Encore force only one attacking option, moves such as Trick force choice items onto a player’s Pokemon and lock them in a single move, the list goes on and on. These things are also effectively abused in XY Ubers just as Shadow Tag, since something won’t be even considered for a ban unless it can actually be abused. If the removal of player choice is inherently uncompetitive then all these strategies should be up for suspect and they are not. If the removal of choice isn’t inertly uncompetitive then pro banners are arguing that a quantifiable point exists where something removes enough choice to be considered uncompetitive. This point was never attained, justified, or agreed upon so the conclusion is that there isn’t one; a ban without a legitimate conclusion to support it is insanity.


Arguments in Logical Format
"The Broken Argument"

1) Mega Gengar is broken.
2) To create a balanced metagame broken Pokemon need to be banned
3) Mega Gengar needs to be banned if the Ubers metagame is to be balanced
Fallacy: Ubers is an inherently unbalanced metagame; this is derivative of its origin, thus all Ubers would need to be banned to create a balanced Ubers metagame


“The Fun Argument”

1) Mega Gengar causes the Ubers metagame to be less enjoyable for certain players
2) The Ubers metagame is played to be enjoyed
3) Mega Gengar needs to be banned if the Ubers metagame is to be enjoyed by all players
Fallacy: The ability for a Pokemon to be un-enjoyable is not inherently part of its nature, rather it is subjective to the individual perceiving it, thus any Pokemon can be considered to be un-enjoyable, thus any Pokemon can be banned under this argument


“The Banlist Argument”
1) Ubers is only a ban list for OU
2) It is illogical to ban a Pokemon that is already exclusive to a ban list
3) Mega Gengar should not be banned
Fallacy: Ubers is not just a ban list, but is a metagame that is played competitively; uncompetitive elements must be banned to uphold the integrity of any competitive metagame, otherwise the metagame is not competitive


“The 50-50 Argument”

1) Mega Gengar cause scenarios where the best move is dependent on the move made by the opponent, and is thus skill-less (Rock Paper Scissors)
2) Elements that allow less skilled players to achieve over more skilled players need to be banned
3) Mega Gengar needs to be banned as to prevent less skilled players from achieving over more skilled players
Fallacy: Situations where your best move is dependent on the opponent’s move can be caused by all Pokemon, thus all Pokemon would need to be banned (the argument is rooted exclusively in idiographic explanation, which is abused to only explain one case while the scope of the explanation is limited to the case at hand: we must add a nomothetic explanation to continue further)
4) A quantifiable point then must exist for Mega Gengar on a scale that measures the degree to which something causes these scenarios, with Mega Gengar beyond this point and all other Pokemon before this point
5) Such a quantifiable point is established and agreed upon by players, and Mega Gengar is agreed to be beyond this point on such a scale, and all other Pokemon before this point
Conclusion: Step four in the argument was never solved by pro-banners because most if not all arguments were rooted exclusively in idiographic explanation, step five in the argument never happened and so the argument is far from complete, thus Mega Gengar remains unbanned because such is the status quo (you do not condemn a man who was never proven guilty)


“The Elimination of Switching Argument”

1) Mega Gengar eliminates player choice because it removes the ability to switch
2) A player without choice cannot be held accountable for their actions
3) Ubers is a competitive metagame, players must be held accountable for their actions
4) Mega Gengar must be banned if Ubers is to be a competitive metagame
Fallacy: Several strategies that eliminate player choice are also effectively abused, thus these also need to be banned (the argument is rooted exclusively in idiographic explanation, which is abused to only explain one case while the scope of the explanation is limited to the case at hand: we must add a nomothetic explanation to continue further)
5) A quantifiable point then must exist for Mega Gengar on a scale that measures the degree to which something eliminates choice, and thus Mega Gengar is beyond this point and all other elements that eliminate choice are before this point
6) Such a quantifiable point is established and agreed upon by players, and Mega Gengar is agreed to be beyond this point on such a scale with all other elements that eliminate choice before this point
Conclusion: Step five in the argument was never solved by pro-banners because most if not all arguments were rooted exclusively in idiographic explanation, step six in the argument never happened and so the argument is far from complete, thus Mega Gengar remains unbanned because such is the status quo (you do not condemn a man who was never proven guilty)


Paragraph
Scientific theory cannot settle debates of value without agreed upon criterion, and even then the conclusion is dependent on the criterion. No such criterion was ever agreed upon and therefore no agreed conclusion could be made. A stopwatch cannot tell you if one runner is better than the other unless speed is the agreed critical criterion, and even then the measurements need to be controlled and accurate. This entire process was not adequately completed with the conclusion that Mega Gengar should be banned. Another common issue is that many of the pro-ban arguments are rooted exclusively in idiographic explanation, which is abused to only explain one case while the scope of the explanation is limited to the case at hand. Uncompetitive elements are defined by how they are perceived in relation to other elements; this is why solely an idiographic explanation is poor to base an argument on in this situation. In regards to this process, holding a majority vote to ban something in Ubers is beyond idiotic, incompetent, and foolish. In a courtroom the jury does not hold a majority rules vote to decide if the suspect was guilty, rather everyone reaches the consensus beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty or they are innocent. If the process here was used in a courtroom, more than just blacks would be condemned even though they were innocent. Despite a few good posts I fail to see how Mega Gengar can be considered something that exclusively encourages players that are less skilled to succeed over players that are more skilled. I will be voting no to banning Gengarite / Mega Gengar. It’s frightening how relevant speeches from The Drumhead are here.
 
Last edited:
The Mega Gengar issue is not so shallow and there is a better reason why it could be seen as uncompetitive. In the singles metagame switching is an incredibly crucial mechanic, in fact most good battles will have about a third to half the turns taken by a player be switches. Shadow Tag eliminates this game mechanic. Some players argue that the ability to remove a player’s choice is uncompetitive, after all, you can’t be held responsible for something you had no control over. However like the previous issue, as to if this is uncompetitive is debatable, as there are many other elements that remove player choice. Moves such as Taunt eliminate players from choosing certain attacks, moves such as Encore force only one attacking option, moves such as Trick force choice items onto a player’s Pokemon and lock them in a single move, the list goes on and on. These things are also effectively abused in XY Ubers just as Shadow Tag, since something won’t be even considered for a ban unless it can actually be abused. If the removal of player choice is inherently uncompetitive then all these strategies should be up for suspect and they are not. If the removal of choice isn’t inertly uncompetitive then pro banners are arguing that a quantifiable point exists where something removes enough choice to be considered uncompetitive. This point was never attained, justified, or agreed upon so the conclusion is that there isn’t one; a ban without a legitimate conclusion to support it is insanity.
I agree that there are many aspects (Encore, Taunt, Trick) that remove player choice yet are not (and probably never will be) up for suspect. However, removing player choice is still inherently uncompetitive.

However, we need to consider the degree to which those aspects are uncompetitive and whether or not they significantly compromise "competitive integrity of Ubers, within the current paradigm of Ubers" (quoting Fireburn).

As past suspect tests have shown, some uncompetitive elements (Evasion Clause) are not significant enough to need a ban, while others (Swagger, Moody...) have enough impact that they needed to be removed. The question is really, what degree of uncompetitiveness are we (as a commmunity) willing to tolerate?

By removing the ability to switch, I think that Shadow Tag is a uncompetitive element that has had a significantly (and negatively) impacted the Ubers metagame. Many other players have already elaborated on why it is uncompetitive, and how it is significant. As such, it needs to (and by extension Mega-Gengar) needs to be removed.
 

Thugly Duckling

I play TCG now
After much thought and reading in this thread, I've come to a new decision with what will be my vote. So I've searched extensively throughout Smogon looking for decision-breaking evidence of why Mega-Gengar and STag shouldn't be banned as I was once pro-ban. I came across this in the SmogDex and it is the definition of the Uber Tier.

The SmogDex says,
"Ubers is the most inclusive of Smogon's tiers, allowing the use of any Pokémon species. Only abilities and tactics which have been proven to be uncompetitive are banned from use. Ubers is not influenced by Pokémon usage in OU, UU, RU, or NU, and the usage of Pokémon in Ubers has no influence on the compositions of those tiers."

Let me break down this short paragraph, explaining what is in bold and how it relates to the Shadow Tag suspect.

"Allowing the use of any Pokemon species"

The banning of a Pokemon is unprecedented in Ubers, and because Ubers is essentially a banlist to the OU tier, why is Mega-Gengar even being suspected? And answering the "We are not banning a Pokemon we are banning an item/ability whatever argument"; I can directly compare Mega-Gengar to Moody Bibarel or Moody Smeargle. Unlike Smeargle and Bibarel which each have two other abilities, Mega-Gengar has ONE ability, meaning banning the ability Shadow Tag bans Mega-Gengar (a species of Pokemon) whilst the definition of the Uber Tier clearly states that Ubers "is the most inclusive of Smogon's tiers, allowing the use of any Pokemon Species." The statements "allowing the use of any Pokémon species" and "abilities and tactics which have been proven to be uncompetitive" are EXTREMELY contradicting, as a single-ability species of Pokemon such as Mega-Gengar is torn between both statements, but leans more towards fulfilling the definition of the tier rather than preserving the integrity of it's competitiveness.

"Abilities and tactics which have been proven to be uncompetitive"

I will admittedly state that Shadow Tag is the most broken of all abilities as it in comparison to Moody which gives luck to any player, Shadow Tag takes away the power (and can take skill) of a player to make proper plays by switching their Pokemon in and out of battle. In Gengar's case the one turn to Mega-Evolve to thus obtain the ability Shadow Tag is very crucial to it being deemed a broken/not broken Pokemon. However, if Pokemon A is even trapped by Pokemon B, what skill has Pokemon B taken away from Player A? Player A mispredicted/misplayed and ALLOWED Player B to trap their Pokemon. Are we going to ban Mega-Gengar based on bad plays/mispredictions resulting in pro-ban claims of considered unskilled players? I mean Shadow Tag is really only as good as the Player using it. This does not seem right and just to me to ban something that varies in effectiveness on the basis of the skill of a player. It would be a completely different scenario if Shadow Tag canceled played switches (for example Player A switches out Pokemon A for a counter to Pokemon B, but Player B has the faster Pokemon in battle and switches to a STag user, preventing Player A's switch) and if that was the case I think STag would be banned from all play. Because a player can predict (yes, predicting is a part of the game's competitiveness) a STag user switching in, Shadow Tag is not uncompetitive as it DOES require skill to use AND it requires skill for a player to keep his crucial Pokemon from being trapped as well. Shadow Tag has proven to be uncompetitive by perhaps the "unskilled" players of the tier, but in higher level play involving STag it is not broken at all as like I've stated above, STag varies in effectiveness on the basis of a player's skill. This obviously relates to both team matchup, and player matchup.
Lets create a scenario; shrang and I meet on a ladder battle and Shrang is using STag. In this matchup Shrang is obviously the more skilled player and he holds the upper advantage by having a Specs Ogre, RP Groudon, and Gothitelle while I only have an Arceus-Grass to check both Specs Ogre and RP Groudon. Shrang successfully traps my Arceus-Grass and sweeps me with Specs Ogre, and after the match I felt powerless to Gothitelle, and thus I felt that it was uncompetitive. However Shrang feels that I misplayed and could have prevented Gothitelle from trapping Arceus-Grass, and I could have doubled in Tyranitar to Pursuit Trap Gothitelle in order to keep the integrity of my team's defensive backbone. In this scenario and suspect test, there are two very different viewpoints of whether STag is uncompetitive (a skilled player's POV and an unskilled/decent player's POV), and thus it CANNOT be proven uncompetitive nor banned from the Uber tier.
 
Last edited:

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
"Ubers is the most inclusive of Smogon's tiers, allowing the use of any Pokémon species. Only abilities and tactics which have been proven to be uncompetitive are banned from use.
You have to be very careful though, this definition was written in the context that no Pokemon had ever needed to be banned from Ubers. Ubers defined how this definition was written, not the other way around, so you cannot use it to justify not banning a Pokemon.
 
I'd also like to point out that Wobbuffet does in fact have another ability. Telepathy. Yes, a useless ability, but it is a different ability.
 

Thugly Duckling

I play TCG now
I'd also like to point out that Wobbuffet does in fact have another ability. Telepathy. Yes, a useless ability, but it is a different ability.
Oops thanks for pointing that out, will fix. I had a good convo with Minority Suspect, both of us made good Anti-ban points.

[17:57] Thugly Duckling: In my post, i use the "definition" of ubers just as a starting argument, but i feel all other points are solid.
[17:58] Minority Suspect: okay
[17:58] Minority Suspect: you can't use that defintion as the basis of anything though
[17:58] Minority Suspect: because it is a fallicy
[18:00] Thugly Duckling: btw, ubers cant be defined as "the most inclusive of Smogon's tiers, allowing the use of any Pokémon species EXCEPT Mega-Gengar" because then, the tier wouldnt be the "Uber" tier. The tier allowing the Gengarite would be the true "Uber" tier.
[18:00] Minority Suspect: uh ducky
[18:00] Minority Suspect: that definition is the product of the Ubers tier
[18:00] Thugly Duckling: yo
[18:00] Minority Suspect: it does not define the Ubers tier
[18:01] Minority Suspect: for example
[18:01] Minority Suspect: I could define the US senate as having 100 seats
[18:01] Thugly Duckling: ok
[18:01] Minority Suspect: but what if we got a 51st state
[18:01] Minority Suspect: then we would need 102
[18:01] Minority Suspect: the definition created after the senate existed cannot control it
[18:01] Thugly Duckling: a defintion must be current
[18:02] Minority Suspect: the definition was simply based on what was at the time
[18:02] Thugly Duckling: meaning the "definition" of ubers must be current as well
[18:02] Minority Suspect: the point is that Ubers came before the definition
[18:03] Minority Suspect: thus the definition does not truely define the tier
[18:03] Thugly Duckling: they came at the same time didnt they?
[18:03] Minority Suspect: no
[18:04] Minority Suspect: that is really a definition anyways
[18:04] Minority Suspect: its more like
[18:04] Minority Suspect: a description of the Ubers tier
[18:04] Minority Suspect: as it is right now
[18:04] Thugly Duckling: gotcha
[18:07] Thugly Duckling: This is like the article V of the U.S constitution
[18:07] Minority Suspect: kinda
[18:07] Thugly Duckling: wait, what is the basis of why the Uber tier was founded and is it legitimate?
[18:07] Minority Suspect: its was founded as a banlist for OU
[18:08] Minority Suspect: nothing more at the time
[18:08] Minority Suspect: but people started to play it
[18:08] Minority Suspect: and then it became a competitive metagame
[18:08] Thugly Duckling: so say "article V" allows the uber tier to change its current state out of its legitimacy
[18:09] Minority Suspect: ban uncompetitive stuff is not illegitamate
[18:09] Minority Suspect: thats been around since Ubers was competitive
[18:10] Thugly Duckling: but is it really legitimate and was it ORIGINALLY allowed to change itself as the PEOPLE and it changed
[18:10] Minority Suspect: before Ubers was competitive, banning anything from it would make no diffrence
[18:10] Minority Suspect: because nobody played it
[18:11] Minority Suspect: so there would be no inital rule that Ubers is defined as a meta where all mons have to be legal
[18:11] Minority Suspect: rules only exist because you need them, and Ubers needed no such rule
[18:12] Thugly Duckling: however, you see now it does make a difference. And all mons should be allowed but only to satisfy the people
[18:12] Minority Suspect: well
[18:12] Minority Suspect: I disagree
[18:12] Minority Suspect: what if gf
[18:12] Minority Suspect: came out with a mon
[18:12] Minority Suspect: that auto won every game
[18:12] Minority Suspect: it would have to be banned
[18:12] Minority Suspect: if Ubers was to be played
[18:13] Thugly Duckling: Well no shit it would have to be banned because it has a justified reason. Nothing justifies the banning of STag
[18:14] Minority Suspect: we're not talking about tag, we are talking about if banning a mon is legitamate for the tier
[18:14] Minority Suspect: you agree that it is legitimate
[18:14] Thugly Duckling: I do not agree with a mon being banned from ubers.
[18:14] Minority Suspect: but you just said that an auto win mon would have to be banned...
[18:15] Thugly Duckling: because then "Ubers" wouldnt be ubers. there would be a tier higher than it.
[18:15] Minority Suspect: there already is a tier higher than it
[18:15] Thugly Duckling: The justified reason for the "auto-win" pokemon is that it can be proven uncompetitive by its virtue to allow completely unskilled players to beat skilled players.
[18:16] Minority Suspect: look
[18:16] Minority Suspect: either you believe no mon should ever be banned from Ubers
[18:16] Minority Suspect: or you believe that banning a mon from Ubers is acceptable
[18:17] Thugly Duckling: You see the "auto win" mon isnt just a pokemon, its a free win. And its traits as a free win overshadow its traits as a pokemon.
[18:18] Thugly Duckling: "overshadow" - pun unintended lol
[18:18] Minority Suspect: selective framing in argument
[18:18] Minority Suspect: is one of the most destructive things in philosophy
[18:20] Thugly Duckling: hmmm
[18:20] Minority Suspect: you don't need to try so hard to prove that Gar shouldn't be banned
[18:20] Minority Suspect: the burden of proof lies on the pro-ban side
[18:20] Minority Suspect: bye
 
Last edited:
Minority Suspect has a point. You either believe that no pokemon should ever be banned from Ubers (including anything gamefreak gives us in the future) or you believe banning pokemon in Ubers is acceptable. You can't say "no you can't ban a pokemon" and then go "oh, an auto-win pokemon has to go".
 
Glad the voting is finally up.

Mega-Gengar is as part of the metagame as anything else. Forget about banning for a second, it's not even close to being the best Pokemon out there. It has numerous counters (read: any scarfer whatsoever, ditto, paralysis) that almost any team that isn't hardcore-stall can easily afford to run. I've encountered next to no trouble facing Mega-Gengar during the suspecttest (where I went far and beyond the 2400 COIL requirement) as it is just so ridiculously fragile. I also haven't found Mega Gengar incredibly useful when actually using it: being able to take certain Pokemon down doesn't help if the rest of your team isn't any good. This is far from broken.

No Ban
 

Ares

Fool me...can't get fooled again
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I don't think it is yet. Haven't seen anything in the Policy Review forum since the OU test
Confirming for voting is over, the thread for posting your votes has yet to go up. If you qualified and confirmed your alt on the suspect confirmation thread then you will be tagged in the thread when it is posted.

Edit @ below: yeah thats what I ment, fixed it
 
Minority Suspect has a point. You either believe that no pokemon should ever be banned from Ubers (including anything gamefreak gives us in the future) or you believe banning pokemon in Ubers is acceptable. You can't say "no you can't ban a pokemon" and then go "oh, an auto-win pokemon has to go".
Yes, but the fact is that there isnt an auto win pokemon. Many people believe that no pokemon should ever be banned from ubers by virtue of definition, ifsuch thing as an "auto win" pokemon were to exist then they may change their minds due to something being so unreasonably powerul. However, this "auto win" pokemon is completely hypothetical and cannot be used to "prove" people's opinions wrong. You cannot say that people who are anti-ban because they believe Ubers shouldnt ban shit are wrong just because if some "auto win" pokemon existed they would want to ban it. That is not only an irrelevant argument, but a stupid one. If some pokemon ever gets banned from Ubers I suppose you could get away with using this arument but as of now you cant. Sorry if that sounded harsh.

Anyways there are two arguments that keep popping up all over this thread that are getting really annoying.

Banning Mega Gengar would create a better metagame.
This isnt OU. If this were OU i would probably support a ban, but it isnt. People are treating this like an OU suspect test, but again it isnt. Here in Ubers we only ban shit that is uncompetitive, our goal isnt to create a perfect metagame but a metagame where mons too powerful for OU can be used.

This brings me to argument #2

Shadow Tag is uncompetitive.
Things that are uncompetitive force players to rely on luck, over which they have no control, opposed to skill. Stuff like guaranteed OHKO moves with a small chance to hit, Moody, which randomly raises one stat two stages and drops another one, and Swagger which gives a pokemon a 50% chance to attack are uncompetitive because they rely on luck. Shadow Tag doesnt fit on this list as you can clearly see. Both players can use a Shadow Tag pokemon on their teams and the winner will usually win because of skill not luck (Team matchup is partially luck but this unfortunately cannot be controlled and affects all parts of the game, not just Shadow Tag pokemon). Likewise, two players could each use a guaranteed OHKO move on each other, however, the one that wins would win because of luck, not skill. This is the difference between Shadow Tag and something that is actually uncompetitive. Many arguments that ive seen for Shadow Tag being uncompetitive is that some teams are weaker to it than others, which makes team matchup unfair. However, this idea holds true for all aspects of the metagame. If my team is weak to E-Killer and I happen to play a team with E-Killer that doesnt make E-Killer uncompetitive. Sure, its unlucky that i happened to play a team with a pokemon that im weak to, but its also my fault for not preparing better. I feel as if that most people know that Shadow Tag isnt really uncompetitive, but because it is sort of taboo in Ubers to ban pokemon they try and argue that it is uncompetitive to satisfy those that think its taboo. While I agree that many people find banning pokemom in ubers is taboo (myself included), we wouldnt be having this suspect test if everyone thought so.

Conclusion / tl;dr

Shadow Tag isnt uncompetitive, at least by smogon standards (uncompetitive: a strategy that relies mostly on luck, not skill). If someone were to say that Mega Gengar is uncompetitive because it is so good, that is overpowered. Many people, including myself, believe that Ubers shouldnt ban pokemon that are overpowered because Ubers is a tier where almost everything should go. Some people dont agree with this and want to ban Mega Gengar. This opinion is perfectly reasonable to me, however, when people say they want to ban Mega Gengar for being uncompetitive it just doesnt make sense. As I said before, our precedent for uncompetitive is something that relies on luck, not skill. Shadow Tag doesnt rely on luck at all besides maybe team matchup, and after all team matchup is always going to give one player an advantage over another even without Shadow Tag.

Scubasage My definition of uncompetitive is based off of the precedent Smogon has set. And it still matters that this is Ubers and not OU. Overpowering and over centralizing pokemon shouldnt be banned as freely as other tiers as Ubers is supposed to be a home for all. Of course I suppose that a pokemon could come along and change that if it was really that good. With that in mind this suspect test boils down to two things: Is Shadow Tag uncompetitive and is Mega Gengar really too powerful for Ubers?
 
Last edited:
Ah, the thing is though, the argument that "this is ubers, so no ban" is just as stupid and irrelevant for the same reason. The fact that something could come about that would change their minds on that is why that logic is pointless. The pro-ban side believes that Mega Gengar is that something, obviously.

The problem with your analysis just there is that it uses your definition of uncompetitive, which is one of many definitions. Yes, if you define uncompetitive as only luck based, then obviously Shadow Tag, something that really doesn't rely on luck, isn't uncompetitive. But if your definition is broader, then Shadow Tag can very easily fall under it, and to many people, they use a broader definition of uncompetitive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top