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

[shrang]

You keep making that claim (bolded) but have yet to show how it doesn't besides calling it OU's. Removal of autonomy is not circular logic.

I think the fact that it comes from OU dictates that we should take it with a certain grain of salt. It is circular logic when you have the word you're trying to define within the definition itself.

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions--and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.

==

If I have a standard Palkia, that Palkia can be trapped and I have a period of time where I have no meaningful choices that I can make. In other words, just because I can make those choices elsewhere in other scenarios doesn't eliminate the fact that there'll be ones where I can't. It's *those* cases that bother me and it's why I'm asking you to show me a team that doesn't have such an issue with Shadow Tag.

Isn't that your problem if you're using standard Palkia then, if you're that dependent on it that much to check threat X, Y and Z (eg Kyogre)?

So what? This is only a concern for low level play, which the game encourages you t grow past. (if you want to win, then you need to learn how to) Even then, the victim isn't robbed any less just because the abuser squandered what he took. It's not very reassuring to be saying it's okay for Tag to be in tournaments cause the other guy can choke...

I think this is taken a bit out of context here. The point is still that the result of S-tag is still dependent on actions of players only, so if you lose to it, it is still the result of you getting outplayed. The little bit about choking was just me pointing out that choking is not an exception to getting outplayed, because by definition, to choke is to display a lower amount of skill than your opponent and by the same logic you can conclude that you were outplayed.

Not at all. From my perspective Team Matchup based matches are a very disgusting element from XY Ubers, as you mentioned Shadow Tag is not the only cause but that doesn't mean we should be "Ok" with that. I think 100% controlled team matchup could be seen as uncompetitive (especially and more specifically in tournament matches), as it doesn't matter how much your opponent prepares for the battle when you have a Shadow Tag mon that, when played "right" and with the coverage moves you chose to ensure a sweep for another mon OR beat one of its checks by itself puts the player in a lose/lose situation. Once again, watch Joey vs Manaphy for SPL, user aim was facing a team with Skarmory which walled both his Ekiller Arceus and Double Dance Groudon BUT, we decided to use Hidden Power Fire Gengar to counterstyle Manaphy AND opening the path for those mons to sweep. In that situation the player failed to control the game as it couldn't switch, he even tried to Brave Bird it to 2HKO it but that did't matter cus HP Fire Ohko'd back, that alone shows the Shadow Tag is one step above team builder. Anyways, I think that is a good example of Shadow Tag takes the game out of the one player's hand, which in my opinion is uncompetitve.

Can't you do the same thing with Magnezone in this scenario? I'm not denying the S-tag traps a lot more things, but it's still "being outplayed" because you're depending on something easily trappable to check two extremely important things.

 

[Edgar]

This is the battle in question.
I find it funny that you picked that specific battle, which Manaphy used support Arceus-Electric (not viable at all)... It's one of the worst SPL battle. All it demonstrated that Manaphy did not have sufficient understanding of XY ubers metagame to teambuild a half way decent team. Of course, you're going to lose if you don't use a team that adapts for Shadow Tag. If you want example of an excellent ubers team, then you can just head to Dice's repository which is full of teams that will not lose to HP Fire Gengar. Also just something else to think about, how is that scenario any different from a Fire Blast/Shadow Force Ekiller? It would result into a Ekiller sweep no matter what. Skarmory is OHKO'd by fire blast after SR, while Gira-A is owned by Shadow Force. I've stated this so many times, so...


I just want to be clear, Shadow Tag do contributes to the match-up issue. However, it's far from the sole cause and the fact that Ubers mons has such as expansive movepool and stats that it would require banning all good uber pokemons to create a minimal match-up based metagame (aka OU).

I doesn't really matter who or under what scenario it is taking place, we're not discussing how good or knowledgeable a player is, I'm just stating that Shadow Tag granted the player who by the way, won, a perfect team matchup. I really feel that you missed my point entirely by bringing Dice's teams, and no I'm not saying HP Fire Gar is the issue, if that's what you thought. The scenario is also different because you don't need to waste a coverage slot on a certain sweeper if you have a Shadow Tag mon to back it up, it's not the same case as pokemon like SkarmorE can switch from Ekiller, but can't from a Shadow Tag user. Drop it a little bit with the teambuilding arguments, they're starting to look like "git gud" arguments, whcih are unacceptable.

 

[MMII]

No choking is choking, it's not getting outplayed lol. Choking is when you screw up something you had no reason to screw up.

I can't believe how much you are fixated on the fact the OU council put that together. Show me where it doesn't apply instead of constantly saying we should question it. Show me an example on where it's questionable.

Oh god you are kidding me. We can't keep going in circles like this. No it's not my fault for bringing Palkia unless you can show me a tourny viable team where I wouldn't have to worry about a scenario like that. (btw, palkia is just an example to illustrate the concept)

edit: also

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions.

bop, circular logic problem solved

 

[shrang]

Choking is when you display a lower level of skill than your opponent, which implies that your opponent displays a higher level of skill than you, which by default means you were outplayed.

Isn't the fact that the definition itself is fallacious enough reason to question it?

Also, we're going in circles because you keep making silly arguments about bringing Palkia and what not when I've answered it again and again. I've said it multiple times already that you don't need a team completely immune to S-tag to have enough choice to avoid being destroyed by S-tag. Your example of Palkia/lack of tourney viable teams is irrelevant. Of course you have to "worry" about getting something trapped. You have to worry about every other threat in Ubers too, so why is S-tag so special (apart from the lack of ability to switch, which I've already highlighted why in the grand scheme of things, isn't a big deal).

 

[MMII]

It's not irrelevant. Ubers is a tournament metagame that's meant to stay a tournament metagame. If a tournament player can't hope to bring a team that can avoid scenarios where they have no control of the game's events to the extent Shadow Tag takes it away then there's a huge problem. How can you justify buying one player over another in SPL if strategies like Shadow Tag can be used to remove your player's ability to display whatever nuanced level of skill made them a superior buy? Why even bother trying to buy a hotshot when any half decent player can abuse Shadow Tag to success over clearly superior players? You realize issues involving who to buy is behind the uncertainty with LC's place in SPL right?

We questioned it, I showed you how to fix it. By not getting caught on poorly worded details to the point of completely blinding yourself to the message.

No, your understanding of choking is still flawed. I gave you the definition, please don't try to start challenging that one too.

 

[orch]

I doesn't really matter who or under what scenario it is taking place, we're not discussing how good or knowledgeable a player is, I'm just stating that Shadow Tag granted the player who by the way, won, a perfect team matchup. I really feel that you missed my point entirely by bringing Dice's teams, and no I'm not saying HP Fire Gar is the issue, if that's what you thought. The scenario is also different because you don't need to waste a coverage slot on a certain sweeper if you have a Shadow Tag mon to back it up, it's not the same case as pokemon like SkarmorE can switch from Ekiller, but can't from a Shadow Tag user. Drop it a little bit with the teambuilding arguments, they're starting to look like "git gud" arguments, whcih are unacceptable.

Yes it does matter. If manaphy brought no Kyogre checks and Kyogre swept him. Nobody would bat an eye. It's only a fair example if both sides are equally competent. The only information that that replay conveyed was that, if your team is weak to Shadow Tag, then you will probably lose to Shadow Tag. How is that different from the earlier statement about Kyogre? "Waste of coverage slot" on sweeper is a silly argument- all it shows that ubers is inherently match-up based, since if aim brought that specific ekiller, then there would be no need for Gengar to assist the sweep.

Here's an example of ubers being inherently match up based independent from Shadow Tag's existence:
http://pokemonshowdown.com/replay/smogtours-ubers-3681

Edgar failed to prepare for refresh ekiller and paid the price for it. Does this mean that we should ban Arceus for being too match-up based? I don't think so.

 

[Edgar]

Yes it does matter. If manaphy brought no Kyogre checks and Kyogre swept him. Nobody would bat an eye. It's only a fair example if both sides are equally competent. The only information that that replay conveyed was that, if your team is weak to Shadow Tag, then you will probably lose to Shadow Tag. How is that different from the earlier statement about Kyogre? "Waste of coverage slot" on sweeper is a silly argument- all it shows that ubers is inherently match-up based, since if aim brought that specific ekiller, then there would be no need for Gengar to assist the sweep.

Here's an example of ubers being inherently match up based independent from Shadow Tag's existence:
http://pokemonshowdown.com/replay/smogtours-ubers-3681

Edgar failed to prepare for refresh ekiller and paid the price for it. Does this mean that we should ban Arceus for being too match-up based? I don't think so.

You do realize that wasnt a set before the battle. The same as Hiddn Power Gengar, back in the day it wasn't expected, now it is. Anywho, unlike Shadow Tag, you DO have choices regarding how to play around a certain threat, sometimes this involves switching, thing that Shadow Tag stops you from doing. Anyways, I'm tired of arguing with you people, it is a complete waste of time so I'll stop doing it, have fun thinking it is completely healthy and manageable.

I like how you brought up that match to be an asshole, I saw the intention from a mile away, and I know you're gonna try and deny it.

 

[shrang]

It's not irrelevant. Ubers is a tournament metagame that's meant to stay a tournament metagame. If a tournament player can't hope to bring a team that can avoid scenarios where they have no control of the game's events to the extent Shadow Tag takes it away then there's a huge problem. How can you justify buying one player over another in SPL if strategies like Shadow Tag can be used to remove your player's ability to display whatever nuanced level of skill made them a superior buy? Why even bother trying to buy a hotshot when any half decent player can abuse Shadow Tag to success over clearly superior players? You realize issues involving who to buy is behind the uncertainty with LC's place in SPL right?

I seem to have remembered you saying something about "S-tag is not something that lets shit players beat good players" somewhere. I'll have to go dig it out anyway, although don't dwell on it because I don't know if I can find it or not.

It's irrelevant because your challenge of trying to find a perfectly prepared team has no relevance to the fact that it through choices of both you and your opponent that you lose to S-tag. You can be well prepared for a Rock Polish Groudon sweep yet still get caught in that Zekrom/Ghostceus fork that I presented to you earlier. This was just last page.

Also, do you run teams that are "totally EKiller proof that adequately deals with every other threat"? I'm pretty sure that's not going to really work either. I'm not really talking about all the dumb options like Grass Knot/Iron Head either, I'm talking about the main moves like EQ, Overheat, Shadow Force/Claw, Refresh (add in a couple of not-mainstream-but-relatively-not-bad options like Magic Coat and Stone Edge). I'm pretty sure you can't be totally immune to all of those options without weakening yourself to some other threat either.

We questioned it, I showed you how to fix it. By not getting caught on poorly worded details to the point of completely blinding yourself to the message.

What message? When you have something worded in such a circular way, there may as well be no message at all.

edit: also
Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions.
bop, circular logic problem solved

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions--and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.

Stop omitting important parts to make yourself look smart. What's the degree of autonomy loss that is therefore considered uncompetitive? You can't tell because you have to define uncompetitive properly first. It like saying "listen to what I say because it is good, the reason that it's good is because I said it".

No, your understanding of choking is still flawed. I gave you the definition, please don't try to start challenging that one too.

Of course I'm going to challenge you if you don't even provide any reasoning on why it's flawed. You're only bringing that on yourself. See I actually gave you a meaning of why choking = being outplayed. All you're doing is telling me that it's not with no justification whatsoever. Denial is not only a river in Egypt. Until you provide me a reason why you think it's flawed, I'm not going to change that.

 

[BKC]

holy jesus christ on the cross, did i just read that someone who choked got outplayed? i will now proceed to demonstrate what a choke is so that yall can get back to the issue at hand

stealth rock is up on both sides. melee mewtwo switches his last pokemon, a full health lum sd rayquaza, in against a 1% defensive landorus-t. his opponent's last mon is a mewtwo that's taken quite some damage. afraid of being killed by stone edge, mm2 goes for vcreate and kills the landorus. he attempts to finish the mewtwo off with extremespeed but comes up short, gets killed by ice beam in return, and loses the game. however, if he had bothered to calc, he would have found that landorus-t's stone edge tops out at 73%, meaning he could have swords danced safely which would have allowed him to kill the mewtwo. his opponent did not make any outstanding moves that would fall under the category of outplaying him (because there were none he could make, his only chance was to crit stone edge), it was a 100% won game and mm2 threw it away.

 

[BKC]

outplaying someone is when you make actual moves that do something, like when you go from ho-oh to kyogre against ferrothorn, catching the arceus rock switchin and blasting the ferro with a specs water spout so your ekiller can sweep later. choking is when youve lost the game and your opponent throws it away. you didnt do anything (cause you couldnt, youd lost), so you didnt outplay them.

 

[Fireburn]

re: Choking vs Being Outplayed

The difference is difficult to define but they are not the same thing. Choking is not merely displaying worse skill than your opponent, it's more about "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," if you will.

To use a more general example, let's say Melee Mewtwo challenges BKC to ADV OU. BKC has played this metagame for years and years, Melee Mewtwo doesn't know why the ladder rejected him for having a Gothitelle in his team. Predictably, Melee Mewtwo gets completely destroyed. If choking was the same as "displaying worse skill than your opponent," then you could technically say "oh MM2 choked," which is false because he could not hope to match BKC's skills to begin with.

BKC's example above is better, but I think this shows why shrang's proposed definition is an oversimplification of the term.

Choking in general is a super flimsy argument and is never something you can really count on as a possibility in any situation, shouldn't really be using it anyway.

 

[shrang]

Okay, since Fireburn keeps deleting them, I may as well flesh it out properly then (if you delete it again Fireburn I will shit you):

I know what the difference between being outplayed and choking is. However, I'm saying it's not an exception in the scheme of "choices made by you and your opponent" because in a sense, if you're the one who choked, you bear the responsibilities of your choice. It implies that the one who choked, for whatever motive or reason, displayed a lower level of skill than his opponent at a time when it mattered. It's not exactly equal, but a subset of ways that you display a lower skill than your opponent. Skill is not an inherent trait, it is something you display. That automatically implies that willingly or not, his opponent displayed a higher level of skill despite it being either "normally" where his level of skill is or even lower (depending on how hard his opponent choked).

Yes, it is an oversimplification, but it's not an exception to human factors deciding the fate of games. Of course I'm not counting on choking as a legitimate means of beating your opponent.

And yes, it was a minor detail in a larger debate, so it's time to move on.

 

[aim]

Yes it does matter. If manaphy brought no Kyogre checks and Kyogre swept him. Nobody would bat an eye. It's only a fair example if both sides are equally competent. The only information that that replay conveyed was that, if your team is weak to Shadow Tag, then you will probably lose to Shadow Tag. How is that different from the earlier statement about Kyogre? "Waste of coverage slot" on sweeper is a silly argument- all it shows that ubers is inherently match-up based, since if aim brought that specific ekiller, then there would be no need for Gengar to assist the sweep.

Here's an example of ubers being inherently match up based independent from Shadow Tag's existence:
http://pokemonshowdown.com/replay/smogtours-ubers-3681

Edgar failed to prepare for refresh ekiller and paid the price for it. Does this mean that we should ban Arceus for being too match-up based? I don't think so.

Just pointing out that Refresh Ekiller wasn't a set until problems and i built that team and he along with user donkey and sweep were the only people i tested that team with IN SECRET as it was for an spl semifinal match. How could you expect him to prepare for innovation? There was zero reason to include that in your post.

 

[yohoE]

Just pointing out that Refresh Ekiller wasn't a set until problems and i built that team and he along with user donkey and sweep were the only people i tested that team with IN SECRET as it was for an spl semifinal match. How could you expect him to prepare for innovation? There was zero reason to include that in your post.

It was an example, in literally his own words, to show how Ubers can be match-up based without Shadow Tag being in the actual battle; which I don't know why that's being argued anyways since nobody is denying it. Him being unprepared for Refresh E-Killer resulted in him losing the battle, confirming that it's match-up based. He wasn't trying to shit on Edgar or anything.

EDIT: Can we discontinue the talk about "choking"? Like, why?

 

[orch]

Just pointing out that Refresh Ekiller wasn't a set until problems and i built that team and he along with user donkey and sweep were the only people i tested that team with IN SECRET as it was for an spl semifinal match. How could you expect him to prepare for innovation? There was zero reason to include that in your post.

It was to demonstrate that if you're not prepared for X threat, then it doesn't imply that X threat is banworthy. It's supposed to be a counterargument for aim vs manaphy replay. Both replays features a player getting beaten by a threat that they failed to prepare for. One had shadow tag, and other did not. I think that we can safely say that match-up issue is independent from Shadow Tag at this point... Every ubers team in existence has a set that seriously threatens the team, similarly how you managed to get an amazing MU advantage by using refresh ekiller vs edgar's stall team. The fact that it was unknown is not relevant, if anything it only shows that uber pokemon have such amazing and expansive movepool to surprise a SPL player. Due to this fact, it is simply not possible to minimize match-up issue without turning Ubers into OU. I just want to make this clear- it's not an attack on edgar as a player. It was merely to show the fact that ubers metagame is so match up based is not solely due to shadow tag, but rather due to the nature of ubers mons being so broken.

 

[ApplepieFTW]

yo ok so i've been wanting to replay to all sorts of posts in here etc etc but i just had this interesting convo with shrang that addresses all relevant points about stag: ban vs no ban. i basicly said something "well most of shrang's arguments aren't true in my view because they factor in stag wrong" and then shrang was like "why dont you actually say something of just saying im wrong" so i did. its kinda hard to "summarise", make a tldr of sorts, so just go read the thing I guess. if i had to give one though, it would probably be,

tldr; The definition is lackluster and leaves room for a subjective degree of uncompetitiveness, which in my view can not be interpreted wrong unless you fail to acknowledge the fact that your ability to switch (the second most important factor when making interesting decisions) gets demolished, as well as the fact that stag creates unavoidable, unfavourable situations which I refer to as negative 50/50's. All of this combined is what makes stag inherently uncompetitive.

ah, I think I just wrote my paragraph too. anyway here is the convo, conveniently located in a pastebin with an interesting title. http://pastebin.com/jBAXuD8d

It was to demonstrate that if you're not prepared for X threat, then it doesn't imply that X threat is banworthy.

Just wanted to say that this is not relevant to stag as an uncompetitive factor. Yeah duh, this is true, but maybe add an extra line that says "With this in mind, stag is still an uncompetitive factor" or if you dont agree with this, then some anti-ban argument but those are pretty hard to find.

 

[Darnell]

This seems to have quietened down a bit so I'm going to go ahead and give my view on it. Apologies for not having an incredibly long post like shrang or MM2 ):

Shadow Tag is something that can turn the game around unless you don't over-predict and if you do over-predict that can cause you to fuck up the game itself. It is something you have to think about working your way around before the match even begins when seeing Mega Gengar on the opposing side. I'm saying Mega Gengar because although I've experienced Gothitelle on the opposing team I didn't find them to be as much of a problem with predicting and outplaying; probably just my opponents but yeah 'waiting a good 40 turns for Gothitelle to set up is not fun, yet also not the reason it should be banned'. Although Shadow Tag can be worked around by things which require over-predicting such as Volt Switch, U-turn, double switches or Shed Shell which you don't have to predict but causes you to lose out on Leftovers to avoid being trapped by one ability in the whole tier. That's complete and utter trash. I think I've been reading too much on what options you have to avoid getting trapped rather than the limited options you have when you're trapped due to getting outplayed ONCE by the opponent which can cause you to lose your most needed and reliable Pokemon to win the current match. When making your team, people can make changes to try and work around Shadow Tag however that doesn't mean in anyway that it is going to make you win against it. Maybe the opponent is smarter than you or they just got the lucky switch. I do admit that works with loads of things such as trying to use Scizor on your team for GeoXern despite it having Hidden Power Fire or being a Scarf set however its much easier to recognize the issue of your team and remove/add Pokemon to adjust to it next time to avoid Xerneas sweeping. With Shadow Tag, there isn't, you're literally stuck from good/bad plays.

Although I didn't see it as much can we acknowledge the fact that Mega Gengar also has access to Disable. What if you fail to over-predict, Mega-Gengar comes in, it Protects on whatever and then uses Disable + Taunt. Your options of taking it out are even more limited and can lets it live through trapping your Pokemon by taking it out in which it can do the same thing again after switching out. Blissey loses access to use Flamethrower from Disable, it gets hit by a Taunt and you've lost a substantial Pokemon on your team that you may have needed in the long run provided it doesn't have Shell Bell which I still think is a bullshit item. It doesn't even have to die and can still cause you to lose out on a Pokemon that you needed to win the game. The argument 'both opponents have access to Shadow Tag' is bullshit. In no way, should you be limiting your well-thought out and good team which gets fucked by an outplay of a Shadow Tag user constantly to use a Shadow Tag user if it doesn't fit on it at all because you have access to it and other people have been using it against you. I'm trying to slightly look at it from both points of view, there is an option of opponents trying to Destiny Bond in which you use that turn to set up, they then go for Taunt as you proceed to take it out with an attack. That is once again, luck; there is no certain way the person could of predicted that they would switch from Destiny Bond unless their PP runs out.

tl;dr There are ways to work around Shadow Tag, but it needs to go. There's some points in which its clearly your match as you've been making brilliant plays, yet your opponent makes ONE good one and it gets flipped by one Destiny Bond/PerishTrap kill or just getting attacked due to not being able to switch on your win condition.

 

[MMII]

Alright, whatever shrang. I'll just take your constant refusal to get the point as to why I was asking you to provide such a team to mean you don't have it. I'm always open to being shown the contrary but I'm not going to bother trying to elaborate what I think is wrong with your comparison of tag to other meta threats in this case because it's not the point. (i'll address it indirectly throughout this post, though, I'm sure)

Orch, sucker punch or not, you still could have found better examples much more easily. Regardless, you are still missing the point of edgar's example. Manaphy couldn't do anything about being trapped. He could have brought a different, generally more solid team that doesn't lose to things like Specs Kyogre, sure. However, as shown above, he couldn't have brought a tourny viable team that wasn't weak to some basic Tag exploit and thus couldn't have avoided the fact he had a mon trapped and couldn't choose any sort of options to prevent aim from manhandling it. It may have been a different mon under different circumstances but the key issue would remain. You can draw all sorts of comparisons to other meta threats and make all sorts of debatable and lofty claims concerning how matchup based and imbalanced Ubers is, in none of those cases are you barred from choosing your counterplay options despite the fact you brought them.

Taking your example to show this: Edgar had Superpower Lando T that could have checked Refresh Ekiller enough for him to win the game. If that set had been as commonplace as it is now, (or he just suspected the threat, whatever) edgar could have changed how he played to reserve lando's hp enough to stop refresh ekiller. So even if he didn't have ideal counterplay options to beat Refresh Ekiller, he could still try to use what little he had to success. Contrary to Tag, it doesn't matter if you know what set Gar or Goth is running, once you are trapped you are trapped and there's nothing you can do about it besides hope for hax, chokes, or cheesed matchup.

Keep in mind, it's not so much the fact that Tag is inherently matchup based that makes it uncompetitive. It's the fact that it's *only* matchup based and that the opponent can no longer control the state of the game's events because of that lack of counterplay.

Speaking of uncompetitive, shrang if it really bothers you I have no problem getting the ubers mods together (read: Fireburn, Jibaku, myself and Theorymon if he's free) to put together a clearer definition. (actually, we'll probably just translate bojangles words into something much more clear) I can even include logs for those with tinfoil hats. In the mean time, we can still discuss if tag removes a player's control over the game's events even if we don't know clearly where the "too much" line should be drawn.


Also, more semantics, the choking detail is actually kinda crucial here lol. The difference between choking and getting outplayed is strongly related to what at is at the heart of the issue. "Outplayed" is inherently interactive while choking is, by definition, not. Which means, the fact that you'd have to bank on choking or hax to beat a Tag trap scenario is absolutely not okay because Pokemon battles should be as interactive as possible. (touched on this earlier in this post) Additionally, Shrang keeps claiming that

The point is still that the result of S-tag is still dependent on actions of players only, so if you lose to it, it is still the result of you getting outplayed. The little bit about choking was just me pointing out that choking is not an exception to getting outplayed, because by definition, to choke is to display a lower amount of skill than your opponent and by the same logic you can conclude that you were outplayed.

this is problematic for a few reasons. First of all, the fact he's been throwing choking under the blanket of outplaying means that I don't even have to argue why that's bullshit for those comments to all be questionable. I'm going to anyways.

You can't outplay somebody when you have no choices you can make nor control over the game's events, which is what happens during a tag scenario. To quote him again:

Skill is not an inherent trait, it is something you display.

You can't display anything when all you are doing is clicking buttons until your opponent finishes doing whatever the fuck he is doing with Shadow Tag. In other words, Shadow Tag takes skill out of the game. It'll not save shit players but that doesn't make it any less a problem, especially in a tournament context. Things may happen before and after but that doesn't eliminate the problems that arise during, especially when the before and after can't prevent or undo the damage the vast majority of the time.

So quick recap:
-Shadow Tag removes switching and by doing so prevents a player from using whatever options he may have popped into teambuilder.
-Because he can't use those options, he has to hope on chokes, hax, or cheesy matchup
-This makes Shadow Tag inherently and entirely matchup based
-Anybody can pray for those things, there's no skill to it
-Skill becomes a non-factor in tag trap scenarios for the victim

 

[MMII]

You overrate the skill with using Shadow Tag (which extends beyond gar). You just need meta knowledge which shit players certainly don't have. If said bad players know the meta they are playing, then yeah they can beat good players through tag. (wouldn't say consistently)

btw note I said skill and not Skill, it's not a total absence just a reduction

edit: when you delete your posts it makes mine look out of place :/

 

[shrang]

Regarding the definition of uncompetitive:

You know what, Melee, you're right. It's pointless to keep arguing about that stupid definition. Let's just use the one you provided, shall we? It'll make things easier, and it's way better to destroy your arguments using your own definitions rather than trying to impose some other definition into the conversation. Let's bring it up again:

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions--and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.

This can be luck-based, but doesn't have to be (see: 4th gen Wobb, who was effective enough then to remove the ability to "do anything about it" largely from the enemy player, and was banned for uncompetitive-ness); but most uncompetitive strategies that are banned usually have a high appeal to luck.

While there is always luck involved in Pokemon, the problem is the degree to which control is taken away from the player. Removal of autonomy is the key to an uncompetitive tiering decision or clause.


Note: the word "degree" as there are many game aspects that remove autonomy, but the problem is degree of removal (Moody / Double Team remove more autonomy than Quick Claw or fast U-Turn/Volt Switch).

Whether the "degree" of autonomy removal is uncompetitive is debatable, and is subjective (based off of player experience).

Aside: Just note the example of gen 4 Wobb used as an example for an OU ban that wasn't translated to Ubers, so there is clear deviation in how OU sees uncompetitive to how we see it.

Circular logic aside, it clearly says in the definition that there has to be a degree of control that has to be taken away. This means absolutist arguments such as "it takes away switching therefore it has to be uncompetitive" is immediately questionable. This is also demonstrated in how we have operated in the past, and how we still operate. We've had Shadow Tag since gen 4 with arguably just as profound results yet we thought it was fine to leave alone (past). We're not calling for Arena Trap/Magnet Pull to be banned because, as you would gladly tell me, is because we don't think the degree of autonomy removed by them is significant enough to be deemed uncompetitive (present).

For the record, I've never denied that S-tag takes away certain aspects of your control (in this case to switch) for the select turns that you're trapped, nor have I denied that S-tag may increase a person's chances of winning. However, it is a long shot to equate "the ability to switch (on specific turns)" and "control of the game's events" (latter of which is stated in the definition). There is actually a major delineation between the two. I think this address's your main concern Applepieftw, because (at least judging from our conversation) your main point was that regardless of what happens later in the game, it is still "uncompetitive" (for the lack of a better word) in the turns that you are trapped. I don't disagree this point, but my point is that whatever happens in each turn cannot simply be extrapolated to the whole game level (coming back to my "causal" and "global" argument).

So, I've seen most of the pro-ban arguments, and I think I've addressed why "taking away the ability to switch" is not to the degree in which it should be deemed uncompetitive. I've gone these multiple times and I really don't want to type it all out again.

Alright, whatever shrang. I'll just take your constant refusal to get the point as to why I was asking you to provide such a team to mean you don't have it. I'm always open to being shown the contrary but I'm not going to bother trying to elaborate what I think is wrong with your comparison of tag to other meta threats in this case because it's not the point. (i'll address it indirectly throughout this post, though, I'm sure)

Bolded section: We've gone over this

The point of asking for the team is because the failure to do so would show that there's no way to bring a team that isn't weak to Shadow Tag, so you can no longer claim that it's the player's fault for losing to it. Dice's teams are all weak to Shadow Tag, it's just reduced as much as possible without using a team that's no longer viable in the first place. Orch's post just provides an anecdote (involving POCL, lol) that doesn't show anything other than how well hack has done in said tournament.

- Bolded section: This is a fallacy in and of itself. It's beside the point anyway. Having a team totally prepared for Shadow Tag is not needed to make meaningful decisions that can allow you to minimise harm done by that threat. Like I've said in the past, just because you can trap a Pokemon and kill does not mean you've won the game. Regardless, I still stand by the point that whatever happens in control of both players, so you still got outplayed if you lost because of it.

This is also not to mention that I've repeatedly stated that to find a team completely immune to S-tag is completely irrelevant. You don't carry teams that are completely immune to every other threat in the metagame, why must S-tag be so specific that you need a completely immune? You only need to be "well-prepared" for every other threat, and that's all you need for S-tag. It's very possible team that's well prepared for S-tag and minimises its risk while handling most other threats adequately (don't ask me for such a team, because you can just click "Back" and go straight to Dice's team thread for a thread full of them), just like it's very possible to make a team that's well prepared for Ekiller/GeoXern/MMY/etc and still be adequately prepared for most other threats. You can claim that it's impossible to totally prepare for S-tag on a team without royally screwing over your options for every other threat, but this is true for virtually every other threat in Ubers, so why is S-tag so fucking special?

Let me repeat that in case you missed it: You only need to be "well-prepared" for S-Tag, just like for every other threat. Now can we please get off the "find me a team totally immune to S-tag" garbage train?

but I'm not going to bother trying to elaborate what I think is wrong with your comparison of tag to other meta threats in this case because it's not the point.

And this pretty much covers your entire time on this thread, lol. All you've been doing is saying whatever shit is irrelevant without providing justification why it's irrelevant, and they happen to be important discussions (although I'll share the blame in the semantics arguments if that makes you happy).


Regarding choking:

I know what the difference between being outplayed and choking is. However, I'm saying it's not an exception in the scheme of "choices made by you and your opponent" because in a sense, if you're the one who choked, you bear the responsibilities of your choice. It implies that the one who choked, for whatever motive or reason, displayed a lower level of skill than his opponent at a time when it mattered. It's not exactly equal, but a subset of ways that you display a lower skill than your opponent. Skill is not an inherent trait, it is something you display. That automatically implies that willingly or not, his opponent displayed a higher level of skill despite it being either "normally" where his level of skill is or even lower (depending on how hard his opponent choked).

Yes, it is an oversimplification, but it's not an exception to human factors deciding the fate of games. Of course I'm not counting on choking as a legitimate means of beating your opponent.

And yes, it was a minor detail in a larger debate, so it's time to move on.

 

[MMII]

I was going to start typing up another obnoxiously long response but then I read this

I think this address's your main concern Applepieftw, because (at least judging from our conversation) your main point was that regardless of what happens later in the game, it is still "uncompetitive" (for the lack of a better word) in the turns that you are trapped. I don't disagree this point, but my point is that whatever happens in each turn cannot simply be extrapolated to the whole game level (coming back to my "causal" and "global" argument).

and realized we are done here. This is literally all I was trying to prove with my exchange with you. Yet here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, that during those trap turns Shadow Tag is uncompetitive.

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

We've got a zero tolerance policy on uncompetitive elements otherwise we couldn't call Ubers a competitive metagame. I'm not going to bothering responding to any bullshit special pleading and lol at Tag in past metagames, didn't stop Swagger Clause. I've got what I wanted, thanks for the chat.

 

[AlphaNeria]

I disagree. While Shadow Tag can be executed by both players as being 'the best strategy', the issue is even both players use Shadow Tag, it doesn't mean the game is 'fair'. In fact, the outcome of the match will depend on the matchup between the Shadow Tag teams. I will illustrate it with an example.

Assume two players are against each other and both of the teams are carrying Stag. Team A uses Charm Goth and Team B uses hp fire/icy wind/taunt/d-bond MegaGar. When they have played for a while, they have clearly spotted their win condition. Player A can trap the GrassCeus in team B to let its ScarfOgre clean up while Player B can trap the opposing Mega Scizor and allow its Ekiller to sweep. Both of them realised to prepare for Stag in teambuilding in order to not let their checks to dangerous mons be trapped and killed by Stag. Team B's GrassCeus is using Bullet Seed(yeah, I'm using it now) while Team A's Mega Scizor is using a wierd ass SpDef Occa Berry set with Knock Off. Both of them have 'prepared' for Stag but it's obvious that Team B's trapping won't be successful. Player A will therefore have an inherent advantage over Player B regardless of the skill of both players and quality of both teams thanks to Shadow Tag.

The issue of Shadow Tag is 'You can prepare for it, but your way of preparation won't necessarily work. Ultimately, the player with the right preparation to the specific opponent's Stag's set will have an inherent advantage. This turns the Ubers tier into a matchup-based metagame due to Stag limiting the important mechanics of switching'

Well let's change the situation slightly. What if Player B realizes he doesn't need to trap Mega Scizor, because his Ekiller is packing Fire Blast? Again he would have an inherent advantage over Player A regardless of skill simply because Player A's check doesn't work as a "check". You might say Player A could always scout for Fire Blast, but since Ekiller is so dangerous, he might not have the chance. Similar things apply for other Ekiller checks. The way the Ubers tier is, there are many Pokemon without 100% checks, and matchup advantage is therefore always there. I don't see how Shadow Tag makes it different.

Edgar about the "Gengar traps Skarmory opens up sweep for DD Groudon / Ekiller" scenario, if we're thinking of the same game (I haven't time to search it up) then Gengar switched into Skarmory without having mega evolved. Skarmory went for the 2HKO, then got KOed in return by HP Fire. My first impressions from that was, why would the opponent switch Gengar into Skarmory if it's unable to threaten it? I would've switched out as a result. It seems to me that the Skarmory player made a gamble on the opponent not having HP Fire and paid for it. In a way it's not too different from using Scizor to check Geomancy Xerneas. If Xerneas doesn't have HP Fire, Scizor works great. If it does, you lose a Pokemon. You might still be able to check Xerneas with another Pokemon (since it gave up alternative coverage to pack HP Fire), but you lose a Pokemon.

 

[C AllStar]

Well let's change the situation slightly. What if Player B realizes he doesn't need to trap Mega Scizor, because his Ekiller is packing Fire Blast? Again he would have an inherent advantage over Player A regardless of skill simply because Player A's check doesn't work as a "check". You might say Player A could always scout for Fire Blast, but since Ekiller is so dangerous, he might not have the chance. Similar things apply for other Ekiller checks. The way the Ubers tier is, there are many Pokemon without 100% checks, and matchup advantage is therefore always there. I don't see how Shadow Tag makes it different.

Then that's the player's fault to not prepare for Fire Blast Ekiller. I didn't bother to write that much on that particular example but the lack of ghost coverage (or ground, but Earthquake is far too useful) allows many more things to wall Ekiller. Nothing stops you from running Giratina-O + Mega Scizor when both of the mons have additional utilities other than walling Ekiller. This isn't anything about team matchup. It is about one player having lack of understanding to the meta and not preparing for some threats. The problem with Shadow Tag is while you can pack multiple checks to certain dangerous threats, you cannot do the same for Shadow Tag. It is pretty easy to scout the opposing Ekiller's set and counter it with the right mon but you can only face Shadow Tag with one single mon. There is no way to tell about the set of the opposing MegaGar or Goth before you get trapped and you can't think of any countermeasure to it before it actually traps something. This is certainly different to any threat in Ubers.

 

[MMII]

Hi guys. There's something called the red herring logical fallacy. Bringing up things like Arena Trap or Baton Pass fall under this fallacy. It redirects the discussion towards an elaboration of tiering policy which leads to a bunch of arguments on that off topic subject. It also falsely implies that these things couldn't/wouldn't be addressed in due time assuming they even are problems. Don't talk about them. We are here to talk about whether or not Shadow Tag is uncompetitive in XY Ubers. If you have questions about tiering policy, feel free to PM me. :]

 

[Lord Alphose]

I guess it's time for me to say my piece, if that's alright with all you guys.

I should start by saying that I feel like I completely understand those of you who feel like it should be banned. It has the potential to seriously limit the ability of the player to make their own choices. And considering how important volition is to this game, I can see why you guys would feel like it should be removed from the equation entirely.

That being said, I still feel as though Shadow Tag should remain for two major reasons:

First, the level of control which the player retains is sufficient for gameplay to continue. Earlier someone mentioned how they never saw Gothitelle in the tier, to which someone else made a comment pertaining to their lack of experience and knowledge of Ubers. So, to clarify, I made sure to use Gothitelle on several of my teams, along with M-Gar, in order to get a good feel for the effects that Shadow Tag could have. While I did find the ability to be effective, I also found that many opponents were able to play around it. I myself, when I came upon these situations, was able to think ahead, look at what his goal was, and plan accordingly.

Second, my ideology on banning Pokemon and how it coincides with Uber's views. My choice to vote do not ban on the Mega Gengar test was based off of the logic specified here. Frankly, my logic here is similar. Also, if you look at the post underneath mine in that thread, you will see my opinion expressed much better than I can ever say it.

I realize I don't say things all too well, but try to understand what I'm trying to say before you try picking at the faux pas and misspoken logic.