Great idea. I'd love to join in. I'm not that popular but I can tell you that I'm constantly on the ladder in the high 1900's and I can safely say I know this metagame pretty well. Hopefully this will stop arguements going in circles.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
A Debate Game Interest / (Sign-Up?) Thread
- Thread starter kd24
- Start date
- Status
So, is this ever happening?
I am interested in doing this, I have voted in all bw2 suspect tests and have tried to participate in most of the suspect discussion threads and #suspect discussions. I would like to think I also have the weight of experience in tournament and ladder play validating my opinions on suspects.
I also support word limits if there is a trend of very very long posts. Ideally one would be able to establish and support their claims in under 600 words.
Here is a fallacy that is quite common in pokemon discussions, the damage calculator fallacy. Basically a user lists a whole bunch of damage calculations in order to prove that a pokemon is A) too weak or B) too strong. This line of reasoning ignores the practical issues encountered (or not encountered) when using a pokemon.
I also support word limits if there is a trend of very very long posts. Ideally one would be able to establish and support their claims in under 600 words.
Here is a fallacy that is quite common in pokemon discussions, the damage calculator fallacy. Basically a user lists a whole bunch of damage calculations in order to prove that a pokemon is A) too weak or B) too strong. This line of reasoning ignores the practical issues encountered (or not encountered) when using a pokemon.
This seems like a complicated issue. Damage calculations can be used as supplemental evidence to an argument - for example, damage calculations with Volcarona can supplement an argument that Volcarona is rather easy to set up and wins games after a boost. Damage calculations alone can't be used as an argument though. I could list a bunch of damage calculations with Rampardos's CB Head Smash and say "omg broken" and that would be a bullshit argument. Basically, a damage calculation used effectively can be part of a great argument, and a damage calculation used poorly can be a terrible argument bordering on a fallacy.
Calculations are fine and can sometimes be used to great effect, but some people like to perform them with EV spreads pulled out off their ass. I remember in the Tornadus-T discussion thread how suddenly it seemed that tons of pokemon could suddenly survive the Hurricane spam, until it was pointed out that it would be pretty unviable for the said pokemon to invest so much in bulk and defense.....
Ok, it'll be a rain debate thread to start, I think it would be better for it to be open debate with a strike system for those who use logical fallacies or respond idiotically
lonelyness, ojama, bkc, alexwolf, lavos spawn, badass, jpw234, yee, myzozoa, the great mighty doom
we've picked these 10 guys to start it out, based on experience, potential, or credentials. if discussion becomes 1 sided, we'll step in to pose questions or raise the dissenting viewpoints. expect a thread soon after all the details have been posted.
lonelyness, ojama, bkc, alexwolf, lavos spawn, badass, jpw234, yee, myzozoa, the great mighty doom
we've picked these 10 guys to start it out, based on experience, potential, or credentials. if discussion becomes 1 sided, we'll step in to pose questions or raise the dissenting viewpoints. expect a thread soon after all the details have been posted.
debate will start in a separate thread.
Ur free toshit talk Pocket chat in here till its up tho
Ur free to
yea thats sorta why I left this thread open. Don't attempt to influence the debate tho with your thoughts here, your merely spectators.
Okay cool, there's a few things I want to comment about.
First thing that's hopping out at me and is bothering me is how one-sided this debate is. I'm not talking about one side having the stronger arguments just one side having all of the defenders so far we have seen the opinions of:
Both yee and lonelyness have yet to post but I remember yee being Pro Ban as well. (no clue what LN is) This means we only have 2-3 of the 10 debaters defending Rain in OU with everybody else promoting a ban. (exception of Myzozoa who is neutral)
Overall, I think what really disappoints me about this thread is that we are discussing Rain in general instead of in relation to the metagame and that is resulting in skipping multiple logical steps. For the most part, I feel the thread consists of "Rain provides X boost" "Rain is therefore match-up reliant" "A metagame that is match-up reliant is undesirable therefore we should ban Rain". It doesn't talk about how the X boost provided by Rain when applied to the metagame is resulting in situations that create a match-up reliant metagame. Basically, what Myzozoa laid out in his post should be used by the pro-ban side to build their arguments. (which so far it hasn't happened) I feel like the thread could be discussing Stealth Rock instead of Drizzle and not change a thing except for the details that are being nitpicked.
That said, BKC did hit on something that I really liked when he compared BW to previous generations and how the mindset in battling and teambuilding changes. I think this comment can be fleshed out to really show just how rain is creating "a situation in which team match-up becomes the greatest factor determining victory."
First thing that's hopping out at me and is bothering me is how one-sided this debate is. I'm not talking about one side having the stronger arguments just one side having all of the defenders so far we have seen the opinions of:
- Ojama - against a ban (I thought I remember him being for Rain's ban before so I'm not sure if he's playing the devil's advocate or I'm just remembering wrong)
- BKC - Pro Ban
- alexwolf - against a ban
- lavos spawn - Pro Ban
- badass - Pro Ban
- jpw234 - Pro Ban
- myzozoa - neutral (he also made the best post IMO but more on that later)
- TGMD - Pro Ban
Both yee and lonelyness have yet to post but I remember yee being Pro Ban as well. (no clue what LN is) This means we only have 2-3 of the 10 debaters defending Rain in OU with everybody else promoting a ban. (exception of Myzozoa who is neutral)
Overall, I think what really disappoints me about this thread is that we are discussing Rain in general instead of in relation to the metagame and that is resulting in skipping multiple logical steps. For the most part, I feel the thread consists of "Rain provides X boost" "Rain is therefore match-up reliant" "A metagame that is match-up reliant is undesirable therefore we should ban Rain". It doesn't talk about how the X boost provided by Rain when applied to the metagame is resulting in situations that create a match-up reliant metagame. Basically, what Myzozoa laid out in his post should be used by the pro-ban side to build their arguments. (which so far it hasn't happened) I feel like the thread could be discussing Stealth Rock instead of Drizzle and not change a thing except for the details that are being nitpicked.
That said, BKC did hit on something that I really liked when he compared BW to previous generations and how the mindset in battling and teambuilding changes. I think this comment can be fleshed out to really show just how rain is creating "a situation in which team match-up becomes the greatest factor determining victory."
I think that he was Pro-Ban before Torna-T was.
Huh? This is one of the issues I talked about in my post and I explained it, guess I wasn't clear enough, lol. Basically we're all saying rain is a huge contributing factor to a matchup reliant metagame because you spread yourself far too thin in team building. Obviously you want to try and check everything, but ATM that's impossible, there will always be huge threats and there will always be teams that will simply destroy you, those matchups are the ones that cause the metagame to be too matchup reliant. Rain puts a bigger strain on team building than anything as out there, it forces you to run at least two water resists, and you have to make them extra good against common threats like Keldeo. Not only will there be so many other teams out there that will destroy you if you over prepare for rain, but there are a select few mons that can take care of rain well enough, these mons are well known and are often exploited. Remove rain from the equation, can't spread yourself as thin, and team matchup will rarely be one sided and not as much of an issue overall.
I was looking more for OU specific examples because you could technically get away with one water resist if the guy is really bulky (if he existed) and the rest of the team outspeeds, isn't too water weak, etc. etc. Rain is being talked about in general when team matchup isn't an inherent characteristic of the ability. It's just another potential factor (arguably the key one) in the metagame that it is present in. So I guess what I want to know is why is it in the current BW2 OU metagame you need two resists and how is it that the presence of Rain introduces too many new threats? (with specific examples because having Rain Dish doesn't make you OU worthy and learning Hydro Pump doesn't mean Celebi can't hard counter you)
Politoed, Keldeo, Starmie, etc can all rip teams apart with their Hydro Pumps. They can all get past Celebi: Specs Keldeo under rain can 2HKO Specially Defensive Celebi after Stealth Rock, all three can run Hidden Power [Bug] (this is very viable), etc. If you don't have at least two water resists you're simply too weak to rain, you will be over powered by the rain boosted hits coming your way, eg. if you only have one it will probably die on the second or third switch in, because their Hydro pumps still 2hko many resists without the help of Special Defense investment, and then every time their Hydro spammer comes out something dies on your team. I'm sorry I didn't put much effort into this post, Smogon Tour is about to start.
I understand, all I'm saying is I think the arguments in the debate thread (what I'm asking for here isn't important so a summary is fine) should really go into depth on the number of Pokemon in the tier that benefit from Rain. Comparing the number to the overall number of OU viable mons, their list of counters and how well those counters perform etc. (to look to see if one mon can handle most rain mons or if multiple team slots have to be devoted) Basically, I'm interested in seeing more discussion about Rain and the metagame instead of Rain in general. This'll make it clear why Rain is the culprit (and not just the introduction of many new threats like Alexwolf suggests) and even why original teams suffer from it etc. etc. Again, I really like Myzozoa's post and I think using the steps he laid out can help form really convincing arguments. (Otherwise many members will feel Rain is just another victim of a witch-hunt to fix OU)
The part I dont get about that is you're jsut basically arguing that nothing can truly counter the best OU rain sweepers. Well fine, but we've had to revise the definition of broken a ton this gen as just about every top OU offensive threat has no hard counters. Keldeo I actually dont see as that bad--celebi, jellicent, latias all do a damn good job stopping it, and while keldeo can potentially 2HKO celebi after rocks, that requires prediction and even so barely 2HKOs, leaving you locked into a weak attack while they switch out and can heal up bi later (and I don't think it's within deo's ability to beat either of the other two i mentioned. And like--can you name ANYTHING that can, for example, switch into terrakion or kyub with absolute security? I can't. This doesnt really feel like an argument for brokenness imo.
Secondly, about the team matchup issue. I agree that one quality of a good meta is that the better player wins more of the time --> lower team matchup factor. I gotta say though, this feels a bit inconsistent to me though--by this reasoning, why not change the way the game works so that everyone uses the same team so not team matchup at all? And isnt team-building jsut as real a skill as battling? Creating a team that has a good amtchup vs common team styles doesnt sound broken to me--it just sounds like an example of a skilled team-builder. Why shouldn't we want this? After all, we celebrate teambuilding skill as much as straight-out battling skill--if we truly want to eliminate team matchup, why not limit everyone to a set of teams that are evaluated to be equally matched? Isnt someone making a really good team giving them an unfair advantage?
Secondly, about the team matchup issue. I agree that one quality of a good meta is that the better player wins more of the time --> lower team matchup factor. I gotta say though, this feels a bit inconsistent to me though--by this reasoning, why not change the way the game works so that everyone uses the same team so not team matchup at all? And isnt team-building jsut as real a skill as battling? Creating a team that has a good amtchup vs common team styles doesnt sound broken to me--it just sounds like an example of a skilled team-builder. Why shouldn't we want this? After all, we celebrate teambuilding skill as much as straight-out battling skill--if we truly want to eliminate team matchup, why not limit everyone to a set of teams that are evaluated to be equally matched? Isnt someone making a really good team giving them an unfair advantage?
jpw234
Catastrophic Event Specialist
Kidogo, on what you said about team matchup - there is a distinction between the argument others are making and just being a better teambuilder. While those who are more skilled can create teams which have fewer weaknesses than noobish battlers, the argument is that any team of style X, regardless of tiny variations within it or different skill levels of battler using X, will be weak to style Y - examples being rain stall v sand stall, etc. I think the reason it's bad is because the matchup difficulties are on the level of strategy, rather than individual pokemon.
For the record Lonelyness is heavily pro-ban
OK it may be true that some team styles have inherently unbalanced matchups vs each other. However, this doesnt explain my main question: if what we really want is a meta in which matchup isnt an issue, then why dont we do what I said and let everyone choose from a set of evenly matched (or mirror matched) teams? I dont think that we really want that, but I see it as a logical extension. It seems to me an inherent feature of pokemon that team matchups will exist, not as the fault of rain in particular; this is partially why so much thought goes into team selection and creation for tournament matches, trying to find something that will work well vs what the opp could bring. What is the evidence that rain in particular causes this kind of one-sided matchup?
- Status