Gen 6 np: XY Ubers Shadow Tag Suspect Test - Stuck In The Middle With You

[Theorymon]

I have been swamped with college stuff since September (my poor time management skills and being a straight A student have done no favors for my smogon activity), so for now I'm just going to post my Mega Gengar paragraph. Yes, this thread is about Shadow Tag in general, but my opinion on Shadow Tag in Ubers is pretty much the same as what I posted in the Mega Gengar vote. I'll try to make reqs by next week, and HOPEFULLY I will have time to make a more... unique post in this thread later =)

EDIT: God I just realized how rushed that vote post was, maybe I'll refine it tomorrow, might cause some misunderstandings lol

Vote: Do not ban Gengarite

I am philosophically opposed to a Gengarite ban (and a Shadow Tag ban for that matter), as I feel Ubers should be kept as close to being a banlist as possible. Ubers is sorta in the strange position of being both a "banlist" and a "tier" in some aspects, especially when we did those "bring down" suspect tests last gen. However, .It's actually the banlist nature that actually attracted me to Ubers in the first place 5 years ago.

Now, I do realize that Ubers was never actually been a "perfect banlist", since we have stuff like sleep clause, OHKO clause, species clause, etc. When it comes to having an "imperfect banlist", I feel like the things that I'm fine with being removed are things that are very reliant on coin flips, such as Moody, Evasion, OHKO, etc. I consider these acceptable losses because in the "ideal game", these strategies should normally fail anyways (Moody and OHKO are actually more debatable here, but I don't have time to get too into detail there, hell I'm still sorta conflicted on them..) Because of that, I am normally against any other kind of ban, especially ones that are "to make the metagame better", since I feel like that sorta misses the point of Ubers.

I'm sure this would be pointed out, but technically, because I prefer Ubers to be an "imperfect banlist" before a "tier", I am actually technically NOT opposed to sleep clause and species clause being destroyed, as they don't fit with the whole "coin flip" thing like evasion does. However, the main reason I actually don't go arguing for us to unban those is more of a "status quo" thing, and plus I know that my opinions on those two are very unpopular :P.

All of this being said, I'm not downplaying how dangerous Mega Gengar is. I think Mega Gengar is the best damn Mega Evolution in Ubers, and is also one of the most dangerous Pokémon in a 6vs6 singles metagame. It's ability to trap and snipe targets, and leave gaping holes in the opponent's team is incredible, and should never be underestimated. And to make things even more evil, there isn't really much you can do to stop Mega Gengar's plan without crippling yourelf with Shed Shell, or drastically altering your team. Gengar also gets an insane movepool for a Shadow Tagger, with moves like Taunt and Destiny Bond, and it has the right stats to abuse them too! To be honest, I'm actually really shocked Gamefreak went as far as they did with Mega Gengar! That being said, I just don't think breaking the game this hard (even if switching is a pretty fundamental part of Pokémon) actually deserves a ban, even if it does lower the "quality of Ubers".

 

[Fireburn]

shrang, your example is flawed. Let's say CB Ho-Oh is in against +2 Darkrai. The options are as follows:

-Ho-Oh attacks as Darkrai goes for Dark Pulse - Ho-Oh wins because it takes +2 Pulse pretty easily.
-Ho-Oh attacks as Darkrai goes for Dark Void - Ho-Oh can survive +2 Dark Pulse and now pick Sleep Talk to KO Darkrai since Choice items do not lock you in if you get slept before actually attacking - Ho-Oh wins.
-Ho-Oh uses Sleep Talk as Darkrai uses Dark Void - Ho-Oh rolls an attack and kills Darkrai - Ho-Oh wins
-Ho-Oh uses Sleep Talk as Darkrai uses Dark Pulse - Darkrai wins because now it probably gets a KO

So Ho-Oh actually beats Darkrai in 3/4 of these scenarios. Going for Sleep Talk immediately is the riskiest option for Ho-Oh since it leads to the only scenario in which it can possibly outright lose the matchup, but has a high reward in the sense that if Darkrai goes for its safest move (using Dark Void immediately), you will kill it immediately. This is not a 50/50 in actuality, but rather an interesting choice based on Risk vs. Reward, so you can't really compare controlled sleep to kinds of decisions Shadow Tag forces you to make. I or Melee Mewtwo can probably make a better response later, but your post kind of falls apart given that your key example is wrong. Shadow Tag is much more comparable to Swagger or OHKO if you want to bring up these kinds of situations, in the sense that there is a very good chance you'll get screwed over regardless of your countermeasures (you have no idea if the Tagger is equipped with the move to beat your countermeasure until it is already too late. You have no way of scouting for it because of the niggling not being able to switch out thing).

(Also a Sleep-Clause like treatment of Shadow Tag doesn't fix anything and is pretty much not on the table.)

e: Melee Mewtwo has indeed made a better response below lol

 

[MMII]

Something that was brought up last thread was the comparison between sleep and Shadow Tag (by Melee, actually), which I think should be expanded on. Here's my post on it from last thread. I think the main points are highlighted in my post, but I'd like add a few things.

Just to clarify, uncontrolled sleep is when you have no Sleep clause, and controlled sleep is when you do.

- Shadow Tag removes your choice to switch, and by Melee's logic from the quoted post, so does uncontrolled sleep because all it does it sleep whatever switches in and put you in the same position. However, sleep also removes your freedom to attack, which is just as fundamental a mechanic as switching. Even controlled sleep virtually removes your control of whatever Pokemon is slept, even if it's 1 Pokemon only (similar to what usually happens with Shadow Tag).
- Some people may Shadow Tag is more selective in what it takes out than controlled sleep because you can actively switch into something that you feel is best in your position to take the sleep (a Sleep Talker, or just fodder that you think is least valuable to the team). However, one must not forget that your opponent "chooses" when they decide to use the sleep move. For example, you may think it was a great time to switch into your Choice Band Ho-oh in Darkrai to take the sleep, but they can choose to sleep you as you switch and instead attack with Dark Pulse or goes for an NP. Now you face a "50/50", in which you need to predict to use Sleep Talk in anticipation for Dark Void, or pick Brave Bird/Sacred Fire in case Darkrai attacks or uses Nasty Plot. If you Sleep Talk and it attacks, you've lost the matchup even though Ho-oh can be saved since Darkrai has free rein on whatever comes in, then you have to play that game all over again (ESPECIALLY bad if they predict the Sleep Talk and goes for the Nasty Plot instead. Just like controlled sleep, Shadow Tag is quite dependent on the user. These things are not "insane predictions" on the sleep using Pokemon, they are the same as in the Shadow Tag scenario, ie 50/50s. And hey, just like a Shadow Tag, if you outplayed that Ho-oh with your Darkrai then you have a significantly higher chance of winning the game (even though Darkrai in this scenario could be stopped by other means). If by using the logic of some pro-ban supporters, significantly higher chance = you've won the game.

Okay, so why am I highlighting this? The reason is that if Shadow Tag is relatively close to controlled sleep (you are free to point out any significant differences) is that we are calling for a ban on Shadow Tag, but we are fine with controlled sleep, which is inconsistent. Most people are not calling for a total ban on sleep and are mostly satisfied with Sleep Clause (I know some people would like to differ, but they are definitely the minority). Now, the post that I linked was more directed at Mega Gengar, so there was an element of "well Mega Gengar only incapacitates 1-2 mons at most, but Shadow Tag spans over 3 Pokemon (mainly)". Wobbuffet's pretty close to Gengar in what it generally achieves (creating situations for something else to sweep). I'm aware that Gothitelle is works in a different way, but from what I've actually experienced, Gothitelle needs quite a few pre-conditions to be filled before it can do the more dangerous things it does (eg having Dark-types removed, can't set up on phazers, not getting crit while setting up, etc etc). Otherwise, it's fairly similar to Gengar and Wobbuffet when you haven't gotten rid of its counters already.

This also raises another difference of controlled sleep vs Shadow Tag in the sense that right now, you can use more than 1 Shadow Tag user and therefore can cut down on choice of switching a lot more and gets us closer to what is similar to uncontrolled sleep (ie no meaningful switches). Whether that is still uncompetitive or not is another question I'll address later, but should we compare that to getting 3 Pokemon slept (which I think most people would oppose, and I guess I would too, although that really needs to scrutinised), I'd be much more open to a Sleep Clause-like treatment of Shadow Tag (and while we're at it, trapping in general), ie only one Shadow Tag (or just trapping ability) Pokemon on the one team at a time, rather than a total ban of Shadow Tag.

Yes, I still do think Shadow Tag is comparable to "uncontrolled sleep", as well as every other currently banned element, in that each of them remove interesting choice from the victim through their (in)direct removal of the mechanic of switching.

No, attacking isn't as fundamental a mechanic as switching. Attacking gains value as a mechanic in creating interesting choices *only* when the possibility of switching is present. I can happily elaborate if you want (it's a very good concept to grasp if one wants to become good at this game), but for now I'm just going to keep it simple.

Your understanding of "controlled sleep" and sequent comparison to Shadow Tag is very flawed. "Controlled Sleep" works because the victim has options they can make interesting choices from to minimize its effects in battle. Choosing who to sack to sleep, of which could be a Pokemon that is virtually immune to the status condition, as well as reversing its effects with the likes of Heal Bell or simply creating enough free turns for the sleeping Pokemon to wake up. These are both things that aren't even remotely present with Shadow Tag.

I'm not sure how being able to choose when you want to use Sleep is anything but positive. The interaction you went on to describe is simply how a healthy game of Pokemon functions. If anything, you gave an example on why Shadow Tag is a problem. I do not have the option to switch into my Gothitelle check (CB Ho-Oh) and the Gothitelle (Darkrai) doesn't have to bother predicting such a possibility. (click NP)

There's only one reason I can come up with on how your thinking can error so much as to claim that what you described is even remotely to how Shadow Tag functions. You seem to be thinking that because Shadow Tag lacks counterplay, it is comparable to a scenario where one player outplays another. I hope you can see now the clear difference between your counterplay being outplayed and not even having options for counterplay in the first place. (note I'm saying counterplay and not counterteam)

It's interesting that you would be so open to the possibility of a Sleep Clause styled nerf to Shadow Tag as opposed to an outright ban. First of all, I want to mention that such a thing isn't a possibility because of the fact that complex bans should be avoided. The strongly doubt even Sleep Clause would exist today if it didn't predate the organized suspect testing system in Pokemon. I feel tradition alone is the only thing that has saved sleep from a total ban.

However, that's not what makes your comment so interesting. What's interesting about you being "much more open" to the possibility of treating it like Sleep Clause is that you are acknowledging Shadow Tag is similar to Sleep. You are apparently willing to nerf it with a new clause, something that would only be done assuming Shadow Tag is inherently uncompetitive.

What's even more interesting is the reasoning you give as to why you would be open to such a possibility. You bring up the fact that, unlike "controlled sleep", you can remove more than one Pokemon by using more than one Shadow Tag abuser and increase the amount of turns where the victim is robbed of switching and choice, making things resemble even more "uncontrolled sleep". This isn't a false observation, however you are forgetting one key detail: this is already possible with just one Shadow Tag abuser. Unlike with "controlled Sleep", you don't burn your kill button (or psuedo-kill in the case of sleep) once you use it on one Pokemon. There is no existing clause that prevents you from trapping and killing a second, third, fourth, fifth, and, yes, a sixth Pokemon with the very same Shadow Tag abuser. Although, against solid builds, wiping out over half a team is very unlikely to take place, taking two Pokemon out with the same Shadow Tag abuser is very commonplace and taking a third happens occasionally, as well, due to the diversity of Shadow Tag's abusers.

So then, if

1. You are willing to treat Shadow Tag like another uncompetitive element and create a similar clause to one already existing
2. The reason for your willingness to do so is because you believe it would effectively limit the scope of Shadow Tag to levels comparable to "controlled sleep"
3. This perceived limitation is actually false and only a full ban would accomplish such a thing

why then are you so opposed to the proposition of a Shadow Tag clause for any reason other than your illogical opposition to the idea of any new ban in Ubers? (remember, you opposed the Swagger Clause as well)

 

[Theorymon]

Honestly, as much as I totally detest a Shadow Tag ban, I think making a specific clause like shrang suggested is complicating things unnecessarily (in addition to not really addressing the most common complaints about Shadow Tag). As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather take the all or nothing approach.

Not gonna elaborate too much yet (god damn research papers), but as its been stated many times, this debate is more than just "ugh I dont like Shadow Tag plz ban" vs "Shadow Tag is fine, don't ban it!". Ubers philosophy is a major part of this suspect test, and in many cases, that's something that won't be learned by just laddering!

For example, I personally think that Shadow Tag is an INSANE ability, that Mega Gengar is the best Mega evolution ever, and that Wobbuffet and Gothitelle are both pretty threatening Pokémon. While I do think these 3 can totally limit "interesting" options in a match, I don't think that actually warrants a ban in Ubers, because I feel that keeping Ubers as ban free as possible is more important than making the metagame "more competitive". Especially since as Hugendugen has said in the past, the result of these suspect tests WILL NOT impact Ubers place in tournaments, so I feel more comofrtable with this conclusion because of that.

Of course I didn't really elaborate much here (more of what I think is in that Mega Gengar post up above, but dw I will make a better post later), but I'd like to see more Ubers philosophy talk here. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T talk about if you feel Shadow Tag isn't broken or not, I just think that only scratches the surface of this whole issue!

 

[Fireburn]

Theorymon I don't think there is anyone who will disagree that Ubers is and should be the metagame with the fewest number of bans, but that doesn't mean Ubers should be a ban-free metagame. Arguing against a Shadow Tag ban on Ubers philosophy alone is illogical when you consider that there are bans already in place for the purpose of removing or neutralizing uncompetitive game elements (OHKO, Moody, Swagger). This is why discussing whether or not Shadow Tag is uncompetitive (read: not broken) is important, because if it is proven so, then banning it is fine under the current philosophy of Ubers because such bans are already in place. Ubers has bans and it will not be "destroyed" if a Shadow Tag ban does happen; arguing not to ban an uncompetitive game element (Swagger, Moody, and OHKO are also uncompetitive game elements) for the sake of "we shouldn't ban things from Ubers" is, in reality, arguing for a purist ideal that does not exist in practice.

Ubers is indeed the most ban-free metagame. If you ban Shadow Tag, it will still be the most ban-free metagame. That won't change.

 

[Celticpride]

I'm pretty much going to stay out of this because I frankly don't play Ubers too much, but I have a few quick points from just reading through.

Now let's get to the trapped scenario. For the sake of example, say its Arceus-Poison against Gothitelle. No problem, I have Poison Jab, I'll 3HKO Gothitelle before it kills me. You do your nice 34% with PJab and then...Gothitelle uses Charm. Poison Arceus dies and your opponent still has a Xerneas. You are now screwed. A similar scenario: Mega Scizor vs Mega Gengar. You switch in Mega Scizor on the MEvo turn, great, now you can Pursuit trap it and everything will be fine and dandy. So you click Pursuit and then...Mega Gengar uses Hidden Power Fire. Or Destiny Bond. Now your Scizor is dead and the opponent still has a Xerneas in the back with a potential Mega-Evolved Gengar on the loose. You are now screwed.

I don't really like the mentality in this part of the post, because the reality is that Goth and Gengar can't trap everything they need to in one set. HP Fire Gengar can effectively trap Scizor, but that compromises it's ability to trap other things. Similar things apply to Goth, it really can't cover everything with one universal set to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that to be the case. That means that Goth might single-handedly win the match, but there might be some where it really can't find a window to effectively trap anything effectively with it's current moveset. I see this kind of thing in a lot of suspect tests and I frankly don't like it. Sure, some things have absurdly wide movepools. They can't run everything at once. Maybe sometimes you have to run a two mon defensive core if you really want to stop something, where the two components cover the sets the other is weak to. That went off on a little bit of a tangent, but the initial point that one universal set can't cover everything they want to trap still stands.

Second, Shadow Tag may very well be uncompetitive, but I feel that calling it that also changes the tone of what is uncompetitive. Other uncompetitive bans (eg. evasion, sleep. Swagger, Moody) require less skill and allow what should be very bad mons to win. You can pretty mindlessly spam Spore/Dark Void, Double Team, PranksterSwag Purrloin and Moody Bidoof and come out on top with little skill required. Mega Gengar and Goth still have to be employed tactically and correctly, noobs can't spam them and auto-win because of that. I know someone is probably going rip this apart, it's just food for thought.

Finally, stop bitching about people not "qualified" to vote even if they make the reqs. Either raise the requirements to vote or don't have a suspect test at all. Stop this talk about throwing out votes of people who don't "play the tier anymore/at all" as well. If you make whatever the reqs are set at, you're qualified to vote. That's how a suspect test works. We really don't need more people thinking Smogon is elitist.

Please don't skewer me, these are just some thoughts after reading through what has been posted so far.

 

[alwayswimmin]

I'm pretty much going to stay out of this because I frankly don't play Ubers too much, but I have a few quick points from just reading through.

I don't really like the mentality in this part of the post, because the reality is that Goth and Gengar can't trap everything they need to in one set. HP Fire Gengar can effectively trap Scizor, but that compromises it's ability to trap other things. Similar things apply to Goth, it really can't cover everything with one universal set to my knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that to be the case. That means that Goth might single-handedly win the match, but there might be some where it really can't find a window to effectively trap anything effectively with it's current moveset. I see this kind of thing in a lot of suspect tests and I frankly don't like it. Sure, some things have absurdly wide movepools. They can't run everything at once. Maybe sometimes you have to run a two mon defensive core if you really want to stop something, where the two components cover the sets the other is weak to. That went off on a little bit of a tangent, but the initial point that one universal set can't cover everything they want to trap still stands.

Second, Shadow Tag may very well be uncompetitive, but I feel that calling it that also changes the tone of what is uncompetitive. Other uncompetitive bans (eg. evasion, sleep. Swagger, Moody) require less skill and allow what should be very bad mons to win. You can pretty mindlessly spam Spore/Dark Void, Double Team, PranksterSwag Purrloin and Moody Bidoof and come out on top with little skill required. Mega Gengar and Goth still have to be employed tactically and correctly, noobs can't spam them and auto-win because of that. I know someone is probably going rip this apart, it's just food for thought.

Finally, stop bitching about people not "qualified" to vote even if they make the reqs. Either raise the requirements to vote or don't have a suspect test at all. Stop this talk about throwing out votes of people who don't "play the tier anymore/at all" as well. If you make whatever the reqs are set at, you're qualified to vote. That's how a suspect test works. We really don't need more people thinking Smogon is elitist.

Please don't skewer me, these are just some thoughts after reading through what has been posted so far.

Just addressing your first point. It is true not all coverage moves can be run at the same time. As you said, depending on the coverage Shadow Tag is forced to choose what it can beat. But that's the point - because Shadow Tag can choose what it can beat, teams using Shadow Tag choose coverage based on what the rest of the team has trouble with. It becomes possible to have an offensive core of Offensive Groudon, EKiller, and GeoXern knowing one can slap HP Fire Mega Gengar on the team to deal with pesky Ferrothorns, Scizors, and Skarms which otherwise trouble the core. Similar arguments can be made for any other coverage move STag mons run.

Part of the reason why Shadow Tag is so dangerous is this inherent unpredictability and exacerbation of team matchup.

I'll let someone more qualified than me answer your second point. STag certainly requires more skill than Swagger and Moody, but really only the slightest gameplanning based on analyzing the opposing team suffices to utilize STag rather effectively. shrang and MM2 bring up an interesting comparison of Sleep to STag above, so it's not completely out of the question.

 

[shrang]

shrang, your example is flawed.

etc etcl

You know, I was this close to writing down "Before you start nitpicking the example, address the actual argument" because I knew someone would come in and nitpick the example to the Nth degree but completely ignore the argument, and unfortunately, you never fail to disappoint, bro.

No, attacking isn't as fundamental a mechanic as switching. Attacking gains value as a mechanic in creating interesting choices *only* when the possibility of switching is present. I can happily elaborate if you want (it's a very good concept to grasp if one wants to become good at this game), but for now I'm just going to keep it simple.

Can you seriously not see how wrong this is? If you can't, let me ask you this: can you win a battle by not attacking? Then ask yourself: Can you win a battle by not switching? And yes, it is possible to win games by not switching (even though it is admittedly against shit players you can do so). And no, it is not possible to win without attacking unless you deliberately set up your opponent to use nothing but Splash/Growl/whatever every turn. Even if you run out of PP, you are forced to attack by using Struggle. When I mean attacking, I don't just mean attacking moves. You cannot complete a battle without attacking, yet you can if you don't switch. Which one is more fundamental? God, this is almost as stupid as saying "freedom to vote for your president is just as fundamental to your survival as the access to food" (oh wait, some people DO use that argument).

Your understanding of "controlled sleep" and sequent comparison to Shadow Tag is very flawed. "Controlled Sleep" works because the victim has options they can make interesting choices from to minimize its effects in battle. Choosing who to sack to sleep, of which could be a Pokemon that is virtually immune to the status condition, as well as reversing its effects with the likes of Heal Bell or simply creating enough free turns for the sleeping Pokemon to wake up. These are both things that aren't even remotely present with Shadow Tag.

Um, Shed Shell/VoltTurn/phazing/Ghost-types? I know you hate these counter-examples, but seriously, if you going to argue the finer points of how unreliable they are, you may as well acknowledge how unreliable the measures to controlled sleep are (because seriously, you may as well call the slept Pokemon useless while it's asleep for most scenarios), because we all know that having a 1/3 chance to pick the move you want with Sleep Talk is incredibly reliable. Also, you do not get to choose what Pokemon your opponent sleeps, because they are the one who decides when to click the button. You of all people, as a high level player, should know this.

There's only one reason I can come up with on how your thinking can error so much as to claim that what you described is even remotely to how Shadow Tag functions. You seem to be thinking that because Shadow Tag lacks counterplay, it is comparable to a scenario where one player outplays another. I hope you can see now the clear difference between your counterplay being outplayed and not even having options for counterplay in the first place. (note I'm saying counterplay and not counterteam)

How the hell did you reach such a conclusion o_0 - The counterplays for Shadow Tag have been in your face the whole time, and you continue to ignore them. I'm not even going to get into the whole "no counterplay" argument is totally irrelevant to the discussion because again, that's talking about OP vs uncompetitive.

It's interesting that you would be so open to the possibility of a Sleep Clause styled nerf to Shadow Tag as opposed to an outright ban. First of all, I want to mention that such a thing isn't a possibility because of the fact that complex bans should be avoided. The strongly doubt even Sleep Clause would exist today if it didn't predate the organized suspect testing system in Pokemon. I feel tradition alone is the only thing that has saved sleep from a total ban.

However, that's not what makes your comment so interesting. What's interesting about you being "much more open" to the possibility of treating it like Sleep Clause is that you are acknowledging Shadow Tag is similar to Sleep. You are apparently willing to nerf it with a new clause, something that would only be done assuming Shadow Tag is inherently uncompetitive.

- Firstly, what makes you think tradition is the only thing that saved sleep from a total ban? Like you mentioned before, Sleep Clause was brought in gen 1 before Sleep Talk even existed. What "tradition" existed then? Stop making assumptions and look at the facts.
- Second paragraph: If it is "inherently" uncompetitive, how do you explain Sleep Clause in its current form apart from your wild speculation of "tradition"? If that's the case, sleep should have been banned totally, and that is not what happened. Yes, sleep is uncompetitive if you get to sleep everything on the team, but with the existence of Sleep Clause, it was agreed that controlled sleep is not uncompetitive. So, there is nothing to suggest that S-tag in "inherently" uncompetitive from a Sleep Clause-like "nerf" if I'm comparing it to controlled sleep. If you really want to compare S-tag to an inherent uncompetitiveness of sleep, then you'd better be prepared to suspect test sleep first. If it is indeed found to be uncompetitive, then a total ban on Shadow Tag would be more logical.

What's even more interesting is the reasoning you give as to why you would be open to such a possibility. You bring up the fact that, unlike "controlled sleep", you can remove more than one Pokemon by using more than one Shadow Tag abuser and increase the amount of turns where the victim is robbed of switching and choice, making things resemble even more "uncontrolled sleep". This isn't a false observation, however you are forgetting one key detail: this is already possible with just one Shadow Tag abuser. Unlike with "controlled Sleep", you don't burn your kill button (or psuedo-kill in the case of sleep) once you use it on one Pokemon. There is no existing clause that prevents you from trapping and killing a second, third, fourth, fifth, and, yes, a sixth Pokemon with the very same Shadow Tag abuser. Although, against solid builds, wiping out over half a team is very unlikely to take place, taking two Pokemon out with the same Shadow Tag abuser is very commonplace and taking a third happens occasionally, as well, due to the diversity of Shadow Tag's abusers.

No, if you've read my post that I linked from last thread and from my voting paragraph, you'd see that the problem of trapping 1-2 Pokemon and limiting your choice was not my problem. The reason I brought up uncontrolled sleep was because it was an example where there is global prevention of choice, and this causatively leads to a game being decided regardless of who payed better in the game. My entire post about "nerfing" sleep was on the basis that if you have more than one Shadow Tag user, then instead of a focal point where you have choice removed, you may start having a more "global" effect (because technically, if you have 6 S-tag users on your team, which is possible but a bad team, then you have no switching at all). What makes me opposed to the S-tag ban in general, is the fact that unlike every other ban we have had, there is no "global" or "causal" aspect in it. The only way you can get a global S-tag effect is if you stack 6 S-tag users on a team, and even then, it is difficult to say that there is a causal relationship between using S-tag and winning a game.

So stop saying I'm opposed to banning S-tag just because I'm opposed to banning things. While yes, I am opposed to banning things in Ubers, bans need to be on the basis of that it is uncompetitive, and I don't believe it is uncompetitive due to the reasons I have underlined. Also, don't bring up my stance against the Swagger ban. It is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. If you want me to explain my stance on Swagger, it was purely due to the fact that it gave people the idea that banning things in Ubers is okay, and it encouraged people to bend the meaning of what we call uncompetitive, which is exactly what has happened.

 

[Fireburn]

You know, I was this close to writing down "Before you start nitpicking the example, address the actual argument" because I knew someone would come in and nitpick the example to the Nth degree but completely ignore the argument, and unfortunately, you never fail to disappoint, bro.

If you can't come up with any example that adequately illustrates your argument (what you posted was actually a counterexample), then there is likely a problem with your argument. If you want me to stop nitpicking your examples, come up with ones that actually strengthen your argument instead of weakening it.

Melee Mewtwo can respond to the rest of your post but I'll add that I made a post literally last page about why supposed "countermeasures" to Shadow Tag don't work, you should read it and stop throwing them around like they're magical curatives that actually help. It's really irritating when people (not just you) use git gud logic like "the counterplays are right there!" constantly. Shadow Tag has been around for awhile now, as have these things. If they were adequate solutions, we wouldn't be having a suspect test in Ubers about it.

Second, Shadow Tag may very well be uncompetitive, but I feel that calling it that also changes the tone of what is uncompetitive. Other uncompetitive bans (eg. evasion, sleep. Swagger, Moody) require less skill and allow what should be very bad mons to win. You can pretty mindlessly spam Spore/Dark Void, Double Team, PranksterSwag Purrloin and Moody Bidoof and come out on top with little skill required. Mega Gengar and Goth still have to be employed tactically and correctly, noobs can't spam them and auto-win because of that. I know someone is probably going rip this apart, it's just food for thought.

alwayswimmin addressed the first part of your post already.

What you perceive as skill isn't really the case. I think dice summed it up best so I'm just going to requote him:

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 ascertain a gigantic momentum loss.

This is of course, assuming that the "skill" you meant is maneuvering the Tagger into battle. That's merely the the illusion of skill; in reality, it's a crapshoot.

Also you should play Ubers, it's a fun metagame, contrary to what you might believe after reading this thread.

 

[Nightmare]

I may not be the best at arguing, but I'm going to say a few things on this, since I main ubers on Nintendo's servers and things:

1. Shadow Tag is one of those things that is probably not going to be broken in the hands of a n00b player or even an intermediate player. They are going to trap or set up on the wrong things and they are probably going to get killed, especially in a tier of ubers where 2HKO's without Stealth Rock go around like candy. This being said, in the hands of a master, it can be devastating. Extremely devastating. I remember playing Wobbuffet's coming in on sweepers back in the 3rd Gen, and it would be a 1 for 1 kill using Counter or Mirror Coat. Mega Gengar has the same ability to do this via Destiny Bond. From the official tournament standpoint, Wobbuffet with Leftovers was banned in an ubers tournament in the 3rd Gen for being broken to the point it can recover and take out multiple Pokemon.

2. I think Gothitelle is far far worse than Mega Gengar honestly. While it doesn't have the sheer power or speed, it can perfectly back up Mega Gengar using Destiny Bond or Perish Song very nicely because of its bulk. It traps then uses Protect, and is a total terror to take down with any type of regularity, and you get one shot to OHKO it. If you don't you're losing something. I'm going to reiterate though this takes skill, and a n00b would not be able to take any type of advantage of it.

3. I don't see Shadow Tag'ers every day. I think in about 200 ubers battles this generation battling all kinds of tiers, I only saw one trapping team, and that was in an official tournament. It is definitely not an overused strategy by any means, but painful when you see it.

4. This is where I could make an argument for Shadow Tag being an uncompetitive force: There are gamers that are enough off assholes to run Gengar or Gothitelle on something that can't do anything back, like an Eviolite Chansey. The player could run some stall 120 PP set on it to make sure that it never runs out, and the Chansey is absolutely helpless there stuck for 15 minutes to a half hour (or more), and there is nothing the player can absolutely do about it. While I'm generally not that dickish to do something like that to someone, I'm sure that it has happened to someone either on PS or the Nintendo servers, and it can be a most frustrating thing to deal with, and it just wastes valuable time you can do something else with.

All being said, I think this is more of an elitist thing, and if I had reqs, I would go with no ban on this. That being said, there have been bans in official tournaments before (ubers JAA nonetheless), so this has precedent, and in the VGC Mr. Pak showed how nasty this can be if played in the right hands to the point it could very well see another ban in the official circuits. If #4 becomes a real issue and disrupts games, I'd ban it on the server without even a suspect test. In that fact it's probably worse than any of the luck-clauses could ever be.

I'm out on this.

-James

 

[shrang]

If you can't come up with any example that adequately illustrates your argument (what you posted was actually a counterexample), then there is likely a problem with your argument. If you want me to stop nitpicking your examples, come up with ones that actually strengthen your argument instead of weakening it.

Melee Mewtwo can respond to the rest of your post but I'll add that I made a post literally last page about why supposed "countermeasures" to Shadow Tag don't work, you should read it and stop throwing them around like they're magical curatives that actually help. It's really irritating when people (not just you) use git gud logic like "the counterplays are right there!" constantly. Shadow Tag has been around for awhile now, as have these things. If they were adequate solutions, we wouldn't be having a suspect test in Ubers about it.

It's only a bad example if you take it out of context. You keep talking about the counterplays argument when the example is an illustration that even with controlled sleep, the one who decides who or what gets slept is ultimately your opponent, not you. The example was not there to argue how Darkrai beats Ho-oh and how likely or unlikely you counter it. Again, if you stop ignoring the argument itself, you'd pick that up.

Also, you keep coming back to the counterplays arguments. While yes, I'm pointing out that counterplays are there, it's not a git gud argument, but merely pointing out that counterplays exist. You wasted your time talking about how they're unreliable, but again, that's beside the point. Reliability of counterplays is an argument about S-tag is overpowered, and those are not things we use to judge if something is uncompetitive. Again, counterplays exist for pretty much every Pokemon in Ubers, but most of the relevant Pokemon have ways of getting past their countermeasures. Are you going to ban all of them, too? I can just see the "omg Shadow Tag beats its counterplays more easily than say GeoXern" retorts coming, but again, that's missing the point. The point is, and I hate having to spell this out again and again, that just because something lacks reliable counterplays is not suddenly pathognomonic for it being uncompetitive. You can argue to the umpteenth degree on the reliability of those countermeasures all you like, it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Grey Waves]

Sorry for asking, but what's the B value we're using to calculate COIL for this suspect? The OP doesn't say.

 

[Celticpride]

If you can't come up with any example that adequately illustrates your argument (what you posted was actually a counterexample), then there is likely a problem with your argument. If you want me to stop nitpicking your examples, come up with ones that actually strengthen your argument instead of weakening it.

Melee Mewtwo can respond to the rest of your post but I'll add that I made a post literally last page about why supposed "countermeasures" to Shadow Tag don't work, you should read it and stop throwing them around like they're magical curatives that actually help. It's really irritating when people (not just you) use git gud logic like "the counterplays are right there!" constantly. Shadow Tag has been around for awhile now, as have these things. If they were adequate solutions, we wouldn't be having a suspect test in Ubers about it.



alwayswimmin addressed the first part of your post already.

What you perceive as skill isn't really the case. I think dice summed it up best so I'm just going to requote him:



This is of course, assuming that the "skill" you meant is maneuvering the Tagger into battle. That's merely the the illusion of skill; in reality, it's a crapshoot.

Also you should play Ubers, it's a fun metagame, contrary to what you might believe after reading this thread.

I understand that it is more or less a crapshoot, my point more leans towards that Shadow Tag isn't mindless unlike the rest of the list of things that are considered uncompetitive. We can argue about the definition of skill, but that's not super relevant here. Double Team, Spore Spam, and SwagPlay are all somewhat mindless and really are just spamming something in the hope that the hax gods favor you. It's also harder to misplay (as the user of) a Darkrai spamming Dark Void as opposed to a Goth that traps Poison Arceus. Shadow Tag may very well be uncompetitive, but I feel it is not to the same degree other uncompetitive things are. Something I have also noticed not being said too much, it's not only the user of the trappie that is vulnerable to misplays, the trapper can be vulnerable to them as well. You give up a lot of momentum getting a trapper in, and mispredicting (either the set, or a surprise switch) on the turn you have to trap something gives away what could be match ending momentum. Shadow Tag 50/50s inherently favor the user of Tag, but it can cede momentum and provide set-up opportunities if misplayed, and I feel that aspect is being undersold to a degree. It's not a primary or likely aspect, but it does exist none the less. I also do play Ubers, just less frequently than some other tiers.

Just addressing your first point. It is true not all coverage moves can be run at the same time. As you said, depending on the coverage Shadow Tag is forced to choose what it can beat. But that's the point - because Shadow Tag can choose what it can beat, teams using Shadow Tag choose coverage based on what the rest of the team has trouble with. It becomes possible to have an offensive core of Offensive Groudon, EKiller, and GeoXern knowing one can slap HP Fire Mega Gengar on the team to deal with pesky Ferrothorns, Scizors, and Skarms which otherwise trouble the core. Similar arguments can be made for any other coverage move STag mons run.

Part of the reason why Shadow Tag is so dangerous is this inherent unpredictability and exacerbation of team matchup.

I'll let someone more qualified than me answer your second point. STag certainly requires more skill than Swagger and Moody, but really only the slightest gameplanning based on analyzing the opposing team suffices to utilize STag rather effectively. shrang and MM2 bring up an interesting comparison of Sleep to STag above, so it's not completely out of the question.

Some of that tangented into suspect tests in general, and I do understand that trapping introduces a new layer of complexity into the equation (no real checks or counters exist because they can't get in). It's just in most suspect tests, some people make it sound like the potential suspect has an answer to everything. Most do, but not all at the same time and there's always some obscure and sub optimal move that somehow become big deal because it KOes one otherwise hard counter. I could make Mega Tyranitar sound broken in OU based on the logic used in some of the suspect test posts I have seen, even though it clearly isn't. It's not applicable here with trapping, but some other suspects can be handled pretty easily with just the slightest bit of scouting, and some times people just seem too lazy to scout or look at teammates to try to figure out what the set is and counter/check appropriately (and a decent amount of the time looking at teammates can help).

 

[Fireburn]

Sorry for asking, but what's the B value we're using to calculate COIL for this suspect? The OP doesn't say.

The B value iirc is 29.

It's only a bad example if you take it out of context. You keep talking about the counterplays argument when the example is an illustration that even with controlled sleep, the one who decides who or what gets slept is ultimately your opponent, not you. The example was not there to argue how Darkrai beats Ho-oh and how likely or unlikely you counter it. Again, if you stop ignoring the argument itself, you'd pick that up.

It is a bad example because it shows that, even if the opponent has the choice to sleep what they want, the opponent can still switch to a sleep check that will usually still win. They can counterplay the fact that the opponent has a choice in sleep by running a general countermeasure such as a Sleep Talker or a Beller. Risk vs. Reward still exists here, even on the opponent's end since not using the Sleep move against something that can potentially kill them (say Darkrai vs Groudon) could mean that your sleep user gets killed for nothing. The impact is not the same, as your (counter)example shows, which is why it destroys your argument.

This does not exist with Shadow Tag as, once the opponent traps what they want, that mon is as good as dead and there is nothing you can do. Shadow Tag destroys Risk vs. Reward (again, see the bit I quoted from dice), that's why its a crapshoot.

Celticpride034 I'll respond to your post (and the other part of shrang's post) later, the ORAS hype is too real atm.

 

[MMII]

Celticpride034
Your comments on the skill required to use tag are interesting to think about; (for me at least) I do agree that it does require a minimal understanding of the metagame but I don't think it asks for any more than that. If you can recognize how you need to win in a game (which is pretty basic) then you can abuse Shadow Tag.

Anyways, I don't think that even matters. "Uncompetitive" isn't about the trash players beating the good ones, that's just a common symptom and still present with tag (although to a much lesser degree). The issue is uncompetitive aspects destroy choice and it's through the choices you make that you express your skill. (which is why it's a common symptom) Additionally, even assuming it's just a problem at higher levels, folks are encouraged to reach that level by the game itself (goal is to win) so it's still a problem for everybody interested in investing time and effort into the game.

Theorymon
Gonna repeat that bojangles quote cause I think it really clearly answers the questions concerning Ubers philosophy.

Ubers is the competitive metagame with the least amount of bans – we have no Pokemon banned in fact.

Note how he uses the relative word "least" when talking about bans but this absolute when it comes to being "competitive". I think this pretty clearly shows that Ubers is concerned foremost with being competitive. It's just that of all the possible competitive metagames you could create, none would have less bans than Ubers. The fact Hugendugen has stated Ubers will not be removed reinforces this, imo, as it shows that Ubers isn't featured in tournaments just because it can be but because it is meant to be.

You know, I was this close to writing down "Before you start nitpicking the example, address the actual argument" because I knew someone would come in and nitpick the example to the Nth degree but completely ignore the argument, and unfortunately, you never fail to disappoint, bro.

Fireburn's correction on your Darkrai example certainly doesn't destroy your arguments. I think replacing Nasty Plot with Taunt would have given you what you were looking for. It's just that it's concerning how you built your argument using this example for extended purposes and yet botched that scenario so misserably. I mean, Nplot Darkrai has been having to deal with CB Ho-Oh since BW2, it's pretty commonplace lol.

Can you seriously not see how wrong this is? If you can't, let me ask you this: can you win a battle by not attacking? Then ask yourself: Can you win a battle by not switching? And yes, it is possible to win games by not switching (even though it is admittedly against shit players you can do so). And no, it is not possible to win without attacking unless you deliberately set up your opponent to use nothing but Splash/Growl/whatever every turn. Even if you run out of PP, you are forced to attack by using Struggle. When I mean attacking, I don't just mean attacking moves. You cannot complete a battle without attacking, yet you can if you don't switch. Which one is more fundamental? God, this is almost as stupid as saying "freedom to vote for your president is just as fundamental to your survival as the access to food" (oh wait, some people DO use that argument).

Attacking gains value as a mechanic in creating interesting choices *only* when the possibility of switching is present.

Bolded what you mustn't have read for you.

In general, I'm approaching things not from the perspective of a player seeking to win but from a game design perspective. Even if it's just a metagame (literally "a game within a game") this suspect test process is still mostly a game design in the way we are trying to craft our ruleset to match a specific vision.

Um, Shed Shell/VoltTurn/phazing/Ghost-types? I know you hate these counter-examples, but seriously, if you going to argue the finer points of how unreliable they are, you may as well acknowledge how unreliable the measures to controlled sleep are (because seriously, you may as well call the slept Pokemon useless while it's asleep for most scenarios), because we all know that having a 1/3 chance to pick the move you want with Sleep Talk is incredibly reliable.

I hope you can see now the clear difference between your counterplay being outplayed and not even having options for counterplay in the first place. (note I'm saying counterplay and not counterteam)

Bolded what you mustn't have read for you.

I can choose to use my anti-sleep options when I need them because I can switch to them. I can not choose to use my anti-tag options unless they are already in play. Is the difference between counterplay and counterteam clear now?

Also, you do not get to choose what Pokemon your opponent sleeps, because they are the one who decides when to click the button. You of all people, as a high level player, should know this.

I choose what Pokemon I'm hoping they would put to sleep just as my opponent chooses when to use their sleep hoping it hits the ideal target. You are right I, nor my opponent, don't choose the actual outcome but I'm not talking about that at all. With "controlled sleep", as with every other competitive aspect, I can make interesting choices based on available options to try to impact the gamestate in a way that I have a favorable outcome. With Shadow Tag I can not make interesting choices and am thus subject to whichever direction the abuser takes the gamestate. Unless they choke or hax gods intervene, that's going to be an unfavorable outcome.

So my guess was close, the issue with your line of thought is that you are only looking at the end result. Such a perspective is far too superficial.

- Firstly, what makes you think tradition is the only thing that saved sleep from a total ban? Like you mentioned before, Sleep Clause was brought in gen 1 before Sleep Talk even existed. What "tradition" existed then? Stop making assumptions and look at the facts.
- Second paragraph: If it is "inherently" uncompetitive, how do you explain Sleep Clause in its current form apart from your wild speculation of "tradition"? If that's the case, sleep should have been banned totally, and that is not what happened. Yes, sleep is uncompetitive if you get to sleep everything on the team, but with the existence of Sleep Clause, it was agreed that controlled sleep is not uncompetitive. So, there is nothing to suggest that S-tag in "inherently" uncompetitive from a Sleep Clause-like "nerf" if I'm comparing it to controlled sleep. If you really want to compare S-tag to an inherent uncompetitiveness of sleep, then you'd better be prepared to suspect test sleep first. If it is indeed found to be uncompetitive, then a total ban on Shadow Tag would be more logical.

Alright, this time I'll take credit for the misinterpretation. It was mostly an aside and I didn't try to pick the most accurate words to express myself, just assumed you'd pick up on the general sense based on context clues.

The reason Sleep Clause in XY nerfs sleep instead of completely banning it is because the clause was created in gen 1, which was way before anybody cared about complex bans. If this clause was proposed in gen 4 or later, I think we would have fully banned sleep instead. I personally would be very much for a complete ban on sleep because I agree with the logic against complex bans but it's not something I'm going to fuss about because of the long tradition behind the clause.

The point of that anecdote was just to explain why we have a complex ban in our ruleset but won't be adding a new one.

No, if you've read my post that I linked from last thread and from my voting paragraph, you'd see that the problem of trapping 1-2 Pokemon and limiting your choice was not my problem. The reason I brought up uncontrolled sleep was because it was an example where there is global prevention of choice, and this causatively leads to a game being decided regardless of who payed better in the game. My entire post about "nerfing" sleep was on the basis that if you have more than one Shadow Tag user, then instead of a focal point where you have choice removed, you may start having a more "global" effect (because technically, if you have 6 S-tag users on your team, which is possible but a bad team, then you have no switching at all). What makes me opposed to the S-tag ban in general, is the fact that unlike every other ban we have had, there is no "global" or "causal" aspect in it. The only way you can get a global S-tag effect is if you stack 6 S-tag users on a team, and even then, it is difficult to say that there is a causal relationship between using S-tag and winning a game.

You should have just retracted your statement. You are still making the mistake of assuming you need multiple Shadow Tag abusers to create a "global" aspect. I can leave my Gothitelle in play and prevent you from switching for the rest of the game. I can also KO all your Pokemon while doing so to create a "causal" one. It actually happens very often, it's why Gothitelle has gained such a notoriety.

So stop saying I'm opposed to banning S-tag just because I'm opposed to banning things. While yes, I am opposed to banning things in Ubers, bans need to be on the basis of that it is uncompetitive, and I don't believe it is uncompetitive due to the reasons I have underlined.

So you claim that and yet...

Also, don't bring up my stance against the Swagger ban. It is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. If you want me to explain my stance on Swagger, it was purely due to the fact that it gave people the idea that banning things in Ubers is okay, and it encouraged people to bend the meaning of what we call uncompetitive, which is exactly what has happened.

Your stance on Swagger had nothing to do with it.

You were clearly willing to ignore the obvious uncompetitiveness of Swagger to try and prevent folks from some slippery slope of bans then so how do I know it's not the case now? I'll still address your arguments cause I enjoy talking about the metagame but I can't help but feel that you are looking for reasons to justify your position instead of justifying your position based on reason.

 

[shrang]

Bolded what you mustn't have read for you.

In general, I'm approaching things not from the perspective of a player seeking to win but from a game design perspective. Even if it's just a metagame (literally "a game within a game") this suspect test process is still mostly a game design in the way we are trying to craft our ruleset to match a specific vision.

Nice try, but everything you said about switching being the most fundamental mechanic (at least over attacking) was BS, including the bolded part. Like I said, can you finish a game without attacking? No. Can you finish a game without switching? Yes. I can't believe I have to even waste my time spelling this out for you. How the hell can you have a Pokemon battling metagame when it consists of battles you can't even finish? In the case of sleep, you switch so you can attack, not the other way around. Your bolded part is almost like saying "having food available creates interesting choices for a democratic society" and completely forget that you won't have a society at all, let alone democratic, if you don't have food. You'd just be dead. And you're critcising me for being unreasonble.

Bolded what you mustn't have read for you.

I can choose to use my anti-sleep options when I need them because I can switch to them. I can not choose to use my anti-tag options unless they are already in play. Is the difference between counterplay and counterteam clear now?

Explain why a counterteam doesn't fall under the umbrella of counterplay? By your logic you can say if I don't run an Ekiller check, you'd be swept because you lacked what you call a counterplay. Does that you mean you should ban Ekiller because you had no counterplay? No, because the counterplay is only possible when you have a option in your team. The more you are counterteaming, the more you are counterplaying whatever your opponent is doing. These things are not mutually exclusive, you know. The only difference here is that "counterplaying" rests most on the team instead of actual plays in the game, but that's ok, because teambuilding is also part of the game. And yes, I recognise you may have something that would get trapped, but again, that does not automatically mean you lose the game as a result.

You should have just retracted your statement. You are still making the mistake of assuming you need multiple Shadow Tag abusers to create a "global" aspect. I can leave my Gothitelle in play and prevent you from switching for the rest of the game. I can also KO all your Pokemon while doing so to create a "causal" one. It actually happens very often, it's why Gothitelle has gained such a notoriety.

You can leave your Gothitelle in play and prevent me switching so long as you can avoid it getting killed, phazed, U-turned out or whatever. There's a big difference there. See, the difference between that and uncontrolled sleep is that you don't have the option to do any of those, unless I guess if you use Sleep Talk, in which case you're taking a significant chance that you don't get the attack you want.

So you claim that and yet...


Your stance on Swagger had nothing to do with it.

You were clearly willing to ignore the obvious uncompetitiveness of Swagger to try and prevent folks from some slippery slope of bans then so how do I know it's not the case now? I'll still address your arguments cause I enjoy talking about the metagame but I can't help but feel that you are looking for reasons to justify your position instead of justifying your position based on reason.

Okay fine, if you really want to know, I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past. I admit that I overreacted to the initial announcement of Swagger, and to be honest, I did only just consider SwagPlay in the equation of Swagger. If you noticed, I actually pulled out of the Swagger discussion after Fireburn actually responded to one of my posts. Anyway, you may think I was waving a slippery slope flag when I was against Swagger, but judging by the current trends, can you blame me? You might think I'm being paranoid, but the "slippery slope" that I might have been alarming people about is happening right now. We're ready to ban Shadow Tag due to silly reasons like "omg there's no counterplay", 50/50s and whatever (admittedly there are valid arguments, but I have also addressed why I believe that they are wrong). I don't think I should remind you of that incident in Ubers Open with Baton Pass. What's next, GeoXern? Oh wait, people are actually calling for that. Holy shit! Last time I checked, when people started making a lot of noise, we got a suspect test or a ban from a tournament. You may "reassure" me into thinking that that won't happen, but there's nothing to convince me that we are moving off this ridiculous trend any time soon.

That said, I admit that I was initially wrong about the Swagger ban and I stand corrected on it. However, that has no relevance to my current stance on Shadow Tag. Jerkasses can have a point when they have a point. Bringing up my past stances (especially ones that I corrected) has nothing to do with arguments that I give now.

 

[MMII]

Nice try, but everything you said about switching being the most fundamental mechanic (at least over attacking) was BS, including the bolded part. Like I said, can you finish a game without attacking? No. Can you finish a game without switching? Yes. I can't believe I have to even waste my time spelling this out for you. How the hell can you have a Pokemon battling metagame when it consists of battles you can't even finish? In the case of sleep, you switch so you can attack, not the other way around. Your bolded part is almost like saying "having food available creates interesting choices for a democratic society" and completely forget that you won't have a society at all, let alone democratic, if you don't have food. You'd just be dead. And you're critcising me for being unreasonble.

I've got a real simple, concrete hypothetical that should help illustrate the concept. Imagine GF made a new ability called Shadow Grab. The mechanics work just like Shadow Tag except that it stops Pokemon from attacking instead of switching unless, of course, that Pokemon was a Ghost-type or holding Shed Shell. For simplicity's sake, let's imagine they only gave it to the Pokemon that currently have the Shadow Tag ability.

Such an ability doesn't destroy choice. I'd still be able to chose the option of switching to my Ghost-type / Shed Shell Pokemon or of switching to a different Pokemon entirely because I predict my opponent will expect me to go to my Shadow Grab checks, etc. I may have to dedicate a slot in teambuilding to checking Shadow Grab mons but the ability still plays out like a normal, healthy game of Pokemon and there wouldn't even be remote concerns about it being uncompetitive.

Explain why a counterteam doesn't fall under the umbrella of counterplay? By your logic you can say if I don't run an Ekiller check, you'd be swept because you lacked what you call a counterplay. Does that you mean you should ban Ekiller because you had no counterplay? No, because the counterplay is only possible when you have a option in your team. The more you are counterteaming, the more you are counterplaying whatever your opponent is doing. These things are not mutually exclusive, you know. The only difference here is that "counterplaying" rests most on the team instead of actual plays in the game, but that's ok, because teambuilding is also part of the game. And yes, I recognise you may have something that would get trapped, but again, that does not automatically mean you lose the game as a result.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed that they were mutually exclusive. I even mentioned the fact that I could be running Tag checks and still not have counterplay so that strawman Ekiller example is ridiculous. What I said is that there's a difference between the two and that the difference shows in examples like Shadow Tag.

I can not choose to use my anti-tag options unless they are already in play.

To illustrate, let's reuse the Shadow Grab hypothetical. In one hypothetical universe, my opponent has their Shadow Grab Gothitelle out against my Standard Palkia. I have a Ghost Arceus alive and healthy on my team. In the other hypothetical universe my opponent has a Shadow Tag Gothitelle out against my Standard Palkia and I still have the Ghost Arceus, perfectly happy and healthy, on my team. You can figure out what happens. So even assuming the teams are the exact same, I'd have counterplay options against Shadow Grab but not against Shadow Tag, unless they were already out. What's changed between the two scenarios? Even with the same teams using the same checks to address the same Pokemon in the same scenario, the gameplay changes radically from healthy gameplay to toxic gameplay with the simple removal of the ability to switch instead of the ability to attack.

You can leave your Gothitelle in play and prevent me switching so long as you can avoid it getting killed, phazed, U-turned out or whatever. There's a big difference there. See, the difference between that and uncontrolled sleep is that you don't have the option to do any of those, unless I guess if you use Sleep Talk, in which case you're taking a significant chance that you don't get the attack you want.

Or Lum Berry, or Insomnia Noctowl, etc. It's pretty easy to avoid those things when my Goth is at +6, etc. etc. just as Lum Berry and Insomnia Noctowl didn't stop Darkrai.

However, that's just nitpicking details. My point was that you would apparently be okay with making a clause to deal with Shadow Tag if it could expand the number of turns where you can't switch to a "global" extent, which is something that is possible and occurs now with only a single abuser.

Okay fine, if you really want to know, I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past. I admit that I overreacted to the initial announcement of Swagger, and to be honest, I did only just consider SwagPlay in the equation of Swagger. If you noticed, I actually pulled out of the Swagger discussion after Fireburn actually responded to one of my posts. Anyway, you may think I was waving a slippery slope flag when I was against Swagger, but judging by the current trends, can you blame me? You might think I'm being paranoid, but the "slippery slope" that I might have been alarming people about is happening right now. We're ready to ban Shadow Tag due to silly reasons like "omg there's no counterplay", 50/50s and whatever (admittedly there are valid arguments, but I have also addressed why I believe that they are wrong). I don't think I should remind you of that incident in Ubers Open with Baton Pass. What's next, GeoXern? Oh wait, people are actually calling for that. Holy shit! Last time I checked, when people started making a lot of noise, we got a suspect test or a ban from a tournament. You may "reassure" me into thinking that that won't happen, but there's nothing to convince me that we are moving off this ridiculous trend any time soon.

That said, I admit that I was initially wrong about the Swagger ban and I stand corrected on it. However, that has no relevance to my current stance on Shadow Tag. Jerkasses can have a point when they have a point. Bringing up my past stances (especially ones that I corrected) has nothing to do with arguments that I give now.

It is relevant because we are proposing to do the same thing to Shadow Tag that we did to Swagger and so there would need to be similar reasons to do or not do so.

I brought up your case because your logic as to why Swagger wasn't uncompetitive was shaky and didn't hold water so, naturally, I assumed you were applying the same logic to Shadow Tag for the reasons I just explained. It's admirable that you were willing to admit you were wrong, adjust your logic, and correct your stance. However, I don't understand why you seem to be having a double standard and I'm not even certain the reason you changed positions should be used to justify a ban.

I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.

but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the trapping factor of Shadow Tag to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.

See what looks odd to me?

 

[NightJackal]

I've got a real simple, concrete hypothetical that should help illustrate the concept. Imagine GF made a new ability called Shadow Grab. The mechanics work just like Shadow Tag except that it stops Pokemon from attacking instead of switching unless, of course, that Pokemon was a Ghost-type or holding Shed Shell. For simplicity's sake, let's imagine they only gave it to the Pokemon that currently have the Shadow Tag ability.

Such an ability doesn't destroy choice. I'd still be able to chose the option of switching to my Ghost-type / Shed Shell Pokemon or of switching to a different Pokemon entirely because I predict my opponent will expect me to go to my Shadow Grab checks, etc. I may have to dedicate a slot in teambuilding to checking Shadow Grab mons but the ability still plays out like a normal, healthy game of Pokemon and there wouldn't even be remote concerns about it being uncompetitive.

I am for a ban on Shadow Tag, but I believe that example/hypothesis/claim/whatever is flawed. A Shadow Grab ability would still destroy choice; where Shadow Tag takes away the choice of switching and leaves only the (bad, if the Shadow Tag user is good) choice of attacking, your Shadow Grab takes away the choice of attacking, leaving you only the choice of switching. A forced switch, where no prediction and intelligence play in, just as no prediction and intelligence matter most of the times a Pokemon is trapped. So yes, a Shadow Grab ability would still be uncompetitive.
Arguing about whether attacking is more important or not than switching is pointless, and irrelevant. My opinion is that taking either away is extremely uncompetitive. It doesn't matter which one is better; what matters is how uncompetitive they individually are. Whether or not one is uncompetitive doesn't make the other competitive.

 

[shrang]

I've got a real simple, concrete hypothetical that should help illustrate the concept. Imagine GF made a new ability called Shadow Grab. The mechanics work just like Shadow Tag except that it stops Pokemon from attacking instead of switching unless, of course, that Pokemon was a Ghost-type or holding Shed Shell. For simplicity's sake, let's imagine they only gave it to the Pokemon that currently have the Shadow Tag ability.

Such an ability doesn't destroy choice. I'd still be able to chose the option of switching to my Ghost-type / Shed Shell Pokemon or of switching to a different Pokemon entirely because I predict my opponent will expect me to go to my Shadow Grab checks, etc. I may have to dedicate a slot in teambuilding to checking Shadow Grab mons but the ability still plays out like a normal, healthy game of Pokemon and there wouldn't even be remote concerns about it being uncompetitive.

Aaaaaaaand what is the point of switching in this scenario? So you can attack, of course. You cannot end a battle by not attacking. In this scenario, you cannot attack without switching. So, you're telling me that you look at this scenario and tell me therefore that switching is the more fundamental mechanic? You are switching so you can attack. It is a means to another more basic means for you to win/finish the battle. Attacking is the more basic and therefore more "fundamental" mechanic here. Back to my democracy vs. food example, what you're basically telling me here is the equivalent democracy is a fundamental because if you had a president that gave you access to food and a president that could provide you food, you'd be able to choose the president that could provide you food, but completely ignore the fact that food is the necessary means for your survival, and not the fact that you can elect the president of your choosing. Attacking is absolutely necessary to finish a battle, switching is not. Your example still highlights why attacking is the fundamental mechanic, because you're switching SO you can attack.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed that they were mutually exclusive. I even mentioned the fact that I could be running Tag checks and still not have counterplay so that strawman Ekiller example is ridiculous. What I said is that there's a difference between the two and that the difference shows in examples like Shadow Tag.

No, you're still not understanding it. You're thinking that you don't have counterplay because you're still thinking that counterplay has to be in the battle itself. They are not mutually exclusive because "counterteaming" (for the lack of a better word) IS your counterplay. You'd run things like Dragon Tail on your Palkia, for example, as a counterplay so you can avoid your Palkia being trapped by Shadow Tag, not so you can bring in Palkia as a "counter" in what we normally associate with that word.

Or Lum Berry, or Insomnia Noctowl, etc. It's pretty easy to avoid those things when my Goth is at +6, etc. etc. just as Lum Berry and Insomnia Noctowl didn't stop Darkrai.

However, that's just nitpicking details. My point was that you would apparently be okay with making a clause to deal with Shadow Tag if it could expand the number of turns where you can't switch to a "global" extent, which is something that is possible and occurs now with only a single abuser.

You're really over-estimating Gothitelle's ability to sweep, lol. There are numerous obstacles to a Gothitelle sweep even if you safely switch it into its typical trap mons. If you're really going to get a Gothitelle sweep to fruition, it's going to need checks removed (Dark-types are the main ones + just generally bulky phasers that can take a +6 attack which the list is actually bigger than you might think it is, etc), luck to be relatively on its side (for example I'd never be able to wield a Gothitelle properly since I'd get double critted every 2nd game), etc etc. These conditions are much more numerous than the checks you mentioned to stop uncontrolled sleep. Also, like you said, this is nitpicking details, but Insomnia Noctowl couldn't check a lot of other Pokemon that could wield sleep (same logic would apply to the other Vital Spirit/Insomnia mons). Just dexsearch Sleep Powder, Lovely Kiss or even Hypnosis when you next have the chance, then look at the options you have for Shadow Tag. They don't even compare, lol.

Also, you're putting way too much emphasis proposal of "one trapper per team Clause". I did say this:

Whether that is still uncompetitive or not is another question I'll address later, but should we compare that to getting 3 Pokemon slept (which I think most people would oppose, and I guess I would too, although that really needs to scrutinised), I'd be much more open to a Sleep Clause-like treatment of Shadow Tag (and while we're at it, trapping in general), ie only one Shadow Tag (or just trapping ability) Pokemon on the one team at a time, rather than a total ban of Shadow Tag.

From what is happening, I guess there are still significant differences to that assertion, so this whole proposal is moot anyway. Secondly, I did put in a big "if" on the whole thing anyway. Now it may look like I retracting this whole thing, but that whole idea was something for people to think about anyway. I did say "should" we compare it to 3 Pokemon being slept. If that is not the case, then we shouldn't consider the proposal. That does NOT mean, however, that the rest of my points in that post (and my reply to your post that I linked from the previous megathread) are invalid. I still very much disagree with your argument that Shadow Tag is more similar to uncontrolled sleep than it is to controlled sleep. The reasoning is all present in those two posts, I don't think I need to rehash them.

It is relevant because we are proposing to do the same thing to Shadow Tag that we did to Swagger and so there would need to be similar reasons to do or not do so.

I brought up your case because your logic as to why Swagger wasn't uncompetitive was shaky and didn't hold water so, naturally, I assumed you were applying the same logic to Shadow Tag for the reasons I just explained. It's admirable that you were willing to admit you were wrong, adjust your logic, and correct your stance. However, I don't understand why you seem to be having a double standard and I'm not even certain the reason you changed positions should be used to justify a ban.

Yes, I understand you're proposing to do to the same thing to S-tag as you did Swagger. The difference is, and forgive me for being stubborn, is that there is yet to be a convincing argument to prove that S-tag is uncompetitive like Swagger was, and uncompetitive is the criteria in which we use to ban things from Ubers. I've provided arguments to why I think that way. Just because I felt Swagger was uncompetitive doesn't mean I'd feel the same thing for S-tag, unless of course, that you can convince me otherwise.

↑
I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.
fat alternate universe shrang said:

but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the trapping factor of Shadow Tag to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.​

See what looks odd to me?

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luring factor of *Insert lure* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

or

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the wallbreaking factor of *Insert wallbreaker* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

Does this also sound odd?

 

[MMII]

Aaaaaaaand what is the point of switching in this scenario? So you can attack, of course. You cannot end a battle by not attacking. In this scenario, you cannot attack without switching. So, you're telling me that you look at this scenario and tell me therefore that switching is the more fundamental mechanic? You are switching so you can attack. It is a means to another more basic means for you to win/finish the battle. Attacking is the more basic and therefore more "fundamental" mechanic here. Back to my democracy vs. food example, what you're basically telling me here is the equivalent democracy is a fundamental because if you had a president that gave you access to food and a president that could provide you food, you'd be able to choose the president that could provide you food, but completely ignore the fact that food is the necessary means for your survival, and not the fact that you can elect the president of your choosing. Attacking is absolutely necessary to finish a battle, switching is not. Your example still highlights why attacking is the fundamental mechanic, because you're switching SO you can attack.

No, but whatever. I'm trying too hard to explain something abstract that doesn't even help answer the question if Shadow Tag is uncompetitive or not, so I'm just going to drop it.

No, you're still not understanding it. You're thinking that you don't have counterplay because you're still thinking that counterplay has to be in the battle itself. They are not mutually exclusive because "counterteaming" (for the lack of a better word) IS your counterplay. You'd run things like Dragon Tail on your Palkia, for example, as a counterplay so you can avoid your Palkia being trapped by Shadow Tag, not so you can bring in Palkia as a "counter" in what we normally associate with that word.

The choice of running Dragon Tail Palkia is suboptimal and I would have 0 clue whether or not it will pay off in a battle vs Shadow Tag. That choice is not only uninteresting but also stupid because it is blind and most likely ineffective. It's still not even going to give me options vs Shadow Tag unless the Palkia is already in play. Which means all I'm doing is hoping to cheese my opponent with lucky matchup instead of outplaying him with the options I've given myself. *good meta alert*

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luring factor of *Insert lure* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

or

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the wallbreaking factor of *Insert wallbreaker* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

Does this also sound odd?

Yep. That's why I don't like your reasoning behind your adjusted opinion on Swagger and why I'm skeptical of your reasoning behind your opinion on Shadow Tag.

What's banable to you? Because you just demonstrated yourself why whatever definition you have doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[SparksBlade]

So far the opinion i've formed from playing(didn't help much 'cos not much use of STag, replays i dug up helped more) and reading here is that, you may think of countering STag in the teambuilder, but the problem is that, if the trapper has come in already, you can't switch out and bring in the check/counter, unless Shed Shell, VoltTurn, Ghost poke etc. So your counter failed 'cos it couldn't come in on what it was supposed to counter, and when it eventually does, the trapper may either switch out, be dead, or be strong enough to beat its check(ironic, eh?). DTail and clones may be useful(let's assume), but they're mostly a wasted moveslot in other matchups. So is Shell Blissey. When you pick Palkia to counter/check Kyogre, you think "I'll switch to Palkia when Kyogre comes in". Same way when you pick a check/counter, it's useless unless it can't come in on what's it supposed to check. I hope this was clear.
Ofc Goth requires more skill to use than MGar, but it's kind of similar to BP in terms of teambuilding(to me, so sorry if this is a flawed example), where when you pick Goth, you have a readymade formula of the team needed, more or less(like BP needed an espeon, physical wall etc..)
My 2nd point may be controversial, but the 1st one certainly isn't

 

[ApplepieFTW]

I've got a real simple, concrete hypothetical that should help illustrate the concept. Imagine GF made a new ability called Shadow Grab. The mechanics work just like Shadow Tag except that it stops Pokemon from attacking instead of switching unless, of course, that Pokemon was a Ghost-type or holding Shed Shell. For simplicity's sake, let's imagine they only gave it to the Pokemon that currently have the Shadow Tag ability.

Such an ability doesn't destroy choice. I'd still be able to chose the option of switching to my Ghost-type / Shed Shell Pokemon or of switching to a different Pokemon entirely because I predict my opponent will expect me to go to my Shadow Grab checks, etc. I may have to dedicate a slot in teambuilding to checking Shadow Grab mons but the ability still plays out like a normal, healthy game of Pokemon and there wouldn't even be remote concerns about it being uncompetitive.

Man, don't get me wrong but there is no way at all you are ever going to be right in this argument. You compare this to whatever situation you want but its all going to be irrelevant because in the end, you kill pokemon with move. Yeah, you may need to switch to be able to make interesting choices within your attacks, but because thing-X needs thing-Y doesn't mean thing-Y is more important. Mons is attacking things. The only legit comparison you can make is even to checkers/chess. By your logic being able to move your pieces around the board is more fundamental than being able to kill your opponent's pieces. Just because moving enables you to gain the upper hand, a more favorable position, and enables you to attack you opponents pieces/pokemon better is in no way at all ever going to be more important then actually removing the pieces from play. In checkers you need to move your pieces before you can kill your opponents, however in pokemon this isn't even the case. Attacking is a more fundamental mechanic that switching, it is impossible to not see this.

I brought up your case because your logic as to why Swagger wasn't uncompetitive was shaky and didn't hold water so, naturally, I assumed you were applying the same logic to Shadow Tag for the reasons I just explained. It's admirable that you were willing to admit you were wrong, adjust your logic, and correct your stance. However, I don't understand why you seem to be having a double standard and I'm not even certain the reason you changed positions should be used to justify a ban.

Its good that we are comparing stag to previous bans because "we have precedent-x" is a strong argument, but if we would do this we would end up with only being able to use mgar OR gothi and that wouldn't solve anything like at all; stag would still remain an uncompetitive aspect. (not comparing the differences in how both work regarding uncompetitiveness) Its not like at any point you wanted to only allow swagger on one pokemon per team right? It would still remain inherently uncomeptitive even though it was only on one pokemon. With sleep you could argue having only one mon put to sleep reduces the effectiveness of sleep to such an extent you can play in a way you make this uncompetitiveness not uncompetitive anymore, compare it do one only being able to use swagger on one opposing pokemon and have the swagger effect last. Now I'm not going to do in detail if I think sleep should have been totally banned, but the thing is that with stag no matter how you put it, it still remains uncompetitive even if you allow only one stag user per team. Swagger would still be uncompetitive on paper, but no one would ever use that so there is no point in banning it if we follow the ubers mentality. (ps: this isn't a sleep debate, if it was I would now talk about the mechanics of sleep and how they could be uncompetitive or not) Point is, a "one stag mon only" clause wont solve anything, a "1ohko move only" clause wouldn't have fixed the issue either.

 

[shrang]

No, but whatever. I'm trying too hard to explain something abstract that doesn't even help answer the question if Shadow Tag is uncompetitive or not, so I'm just going to drop it.

Heh, classic Melee retort when it's clear you can't continue with the argument. I'd be inclined to agree that the argument of attacking vs switching is not very relevant to the question at hand, if it weren't for this:

Gotta lead by example I suppose.

I believe Shadow Tag is inherently uncompetitive because it removes switching, a fundamental mechanic, in such a nondiscriminatory fashion that it goes as far as to remove choice* from the victim.

And this:

No, attacking isn't as fundamental a mechanic as switching. Attacking gains value as a mechanic in creating interesting choices *only* when the possibility of switching is present. I can happily elaborate if you want (it's a very good concept to grasp if one wants to become good at this game), but for now I'm just going to keep it simple.

So it's obvious here that you have an overinflated sense of switching's importance. I'm not saying switching isn't an incredibly important part the game, but the fact you have exaggerated the importance of switching beyond the even more fundamental mechanic of attacking calls into question how you actually see Shadow Tag, since it's something that limits switching, and by extension, calls into the validity of your key argument.

Also, is it really that abstract or difficult to understand that attacking is more fundamental than switching? I can see you're still having trouble with the concept. If the fact I put you off by talking about democracy, let's just change the example to money vs food. The equivalent of your argument about attacking vs switching is basically "Money is more fundamental to your survival than food because it provides you the choice to buy food", ignoring the fact that while money may be close to an essential means for most people to obtain food, it is still food that your body depends on for survival and not money, making food more fundamental to your survival than money. All you have to do is replace "money" with "switching", "food" with "attacking", "your survival" with "the metagame".

The choice of running Dragon Tail Palkia is suboptimal and I would have 0 clue whether or not it will pay off in a battle vs Shadow Tag. That choice is not only uninteresting but also stupid because it is blind and most likely ineffective. It's still not even going to give me options vs Shadow Tag unless the Palkia is already in play. Which means all I'm doing is hoping to cheese my opponent with lucky matchup instead of outplaying him with the options I've given myself. *good meta alert*

So, if Shadow Tag exists, you're telling me you'd much rather your SpD Palkia trapped by Gothitelle and then have your team much weaker to Kyogre? You might call the option suboptimal, but if Shadow Tag is such a massive thing, then a means to escape getting trapped is by extension not suboptimal. You are making a judgement of a countermeasure that is suboptimal in a metagame that doesn't exist. Of course you don't have to run these countermeasures for every Pokemon, just those most vulnerable, for example SpD Palkia.

Yep. That's why I don't like your reasoning behind your adjusted opinion on Swagger and why I'm skeptical of your reasoning behind your opinion on Shadow Tag.

Let's go through this simply, shall we?

I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.

>Deciding factor of how Xerneas got past its check: Luck
fat alternate universe shrang said:
but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the trapping factor of Shadow Tag to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.
See what looks odd to me?

>Deciding factor of how Xerneas got past its check: Being outplayed

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luring factor of *Insert lure* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

>Deciding factor of how Xerneas got past its check: Being outplayed

Another alternative universe shrang:
"but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the wallbreaking factor of *Insert wallbreaker* to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past."

>Deciding factor of how Xerneas got past its check: Being outplayed

What's banable to you? Because you just demonstrated yourself why whatever definition you have doesn't make a lick of sense.

From the last thread:

However, I'm going to define uncompetitive simply as a game aspect or strategy that makes the game unfair and creates opportunities for one player that gives them an advantage over the other that handicaps them and is something that they cannot inflict on their opponent in return.

Put more simply, an uncompetitive and therefore bannable element is something gives opportunities to one player but does not for the other player. Shadow Tag is not uncompetitive because both players have access to it, so they have equal opportunities. Swagger is not because it incorporates luck, which inherently differentiates and creates unequal opportunities. I've explained this in detail before.

 

[Sweep]

Hi.

I've already made my opinion of Shadow Tag clear over the past month (I want it removed from the Ubers metagame) but I am concerned by some trends in this thread. First off, the arguments presented over the last page are circular. I see the same points being hammered home over and over again, some of which have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Examples of this include the Darkrai vs. Ho-Oh diatribe and the "not switching vs. not attacking" argument. These points are tangential and lead to further bickering, and even relevant arguments are still completely unresolved. The second trend, which is frankly far more alarming, are the subtle (and occasionally not-too-subtle) attempts to demean the person you are arguing with. Comments like "i'm just going to drop it" and "unfortunately, you never fail to disappoint, bro" range from pointed to outright mean. I've seen worse comments in this thread but to your credit, there have been plenty of edits to smooth out your posts. It's not like there's been anything overly objectionable so far, and I particularly sympathize with Shrang who probably feels like he's fighting a one-man war, but I dislike the tone of the last ~20 posts.

We all care about Ubers, and that's great! This community has grown a ton over the past few years, but the vitriol has made this thread almost unreadable. I love all of you, especially Haruno.

 

[MMII]

Heh, classic Melee retort when it's clear you can't continue with the argument. I'd be inclined to agree that the argument of attacking vs switching is not very relevant to the question at hand, if it weren't for this:



And this:



So it's obvious here that you have an overinflated sense of switching's importance. I'm not saying switching isn't an incredibly important part the game, but the fact you have exaggerated the importance of switching beyond the even more fundamental mechanic of attacking calls into question how you actually see Shadow Tag, since it's something that limits switching, and by extension, calls into the validity of your key argument.

Also, is it really that abstract or difficult to understand that attacking is more fundamental than switching? I can see you're still having trouble with the concept. If the fact I put you off by talking about democracy, let's just change the example to money vs food. The equivalent of your argument about attacking vs switching is basically "Money is more fundamental to your survival than food because it provides you the choice to buy food", ignoring the fact that while money may be close to an essential means for most people to obtain food, it is still food that your body depends on for survival and not money, making food more fundamental to your survival than money. All you have to do is replace "money" with "switching", "food" with "attacking", "your survival" with "the metagame".

Nah, I just read this:

Arguing about whether attacking is more important or not than switching is pointless, and irrelevant. My opinion is that taking either away is extremely uncompetitive. It doesn't matter which one is better; what matters is how uncompetitive they individually are. Whether or not one is uncompetitive doesn't make the other competitive.

and realized, shit, he's right.

I got carried away with arguing the point due to a personal interest in seeing this concept put into words cause I feel like it could help demystify competitive play. So I'm going to give it one last shot to put it into words, but stick it into hide tags.

Anyways, the other part I liked about that nightjackal post was how even "losing" that argument goes nowhere. Alright, so let's assume you've proven that attacking is just as fundamental as switching. You still haven't shown any diminished importance of the switching mechanic so my earlier arguments are untouched. How is taking away switching any less of a problem? All you have shown is that taking away attacking could be just as bad.

js, I don't read any of your similies and comparisons. They are just so far off from the subject at hand that discussing them doesn't really have much interest to me. I'm not even politically active so the points you are trying to make through them are lost on me. I mean, they might help explain your logic to other readers but just don't write them expecting me to consider them. Dunno if that saves you time or not.

Switching and choice

Keep in mind:

Attacking gains value as a mechanic in creating interesting choices *only* when the possibility of switching is present.

Otherwise we'll just be talking past eachother because, in the global perspective, attacking is a very fundamental mechanic. However, what's important about attacking is the fact it advances the gamestate towards a resolution. As far as creating interesting choices goes, it is entirely dependent on other aspects of the game, most notably switching. You could replace the attacking mechanics with some other way of advancing the gamestate and still have a fairly decent game that would play similarly to Pokemon. (well singles battling) It just wouldn't be good, imo, because the attacking mechanics integrate so well with the rest of the game.

Switching, on the other hand, isn't needed at all to advance the game state. You could have a functioning game if you removed it completely and didn't replace it. However, your game would be boring as balls and not have much interest. (Well, again, singles battling wouldn't. Pokemon as a whole would still work.) Switching is what differentiates Pokemon battling from the multitude of other turn-based games and is what makes it fun. Every choice made in competitive Pokemon revolves around this mechanic.

So, if Shadow Tag exists, you're telling me you'd much rather your SpD Palkia trapped by Gothitelle and then have your team much weaker to Kyogre? You might call the option suboptimal, but if Shadow Tag is such a massive thing, then a means to escape getting trapped is by extension not suboptimal. You are making a judgement of a countermeasure that is suboptimal in a metagame that doesn't exist. Of course you don't have to run these countermeasures for every Pokemon, just those most vulnerable, for example SpD Palkia.

You are focusing too much on the specific example. Check out sparksblade's post because he explains in different words what I've been trying to say. I dunno if that helps you or not.

Just as an aside, you also just said "Palkia" and not "SpD Palkia" which is a very important nuance to make. I use Dtail on spdef Palkia but would just about never use it on any other set. It's also not about theoretical metagame, I'm talking about the very same metagame tag is in right now. There's more than just Gothitelle and Gengar in it and I can't afford to be building my entire team around just beating them. Again, check out edgar's post because he explains this really well.

Let's go through this simply, shall we?





From the last thread:


Put more simply, an uncompetitive and therefore bannable element is something gives opportunities to one player but does not for the other player. Shadow Tag is not uncompetitive because both players have access to it, so they have equal opportunities. Swagger is not because it incorporates luck, which inherently differentiates and creates unequal opportunities. I've explained this in detail before.

First off, let's not try to redefine uncompetitive. Besides the flaws with your definition that jpw elaborated well on, I'm always going to prefer a definition provided before this debate by a third party group with no bias or participation in the current discussion over one created on the spot that conveniently supports the arguments of its creator. Disregarding it because it happens to come from the OU council is a very silly thing to do considering they were merely putting into writing how the word has been used, in regards to multiple metagames, throughout Smogon's history.

Anyways, even treating that definition as simply your personal credo on what Ubers should ban, things don't line up. First of all, it doesn't match the reasoning you just gave as to why you were okay with Swagger being banned.

I changed my mind on Swagger after Fireburn pointed that it wasn't just SwagPlay that was the problem, but the fact that deadly sweepers like GeoXern can abuse the luck factor of Swagger to cheese past things that thy had no business getting past.

Why can't I do the same with my GeoXern?

It also doesn't really line up with many other existing bans. The first, obvious, one is Sleep Clause. I know you tried to pin that on luck but I find that completely strained. Most (if not all, idr) of your cited luck elements behind it didn't even exist when Sleep Clause was invented. They also lost to Taunt/Sub so they weren't really what the game reduced to.

The fact you even use luck to claim these bans match your definition is flawed.

opportunity: noun - a chance for advancement, progress or profit. a favorable circumstance or occasion.

Abusing the same luck-based element gives both players equal opportunity because they are trying to abuse the same chance for advancement. The eventual outcomes may differ but it's the same case for two people abusing Shadow Tag. Plus, we can talk about that massively increased team matchup and blind 50/50s, that you and I both dislike, if we are just going to try to find if the demon, Luck, is lurking in some corner.

It really just looks like it's a line drawn specifically to exclude Shadow Tag and it doesn't even succeed at doing that.