Arceus & the Uber metagame

[capefeather]

Actually, I don't see why we shouldn't ban anything that's not a Pokémon from Ubers, whether Arceus is banned or not. We're already doing it with the clauses.

 

[locopoke]

We've already banned shit in Ubers (Evasion, OHKO moves, duplicate Pokemon and probably Inconsistent and Shadow Tag in the future) so we've already taken away the "purity" of Ubers. What's stopping us from adding to the current Ubers ban list to make it a better metagame? If people want Ubers to be pure then I suggest unbanning everything ("Street Pokemon") and having that be treated as Ubers (and take it out of all official tournaments). At that point we can recreate the current Uber metagame with Evasion Clause, OHKO Clause, Species Clause and other bans that we deem necessary for a competitive "Ubers" metagame.

 

[cim]

We've already banned shit in Ubers (Evasion, OHKO moves, duplicate Pokemon

These are not bans. These are rules and alternate win conditions.

Saying "duplicate Pokemon" is a ban is like saying "you're only allowed to draw 2 cards in Poker" is a ban on drawing more than 2 cards. Yes it prohibits drawing two cards, but it's a rule of the game, not a disallowed strategy.

Evasion and OHKO are alternate win conditions - "If your opponent uses these moves they lose the game". They could potentially be strategically incorporated into a team, as far fetched as it seems (say an anti-Mimic measure or something).

Not everything we require is a ban...

 

[capefeather]

I actually don't quite understand the distinction being made between Evasion/OHKO clauses and bans. If you use an Evasion or OHKO move, you're disqualified? OK. If your team contains Arceus, you're disqualified, too.

 

[cim]

Teams with Arceus cannot enter battle.

In "proper" implementation, you are permitted to battle with Evasion or OHKO moves, but executing the move will result in a forfeit. That means there are (far fetched) strategic implications.

Pedantic, yes - but not a ban, just a rule. If the moves were to fail for whatever reason, you could use them!

 

[eric the espeon]

As I have always seen it explained Evasion and OHKO clauses are bans on sets of moves, never alternate win conditions. This is a vastly simpler implementation, does not introduce artificial and unnecessary elements of luck, and does not require extra win conditions. If you could link to an adequate source which shows Evasions and OHKO to be win conditions rather than bans I would be less inclined to believe you are very authoritatively stating something which is not backed up by any evidence (and indeed, is nothing more than a personal opinion) because it suits your argument.

Several non-Pokemon game elements are banned from Ubers already (though, interestingly, the most popular battling sever currently does not share this philosophy). This does not mean it is automatically fair game to ban Pokemon as well. Ubers could very well be taken as the metagame where no Pokemon are banned, not the metagame with no bans of any kind.

 

[TAY]

Teams with Arceus cannot enter battle.

In "proper" implementation, you are permitted to battle with Evasion or OHKO moves, but executing the move will result in a forfeit. That means there are (far fetched) strategic implications.

Pedantic, yes - but not a ban, just a rule. If the moves were to fail for whatever reason, you could use them!

The difference is practically irrelevant. I don't know why you bother making and defending this argument, when all it does is distract discussion from the topic of the thread.

Anyway, the whole point of playing pokemon is obviously to have fun. If ubers is clearly more fun for 95% (or whatever) of players with arceus gone, then just ban arceus. We now have a banned list separate from ubers. Is that a problem for some reason?

Also Chou's post was definitely great, but tbh I don't see a need to further complicate the issue just so "everyone is satisfied" or whatever.