1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!

A Plea For Less Conservative Suspect Testing

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by MikeDawg, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. Chaoswalker

    Chaoswalker

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    713
    1. I agree with the OP.

    2. To everything else going on, There's a lot of arguing about what is too far and what isn't, when the actual desire of near all here can be summed up in two sentences: We want a metagame that is varied. We want as few bans as possible. This simply means banning the fewest, largest problem factor that removes the fewest Pokemon. In fact, I think the OP addresses this well by proposing more move,ability, and item bans. It gives a new angle to attack the problem from.

    EDIT: fixed some wording
  2. alexwolf

    alexwolf King of Conquerors
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,365
    Wow i guess you guys must think of me as a really conservative person when it comes to banning, but actually i am not, as long as i think that the Pokemon/move/combo/whatever in question is one of the things that make the metagame less enjoyable.

    The thing with suspect testing is that it must be done for the right reasons, and this is why we have the council. Leaving up to the vocal majority to decide what is good to be suspected and what isn't doesn't work and this is why we have the system we do now. I don't oppose suspect tests that happen with the right justification (obviously right is a very subjective term), i oppose suspect tests that happen for all the wrong reasons.
  3. Curtains

    Curtains

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,123
    The issue I see with banning moves is that you really aren't creating a more varied game. Say for instance that we ban Quiver Dance.... That would make volcarona,venomoth and liligant less viable in OU. Say if we banned pursuit....that would make lati@s a lot better for sure and make tyranitar much less useful. To go the route of banning moves to save the pokemon may not actually increase variety in ou but make those that are just on the edge of becoming viable not be worth using.
  4. Deluks917

    Deluks917 Ride on Shooting Star
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    330
    In terms of pokemon usage BW is the least centralized of any of the generation's OU. By a huge margin. So if you beleive ADV/DPP are better than BW you cannot believe the reaosn is too much "centralization."
  5. MikeDawg

    MikeDawg contrary to popular belief, I do not bring the mosh
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    661
    The goal isn't neccesarily to create a varied metagame, it's to create a competitive, skill-based one. Hazards can be said to be detrimental to this as they inhibit switching and thereby prediction from occuring. The same is the case with trapping. Weather can be problematic as it eccentuates team matchup. These are all things that should have to capacitance to be suspected in some regard. Obviously some hazards may be insignificantly affecting the meta enough to remain, others may not. Some trappers may not make a big difference. Etc.

    Thus, we need to target the harmful concepts ALONGSIDE the broken pokes, and suspect testing can help determine which abusers of said concepts do indeed need to be banned
  6. Organization Member XIV

    Organization Member XIV

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    669
    You can say the same thing about DrizzleSwim. While it is not nearly the same thing as banning moves, banning the combination of abilities decreased the variety in OU by making Pokemon such as Kabutops and Kingdra worse in OU, subsequently dropping tiers. However, it was still banned because it was inherently broken. The problem is that you can't overlook banning or not banning something simply because it would decrease variety if said suspect is inherently broken.
  7. Chaoswalker

    Chaoswalker

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    713
    That happens when you ban... anything. Removing any significant factor will make some things more viable, and others less viable. The question is if the factor in question is suppressing more things than it supports.

    I believe the two can be friends. If anyone isn't familiar with the idea of dominant strategy, it's simply that if there is a "best way to win" it will be what most, if not all players use. Since there is already an easy top performing method, why explore anything else? I understand that skill and variety aren't hand in hand in all situations. For example, chess is the same setup every time but can be played with very high degrees of skill. I know pokemon tiers will never be reduced to 20 pokemon, but as others mentioned previously there is a tendency for most OU teams to run Politoed+3 top abusers.
  8. gsumbreon

    gsumbreon

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    I think something that everyone seems to forget is that there's a certain point where banlists start to collapse under their own weight. If a list is too large, are you still even playing the same game anymore? The smaller the list, the less there is to keep track of, and the less headaches it causes. No one likes banning things. The real problem is that the power creep is so large that things that would have been immediately labeled "Uber" in earlier gens are now everywhere, blurring that line that used to be very clear-cut. Those standards have to be flexible. Gamefreak does what they can to try to balance out their own metagame, which isn't too different from ours.

    This paragraph may cause a flame war, and I'd rather not start one, but this needs to be said. Another thing I'd like to point out is that the general community is not privy to making these decisions. As bad as you think something like VoltTurn or Stealth Rock might be for the game, there's a certain skill level that is required to vote on these sorts of things. This means that anyone who isn't among the best of the current ladder has no real right to complain about these decisions. There's ways to play around moves. Entry Hazards also mess with VoltTurn. Rapid Spin exists for entry hazards. Ghost types exist for Rapid Spin. If you can't deal with these things, you lose, and everyone loses sometimes. How often you lose is based on how good you are with the tools available to you. The banlist only exists because some things are impossible to fairly play against, but not everything falls into this category and a lot of players can't tell the difference between "impossible to deal with" and "I don't like dealing with".

    Gamefreak also changes up mechanics and rules if they feel that something's getting abused too hard in the VGC metagame. I wouldn't be surprised if they nerf permanent weather based on the VGC meta, which is essentially Rain/Sand/Trick Room. They also flat-out banned most legendaries, including Keldeo. While our meta is 1v1 and theirs is 2v2, there's enough similarities between the two metas for comparisons to be made. While we don't have Victini, Celebi, Mew, or Jirachi in Uber, they're certainly strong contenders in their respective tiers. I think that moving forward, some of the VGC decisions should be considered when we make our banlist.

    My only complaint with the current system is that the process feels too long. Personally, I think Keldeo is bannable, but we won't actually see that happen for at LEAST a month. That's most of my summer spent playing games, anticipating a ban, and yet having to sit and wait for the Lanodorus-I decision to finish first, THEN the Keldeo suspect can START. I would be supportive of at least 2 suspect tests happening at once. But I understand why the current system exists (see first paragraph), and I'm largely content with how Smogon handles the banlist.

    TL;DR Version: Bad players don't get to make decisions, and a lot of the proposed bans/suspects are from bad players. There's a reason you need to be good to vote on bans, as that's a big decision. Things will not be banned just because you don't like them. However, I think that looking at the VGC banlist is a good place to start for the future. The suspect process takes a long time, and that can be a pain, but its necessary to prevent trigger-happy people from unneeded bans to make sure the list is no bigger than it needs to be.
  9. Lady Alex

    Lady Alex This game sucks. Ban everything and it might not.

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    567
    I just want to point out that not being an eligible voter doesn't mean that you're unable to point out something you find to be broken and present legitimate reasoning behind it. If someone who wasn't a regular suspect voter brought up a great reason as to why Keldeo shouldn't be banned (good luck with that), what they say could very well influence how I vote. I don't care that they don't vote in the suspect tests. Even if they're a bad player, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have a well-grounded knowledge of the metagame. Also, "impossible to deal with," isn't a necessary criteria to suspect something. If it were, nothing would be banned. Something doesn't have to achieve shaymin-S levels of broken to be worth suspecting.
  10. MikeDawg

    MikeDawg contrary to popular belief, I do not bring the mosh
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    661
    I think this needs to be re-iterated:

    This thead is not about MORE bans; it's about different ones

    In fact, it's not even so much about bans at all, rather suspect tests.

    Conservative is referring to traditional suspects (ie. pokemon) whereas less conservative is referring to most everything mentioned in this thread (moves, abilities, etc.)
  11. vyomov

    vyomov

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    841
    I completely agree with the idea of less conservative suspect testing, it's time we brought in some flexibility into the suspect system.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)