It is...NOT, a Wrap.

[gorgie]

<Floppy> isa and other competitive rby players
<Isa> hi
<Floppy> how would you feel about a wrap proposal (clause), limiting the use of the move (and others similar to it [see: bind]) to no more than twice in a row
<Isa> it is well known that i have a dislike for wrap
<Floppy> aka limiting it to having a u-turn-like effect (speaking from the perspective of controlling momentum)
<Isa> so im all in favor
<Floppy> as wrap can still be used effectively and in a non-gay, uncompetitive fashion.
<Isa> if/when you and i face
<Isa> i am in agreement with that proposal
<Floppy> i was thinking of proposing it to the broader community

Right.

So, as stated in the earlier parts of the log above, I would like to propose a "wrap clause", wherein, users are not allowed to spam the move and similar such ones for no more than 2 consecutive turns. Two because, as many of you familiar with gen 1 mechanics know, wrapping/binding etc can be used "competitively" in the sense that it can be used to earn a "free switch" during battle. In other words, if you were to use the move wrap 1 turn, then switch next turn to another pokemon, your opponent will somewhat "still be in a bind" and unable to move.

In such situations it is evident that Wrap can indeed be used ..."effectively"... hence the proposal of a clause and not a plea to outright ban the move.

I'm sure there's little need for an explanation of what Wrap is like outside of the usage context explained above, so I will conclude this post by posing a few questions to the active RBY-playing community, Tournament Directors/Staff, and to all it may concern alike:

• Is there anything about the above proposal you disagree with? If so, what, and why?
• Would you advocate this becoming an official clause in tournaments? Why or why not?
• What are your overall thoughts on Wrap and its effect on competitive RBY as a whole?
• Are you new?

Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hear from you all.

Have an exelent day.

 

[Isa]

"What are your overall thoughts on Wrap and its effect on competitive RBY as a whole?"

fuck wrap is what im thinking.

even though the free switch part of wrap could be argued to be the most broken part of it, i'm down for anything that restricts wrap usage. nothing makes me want to stop playing rby as much as facing a team with multiple wrappers. ugh.

 

[Jorgen]

I feel like the argument for a ban has to come from an objective measure of some sort. If not that, then some assessment which could, in principle, be reflected in some objective measure. It can't just be described as "annoying to play against" (i.e. "gay", but please stop the gay bashin), because that's an entirely subjective property.

Honestly, Wrap seems to be that thing that new kids whip out only to get trounced, but veteran dudes shy away from because it's both too inconsistent to sweep and too janky to really work as a pseudo U-turn. It just doesn't seem powerful enough to warrant a rule to limit its use, and until it becomes an objective problem, I can't support a rule against it.

That said, I'd support a patch that prevents Wrap PP rollover. PP stalling being a good strategy isn't enough for a ban in itself, but having dire consequences for counting wrong is definitely a terrible property of Wrap that can just go away.

 

[gorgie]

define an objective problem, using the rby metagame as a scope (aka disregarding other systems/processes used in other generations).

if you were to use the "not powerful enough" bit as an argument, that could be partly due to the unwritten (gentleman's) rule/courtesy among the majority of competitive rby players to not (ab)use wrap/bind/etc....which wouldn't really help that case much

 

[Disaster Area]

well the use and win success in SPL is an attribute to how OP wrap.. isn't.

I personally see it as fine if you wish to play a match without wrap specifically, but it's pretty rare these days and any full wrap has a crapton of fundamental issues as it is.

I mean, hardly anyone uses it, so why complain?

if you were to use the "not powerful enough" bit as an argument, that could be partly due to the unwritten (gentleman's) rule/courtesy among the majority of competitive rby players to not (ab)use wrap/bind/etc....which wouldn't really help that case much

ayy most of the people I play with (~50% of meaningful RBYers maybe more?) don't appear to have any gentleman's agreement with that. Or at least, I assume so. I almost never come accross partial trapping from my opponents, and if we know eachother all that well in an RBY context, we know I'm accepting of wrap.

Like, who actually has that implicit gentleman's agreement outside of Isa, floppy, and maybe raish?

I'm very anti-ban, I know it was banned before due to incorrect implementation, but that's sorted, and it's a strategy that's a few people's bugbears, but everyone know that it's fairly subpar overall, so why worry?

That said, I'd support a patch that prevents Wrap PP rollover. PP stalling being a good strategy isn't enough for a ban in itself, but having dire consequences for counting wrong is definitely a terrible property of Wrap that can just go away.

I'd disagree, but maybe some system to tell the opp's PP of revealed moves? I think PO has something like this?

 

[gorgie]

seems subpar because you or whoever you've seen use it do not know how to fully abuse it.

if i were to go full wrap for the rest of spl i dont think i would lose a game

 

[Ortheore]

Pretty easy to dismiss someone's judgment on the grounds that "whoever you've seen use it do not know how to fully abuse it." when you don't possess any evidence to contradict you isn't it? Especially when you don't need to elaborate further?

I would strongly argue against limiting wrap. Agiwrap is a little more dubious, though I still disagree.

Personally I have no gentleman's agreement regarding wrap- I expect that my opponent can opt to run it, and I myself will readily use Cloy/Bel myself, unless whoever I'm facing specifically requests that they not be used. Dnite I personally don't use, though I'm fine if my opp uses it against me, it's just I still feel dirty about it after that time I beat GGFan with it because he didn't count for PP rollover

Also PO's PP counter is really handy. It used to be really buggy, but idk if they fixed that in the most recent update (probably have, in which case it's fucking amazing). On that note, I'm pretty sure it matters what sim you play on since PS alerts you to Wrap ending but PO doesn't (I'm pretty sure the latter is more accurate unfortunately)

So we all know non-agi wrap is only really used by Cloyster and Victreebel. And we know that they both aren't that great, even with wrap. Cloyster's Clamp is way too unreliable for spamming it to be an issue, plus its middling speed and inability to cause status. Bel also has that in-between speed tier but it gets the more accurate Wrap and can inflict para. But it suffers from a minor case of being a complete dead-weight defensively so it's not coming in very often, plus it's still not that difficult to play around the threat of Stun Spore. So I don't see either of them as being broken and don't believe wrap-spam is at all an issue from them.

So non-Agi wrap is not really an issue but Dragonite is obviously a more dubious case. There's the obvious issue with it finding an opening to set up (there's forcing GolDon out and then your next best bet is probably Lax BSlam. Which is saying something.) and Gengar existing. These are really big issues and a good part of the reason why Dnite struggles in OU. Even once it's set up, it's susceptible to hax but to be fair this is far from reliable, especially since if you're switching it has to miss twice in order for you to capitalise on it, but more to the point, once it uses Wrap you are free to distribute that damage across your team as you see fit, and once the Wrap PP is used up Dnite suddenly becomes worthless. This easily mitigates the raw damage output of Wrap imo

So yeah, if you really don't want to see wrap I'll respect that, but it definitely shouldn't be limited at all on any official scale imo

 

[froggy25]

Honestly, Wrap seems to be that thing that new kids whip out only to get trounced, but veteran dudes shy away from because it's both too inconsistent to sweep and too janky to really work as a pseudo U-turn. It just doesn't seem powerful enough to warrant a rule to limit its use, and until it becomes an objective problem, I can't support a rule against it.

Bekins's laddering with Wrap Victreebel, the team's pretty solid

 

[lilyhollow]

@Ortheore: I definitely see where you're coming from here, but at the same time I've always been annoyed at the "X is sooooooo broken. Personally I won't even use it, that's how broken it is" mentality. If the thing is broken, I would hope that someone skilled would go ahead and prove that to be the case so we can finally move on. This has worked really well in plenty of other competitive communities. If the thing is broken, win with it a lot. It's a really easy solution.

If it's not broken and it's really just a matter of "some players find it annoying," that too would be really nice to know. Either way is fine, but it's truly obnoxious to be in this weird purgatory state where some people are claiming that the thing is broken, but somehow can't bring themselves to accomplish or prove anything.

 

[Borat]

i think nobody mentioned this yet but

nice pun floppy

 

[Bedschibaer]

What would happen with the "wrap clause", let's just call it that for now, in a last pokemon scenario? Since you can't manually stop the wrap after 2 turns the clause would have to become complex there, either make wrap not usable on a last mon then or implement it to stop on the simulator after 2 turns. I don't think both solutions are quite reasonable, or did you think of another solution to that?
Also i'm not sure if the wrap clause wouldn't kill off alot of that competitive use you mentioned. What's good about the free switch you are getting is that you can also decide when you are getting said free switch. If you are actually forced to switch out after 2 turns, your opponent will know that and he can capitalize on that (or you can capitalize on him trying to capitalize on that, etc.). When your opponent doesn't know if you are going to go for some free damage or if you are getting the free switch into something else it's pretty hard for him to play accordingly, it gives you huge control over the following turns. Since the clause aims to keep that "effective" use of wrap alive, it'd be kinda counterproductive when the clause gives you the possibility of doing it, but actually limits the "effectiveness" of it alot.

Also i thought that post was a spambot judging by the title

 

[gorgie]

well, if given only 2 turns, it then becomes a 50/50 effectively in terms of switching: you either switch after the first or consequent use of wrap.

As for the last turn situation I admittedly did not think that part through fully.

Regardless, it seems the general consensus here is that wrap isn't as 'frowned upon' as i thought it was and losing to it simply means the loser needs to work on his team or is just overall bad.

That being said, going forward I hope we can eradicate the stigma we place upon wrap users, and that those who are unable to compete against said users are able to improve their teams and overall battling skills in the long run.

Thanks for all the feedback guys. All input was greatly appreciated.

 

[Agammemnon]

Wrap users deserve a special place in hell.

 

[Jorgen]

So much for eradicating stigma...

 

[lilyhollow]

it's not necessarily practical for a small community, but the best way to get rid of that stigma is to have events with prizes. when you don't have prizes everything becomes about social stuff and reputation. when there's something tangible on the line people tend to remember that competitive games are about getting that W in the end.

 

[Agammemnon]

I was discussing this with Floppy yesterday on IRC ;
In my opinion, Wrap is to RBY what SleepPerishTrap is to GSC : a cancer that has to be eradicated.
It's not just annoying to face, it's game-breaking. Just think about Sand veil in DPP. It was banned for one reason : it builds frustration when played against and is nowhere near fun. (Also, it relies way too much on RNG.)

I can imagine that some of you would be reluctant about establishing a new ban/clause in such an old metagame, but I would 100% vote for a wrapping ban. I mean, building without having to think about this stupid mechanic would be quite awesome.

 

[lilyhollow]

It's not just annoying to face, it's game-breaking.

I totally get the 'annoying to face' part, it's the 'game-breaking' part that I think nobody has properly established.

 

[Borat]

i feel like this issue is extremely easy to settle:

if i were to go full wrap for the rest of spl i dont think i would lose a game

so if floppy goes undefeated, we ban it/do this thing, else we leave it alone.

you're welcome

 

[Jellicent]

as other peeps have said, the best way to prove it's game-breaking is to win consistently with it. while it can be annoying for sure, i don't think wrap is actually broken.

kinda related, i remember someone on the forums linking this article 6 or 7 years ago, and this discussion just reminded me of it again. definitely a good read for those who haven't checked it out~

 

[Golden Gyarados]

Jellicent, that's a really good article. I'd never seen it before. After reading it, I definitely won't complain about Wrap in this thread (although most folks know I hate it), but I WILL say I was super intrigued by Jorgen's suggestion to patch-fix the PP rollover. I'm not opposed to patching to fix extremely problematic bugs (for instance, I'd rather Dig/Fly were playable than simply implement the bug and ban them) and the PP rollover glitch is a good candidate in my mind for patching.

I would also like to see an accomplished user steamroll everyone with Wrap, because I do think that's a good way to assess the strength of it, in a manner that I don't think has ever been demonstrated very empirically in the "real world" - there have been tons of math proofs and stuff, but never a specific effort to play it to demonstrate.

 

[Disaster Area]

I was discussing this with Floppy yesterday on IRC ;
In my opinion, Wrap is to RBY what SleepPerishTrap is to GSC : a cancer that has to be eradicated.
It's not just annoying to face, it's game-breaking. Just think about Sand veil in DPP. It was banned for one reason : it builds frustration when played against and is nowhere near fun. (Also, it relies way too much on RNG.)

I get more frustrated when I get haxed and some 1 in a 1000 or so event screws me over, rather than when someone uses wrap against me, lol. It's so easy to prevent dnite sweeps, especially if you always build with a conscious consideration of how wrap threatens your team.

it's not necessarily practical for a small community, but the best way to get rid of that stigma is to have events with prizes. when you don't have prizes everything becomes about social stuff and reputation. when there's something tangible on the line people tend to remember that competitive games are about getting that W in the end.

The majority of the RBY 'community', i.e. those who regularly battle with other established RBYers both 1) play regular tournaments for the most part and 2) don't have a wrap stigma [true for about 90%]. Maybe more of these top players who don't play when it's not SPL season could come and play a little more.

I can imagine that some of you would be reluctant about establishing a new ban/clause in such an old metagame, but I would 100% vote for a wrapping ban. I mean, building without having to think about this stupid mechanic would be quite awesome.

It's not exactly a new ban/clause since we've had it before, when wrap itself was implemented incorrectly, which was why it was irrelevant to a lot of the age-old development.

You only have to worry about wrap if your team is like jynx or egg lead/egg if not in lead/chansey/lax/tauros/something else slow (less than base 80 speed), not normal-resisting, possibly without an ice type attack (or 2 of these if egg lead).

Nearly every good team is kinda prepared for it by default tbqh.

 

[Joim]

I'd rather ban partial trapping moves than patch PP rollover.
Also: just run Gengar ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Disaster Area]

The best solution is just to let both players know of wrap PP, rather than having to rely upon counting/trusting the opponent.

If you could implement something for that it'd be great, but it's not really a nessecity imho, since it's something you can easily keep track of (and there's not much else to keep count on).

 

[Kiddo]

wrap shouldn't be banned, RNG is inherently part of RBY, critical hits have a higher effect on the outcome of battles than wrap does. A team fully built around wrap is always weak to gengar and zapdos anyways. Seriously name anything that can wrap/clamp that isn't weak to gengar, keeping in mind firespin and bind have 2X miss rate of wrap.

 

[Golden Gyarados]

Gengar doesn't shut down Wrap teams. It's the best theoretical counter to it, yes. BUT - Gengar is ONE Pokemon, and facing a Wrap team you have to work your ass off to keep it alive, since even if you bring it into Wrap, your opponent gets a free switch to a counter (and all good Wrap teams have a Gengar counter - usually Rhydon), and you're shuffling and taking tons of damage and it's awful. Plus, in practice, Gengar is usually a lead, and given its typical MO of sleep-then-boom, it's usually taken out of the picture BEFORE you even realize you're facing a Wrap team, and you're like, "Crap, I wish my Gengar was still alive."

But this is a digression. The topic of Wrap's effectiveness has been done to death in tons of threads in all of the RBY forums. The point of this thread wasn't to dive into old arguments (this thread is NOT about banning Wrap wholesale), but to present new suggestions (a limitation clause, the "take this discussion off of the theoretical and play it to prove it" idea, etc).

I think letting each player know Wrap's PP is a start.