***[VOTE] The final Wobbuffet "discussion" thread***

Status
Not open for further replies.
i'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point lyfsaho but whatever here goes

I pointed out on the first page open to the public on this topic that theorymon wasn't going to solve anything. Alot of people theorymonned away, which leaves no choice but to a) ignore it or b) counter it with theorymon.

If you had read my posts, the only argument I expressed as such was that Wobbuffet is statistically not overcentralizing and therefore not Uber by smogon's previous d/p methodology.
Click to expand...

Yet, since the first page, you've been using theorymon. Saying usage statistics "prove" he isn't uber? Theorymon.

I responded to everyone who argued back on the matter of statistics. I ignored most the theorymon responses to my own theorymon (check option a) in the first paragraph).
Click to expand...

But... but... You're going to theorymon and then just ignore the responses? What the fuck?

You realize what you did on the last page, right? You theorymon'd your Tentacruel example. Syberia responded to your theorymon. Your response was to tell him to stop theorymonning. are you serious oh my god

Indeed, this is the exact same issue which we face with the event moves ban (do we ban until proven legal, or unban until proven illegal?) so obviously, it depends on your side of the table.
In my post, I was adressing the discussion of Wobbuffet's Tier status as a whole - and since he is after all currently OU, we're debating whether to put him in Ubers, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Since we didn't go through this process before moving him down from Ubers in the first place, I don't see what relevance this has. He was moved down before being proved not uber, so why you'd place that restriction on moving him back up is totally unknown to me. Having said that, this discussion so far has been a fantastic attempt by most involved to rationalize why he's still uber, which is still a step up from the way he was moved down.

Your explanation is the easiest because it's the simplest, but somehow the fact that 1000 shoddy users who registered on this community two years ago and stopped playing shortly after may now vote on such an issue seems disturbing.
Click to expand...

And also the best we have right now. We have yet to clearly define what is/isn't Uber, but if we can decide that Wobbuffet should not be in OU, then I don't think the lack of definition matters all that much; There's literally nowhere else to put him.
 
How is Gyarados really going to help you when, instead of staring down a Wobbuffet that's already been damaged, he's staring down a +2 Garchomp with Yache Berry, at full health because Wobbuffet already did its thing?

And if you do successfully sacrifice something of your opponent's choosing to get Gyarados in on Wobbuffet, you still don't have anything close to a guaranteed sweep. If you Taunt first, the Wobbuffet user can just switch to an appropriate counter, and all you've got is just a regular old Gyarados. If you DD first, it can be Encored, and you'll be used as setup fodder again. So really, all that Gyarados can successfully accomplish is forcing the Wobbuffet to switch out.
 
Syberia said:
How is Gyarados really going to help you when, instead of staring down a Wobbuffet that's already been damaged, he's staring down a +2 Garchomp with Yache Berry, at full health because Wobbuffet already did its thing?
Click to expand...

Ummmmm maybe it'll use its trait Intimidate taking off a 1 boost and then dd and ice fang, or you can just switch in and it, last time I checked gyarados takes on garchomp pretty well. *~* also why not use mindgames and the next time dd, which gives you a free dd, and if it encores you'll just be in a fun ol' cycle. :]
 
At that point we're discussing the viability of Gyarados as a Garchomp counter, not the fact that Wobbuffet came in and allowed Garchomp to set up for free, something that it would do whether you like it or not.
 
Syberia said:
Which proves nothing, except that the methodology that things should only be uber if they are statistically overcentralizing is flawed. I suggest you read this post. It is not mine, but it sums up what I'd like to say just as well.
Click to expand...
Likewise : http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1015375&postcount=5

"I am going to only stick to one aspect of the argument, and conveniently ignore the other aspects when they show the opposite of what I want them to."
Click to expand...
You yourself stated on the last page that theorymonning will lead to more theorymonning. When I stop theorymonning, you complain about it.

We weren't given the chance to debate his introduction into OU, so that's irrelevant. And yes we're debating whether or not to put him back in Ubers, because we actually have test results to base it off of. Statistics are only one of these test results, and the least important one, quite frankly.
Click to expand...
That's your personal judgement, which differs from mine.


SubVersion said:
Yet, since the first page, you've been using theorymon. Saying usage statistics "prove" he isn't uber? Theorymon.
But... but... You're going to theorymon and then just ignore the responses? What the fuck?
You realize what you did on the last page, right? You theorymon'd your Tentacruel example. Syberia responded to your theorymon. Your response was to tell him to stop theorymonning. are you serious oh my god
Click to expand...
Looking at the raw statistics and deducing from them that Wobbuffet does not overcentralize the metagame is not theorymon in my eyes.

Stop fucking repeating yourself 50 times over. Someone has to end the theorymon-circle sometime, or as Syberia stated, or we would be here all night countering each other.

Since we didn't go through this process before moving him down from Ubers in the first place, I don't see what relevance this has. He was moved down before being proved not uber, so why you'd place that restriction on moving him back up is totally unknown to me. Having said that, this discussion so far has been a fantastic attempt by most involved to rationalize why he's still uber, which is still a step up from the way he was moved down.
Click to expand...
As I said, two different sides of the table.

And also the best we have right now. We have yet to clearly define what is/isn't Uber, but if we can decide that Wobbuffet should not be in OU, then I don't think the lack of definition matters all that much; There's literally nowhere else to put him.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself; how can the lack of definition not make a difference in whether he is uber or OU?. Anyhow, to avoid what you call trolling, I suggest we both drop this at this point and leave this open for any other potential voices.
 
Syberia said:
At that point we're discussing the viability of Gyarados as a Garchomp counter, not the fact that Wobbuffet came in and allowed Garchomp to set up for free, something that it would do whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I know we're not but you bought it up and I simply stated how gyarados could deal with the wobbufect-garchomp counter. ._.
 
Lyfsaho said:
Looking at the raw statistics and deducing from them that Wobbuffet does not overcentralize the metagame is not theorymon in my eyes.
Click to expand...

But claiming it makes him not uber is, in fact, complete theorymon.

Stop fucking repeating yourself 50 times over. Someone has to end the theorymon-circle sometime, or as Syberia stated, or we would be here all night countering each other.
Click to expand...

You started the theorymon circle, at least in this case with Syberia. I've got no problem with no more theorymon, I do have a problem with you using theorymon to prove a point, ignoring theorymon that completely disproves said point, and then whining about other people using theorymon. That isn't even remotely constructive.

You contradict yourself; how can the lack of definition not make a difference in whether he is uber or OU?. Anyhow, to avoid what you call trolling, I suggest we both drop this at this point and leave this open for any other potential voices.
Click to expand...

There's no contradiction. Ubers is the place for Pokemon banned from OU (that's virtually the only certainty to it right now). If Wobbuffet is banned from OU, then he goes to Ubers by necessity. It isn't ideal, but then no definition of Uber will ever be completely objective anyway, so banning what we think constitutes Uber is the best we can do. By your logic, no Pokemon should be in the Ubers tier while we still don't know what "Uber" is, which is obviously not the case.
 
@Zarzema, Read the rules that new members from the last 3 months can't vote.

And I'm still waiting for an argument from the anti-wobb squad to address the issue that the overwhelming communal sensus is to ban wob. That is, the players in general want him banned-- so how can you say no?
 
Wobbuffet can play 3 equally devastating roles. The ultimate revenge killer, allowing the user to pick one Pokemon of the opponent's and take it down using Countercoat(though at the cost of it's own health), or just stall a wall out of PP for it's recovery move, rendering it useless after a while, or just simply earning a free turn for another member of a team to set up. And the worst thing is, it can do all three things in the same battle if it so wishes. The worst part is how you cannot "counter" it, since you cannot switch out of it. So as far as I'm concerned, Wobbuffet is Uber
 
Wobbuffet is Uber.

My reasoning is simple. When Event Moves get reintroduced, the threat of Tickleffet is reason enough. Tickleffet is an absurdly effective (and simple) way to either debilitate or out right remove a tank from the game. Even without Tickle, Wobbuffet can still debilitate tanks easily with some speed EVs and Encore. In combination with Safeguard, it allows numerous Pokemon the ability to get a free turn to set up.

On top of the free turn and brain dead way to eliminate the threat of walls, it acts as a very effective way to revenge kill Choice users. Even with U-turn as a way to handle Wobbeffet, it requires a Ghost to be an effective counter as U-turning into anything else is begging to be Countered and killed.

In most cases, Wobbuffet removes an entire player from the game. No other Pokemon can do this, and I believe warrants being banned.
 
Anyone who wishes to argue that statistics prove that Wobbuffet is not uber should have a look at this thread. It shows that he's the highest OU pokemon among expert players.
 
Wobbuffet imo is indeed uber. As IPL already stated it can easily get rid of enemy rapid spinners allowing the user to easily toxic spike/stealth rock abuse the opponent. Of course you can use a poison type to get rid of toxic spikes and make your team resistant to stealth rock, but isn't that overcentralisation?

Other than that, Wobbuffet can easily eliminate key Pokemon in order for your sweepers to clean the opponent, for example a Wobbuffet outstalling Bronzong/Cresselia to death allowing Garchomp a free sweep.
 
Syberia said:
Anyone who wishes to argue that statistics prove that Wobbuffet is not uber should have a look at this thread. It shows that he's the highest OU pokemon among expert players.
Click to expand...

I'd say by that logic, we should also ban celebi, since it's obviously broken since so many skilled players use it.

Notice that the not so skilled players are not using wobbafet, it's not as popular there. If it "won games and took no skill to use" it would show up in the weighted statistics for overall usage, just not amoung experts.

To play wobb well and setup a dependable sweep takes more skill than people give it credit for. On top of that wobbafet does best during the defensive phase of the metagame, where it acts most efficiently to trap walls. Wobb is not unbeatable, nor is a gyrados or a garchomp with a turn to setup. As the meta shifts back to a heavily offensive oriented phase wobbs effectivness plummits, but it still keeps its niche to setup on weak hitters.

Beating it requires taking down your opponent while they get the upper hand during the match, but to get that they have to sacrifice a member of their team. Beating a wobbafet user requires some effort, and can be nasty if they're actually smart. Annoying as hell yes, but I don't see a setup as something that qualifies it as uber, although looking over this thread, that's what many people here want to ban it for.

A small aside, I don't play with wobb on my team because I generally don't like the playstyle. But I don't mind playing against it.

For those arguing against wobb, I ask that you consider what it would be like during the heavily offensive phase of the meta, and if it could stand a chance against a team of heavy sweepers. Yes it does have counter/mirror coat, but it has to take the hit first, and normally, it gets 2hkoed by any strong sweeper.
 
Miao said:
I'd say by that logic, we should also ban celebi, since it's obviously broken since so many skilled players use it.

Notice that the not so skilled players are not using wobbafet, it's not as popular there. If it "won games and took no skill to use" it would show up in the weighted statistics for overall usage, just not amoung experts.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly said.
 
Wobbuffet is uber.

To me it's not a question of having something with high HP, countercoat, and encore in it's arsenol or even taking away skill from the game. My problem is that we are allowing a guaranteed +2 atk Garchomp, +1 spd +1 atk Gyara, etc. into the metagame.
Garchomp with 394 atk. is debatable for the uber teir, surely an automatic SD would make both pokemon uber material.
 
I'd say by that logic, we should also ban celebi, since it's obviously broken since so many skilled players use it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe Syberia is insisting that Wobbuffet's skilled player use is the reason for its banning, simply countering the point that Wobbuffet's lack of general use is immediate proof of its non uber status.

Even if a person believes that Wobbuffet is not game-breaking in Standard, it is simply absurd that he should be all the way down to 46 on the ladder because "he isn't that good"; that ought to be a red-light for anyone who thinks statistic are the absolute.
 
Ashenlock said:
I don't believe Syberia is insisting that Wobbuffet's skilled player use is the reason for its banning, simply countering the point that Wobbuffet's lack of general use is immediate proof of its non uber status.

Even if a person believes that Wobbuffet is not game-breaking in Standard, it is simply absurd that he should be all the way down to 46 on the ladder because "he isn't that good"; that ought to be a red-light for anyone who thinks statistic are the absolute.
Click to expand...
Not at all, only people who understand how to make a team can use wobbuffet correctly and those are the people who do. Wobbu isn't a pokemon like blissey or garchomp who can just be thrown into a team of random walls and sweepers. Stats don't show who is knowledgeable and who is just copying six random pokemon from smogon.
 
I'd like to quote what I said in the Deoxys post, but adjusting things a bit...

I don't want to get off the topic entirely, but I'm just going to paraphrase some other threads regarding OU vs. Uber...

Early DP - Remember when T-tar was almost banished to Ubers? Hypothetical consequences were thrown around - one was to ban Cresellia as well, because without T-tar, Cressy would feel free to wall just about everything.

So, if Wobbs is re-banned, what would happen? Garchomp would also be banned, as it could set up much easier. Deoxys would then have no counters without Garchomp. T-tar might be considered for ban (and Cresellia as well). After that, Salamence would sweep much better and would be consequently be banned.

And soon, all of the OUs would be relegated to Uber, and we would be having UU pokemon ranked as OU. Does this sound right?

To counter my above statements, many would contend that some of the afforementioned pokemon would decrease - maybe true.

Feel free to implement this plan: Ban Wobbs, and see if the metagame restabilizes.


I would also like to state my understanding of grounds to ban to uber. Remember, this is paraphrasing, not actual words. I'm hoping I'm not being a douche...
A pokemon is only to be banned to ubers if there is no counter. A counter is defined as one that can switch in without taking a huge amount of damage (either by an item removal, or actual attack damage), and either scare it away completely by a threat of 1-2HKO, or revene killing, etc.


I can't really think of what the counters are for Wobbs (are there any, except for really strong cbers using really strong attacks?), but ask what would happen if Wobby was banned - who else would be relegated to ubers? Would the OU tier end up banning 10 OUs simply because they set up much easier now?


So, my answer is a question of events.
Choice 1 - Deoxys/Chomp/Tar are banned. Wobbs is UBER
Choice 2 - Deoxys/Chomp/Tar are not banned - Woobs is OU.
Choice 3 - The Latis are unbanned - Wobbs is not uber.



Choice 3 leads to another question, but I believe that should be dealt with first - if we unban the Latis, is Deoxys counterable? The Latis would also create a new question - do we need to make a tier of BL-ubers, and what would the whole tier-system look like?


Plan of action proposed by me (feel free to ignore, but it is essential to my post)....
1.) Ban Deoxys and Wobbs, see if metagame returns to pre-Deoxys/Wobbuffet levels.
2a) If the metagame re-stabilizes, it shows they are Uber - skip to Step 5.
2b) The metagame is still horribly shifted to Garchomp/T-tar/Mence/Cressy, and allows them to sweep and centralize the metagame. Wobbs is not uber, and is re-introduced.
3) Introduce the Latis for a period of 3-6 months.
4) Determine the consequences of Lati participation.
5) If Lati intro overcentralises without Wobbs, re-introduce Deoxys for a period of 3-6 months to see if re-stabilisation occurs. If it deos, Latis are OU.

I hope you understand the post, and I'm sorry for going off topic. However, before tests are completed (which is never going to happen as the metagame is intended to be ever-changing), we cannot definitively say that Wobbs is uber.






I put in alot of time and effort, do not look at this as spam or idiotic/moronic post.
 
Peanut-Lover said:
I can't really think of what the counters are for Wobbs (are there any, except for really strong cbers using really strong attacks?), but ask what would happen if Wobby was banned - who else would be relegated to ubers? Would the OU tier end up banning 10 OUs simply because they set up much easier now?
Click to expand...

You forget the fact that wobb can often get you a free turn to set up a potential sweep with encore as it allow you switch in a sweeper on something that is locked on stat up move or simply a move that cant threaten it.
 
Peanut-Lover said:
I would also like to state my understanding of grounds to ban to uber. Remember, this is paraphrasing, not actual words. I'm hoping I'm not being a douche...
A pokemon is only to be banned to ubers if there is no counter. A counter is defined as one that can switch in without taking a huge amount of damage (either by an item removal, or actual attack damage), and either scare it away completely by a threat of 1-2HKO, or revene killing, etc.

except Kyogre (for example) has already established counters but is still uber.


Plan of action proposed by me (feel free to ignore, but it is essential to my post)....
1.) Ban Deoxys and Wobbs, see if metagame returns to pre-Deoxys/Wobbuffet levels.
2a) If the metagame re-stabilizes, it shows they are Uber - skip to Step 5.

i fail to see how the return of the previous metagame makes those two uber, as stated many times every poke centralize metagame, note well "centralize", means that it will cause a shift big or small to the entire metagame.
Click to expand...
 
If the usage of garchomp and viability of older teams is set back to the old ways, that shows the impacts of wobbs/deoxys, and whether they overcentralize.

It was a rough blueprint, to be tweaked and modified if it were implemented by the powers that be.
 
the viability of older team was never measured and garchomp usage has never decreased i think, ah btw since you're interested in the matter i suggest you take a look at the topic about "metagame centralization" it has been left stagnant for a bit and may use some more opinion in it.
 
Miao said:
I'd say by that logic, we should also ban celebi, since it's obviously broken since so many skilled players use it.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of the post. What Syberia is talking about, is that while the overall statistics show that Wobbuffet may not be used much by the community as a whole, when you look at exactly which players are using Wobbuffet, it gives you a different perspective.
 
Yeah, and I'm not arguing that it's only usage that should determine whether or not a pokemon is uber. In fact, I don't think usage should be given nearly as much weight as it currently is. What should be considered the most is the effect a pokemon has when it is used. For example, Blissey and Celebi are both used alot, but they're not nearly as broken and in the same way that Wobbuffet is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top