np: BW Ubers Suspect Testing Round 1 - Mama Said Knock You Out UPDATE POST #95

[syrim]

Originally Posted by Fat Bent1ey

I've read the "End of Stall" arguments a few times while checking this thread and I feel that it is leaning towards a "banning by principle". Its specially shocking because some have said that Ubers is the place where Stall proliferates and that the format should remain that way as if Stall was "meant" to be the norm for Ubers. This stance is entirely opposite to the intention of a format like Ubers or OU where most strategies should be allowed, if Game Freaks made Stall unviable in their game, the format should reflect those limitations. It shouldn't be deformed to make the format "fair" for Stall users, as much as those represent a good chunk of the Ubers playbase.

The second part that seems iffy about that argument is that it comes from speculation, most players are calling the "death of stall", despite the fact that OHKO moves seem to be weak towards other game styles. In my opinion, this doesn't point towards the death of Stall, but simply a redefinition of which dominant playstyles are used in Ubers. The fact that it all comes from speculation is all the most depressing, because it's again, trying to ban OHKOs by principle. "They make the format unfun and they add randomness", all we know is that they might make the format different, and it's obvious they add randomness since they are attacks that might miss. I'd say that unbanning the moves and actually testing them for a while, even if they get banned eventually in a more reasonable stance when addressing speculation. If the moves are making an impact on the meta and are still being defeated by other strategies, they should be allowed simply because they shake the meta without breaking it.

The only thing that gamefreak has officially designated in the last few years is the VGC metagame. Our tiers are completely independent of gamefreak, and so obviously "the format" is too. The existence of OHKO moves in the game, and gamefreak's intentions, have no place in deciding if they are fit for smogon's variant of competitive play, and this logic follows for every clause.

You also claim that a lot of the "death of stall" comes from speculation, when in fact my opinion, among others, comes from actual game testing and plays that were made against/by us, solely because of OHKO's prescense. We have been giving the moves a test, the sheer volume of battles that have taken place on the suspect ladder denies that claim.The fact that other playstyles may become dominant is obvious. The point you made in the second paragraph of this post and the latest post are similar, so i'll address them below.

Originally Posted by Fat Bent1ey

Given how OHKOs are unreliable against offense I don't think Stall will just disappear over them. Stall my as well be scarce in the ladder since people are trying to make the best out of those moves, but without the novelty value that they get on this whole test situation, offense could easily keep them at bay. It truly depends on how are you set to interpret the current results of the ladder and how players decide to approach it.

You are arguing that as offense becomes more popular because of its increased viability, OHKO moves will phase themselves out and stall will eventually rise again. This is a flawed argument in more than one sense. Mainly, it ignores the prescense of skilled, pragmatic players who will attempt to obtain the best match up against any team style, and any type of player, through team building. This on its own prevents the phasing out of a OHKO move capable of breaking through spinblockers, water resists, and balanced/defensive teams in general (all incredibly important things to counter/match up well against).

The next is assuming that OHKO moves are used simply as a novelty by many players. I've seen more than one well built fissure excadrill team, and I can assure you predicting against it is nearly impossible, and maintaining hazards if you are using anything but sun offense or heavy offense can be pretty difficult.

Lastly, you claim throughout that stall is assumed to be the "dominant" playstyle of ubers. No one has, or will, attempted to claim this. One of my favorite things about this tier, what has caused me to play it exclusively for years, is the incredible array of playstyles one can use with our limited pool of pokemon. Currently, nearly every possible playstyle has the resources to be used successfully, all forms of rain teams, balance, stall and offense, all types of sun teams, sand balance and stall, heavy offense, weatherless offense/stall, and the list goes on and on. A player attempting to win consistently, in the face of OHKO moves, faces a much more limited choice. It is not that we are biased towards defensive teams, it is that we enjoy the diversity that keeps this tier, with its static pool of pokemon, from becoming stagnant.

[tehy]

So, i've been reading the arguments of both sides. I'm not really much of an ubers player, but from what i see, one side states that OHKO moves introduce too much luck into the metagame, and the other states that OHKO moves are an ineffective strategy, even in the hands of restalk kyogre, arguably the best abuser that anyone here can think of.

If it's an ineffective strategy, and i have no doubt that it is, and it also introduces too much luck into the metagame, why not just... ban it? Yes yes it's not broken and all that, but to me the point of the clauses have never been about whether something's broken or not, but rather about creating a more enjoyable metagame, which is why they're optional. The only place they're not is on the ladder, which is really just a simplified way of saying that most people on the ladder would put on these clauses, so we might as well stick them on too.

Edit: Nightmare, what defines "out of hand"? Let's say there is an option, any time in the game, to just click a button and have a 10% chance to win, but a 90% chance to lose. It's not really out of hand-you can only lose 10% of the time. Only problem is, it would just rob good players of winning. And the example you gave is perfect-the metagame CAN adjust. I could run, say, restalk celebi with psychic, HP fire, and recover. Or restalk salamence. Or restalk Heracross/kyogre for darkrai. And i haven't even begun to talk about random lum berries.Forcing the metagame to adjust to them would be very stupid, but very possible.

[AfroThunderRule]

Woo, that was fun. I'm Little Afro

...

---

Used Sheer Cold Kyogre for like the first 50/60 battles but it was meh-ish. Kinda leaning towards ban but it's pretty close. Abusing the 70% chance of missing is pretty big since you really cannot afford to give free turns, especially in ubers.

[Nightmare]

I think that honestly the fact that OHKO's are banned is kinda stupid in the first place. One, it's in the game. Second, they've never been breaking and in fact enhance non-Bliss/Cress stall teams (knocking out Blissey is a big plus IMO). Third, I'm not really a fan of banning things unless absolutely necessary. It's on the players to adjust to the meta: Not on the meta to adjust to the player. If something comes out so horribly broken (like no Sleep Clause Poison Heal Breloom for example, Dark Void Darkrai, or the Soul Dew Lati@s), it will be taken care of. Bans are kind of a last resort thing: If something gets really out of control, or like 70% usage like Garchomp in Gen 4 pre-Platinum or Mewtwo from R/B/Y.

Just because something is "undesirable" doesn't mean it should be banned. Hell, I'm probably one of the few that think that the uber game should be the standard game and Glitchmons should be the usual street Pokemon game.

Just my 2C on this.

-James

[ala]

I don't think ohko moves are broken.

[Pocket]

Even from my modest play experience, I can say that OHKO is an undesirable element in a competitive metagame. You just press the OHKO button and you either get free kills or you don't. It was dumb playing against these moves and using them. My initial fear has been realized in the Ubers ladder - OHKO connects much too frequently, and the reward drastically outweigh the risk in using this move. Perhaps if there was a side effect such as a 34% recoil for each time you miss then there might be some competitive merit to this move. However as it stands now, it's just brainless ez kills.

Sheer Cold Kyogre is good, but I usually prefer Roar for its consistent utility. What I felt was far more threatening was Mold Breaker Excadrill with Fissure. Excadrill doesn't really have anything better to use, and in exchange it can pretty much kill Ferrothorn, spinblockers, and Groudon on the switch. Fissure just made limiting hazards easy and even more.

[locoghoul]

^ I used Sub/Fissure/Rapid Spin/Toxic on 252 HP / 252 SpDef Mold Breaker Excadrill. Good for spinning sometimes. Killing Ghostceus feels so good, specially if you are burned. Most of the times I would just spin or toxic (specially if it was Lugia or Groudon) as I could come in many times and spin away if there was no spinblocker. Gira-A is still a pain because Pressure makes Fissure only a 4 PP move. And if it doesn't hit then Exca becomes useless. At many times I wish I had SD+EQ tbh. One match I OHKO 3 pokes in a row (Groudon, Ferrothorn and Ghostceus).

[Bent1ey]

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

Our tiers are completely independent of gamefreak, and so obviously "the format" is too.

This is unnacurate, each new game makes tiers shift. Evidently the formats aren't purely dependant on GF or anything like that, but to think Smogon's tiers get their legitimacy by being completly independant is delirious. I think that the opposite is true, the tier system works because it brings balance and it stays true to the spirit of the game. And arguably there is no tier closer to the game itself than Ubers, since it doesn't embrace as many bannings. Then again, this is merely an anecdotic point and not and argument that has direct bearings in our current discussion, but since it got addressed twice, I thought I would clarify.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

You also claim that a lot of the "death of stall" comes from speculation,

My claim, as you call it, was meant to target players who are tempted to vote for or against a particulary suspect by principle. As you stated yourself, everyone should choose use their experience to test if the metagame was decent enough, had enough different threats and was fun enough to play, if the threats seemed fair and balanced or if the luck factor was sent through the roof by using those moves. Whether the moves are acceptable in the format or not, should not be purely based in a context of "how good" the format currently is, but also on how the testing goes. Since the Ubers format is actually a very good one, the temptation of leaving it as it is "because it's good already", may be appealing to some. I was just asking people to judge by your experience in the ladder and not to rely too heavily in the previous format -which is bound to happen to some level anyways-.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

I've seen more than one well built fissure excadrill team, and I can assure you predicting against it is nearly impossible, and maintaining hazards if you are using anything but sun offense or heavy offense can be pretty difficult. ,

This goes to prove that OHKO moves bring some valid strategies that can flourish into the metagame. If it was just about the novelty value or the strategies that will phase out, the OHKO experience would be pointless to unban, but when good strategies settle they actually cause important and meaningful metagame shifts it's worth exploring and not purely and argument about hax.

Since you've played against those threats I feel like asking you directly: are those spinners too broken for Ubers?

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

Lastly, you claim throughout that stall is assumed to be the "dominant" playstyle of ubers.

Did I claim Stall was dominant? If I did it, I'll gladly drop that point.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

A player attempting to win consistently, in the face of OHKO moves, faces a much more limited choice. It is not that we are biased towards defensive teams, it is that we enjoy the diversity that keeps this tier, with its static pool of pokemon, from becoming stagnant.

This argument seems to be making the claim that since Ubers has an static pool of pokes, it should benefit from a different set of considerations when it comes to the banning and unbanning process. I'm just advocating for applying the standard Smogon criteria to rule this potential unbanning.

Some people seem to think that the clause unbanning is an special kind of unbanning and should be threated differently somehow. This touches to the principle logic I refuse to endulge when it comes to this discussion. I don't think you're really claming that though.

I think that your argument is that the unbanning would make the metagame less "healthy", that it will have a negative impact in the meta. As far as I know, there is some tolerance to these "unhealthy" moves, is the new format still healthy enough to warrant nice interactions? Does the unbanning bring new and relevant threats into the mix? If the move was unhealthy and added nothing to the game it shouldn't be done at all, but by your own admission, lifting the clause actually brings relevant threats into the meta, so this is not a point easily dismissed.

[syrim]

Originally Posted by Fat Bent1ey

This is unnacurate, each new game makes tiers shift. Evidently the formats aren't purely dependant on GF or anything like that, but to think Smogon's tiers get their legitimacy by being completly independant is delirious. I think that the opposite is true, the tier system works because it brings balance and it stays true to the spirit of the game. And arguably there is no tier closer to the game itself than Ubers, since it doesn't embrace as many bannings. Then again, this is merely an anecdotic point and not and argument that has direct bearings in our current discussion, but since it got addressed twice, I thought I would clarify.

Firstly, your partial quotes leave out the majority of my argument. My point about our tiers being independent was in direct reference to VGC being the only directly endorsed metagame. We make up arbitrary rules, tiers and clause. Even if a newly released game shifts these rules, they are still entirely designed and applied by smogon players. Nintendo does not release bullet punch scizor to make it viable for OU play on smogon, as they only endorse one competitive aspect of the video games.

My claim, as you call it, was meant to target players who are tempted to vote for or against a particulary suspect by principle. As you stated yourself, everyone should choose use their experience to test if the metagame was decent enough, had enough different threats and was fun enough to play, if the threats seemed fair and balanced or if the luck factor was sent through the roof by using those moves. Whether the moves are acceptable in the format or not, should not be purely based in a context of "how good" the format currently is, but also on how the testing goes. Since the Ubers format is actually a very good one, the temptation of leaving it as it is "because it's good already", may be appealing to some. I was just asking people to judge by your experience in the ladder and not to rely too heavily in the previous format -which is bound to happen to some level anyways-.

I don't see how this is applicable at all, since you are stating that players should decide for themselves, which is exactly what this incredibly broad suspect testing process is intended to do, and has done so far. People posting their opinions, based on actual testing and first hand experience, gives them the right to say "'howgood'" a strategy, pokemon, or move is in ubers.

This goes to prove that OHKO moves bring some valid strategies that can flourish into the metagame. If it was just about the novelty value or the strategies that will phase out, the OHKO experience would be pointless to unban, but when good strategies settle they actually cause important and meaningful metagame shifts it's worth exploring and not purely and argument about hax.


Since you've played against those threats I feel like asking you directly: are those spinners too broken for Ubers?

Since you've essentially reversed the positon you took in your first post, that OHKO moves would die out because of metagame shifts and admitted that a good strategy's existence can alter the metagame there's not too much to say. The intelligent use of OHKO moves results in OHKOs that are actually statistically likely versus defensive and balanced teams, so it has never been "and not purely and argument about hax".

If you refer the the "Portrait of an Uber" post by Jumpman16, you'll realize that excadrill fits the bill, going by standard ou banning procedure as you later state you want, in more ways than one. It beats a significant portion of its counters with little effort, cannot be predicted against safely, and makes it much easier for teammates to win by removing the hazards that let some uber pokemon be checked.

Did I claim Stall was dominant? If I did it, I'll gladly drop that point.

Once again you've essentially agreed with me. The diversity I harped on in my post you quoted certain parts of means on its own that no one style is dominant, that they are all viable and capable of winning consistently at the highest level of play. The fact that OHKO removes this is not simply an indicator that we want things to remain the same, as you seem to be convinced, but is the best show of these moves potential power, and the metagame results that come as a result of the threat this power allows them to pose.

This argument seems to be making the claim that since Ubers has an static pool of pokes, it should benefit from a different set of considerations when it comes to the banning and unbanning process. I'm just advocating for applying the standard Smogon criteria to rule this potential unbanning.

Some people seem to think that the clause unbanning is an special kind of unbanning and should be threated differently somehow. This touches to the principle logic I refuse to endulge when it comes to this discussion. I don't think you're really claming that though.

I think that your argument is that the unbanning would make the metagame less "healthy", that it will have a negative impact in the meta. As far as I know, there is some tolerance to these "unhealthy" moves, is the new format still healthy enough to warrant nice interactions? Does the unbanning bring new and relevant threats into the mix? If the move was unhealthy and added nothing to the game it shouldn't be done at all, but by your own admission, lifting the clause actually brings relevant threats into the meta, so this is not a point easily dismissed.

We have applied the same exact criteria, as I mentioned above, for suspect testing as the other tiers do. Once again, you've both misconstrued and yet agreed with my original point. Through testing and actual experience, many users have realized that relying on defensively oriented switch ins, or even carrying pokemon that let OHKO users set up, is a mistake in this metagame. So, the pool of viable pokemon, and the playstyles these pokemon enable, is reduced. If you consider that the only viable ohko user who doesn't already see significant play is Lapras, as gliscor, kyogre, excadrill, and even gastrodon see use, then the admission of these moves into ubers objectively lowers the potential diversity for a player aiming to beat all team types consistently.

[Bent1ey]

First of all, excuse me from cutting up your post, but for space proposes and the fact this discussion is already occupying a good chunk of this thread I rather just address a certain number of points that I think deserve consideration rather than extending myself over everything.

The truth is, your stance is entirely reasonable so I don't see the point of disagreeing with you. I do believe that you can reach an entirely different conclusion from the same data, without really betraying the spirit of the unbannings. It wasn't my intention from the beginning but since you've come to illustrate the opposite point, I think the discussion was all the more valuable to anyone who cared to read it.

Anyways, I want to focus just in a few points of what you said, since it sums up everything pretty well.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

If you refer the the "Portrait of an Uber" post by Jumpman16, you'll realize that excadrill fits the bill, going by standard ou banning procedure as you later state you want, in more ways than one. It beats a significant portion of its counters with little effort, cannot be predicted against safely, and makes it much easier for teammates to win by removing the hazards that let some uber pokemon be checked.

Excadrill is literaly the counter of a counter of a counter. If you feel that it's ability to defeat the conventional spin-blockers actually means it has no counters and thus is overpowered/unfair, then voting to ban OHKOs because Excadrill -or others- is reasonable.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

Once again you've essentially agreed with me. The diversity I harped on in my post you quoted certain parts of means on its own that no one style is dominant, that they are all viable and capable of winning consistently at the highest level of play.

I'd argue that there is no reason for every style to be viable and capable of winning, just by looking at the other formats you can tell this has no bearings on the Suspect votings.

Originally Posted by Fat syrim

So, the pool of viable pokemon, and the playstyles these pokemon enable, is reduced. If you consider that the only viable ohko user who doesn't already see significant play is Lapras, as gliscor, kyogre, excadrill, and even gastrodon see use, then the admission of these moves into ubers objectively lowers the potential diversity for a player aiming to beat all team types consistently.

The fact that Gliscor, Excadrill and Gastrodon see some play suddenly rules out the possibility of them adding diversity by gaining a significant importance in the metagame? I'm not sure that's exactly how that works. If these pokemon are a bigger influence in the meta new counters could be added from the lower tiers, since their BST isn't all that high. There are many things that objectively lower the potential diversity of the game, one of them is simply having more powerful pokemon in a single format, the weaker ones are hurt by extension.

I suppose that using niche answers to certain threats could be seen as an indicator of a problem, but since we're introducing a new kind of offense, it's kind of expected to produce a new kind of answer. Because as I stated already, we want the OHKO moves to matter.

[Poppy]

I don't recommend continuing this argument when you clearly have not had any practical experience with the tier. Moreover, Excadrill isn't counterless per se, but it is impossible to stop spinning with anything close to a semblance of reliability; Skarmory can still wall it, but it can spin, which is defensive Excadrill's primary purpose.

It's not a matter of using new Pokemon to counter these threats (I don't think such Pokemon exist in lower tiers, but that's beside the point), it's that bringing OHKO moves invalidates a playstyle, and objectively secures another as the best one; stall suffers, offense becomes the best.

This just brings us back to the point many have raised throughout the thread - do we go for a metagame wherein we attempt to unban anything that is 'not broken'? Or a metagame which we find to be enjoyable and diverse (without modifying it too heavily, as we are metagaming, not creating a new game). You will find that a lot of people enjoy the current diversity of Ubers so making it into such a narrow tier might not be the best of ideas, regardless of how philosphically sound it is.

edit: @ below, as I said - You will find that a lot of people enjoy the current diversity of Ubers so making it into such a narrow tier might not be the best of ideas, regardless of how philosphically sound it is.

It might be nonsensical by principle and philosophy, but that does not mean it's something to just let through. Why ruin a metagame based on its initial criterion of being a 'banlist' for the sake of preserving an outdated philosophy? It might be no different to metagame defining Pokemon (although it is in that they don't invalidate playstyles) but the point is that allowing anything and everything will turn Ubers into a chaotic tier; again - Do we go for a metagame wherein we attempt to unban anything that is 'not broken'? Or a metagame which we find to be enjoyable and diverse?

In this case, I'm for the latter.

[Ghostbone]

Tbh I find the whole argument of OHKO moves limiting playstyles in ubers to be nonsensical.
Ubers is a tier where there isn't supposed to be any balancing occuring, and many of the pokemon themselves limit playstyles/viable options. (that's why they're banned from OU, though I will admit OU itself is a clusterfuck atm and ubers probably has more variety).
If OHKO moves limit the metagame than so be it, ubers should never be against metagame defining forces by principle. If sub/fissure excadrill forces Giratina to run an air balloon to spin block (though to be fair giratina already loses to subSD exca), I don't see how that's much different from Kyogre basically forcing any offensive team to run Palkia/Latias.
OHKO moves might limit variety, but so do many other strategies and pokemon in ubers, I don't really see the difference there.

Other arguments are still valid, this one just stands out to me as not making any sense.

[Windsong]

Wasn't the ladder screen supposed to be taken a few hours ago?...



called me superman and I think OHKO moves are somewhat dumb. :)

[bojangles**]

I actually took a screenshot of the top 100 just before midnight last night. We are just deciding whether we need to change the reqs or the deadline because of the hurricane.

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by Fat tehy

Edit: Nightmare, what defines "out of hand"? Let's say there is an option, any time in the game, to just click a button and have a 10% chance to win, but a 90% chance to lose. It's not really out of hand-you can only lose 10% of the time. Only problem is, it would just rob good players of winning. And the example you gave is perfect-the metagame CAN adjust. I could run, say, restalk celebi with psychic, HP fire, and recover. Or restalk salamence. Or restalk Heracross/kyogre for darkrai. And i haven't even begun to talk about random lum berries.Forcing the metagame to adjust to them would be very stupid, but very possible.

Out of hand generally means it's generally stupidly hard to deal with. For example, Dark Void in Double Battles (much as I hate to say it as it's one of my faves yes it's broken), the 70% usage on Garchomp in B/W, Soul Dew Lati@s, No Sleep Clause Poison Heal Breloom, things like that. I don't think the first reaction is "it should be banned" because something is undesirable or even a slight bit OP (like example, Drizzle and Swift Swim. I don't know who came up with that idea, but I've always found it managable). I think if you're going to ban something, it is a last resort and has to be clearly, overwhelmingly overpowered or something's wrong.

I know OHKO's aren't the most desirable things around, but hey, it takes Pokemon like Lapras and Walrein and gets them out of NU. Also, aren't there a few complaints about stall being generally nonviable lately? When you artificially ban things these kinds of situations occur.

Might be getting a bit off topic here, but let's take the most broken of all games in terms of usage and strategies: Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Does it mean the rest of the characters are unusable: No, I've found a way to win using lesser known characters (yes, it takes work, and I may not be able to beat Justin Wong, lol). But it is possible because something is unexplored or untapped in potential. I think it's the same difference here.

Just my 2C.

-James

[TropiOUs]

Reqs screenshot

---

As you can see I'm duty calls. I rarely played against OHKO moves, but I still believe they bring nothing positive to the meta and make something already amazing like Kyogre harder to stop if luck is on your side.

I got them yesterday at like 6 pm gmt-6, just took my screenshot today because I didn't see the alt id thread.

[Go10]

Originally Posted by Fat bojangles

I actually took a screenshot of the top 100 just before midnight last night. We are just deciding whether we need to change the reqs or the deadline because of the hurricane.

Make it 1950, I wasnt able to make it in time because of the hurricane

Ps : im lieutenant biceps ! Played poppy and cie a lot of times huehuehue

[Ojama]

hello

[tehy]

Originally Posted by Fat Nightmare

Out of hand generally means it's generally stupidly hard to deal with. For example, Dark Void in Double Battles (much as I hate to say it as it's one of my faves yes it's broken), the 70% usage on Garchomp in B/W, Soul Dew Lati@s, No Sleep Clause Poison Heal Breloom, things like that. I don't think the first reaction is "it should be banned" because something is undesirable or even a slight bit OP (like example, Drizzle and Swift Swim. I don't know who came up with that idea, but I've always found it managable). I think if you're going to ban something, it is a last resort and has to be clearly, overwhelmingly overpowered or something's wrong.

I know OHKO's aren't the most desirable things around, but hey, it takes Pokemon like Lapras and Walrein and gets them out of NU. Also, aren't there a few complaints about stall being generally nonviable lately? When you artificially ban things these kinds of situations occur.

Might be getting a bit off topic here, but let's take the most broken of all games in terms of usage and strategies: Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Does it mean the rest of the characters are unusable: No, I've found a way to win using lesser known characters (yes, it takes work, and I may not be able to beat Justin Wong, lol). But it is possible because something is unexplored or untapped in potential. I think it's the same difference here.

Just my 2C.

-James

But that's the problem. What IS stupidly out of hand? Darkrai has many great checks and even semi-counters, like restalk Cmogre, or restalk hera, or hydration manaphy in rain. You mention breloom? Xatu hard counters it and still can play a valuable role, even in ubers. Sigilyph can do the same in lower tiers, and anyhow in ubers things are generally faster than loom and more likely to be able to OHKO it. Breloom can even be setup bait, in the form of Lum SubDD intimidate mence-i've never seen it used, but you can bet your ass it would be if sleep clause were gone and loom was really good. Bottom line is, the metagame can adjust to just about anything, including no sleep clause spore/dark void users. And i don't think walrein and lapras will ever be out of NU-stallrein works because it can take a single hit from most OU threats and sub, but ubers have higher attack stats and stronger moves, so that might not even be viable. And as interesting as hydra rest sheer cold lapras is, it's not that hard of a strategy to beat-it's like manaphy in the weather dependence, but without the ability to sweep a team quite so hard. Logically speaking, sleep is arguably LESS out of hand than ohko's. It's got several abilities, a move, and two items that block it. OHKO moves have one ability. OHKO abilities are less threatening, but sleep is much easier to play around. The only way to block OHKO moves is with sturdy, which basically means you switch a steel with 70/70 or 70/60 Special defenses into a pokemon with 150 Spatk that is, at the very least, running an attack with 180 power that has a 30% chance to burn.

[Great Sage**]

In view of various difficulties that have cropped up for various reasons, we are adopting a uniform policy to special applications this round. In order to apply for special permission to vote, you must have met the deviation requirement or have at least 100 rated battles. In your application, you will note your Glicko2 rating, and you will submit answers to this examination. There are 200 points available; each point you earn converts to a point on your Glicko2 rating. If the combined score is at least 2000, you will earn voting privileges.

This is due at 11:59:59 EST on Friday, November 9. You may consult textbooks or non-social websites. You may not discuss the questions or answers with anyone else. If we find that you have cheated, you will be permanently banned from all Smogon venues.

EDIT: There was a rather significant typo in question 4; it was supposed to be "superior", not "inferior". Thankfully, question 4 is also trivial, so it shouldn't be too big of a bother. Sorry for any confusion!

[Heist]

LOL u have got to be joking

[Pocket]

not sure if serious... :o

EDIT: I guess this is a more objective special app than what we usually have rofl

[Jukain]

echoing the sentiments of the two posters above me, this is really strange

[Aqualouis]

The hell is that ?
Sorry to ask, it's probably stupid but if I already got a glicko2 rating of 2000+ with a deviation of 55, am i supposed to answer that ?

[Pocket]

No, this is a special app, so I assume it's for those who haven't met the reqs on time. This test will provide them the extra credits to bump their glicko rating. Creative indeed!