Baton Pass. Yes, again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
#76
Hi
I don't think there is any baton pass related strategy that is broken after we ban speed boost +BP
If there is then enlighten me
Dice how does that matter when we can just nerf it???



We are just banning what is uncompetitive
There is no reason to ban baton pass itself
 
#79
because it's been established that, as a whole, complex bans suck as evidenced in literally every thread we've ever made wrt ban policy
ok so it seems bans et al should be made on a case-by-case basis then as this particular bp issue would be solved much easier with a "complex ban" than the typical blanket ban process.

as it has been echoed time and again in this thread, speed boost + passing is very clearly the issue here, and invoking that ban seems like it would affect nothing else going forward.

im kinda running out of steam replying here though to be honest. i dont think there is anything else i can exhaust to make it clear that a simple speed boost + bp ban (IF ANYTHING) is the most obvious and sensible ban if one is to occur.

for what it's worth im not as pro-bp as it may seem, just more anti-banningShitBasedOnEmotionsOverLogicOrJustBecause

EDIT: Another post (by Jasper) I'd like to rehash here that I stand behind, especially the parts in bold:

He is responding to Aberforth's quote here:

“Drypassing is, admittedly, a non-broken strategy. It's also, funnily enough, irrelevant.”

"Firstly, I wouldn’t say dry passing is irrelevant. As we all know, it’s a useful (albeit niche) option which allows ‘mons like Celebi to escape pursuit trapping, and sees more use in lower tiers. And moreover, who’s to say that it won’t become more relevant in the future? You’ve acknowledged that presently unknown metagame shifts occur with time; should we prevent non-broken/non-uncompetitive shifts by inflicting needless collateral damage, i.e. banning a move that everyone agrees isn’t broken in itself? Dry-passing could very well become an important and healthy component of a future metagame—a potential development we should leave open to possibility. Overall, I think your attitude represents a dangerous tiering philosophy. We should not settle by banning clearly unbroken strategies, thereby restricting our metagames unnecessarily. Even if it requires more effort, Smogon should strive to create the most unfettered metagames possible within the bounds of unbrokenness and competitiveness. Therefore, I advocate a team-builder based ban on baton pass + speed boosting, but not banning the move itself."
 
Last edited:
#80
The immediate counterargument to Threw's whole Leppa Berry aspect is that Endless Battle Clause is not just the Leppa Berry. There are ways to create an endless battle without the Leppa Berry's involvement, although they are fewer and harder to do (imposter, gen1 wrap on ghosts).
So we nerfed it instead of banning it completely because it was only part of the problem and not the whole problem? That makes no sense. If your argument were the case, banning it completely would still have been the way to go because it was the source of so many strategies that broke Endless Battle Clause. The reason we nerfed it is because it isn't innately broken and really there was no good reason not to keep nerfing. Same story here.

As for the argument over what to do in the future, if it is broken, ban it. I dont particularly care that this is inflexible, because that is the stance we have had on everything not named Baton Pass (and Leppa Berry but the Leppa one has now changed into something more than just the Leppa Berry) and there is no good reason to grant exceptions to this rule that we can decide arbitrarily.
You continue to talk about this "rule" that as far as I know only exists in your imagination. Please point me to another non-Pokemon element that isn't broken in its simplest form and didn't get the same treatment as BP and Leppa Berry and I will gladly concede. Leppa Berry not encompassing all the loopholes of Endless Battle Clause is not a reason for it not to fall under this "rule" you speak of.

As for BP not being inherently broken, it is. We just no longer have 'true' BP. We have now limited BP such that not only is it not allowed freely, only one mon can have it per team, and it can only pass certain types of boosts. No shit this form of it isn't broken, because that's got so very little to do with what the move actually does that it's laughable that you would say it isn't broken. Without significant nerfs, BP is inherantly broken.
Baton Pass is a move that passes stat boosts. It doesn't acquire those boosts - the boosts that make it broken - so no, I don't see how you can say it's inherently broken. I'll mention this again in a second, but treating two or more separate non-Pokemon elements as one is not a prudent way to approach tiering.

Similarly I can point at Blaziken and say that a defensive set with will-o-wisp, rest talk and low kick isn't broken by itself but that's completely irrelevant because that is merely a non-broken way to use a broken mon (or in BP's case, move).
This comparison is nothing less than absurd. Pretending that applying complex bans on an non-Pokemon element is the same as removing specific moves from a single Pokemon's movepool to balance it is foolish. A Pokemon's movepool is as much a part of its identity as its base stats, whereas Speed Boost and Baton Pass are two entirely separate elements and should be treated as such.

but that creates far more complications than you think banning BP does.
Pray tell, what exactly are these complications? You make it sound like something far more serious than the reality, which is that we spend a few extra minutes debating whether a given combination is broken or not.

And the fact that one of them is a mon and the other is a move is irrelevant, because with the other moves we've banned, if we had only banned parts of them (Swagger in conjunction with Prankster, for example) it would be perfectly fine (someone, I forget who, tried to see how swagger crobat would fare in GSC. It didn't). But we didn't, and so banning BP entirely is more consistent with what we've done in the past, because BP is the the biggest contradiction to our normal policy.
Yet again, Swagger is one of those moves that is uncompetitive regardless because you can slap it on any Pokemon and potentially get really good results from using it regardless of your opponent's or your own skill level. The same could potentially be said about BP + Speed boosts, but not about BP itself.
 

I'm Rick Pickle

BOOM! Big Reveal!
is a Tiering Contributor
#81
I recognise that people want to preserve Baton Pass as a move, because dry passing is perfectly healthy. But you have to realise that Dry passing Celebi to escape TTar, and Scoli + Espeon stupid set up teams both rely on the same move; it's not two totally separate cases, it is two different applications of the same thing. Just because Baton Pass could play a potentially healthy role in specific games in the future doesn't mean that it isn't playing a very unhealthy role now.

Baton Pass is undeniably a matchup based style that doesn't really hinge on skill. I'm not expecting the ladder usage to go down either.

I suppose the questions are:

1) Is it ok for somebody to achieve a good win rate by using a matchup based team, that is detrimental to skill in every game?

2) Are you willing to, bearing in mind smogon avoids complex bans as much as possible, put forward an extremely long and complicated ban to protect a very specific aspect of a move that's broken in pretty much every other respect?

If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then I see no reason why somebody could oppose a ban.
 

Aberforth

Californium is PoMMan now.
is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#82
Jasper When I said Drypassing was irrelevant, I didn't mean its presence in the metagame was one of irrelevance, I meant whether or not Drypassing was broken was irrelevant, because it is simply a non-broken way of using a broken move, and I consider nerfing BP to the extent where it is non-broken is similar to nerfing a pokemon to the extent where it is non-broken.

Threw, I wasn't saying that banning the Leppa Berry wouldn't have been the better way to go about it at the time, however the reason to not ban it now is that it isn't the whole of the endless battle clause, and getting rid of the endless battle clause and replacing it with a Leppa Berry Ban would be opening up ways of causing an endless battle that aren't coverred, meaning you'd need to reinstate the current Endless Battle Clause and then you've just added a new clause for people to remember after it has been coded by Zarel to no longer be a problem.

As for the argument that BP isn't inherently broken, if it wasn't, we wouldn't need all of these restrictions on it to make it non-broken. Restricting things in this matter is akin to complex banning elements on Pokemon themselves. And I think you and I define 'simple' differently, to me simple is without restrictions, whereas to you it appears to be without consideration for any other element that could effect how broken a move is. Ergo to me, the simplest form of BP is the 6 mon chain of Deniss, whereas to you it is DryPassing. Although I do find your constant dodging the purpose of the move quite annoying, the entire point of BP is to pass boosts, it isn't to escape pursuit or grab momentum, those are just useful side effects that should not be preserved by nerfing a broken element.

However I reiterate that the moves I gave as examples before (evasion, swagger and ohko) are all manageable on pokemon that are bad in and of themselves. Evasion and Swagger are more uncompetitive than they are broken, but OHKO moves are broken (by my book at least, we're not banning OHKO moves because they are too luck reliant, it's that they are too overpowered) so I will focus on the OHKO move on spheal example I gave before. Spheal is a terrible pokemon, with paper thin defenses, no speed and no good moves aside from Sheer Cold, as well as the offenses of Snivy. On Spheal, a truly terrible pokemon, even OHKO moves wouldn't make it worth using. However, due to OHKO moves as a whole being broken without restrictions put on them to limit the users to only terrible pokemon, we banned OHKO moves instead of restricting them. This is an extreme example because we dont exactly have many examples for moves being a problem (hi scald), however I feel the same applies here as it did there.

As for my line about complications, you've chopped it down significantly to ignore the answer to your question. The actual line was:
We could have banned just the broken bits off of almost everything and it would be manageable, but that creates far more complications than you think banning BP does.
As in, banning Speed Boost on Blaziken, Banning prankser on swagger users/in conjunction with foul play, Banning Sheer Force on Lando-I. Where should the line on restrictions that we give something be drawn in the future so we can preserve the tiniest fragments of a broken (mon/move), contorted beyond belief such that it is barely even recognisable as the same (mon/move) that it actually is. And I dont think this is a false equivalence, because I dont believe that broken moves should be dealt with any differently than broken pokemon.

At it's simplest form (aka: without restrictions), BP is broken. We know this. Ergo, it should be banned, because restrictions are not desirable, even when there are potentially good things that could come of them (see No Guard + Dynamic Punch in PU not being allowed despite Machoke overall being a good presence in the tier).
 
#83
I don't really think we're getting anywhere, so I'll just say this and probably not say anything else:

Broken non-Pokemon elements certainly should be dealt with differently than broken Pokemon. We have preserved the former in the past, not the latter. This is because splitting a Pokemon in half by removing part of its movepool or one of its abilities is an excessively complicated process that kind of changes the game we're playing too much to be worth it. It also defeats the entire purpose of our tiering system - if every Pokemon were to be nerfed into balance, we would only have need of one tier. However, preserving non-Pokemon elements is important, because the collateral damage of getting rid of one of these without needing to is that every Pokemon in every tier with access to it theoretically suffers by no longer having access to this item/ability/move in battle, even if it doesn't commonly make use of it. It should always be in our interest to minimize non-Pokemon bans so that we can keep the game as pure and true to the cartridge as is reasonably possible. On the other hand, we can and should go wild with Pokemon bans, because if a single Pokemon's use of a non-Pokemon element(s) is deemed broken, we simply move that Pokemon up a tier - this is the beauty of our system! No Guard + Dynamic Punch is not a good example at all, because it was the rest of Machoke's unique qualities that resulted in that combination being broken - Golett and whatever other one that has it can use it in what was deemed a non-broken fashion, proving that Machoke itself was the problem.

Every ban of a non-Pokemon element to date has been a result of its own mechanics, not its potential to be used with other elements. I don't see a reason for that to change now.
 
#84
I recognise that people want to preserve Baton Pass as a move, because dry passing is perfectly healthy. But you have to realise that Dry passing Celebi to escape TTar, and Scoli + Espeon stupid set up teams both rely on the same move; it's not two totally separate cases, it is two different applications of the same thing. Just because Baton Pass could play a potentially healthy role in specific games in the future doesn't mean that it isn't playing a very unhealthy role now.

Baton Pass is undeniably a matchup based style that doesn't really hinge on skill. I'm not expecting the ladder usage to go down either.

I suppose the questions are:

1) Is it ok for somebody to achieve a good win rate by using a matchup based team, that is detrimental to skill in every game?

2) Are you willing to, bearing in mind smogon avoids complex bans as much as possible, put forward an extremely long and complicated ban to protect a very specific aspect of a move that's broken in pretty much every other respect?

If the answer to both of those questions is "no" then I see no reason why somebody could oppose a ban.
See, posts like this are annoying as fuck because it only shows, like I speculated, that a good chunk of the people here aren't actually reading and analyzing counter-arguments but are instead regurgitating tired, baseless arguments like "baton pass teams are matchup-based" and "baton pass teams require little skill".

man, just keep the noise down with that foolishness if you're not gonna drop some substantial proof or argument to back that up.

2) Are you willing to, bearing in mind smogon avoids complex bans as much as possible, put forward an extremely long and complicated ban to protect a very specific aspect of a move that's broken in pretty much every other respect?
Man what the fuck? Go read the goddamm thread man. Extremely long and complicated???????

 
#85
The argument of skill-less strategies and matchup reliant teams having an unhealthy effect on the metagame is a lot like the STag/Goth suspect that we had last year. Even though we had ways of dealing with Goth Stall or whatever (shed shell togekiss!!!), one of the main pro-ban arguments was that these very countermeasures were evidence of a constricted metagame. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to have great counterplay to every strategy out there. In the Goth era, preparing for stall was really just a burden when also trying to prep for other styles. What I'm saying is, for you bp defenders, be open to the idea that maybe preparing for BP is unreasonable. Because, in addition to all the normal threats and playstyles we have, something skill-less and insanely matchup reliant doesn't belong in this metagame (like goth stall).

As for banning speed passing vs. banning bp as a whole, please just ban the move. My thought process is as follows:

All previously deemed broken aspects of BP have included stat passing >>> stat passing is the common culprit in unhealthy strategies >>> ban the only damn move in the game that allows you to pass stats (+ we get to get rid of another disgusting matchup-based strategy in shedinja stall!)

When it comes to tiering philosophy as a whole, we should be trying to avoid complex bans whenever possible. It's so silly and arbitrary to decide when our own edited versions of strategies/moves/pokemon are allowed, that we should just ban the sole pokemon/move that is responsible for the detriment to the metagame. The ONLY exceptions should be in extreme cases like that of sleep clause, and even sleep clause is way more simple than our current BP clause.
 

I'm Rick Pickle

BOOM! Big Reveal!
is a Tiering Contributor
#86
See, posts like this are annoying as fuck because it only shows, like I speculated, that a good chunk of the people here aren't actually reading and analyzing counter-arguments but are instead regurgitating tired, baseless arguments like "baton pass teams are matchup-based" and "baton pass teams require little skill".

man, just keep the noise down with that foolishness if you're not gonna drop some substantial proof or argument to back that up.



Man what the fuck? Go read the goddamm thread man. Extremely long and complicated???????

Well spin it whichever way you like but Baton Pass teams don't use skill and careful thought in the way that most other archetypes do. Instead they just aim to abuse speed boost + BP to outright sweep the opponent, or straight up lose. Are you legitimately defending the Scolipede + Espeon combo as something skill based?

No the BP clause wouldn't be extremely long and complicated by essay standards, but compare this clause:

Sleep Clause:

i) Only one pokemon may be put to sleep by the opponent at a time.

to this:

Baton Pass Clause:

i) The move "Baton Pass" can only be used on 1 pokemon per party.
ii) A pokemon can't use baton pass if they have a positive stat boost in more than 1 stat.
iii) A pokemon can't use the move "Baton Pass" if they have a positive stat boost in speed.
iv) Pokemon can't use the move "Baton Pass" if the pokemon using the move is behind a substitute
v) The pokemon that has been passed stats via the move "Baton Pass" can't boost any of its stats further.

The above, as far as I can tell, is what the anti ban side for BP is advocating. Yes it would fix the issue but considering how many parts are needed for something blatantly broken as 6 mon BP chains into something balanced, I think it would be hypocritical when everyone in this thread can agree that a complex ban of something like Greninja + Protean is nonsense. The default state of Baton Pass is something horrendously broken. Even despite the nerfs, it proved to be broken. What I'm suggesting is that it might be more sensible just to ban the move causing a problem, rather than gut every aspect of the move that could possibly be exploited through a clause with as many parts as above, all for the purpose of protecting a specific niche use.
 
#87
The argument of skill-less strategies and matchup reliant teams having an unhealthy effect on the metagame is a lot like the STag/Goth suspect that we had last year. Even though we had ways of dealing with Goth Stall or whatever (shed shell togekiss!!!), one of the main pro-ban arguments was that these very countermeasures were evidence of a constricted metagame. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to have great counterplay to every strategy out there. In the Goth era, preparing for stall was really just a burden when also trying to prep for other styles. What I'm saying is, for you bp defenders, be open to the idea that maybe preparing for BP is unreasonable. Because, in addition to all the normal threats and playstyles we have, something skill-less and insanely matchup reliant doesn't belong in this metagame (like goth stall).

As for banning speed passing vs. banning bp as a whole, please just ban the move. My thought process is as follows:

All previously deemed broken aspects of BP have included stat passing >>> stat passing is the common culprit in unhealthy strategies >>> ban the only damn move in the game that allows you to pass stats (+ we get to get rid of another disgusting matchup-based strategy in shedinja stall!)

When it comes to tiering philosophy as a whole, we should be trying to avoid complex bans whenever possible. It's so silly and arbitrary to decide when our own edited versions of strategies/moves/pokemon are allowed, that we should just ban the sole pokemon/move that is responsible for the detriment to the metagame. The ONLY exceptions should be in extreme cases like that of sleep clause, and even sleep clause is way more simple than our current BP clause.
So you feel preparing for Baton Pass teams restricts team building moreso than other teams. Alright, fair argument. (Not agreeing or anything, but a worthwhile point -- I'll get back to this another time).

before you throw around buzzwords and jargon however, can you please define them?

What does skill-less mean in the context of Pokemon? What does having and using skill entail?

Also what does (insanely) "matchup reliant" mean? Going off of an intuitive definition, isn't every team more or less "matchup reliant"? And given that then....what's your point exactly?

(+ we get to get rid of another disgusting matchup-based strategy in shedinja stall!)
Oh God yes!! I hate that sh*t too so much!!

BAN BATON PASS
 

Aberforth

Californium is PoMMan now.
is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#88
Posting for Merritt, who doesn't have PR access, but has a pretty good point to bring up:

If the mindset there shifts to "ban Baton Pass" instead of another clausing of the move, there really should be a suspect test for the move. Obviously you can't use the current format of suspect tests to come up with an acceptable clause (best you could do is make multiple options for voting), but if the move itself ends up flat out banned in Policy Review alone then it's a pretty clear shift away from what policy has previously been. Even if you're arguing that it's uncompetitive and that makes it fall under the purview of PR it'd be in direct contrast to both the most recent Shadow Tag suspect as well as the Swagger suspect (which is even more uncompetitive) and the first Baton Pass suspect test - format was vote one of three, do nothing, ban multiple passers to three, or ban pass+magic bounce or speed boost. This was later edited to become only one passer, which while not ideal could be seen as just an extension of the results of the suspect test - there was a vote to reduce the number of passers, the original extent didn't work, reduce the number of passers again.

For a full blown Baton Pass ban there really should be at minimum open discussion rather than talking behind closed doors in a glass house - everybody can see in but only a few people can participate. There's even precedent for an open discussion on Baton Pass, back when there was no clause at all. A suspect would be better, you can barely even make the argument that OU has better things to test at the moment.

/end

I agree with this, if there is any action to be taken it should be by the usual process of a suspect test rather than just by PR posters, even if it would have to wait for the qualifying rounds of OLT to finish first (which is in one week, I think, so not exactly much of a limit when there's far from consensus here as it is). If there is a suspect though, the only two options should be do nothing (as in, retain the clause we currently have) or blanket ban BP, for the reasons Ciele posted earlier in this thread.

Mind, all this is up to the OU council, not just consensus in PR, we dont have the right to demand a suspect if the top ou players dont feel one is desirable.
 
#89
The issue with the idea of a suspect test in regards to BP is that the two don't really blend. The purpose of suspect tests is to see the metagame as it is with/without the thing being tested. In BP's case, we are moreso debating the nature of it than its full effect on the metagame. I can assure you that a large majority of ou players, myself included, entirely ignore BP when building. As I said in my previous post, preparing for it is ridiculous and it is outside the plane of usual preparation. People just accept their matchup vs it and hope to not run into it too much. Now don't take this as a cause to blame the ou playerbase. People don't disregard BP because they're lazy/close-minded; It's because they just don't have the means to do so.

TL;DR: A BP-less ladder is the ou ladder right now in every single way if you take out the BP teams. Non-BP teams will remain 100% the same. This absolutely should be handled like the last BP clause, that is through council/pr discussion.
 

Valentine

Tournament Banned
is a Contributor Alumnus
#90
the only sensible complex ban would disallow any positive stat to be passed. with no +stat passing, the only thing left for discussion is subpassing, which seems to have direct counterplay and doesn't involve taking extra precaution while teambuilding. it's worth mentioning that a passed sub can turn into a set up turn, but that takes up a moveslot on the sweeper itself. either way, ban baton pass the move, or ban +stat passing with the possible inclusion of subpassing.. i don't see any other options that make sense or that people will agree on.

e: ditto @ no bp ladder.. and for the record i think we should just ban the move.
 
Last edited:
#91
The issue with the idea of a suspect test in regards to BP is that the two don't really blend. The purpose of suspect tests is to see the metagame as it is with/without the thing being tested. In BP's case, we are moreso debating the nature of it than its full effect on the metagame. I can assure you that a large majority of ou players, myself included, entirely ignore BP when building. As I said in my previous post, preparing for it is ridiculous and it is outside the plane of usual preparation. People just accept their matchup vs it and hope to not run into it too much. Now don't take this as a cause to blame the ou playerbase. People don't disregard BP because they're lazy/close-minded; It's because they just don't have the means to do so.

TL;DR: A BP-less ladder is the ou ladder right now in every single way if you take out the BP teams. Non-BP teams will remain 100% the same. This absolutely should be handled like the last BP clause, that is through council/pr discussion.
don't have the means? Bro, you're being super dramatic right now in hopes that you'll have your own way. There are a fuckton of tools available (not counting "SKILL"!) to more than put a dent into a simple baton pass chain. Really man?

Even in the current state of the meta with speed passing still allowed, baton pass is way more than manageable! So yes, it does come back to current OU players not wanting to adjust (LAZY and SPOILED) because it's something they never had to do and they dont feel like doing it because it's BATON PASS (that thing they have historically labelled as annoying from past experiences and don't rly give or care to give a shit for, despite whatever reasonable suggestion... JUST BECAUSE).

Now let's suppose speed passing does get banned or suspected? I can almost guarantee you that you will easily see a difference in terms of what the underlying problem was from the jump.

edit: fixed butchered phone grammar
 
Last edited:
#92
@ leppa berry argument wrt bp:

can we collectively agree that the 'endless battle clause' is an exception rather than a precedent? like, in any ideal smogon world where anyone halfway worried about minor policy stepped in, leppa berry would be banned. zarel's personal amusement and custom avy carrot just kept the contest going until this ridiculous clause was conceptualized.

The main point of my post boils down to this: if we ban Baton Pass, we had better be prepared to ban Leppa Berry too.
okay, cool; i think anyone who opposed another complex ban [if one is deemed necessary] is down for that too.
 
Last edited:
#93
I haven't played on the ou ladder in a while so I haven't really faced or used bp. I can definitely understand that its difficult for current teams to prepare for all of the relevant metagame threats if bp is also included in the list, but I also sorta don't buy the argument that speed-pass is entirely mu based or that its a completely broken and shitty strategy that requires 0 skill to play with, and is impossible to win against for most teams. It sure seems that way if something gets a speed pass and then sweeps your entire team, but I think a lot of people don't realize that just having experience playing against scolipass (since it has previously been a very unusual style) can make it a lot easier to deal with. For example, I recently watched an ou live by aim where he got swept the first time because he played in a way that allowed the opponent to pass a boost and then set-up further to sweep easily, whereas the next time around he played much smarter and more carefully, allowing him to defeat the strategy and disallowing the opponent to play in a way that would outright sweep him. That being said bp definitely has the potential to turn a lot more games into a one-sided struggle than any other playstyle and in general its frustrating to lose in the way bp often defeats you, so I can understand where people are coming from and I wouldn't be heartbroken if speedpass was banned (although I did have fun carefully crafting and playing strategies like curse pass in ru (or even chicken pass) to a level of decently high consistency, especially for the cursepass... ;_;).

One thing that I don't support however is the complete ban of baton pass. I just heavily dislike the idea that so many uses of baton pass that aren't broken in any way are eliminated from the game (for example, specs sylveon in uu, or a psychic type like celebi avoiding pursuit) as a backlash to the attempt to remove something else that people view as a problem. I realize other people don't feel the same way or don't feel its worthwhile, and while I'd like to convince others otherwise, I definitely can respect other people's opinion on it and I get where they are coming from. Regardless, i'd like to attempt to explain why I don't like the idea of banning a move that has benign uses, even though my argument certainly has solid counterarguments.

Firstly, Comparing this to banning protean from greninja is silly because greninja is a pokemon that was simply deemed broken, and thus the mon was banned regardless of why or what qualities made it broken. Greninja was just designed in a way that it had innate qualities that made it broken, and so it doesn't make any sense to put restrictions on it (imagine a clause that limited the number of evs you could put in certain stats on greninja) just to try to "balance" the pokemon.

Baton Pass is a move on the other hand, and the effectiveness of a move has a lot to do with how its used, not solely how its designed (that obviously plays a role in it). When baton pass is interacting with abilities or other attacks on certain pokemon in order to do a certain thing that is deemed broken/uncomptetitive/unhealthy/whatever for the metagame, it means a certain strategy has been developed that simply utilizes that move. Someone brought up some gsc ban about mean look + other moves and I think this is a good example where the strategy was banned, not the move(s). Basically, if the same move has other benign uses, it makes sense to me that smogon should try to preserve that element of the game as much as possible, and just remove the broken element of it. An example of this is the endless battle clause, where we didn't ban a move like recycle or heal pulse, and instead banned the combination of items/moves that would allow for an endless battle, which we didn't want. While i'm sure most people would have no qualms if leppa berry was banned (I certainly don't), it still shows how smogon would choose to ban that over any other element of endless battle because there are practically 0 side effects to doing so. While I understand that its simpler to just completely remove it and not deal with it anymore, I disagree of the prospect of having reduced flexibility at the teambuilding stage compared to the cartridge game just because we didn't care enough to be thorough and specific with what we banned. Regarding the argument about how we thought banning full bp chains would be enough, leading to new strategies being discovered and banned, I think bp is an extreme example and it shouldn't be the reason we ditch whatever we have been doing. I can easily make the argument that bp isn't going to get broken with sub passing or dry passing, and while I think everyone would agree, I feel it is useless to say so since its simply going down the same slippery slope people are wanting to avoid (who knows, maybe in the next generation certain combinations of mons/abilities/moves will be able to utilize sub passing in a broken manner). Instead i'd like to argue that there is a reason why we have been making complex bp bans, and I think we should stick to doing so even though bp is an unusual case regarding recurring complex bans, because the reason for maintaining some use of bp is still valid. Heck, it might have just been a mistake to not go straight to an "only dry passing" clause from full bp chains by assuming it wouldn't be broken beneath that and that there would be value in retaining whatever level of baton pass we have allowed in the past (this is different from dry passing since there is obvious, direct value to it, regardless of how metagame changing it may be).

I'm sure no one feels drypassing (most notably with shedinja obviously) is broken or unhealthy, and I feel pretty confident no one feels froslass was broken in dpp. If my assumption is true, what is the reason for willingly adding new restrictive clauses to the game that prevent more than just the strategy that is being targeted? I can understand wanting to make it easier for newer players to understand the clauses, but beyond that it just seems like laziness or this mentality that complex bans are the bane of smogon's existence. For the record, I don't consider blaziken + speed boost to be a "complex ban", I consider it a silly one that is attempting to change the actual game mechanics, not the way they can be used (like changing all of arceus's base stats to 100 across the board or something to allow it in ou). Perhaps other people feel differently but I think its comparing apples and oranges if you are comparing that to a complex ban that prevents certain strategies around baton pass, but not the move itself. (Following the same logic, banning gliscor + sand veil would seem a little silly in dpp, so I can get behind banning evasion abilities itself, but then also adding something that allows mons that have no other choice (like froslass), since the original clause is indirectly banning a mon for no reason even though it isn't explicitly stated).

As a side note, to whoever mentioned shed stall in this is being incredibly narrow-minded by claiming that stall that utilizes a certain pokemon requires significantly less skill and more importantly a "better mu" to win, compared to other stall teams. Furthermore, its simply stating "I don't like playing against this so lets get rid of it!" which is a mentality that simply does not justify any ban.

This is probably riddled with grammar and logic errors so apologies for that. I just didn't want to stay silent when I felt I had something to contribute.

e: proposed clause (and slight fixes)

Baton Pass Clause:

i) A Pokemon cannot use the move "Baton Pass" if they have a positive stat boost in any stat.
ii) A Pokemon cannot use the move "Baton Pass" if the pokemon using the move is behind a substitute

e2: goddam this is a massive post, so..

tldr: If bp is to be banned, all non-broken elements of bp should be preserved as there is no strong reason to ban them alongside what is being considered broken. Restricting the strategies that can be used with moves is different from restricting the innate qualities of a pokemon (such as greninja + protean or blaziken + speed boost), so the two shouldn't be compared.
 
Last edited:
#94
i am just wondering how divorcing pokemon from their abilities drastically differs from divorcing moves from their mechanics? because from the way your post reads, this is just a-ok. baton pass's 'design' is to switch and pass on boosts to its teammates. we would be amending an already debated clause even further. let's assume that we think quiver dance is broken for example. what if, in lieu of banning the move, we wanted to keep it in the tier by complex banning quiver dance + special moves. we're effectively making qd only a +1 speed move. this is exactly what we're doing with the baton pass clause folks. maybe we decide that subpunch is particularly threatening. can we ban the combination of these moves akin to the bp ban? status hex, etc.

the implications of this clause would be pretty gnarly. these examples aren't even slippery slopes; they're practically exact parallels.

bp isn't sleep insofar as there would be massive amounts of collateral damage surfacing by its departure. clauses are extreme circumstances-- exceptions to the rule. sorry that your sylveon cannot swap out as a filler uu players, but i'm not convinced that, assuming a ban is decided upon, this move is so integral to the game that we need to modify our ruleset to accommodate for it.
 
Last edited:
#95
I think this rejuvenated movement against BP is a huge overreaction. We have really only seen a very slight upward trend on the ladder that has not translated itself into any significant tour wins, usage stat increases, or generally any major presence at high levels of play. In this regard, bp right now is simply anti-meta; it punishes cookie cutter teams (which incidentally are just as formulaic, for instance the Birdspam team) Googly's post in the OLT discussion thread highlights this through Attract female Scolipede, which is almost solely a way to punish teams over reliant on Landorus, which sits at ~30% usage. In my opinion, that kind of innovative approach should be celebrated as an example of how our tiering system has succeeded by facilitating diversity.

The problem bp chains previously had was that they bridged the gap between high level players and medium to low level players. The current trend of a small amount of skilled players having some success on the ladder with bp is not in any way comparable. It would be a knee-jerk reaction to take action based on such little impact.
 

Vinc2612

IT'S VINCE DUMBASS
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#96
The parallel I like with the current BPass is BW "old" sun. I agree that we've nerfed enough for it to not be broken. To have several ways to handle it.

But those ways are still really specific. What you call "facilitating diversity" is actually pushing the matchup game further than before. Is that the kind of diversity we are seeking? (hint: no) Especially since while other poor matchups can be somehow compensated with good plays, this is not the case here. You can't even rely on good double switchs like you would to pressure another bad matchup, since BPass will allow your opponent to switch second in almost every case.

So yeah, tl;dr, I'd support a plain BPass ban or at least another (other other xD) nerf. Just like BW chlorophyll sun, it's not broken in itself, but I'm not interested in picking which matchups I'll never have a chance to win.


Edit: also by nerf I mean clause nerf, not mechanics, I don't like those for reasons already highlighted
 
Last edited:

dEnIsSsS

'scuse me while i kiss this guy
is a Tiering Contributor
#97
It kinda amazes me how people are complaining this much about that baton pass team going around on the ladder. What has that team achieved so far?

- 3 users qualifying for olt playoffs during cycle 4 even though they were seen using other teams;

- Iloveleague qualifying for olt playoffs even though this same team made him tilt.

Since i havent been really into the oras ou metagame lately, i decided to interview Iloveleague since i heard he was one of the users who managed to qualify for olt playoffs using bp. He then posts in the olt thread saying scolipass is no longer viable and actually made him tilt.

Here is the interview:

Denis: hi, i would like to talk with you about baton pass and its effectiveness on the ladder cause you said it is no longer viable (?)

Iloveleague: i think the reasoning is pretty obvious tbh. this type of baton pass that is on the ladder is pretty easy to overcome. as someone who used it to great success during olt, I can tell you that its super matchup oriented, even more than before and relies heavily on your opponent making misplays. it also just takes autolosses to things like zen headbutt metagross, hydreigon, diancie etc. most smart players have already adapted which is why i stopped using it.

Denis: when you said you tilted on the ladder using bp, can you say it actually didn't help you qualify, but instead the other teams you used?

Iloveleague: baton pass would have helped me qualify if i didn't go into tilt on the last day. ie i got to 2047 using baton pass by the last day. I was using baton pass since 1850. By the last day of the cycle i think high ladder was prepped for it. I might be being a bit harsh and even by the end of the week i was still taking wins but it was certainly looking like most people had figured out how to beat me.

Denis: if scolipass is no longer viable on the ladder, why is it still being considered as "broken" by some people?

Iloveleague: these people don't have experience/aren't good at beating it. baton pass is like any other playstyle in that you have to maneuver yourself into a good position to win. people feel frustrated and just make dumb plays rather than figuring out what their opp is gonna do.

Denis: Floppy, Confide and Googly are the players who also qualified using bp, but they were seen using other teams as well. do you know if bp actually made their runs through the ladder easier, or are people giving more credit to bp than they should?

Iloveleague: these 3 people were basically the first 3 to use it and people didn't know how to deal with it. i qualified 8 days later and people had figured it out. honestly people who think it is broken are giving it waay more credit than they should. its fairly easy to adapt teams to beat bp on the ladder. mons like mega gross, diancie, hydreigon, tyranitar, alakazam, roar suicune etc put so much pressure on baton pass and if they are put as female its almost impossible to beat them without some serious outplaying.

Denis: do you think players should always consider covering scolipass when building teams for ladder play?

Iloveleague: i think it should be a consideration but its honestly not that hard to break through but i think it will die down.

Denis: do you feel bp teams could be an issue in other official tournaments, such as smogon tour or wcop? Would you feel comfortable bringing bp in an official tournament match?

Iloveleague: fuck no i would never bring it in a wcop game or any other tour game (i might bring it to an stour week match but not a playoffs match). I could see it being brought but I don't see them taking a free win unless its vs stall.


additional commentary by Iloveleague:
while baton pass did help 3 people qualify for olt in the 4th cycle, it was relatively unknown at that point (since it was primarily being used only by those 3 people). When people saw baton pass help people get so high on the ladder (not strictly baton pass though mind you), there was an influx of baton pass into the ladder (imo) and this made people think harder to beat it. By the end of the cycle, I feel most people at the top had adequate experience facing the team that I wasn't able to consistently win with it and I feel that most people had some idea of how to beat it. That isn't to say that there aren't matchups it doesn't autowin (ie stall) but it is not so strong that it made certain mons or types of team unviable. Stall still exists during the bp craze but in general the people reaching the top were not using it. Only I used it cycle 5 and I had to stop because i wasn't winning consistently. When i say it sent me into tilt, i mean that i would lose far more games than I won, whereas with offense which is what i ended up qualifying it, I won far more games than I lost.

The way I see it, a shift towards a meta with wallbreakers that can break scolipass like diancie, zen headbutt metagross, cm latios banded tyranitar, gardevoir, medicham isnt a bad thing. And its way too soon to know for sure.

I actually like the state of the ladder more now than before this new baton pass was discovered. Thr amount of stall has decreased and other playstyles are more viable.

[19:07:03] @WECAMEASROMANS: during the first BP suspect where we were suspecting 6 mon BP chains BP was seen no where on the ladder cuz everyone was prepared for it
[19:07:07] @WECAMEASROMANS: that still got banned
[19:07:13] @WECAMEASROMANS: this shit is no diff
[19:07:24] @WECAMEASROMANS: just cuz ppl prep for it now doesnt make it not unhealthy >.>
[19:07:26] +iloveleague: no the difference was
[19:07:28] +iloveleague: is now
[19:07:37] +iloveleague: i think that the shift
[19:07:39] +iloveleague: is still healthy
[19:07:44] +iloveleague: whereas for full baton pass
[19:07:45] +iloveleague: it was fucking stupid


In my opinion we should do what McMeghan used to say: "we have to Wait & See". If BP continues to be an "issue", then the council should consider taking action, but as for now, i dont think anything should be changed.
 
Last edited:

TDK

but that's about it
is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a defending World Cup of Pokemon champion
OU Leader
#98
I don't really hold a strong opinion on Baton Pass in the current metagame at the moment and this is not an announcement for its eligibility in OU. One may come later should the OU Council agree to one. Enforcing a ban based off of two weeks of ladder usage with no tournament use isn't going to happen, though.

With that said, I fail to see a reason to not ban Baton Pass as a whole. What was even the reasoning for it last time? ORAS OU does have some Pokemon that use Baton Pass without passing any boosts and some that pass non-Speed boosts. Even so, why should they be protected over the sake of banning something that may be overpowered and / or uncompetitive?

i am just wondering how divorcing pokemon from their abilities drastically differs from divorcing moves from their mechanics?
I want to reiterate this; we did not and will not unban Blaze Blaziken or Torrent Greninja; what differentiates Blaze Blaziken / Torrent Greninja and Speed Boost Blaziken / Protean Greninja from non-Speed passing Baton Passers and Speed passing Baton Passers? Only the fact that it's a move compared to a Pokemon.

Greninja and Blaziken, both Pokemon deemed overpowered in OU, were banned. If we were to remove Greninja's ability to use Protean or Blaziken's ability to use Speed Boost, would they be banworthy? No.

Say Baton Pass is still overpowered or uncompetitive; Baton Passing boosts would be deemed banworthy, but not Baton Pass without any boosts. Why should it be different here?

I don't care to go super in depth into complex bans, but the reason we don't delve into unbanning Blaze Blaziken and the such is because we don't tier things to make everything viable in OU nor should we care about preserving Pokemon for the sake of it. If we ban abilities off of specific Pokemon, why not ban moves off of specific Pokemon? Banning King's Shield off of Aegislash is the most recent OU suggestion in this regard and it was brought up multiple times during the Aegislash retest. It, however, has no logic backing it up; if we're banning specific parts of a Pokemon to make it not-overpowered in a specific tier, there would be no reason to ban Pokemon at all, only the broken aspects. In this case Ubers wouldn't exist and every Pokemon deemed "too good" would simply be nerfed to preserve its place in OU.

To those using Leppa Berry as a precedent, it was only not straight up banned "for fun". It is not going to be used as a precedent and I'm sure Senior Staff would instantly ban it should it contradict a ban of some sort we wish to implement in the future, or simply ignore it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.