Balanced Hackmons -ate Clause Vote

[verbatim]

With the release of Pokemon Alpha Sapphire and Omega Ruby confirming that the information Pokemon Showdown has previously had implemented was correct, I believe that the Balanced Hackmons metagame has had enough time to settle and to enable us to accurately and (hopefully) permanently address some of the more important changes ORAS has introduced. To that end, we will be voting on what do do with the -ate's, or more specifically, Aerilate [flying], Pixiliate [fairy] and Refrigerate [ice], moves that turn normal type moves into their corresponding type and adds on a 1.3 multiplier.

With that being said,

Why -ates
The easy answer is that Pokemon with one of those three types can get a *1.95 boost to normal type attacks, the most apparent of which being Rayquaza-Mega utilizing Fake Out and Extreme Speed. These abilities, along with recent changes to PS mechanics, have redefined Balanced Hackmons into a much more offensive metagame than it was at the turn of the generation. The question we are here to ask today is whether this new balance is truly balanced, or whether we need to scale back.


Why not Rayquaza-M

Rayquaza-M arguably gained the most from the -ate abilities and has been a prominent member of the BH metagame since his introduction, which may lead some people to believe that we should deal with Rayquaza-M first, and then reevaluate our options. My answer boils down to the fact that I do not like banning Pokemon from BH. My philosophy for BH has been to stay as true to the concept of exponentially more possibilities than the other metagames hosted on Pokemon Showdown, while using as little intervention as possible. It is for that reason that I am setting the -ates on the table first, and why I am including certain user submitted complex bans that act as a middle man between doing nothing and banning any ability with -ate at the end of it's name. If, after the dust settles AFTER the voting has been changed and the metagame has or has not changed, there is a communal consensus that there is still a problem, I may consider actions that may deal with Pokemon at that time, although I make no promises.


How the poll will be interpreted:

The poll will be closed next Friday, December 5th, at the earliest, with the potential to go through Saturday and Sunday if discussion is heated and or there is a large turnout. If there is a clear winner and more than 50 votes have been cast total, the winning decision will be implemented. If there are less than 50 votes and/or the decisions's have a close number of votes, I reserve the right to extend the poll's length until we reach 50, or, in the event that that does not work, choose a winner from the suspect thread based on quality of arguments.

 

[verbatim]

1 per team had 47 votes to second place Do Nothing's 19, thus BH will have a clause implemented (or some other technical thingamajiger) that will reflect this as soon as I can find someone willing to do so/do it myself.

 

[verbatim]

Reserved

 

[verbatim]

You may now post

 

[verbatim]

If we pick an options that's not Do Nothing or ban all of them I will be taking suggestions for the clause name. -Ate Clause sounds stupid.

 

[EV]

If we pick an options that's not Do Nothing or ban all of them I will be taking suggestions for the clause name. -Ate Clause sounds stupid.

Obliter-ate Clause imo

 

[Kit Kasai]

You sure like them reserved posts, don't you

Edit so this post isn't completely useless: I agree with what Cactus is saying. The main problem with -ate currently is the huge amount of power it brings. Using normal type moves, which already have decent base power (80 with priority, 102, 140, etc), multiplying that by 1.3, and then STAB on pokemon that have extremely high base stats Kyu / Ray / Diancie makes for something that is insanely hard to wall. If it was just the 1.3x power or just the STAB even it would be much easier to deal with. It's just the sheer power of the moves that is really pressing the limit here.

I think this idea has been presented many times already, and I highly suggest adding something like "Ban -ate on pokemon that get STAB from it" an option.

The thing about the 1 -ate per team option is that most teams only use one -ate anyways, so the 1 -ate clause, if it goes into effect, wont significantly change the meta.

 

[CactusCacti]

Im just gona say I dont really like these options cause its not really the amount of -ates its the power in general.
but yet they not as powerful as parental bond was to be really banned just like that snap, but powerful enough to cause issue

My stance on -ates has been that what should be killed is the -ate + STAB combo.

Regardless if we are limited to the current ones, I'll go with the 1 -ate cause its still bearable

 

[Uselesscrab]

I voted for Players may only use 1 -ate ability per team.

I can edit in more explanation later, but my main reasoning for this choice is the fact that one -ate user alone is not hard to manage; for instance, a single Aerilate Mega Rayquaza can be taken care of easily by something like Regirock or Registeel, depending on the coverage. But if the counter gets worn down, other -ate users, by virtue of their sheer power, become unmanageably difficult to deal with.

edit: Reading what I wrote, it wasn't that insightful. So I'll add something else.

The very existence of -ate spam necessitates the inclusion of multiple Pokemon that can wall -ates. Limiting the meta to one -ate per team would foster greater variety in defensive cores.

 

[michaeloche]

If I had thought about it, I would have suggested banning -ate+Fake Out and/or -ate+E-speed, but I can deal with it. and too much complex banning smh

Given the choices, though, I have to agree with UC up there on having 1 -ate per team. All this -ate spam is textbook overcentralization as you pretty much have to run multiple counters to it (Sturdinja alone usually doesn't cut it, as I have found out the hard way), and most of the time, -ate spam teams have ways around them anyway.

 

[Pikachuun]

I'm typically a consistency type of guy, and like to see the ability clause be enforced universally. Of course, -ate is the exception. I mean, AV Regirock is now an actual thing because of it. Not only that, you have to run more steels (or Sturdinja) than normal to wall -ate successfully, and even then, it doesn't always work due to stuff like Thousand Arrows and Magma Storm and the like. This is why I voted 1 -ate per team.

Also the clause name I'd personally like to see is Sketchmons clause. If it can almost prevent Metagamiate, which is -ate city, from being OMotM, it can certainly limit people to 1 -ate per team.

 

[insanelegend]

I voted for 1 -ate per team as well as many others did. There presence is still needed in this metagame. They must exist to stop certain set-up threats, or else these threats would become overpowered and take control of the metagame. The real problem is a stacking of -ates. One is easy enough to deal with. But when you have only one -ate check like many teams, it is easily overpowered by the variety of coverage that multiple -ates represent, as well as being overtaxed when trying to wall two or three. One is a lot easier to manage and is healthy for offense because they only have to deal with a single very powerful priority user but retaining the option to revenge kill threats like Shell Smash Mega Gengar without having to run an Unaware resist or something similar. Those are my thoughts.

 

[Rumors]

I'm not going to go through my reasoning again. If you're curious as to the explanation behind my position, I spelled it out in quite a bit of detail here.

That said, my preferred options are not present, though with the dislike towards complex bans, I can understand why. I'd prefer -ate + Fake Out/E. Speed/Boomburst/possibly Techno Blast as the ban since I think it's specific moves in combination with the ability that's broke, rather than the ability itself. Failing that, I'd get behind STAB + -ate, although this doesn't address -ate Mewtwo or Mega-Ray running Fridge/Pixie. ((UnSTABed -ate Boom/Speed isn't much weaker than Protean Boom/Speed from them.))

However, I ended up voting for an outright ban, for reasoning linked above and the fact, as previously stated, many teams only run one of them to begin with. However, banning to one per team would be my close second pick, so I'm not going to complain if that one wins lest it proves to not help things. And it looks like it will based on the current vote distribution at the time of this posting.

 

[Mr155551]

I say 1 -ate user per team and if you use fakespeed you can't use boomburst on the same moveset this well discourage any ate mixed attacker and they can be full physical or full special

 

[Morningstar]

Just like to point out that Levitate exists and unlike the others does not give flying STAB boosts. (It in fact confers immunity to Ground-type moves)

 

[Adrian Marin]

Just like to point out that Levitate exists and unlike the others does not give flying STAB boosts. (It in fact confers immunity to Ground-type moves)

We used to use Levitran a lot as the "end-all anti-ate Pokemon", but Thousand Arrows was introduced.

 

[Mr155551]

even on hackmons wonder guard electrics and wonder guard dark/poison still aren't save from thousand arrows

 

[Uselesscrab]

I think his point was that technically not all abilities ending with "-ate" count for this suspect test.

 

[Lcass4919]

levitate too stronk plz baen.

but seriously, i decided to vote for "1 -ate per team" mainly because i dont find more then one illate to be overpowered.and not having people spam them to destroy my non-chansey teams will be nice.

as for a "ate" clause name, obliter-ate clause sounds pretty cool. or we can be lame and go "lim-ate" clause.(gettit? its a pun on limit :D) seriously though, dont have much else to say.

 

[Morningstar]

anyway I voted for "one -ate per team" mainly becuase banning all -ate abilities will also ban Levitate

In other news. Normalize is the Normal-type version of Refrigerate and Pixilate as well so we cna replace leviate with Normalize when talking about -ate clause

 

[Uselesscrab]

anyway I voted for "one -ate per team" mainly becuase banning all -ate abilities will also ban Levitate

In other news. Normalize is the Normal-type version of Refrigerate and Pixilate as well so we cna replace leviate with Normalize when talking about -ate clause

I don't think you realize that these words don't have to be taken literally. Refrigerate, Pixilate, and Aerilate are the only ones we're talking about here. If a ban passes, Levitate won't be banned automatically on the simulator or anything like that.

Also, Normalize is different than the others because it makes all moves Normal-type and provides no boosts.

 

[Morningstar]

I don't think you realize that these words don't have to be taken literally. Refrigerate, Pixilate, and Aerilate are the only ones we're talking about here. If a ban passes, Levitate won't be banned automatically on the simulator or anything like that.

Also, Normalize is different than the others because it makes all moves Normal-type and provides no boosts.

Ah, well then. NVM

 

[0pr4h]

I voted for 2 because 3 won't make the votes in time. I did more than 1 bc we should not punish other movesets on other pokemon just because of mega rayquaza, what if no one uses mega rayquaza and uses only mega gardevoir? Now even a mediocre Pokemon can't be used alongside another mediocre pokemon like aerilate aerodactyl.

Also how does mega evolution impact the clause? Will it be similar to gengar holding the mega stone in regards to the shadow tag ban?

Would this mean having refrigerate kyurem-black with refrigerate prevents letting someone give gardevoir a mega stone on the same team?

Remember you can only have 1 Pokemon use mega evolution in battle per team, so it's not like I could mega evolve Salamance, Gardevoir, and Pinsir and bypass the clause. I could only mega evolve one Pokemon to bypass it.

I know we are not banning mega Rayquaza, according to the OP, but for people who are considering it:
Banning mega Rayquaza just means mega Salamance will take its place- with or without the use of a mega stone (mega Salamance gets Aerilate- so if this 1 max rule doesn't prevent getting multiple -ate abilities thru Mega evolutions then Salamence can always be an -ate user if mega Ray ever got banned), just like in Ubers in gen 5, where Salamance was basically used as a backup Rayquaza due to Species Clause preventing 2 Rayquazas on the same team.

 

[Rumors]

This isn't just because of Mega-Ray. The -ate problem, at least IMO if you read the post linked in my previous post, started after 510. Which was before Mega-Ray and friends even existed, but rather than Xern, Yveltal, and Kyu-B were demolishing everything. Mega-Ray and Mega-Diancie just exacerbated the problem.

I assume mega-stones would still work as they do now, although, if it's possible to code, I'd suggest preventing the stones to be used on a team if you have an -ate user. Don't know if that'll happen though since we still have the other stones.

Also, Mega-Salamence is significantly weaker offensively than Mega-Ray as it has a 35/60 point drop in attack power on both sides, respectively. So while it would replace it if a Mega-Ray ban happened (which I don't presently support), it wouldn't be nearly as threatening. But, that's really outside of the discussion right now.

 

[Lcass4919]

I voted for 2 because 3 won't make the votes in time. I did more than 1 bc we should not punish other movesets on other pokemon just because of mega rayquaza, what if no one uses mega rayquaza and uses only mega gardevoir? Now even a mediocre Pokemon can't be used alongside another mediocre pokemon like aerilate aerodactyl.

implying mega rayquaza is the entire reasoning for this ban, you would be correct. however this ban was being considered way before oras(and mega rayrays revealing) came out, when the ev limit cursed affected BH. the main point of this ban was "ate is overpowered and needs restrictions" not "mega rayquaza is overpowered, which it is and needs restrictions"

Also how does mega evolution impact the clause? Will it be similar to gengar holding the mega stone in regards to the shadow tag ban?

Would this mean having refrigerate kyurem-black with refrigerate prevents letting someone give gardevoir a mega stone on the same team?

Remember you can only have 1 Pokemon use mega evolution in battle per team, so it's not like I could mega evolve Salamance, Gardevoir, and Pinsir and bypass the clause. I could only mega evolve one Pokemon to bypass it.

no, it most likely wont. im not verbatim so dont take this as "certainty" but from mega gengars/mega kangas point of veiw, being the "sole exception" doesn't negatively affect the metagame too much, and in seeing gardevoir/altaria/glalie/salamence on the opposing team, you can safely deduce that you will need to reserve your ate check for 2 rather then 1 pokemon(if there even IS more then one) however, this decision is more verbs choice then anyone elses.

I know we are not banning mega Rayquaza, according to the OP, but for people who are considering it:
Banning mega Rayquaza just means mega Salamance will take its place- with or without the use of a mega stone (mega Salamance gets Aerilate- so if this 1 max rule doesn't prevent getting multiple -ate abilities thru Mega evolutions then Salamence can always be an -ate user if mega Ray ever got banned), just like in Ubers in gen 5, where Salamance was basically used as a backup Rayquaza due to Species Clause preventing 2 Rayquazas on the same team.

before i say anything, i will specificly say, i have no care for mega rayray bans, as verbatim himself said it wont happen aaaanywho:
you are correct. it will take rays place. and thats it. 180/180>>>>>>>>>>145/120 theres really no comparason. especially when ray also has the luxury of holding an item. what makes ray so scary isnt ate, it is its insane offensive stats that have no drawback to them.

honestly, i apologise for bashing someones(not just you 0pr4h might i add) opinions, but i shall point out exactly what i said previously on the species clause matter: limiting to 2 abilities wont solve the problem at hand, and it wont change the metagame in ANY way, and breaking down counters doesn't justify anything because literally we could run other movesets to do the exact same thing that another "wallbreaker of the same ability" would be able to do and otherwise its just a cheap way of overwhelming someone.

EDIT: bah, rumors beat me too it