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

BW2 General Metagame Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by Tobes, Jun 23, 2012.

  1. BKC

    BKC
    is a Tutoris a Smogon IRC AOPis a Tiering Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Castle Valetis a Past WCoP Winneris the Smogon Tour Season 16 Champion

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,660
    oh i try new stuff all the time. i just have the ability to realise "why am i not using *insert standard here* when it does the job so much better" (i.e. why use amoonguss/defensive loom/roserade when there's celebi?).

    i'm competitive. i'll play the standard tier since i'm going to need to if i want to do well in relevant tournaments (christ knows i'd have quit by now if it weren't for the team tours, SPL & WCoP). so no, i'm not going to leave the metagame to rot.

    "who cares about how badly defensive teams get screwed by these weather abusers? just abuse it yourself!"

    if celebi's not at 100% or very close to it, it loses.

    new player: hey experienced veteran, how do you counter x?
    experienced veteran using pocket's logic: well, uh, you can't actually counter it...
    new player: why isn't it banned?!
    experienced veteran: it's checkable!
    new player: well, so are kyogre and rayquaza...
    experienced veteran: good point! let's test them in OU!

    why do you insist on keeping this incredibly deluded viewpoint? argument for the sake of argument, i guess

    maybe there's a reason why there are so many more anti-drizzlers than pro-drizzlers.

    absolute bullshit
  2. Arcticblast

    Arcticblast LOL STAFF FAG
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a SPL Winner
    Mentor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Have you tried making a defensive team without something to absorb Toxic Spikes? Unless you load it with TSpikes immunities it's not exactly easy, and if you load it with Flying/Steel/otherwise immune Pokemon there'll probably be a slipup somewhere and you'll end up getting an important Pokemon badly poisoned.
    EDIT: I kind of missed the point of this, sorry ._. thanks to Neliel for pointing it out
    We're all competitive here, otherwise none of us would be here in the first place... and "competitive" doesn't mean "hey I'm only running the absolute best things because nothing else is worth running." I'm a competitive player and I managed to pull a short win streak with SubCM Drifblim (I ended up getting stopped by a SubCM Latias and never got around to fixing that issue). I brought up Mandibuzz in the Landorus thread and several people acknowledged that it was a damn good wall. I've seen far better players than myself rave about SubRoost Kyurem, Slowbro, and even Swords Dance Jumpluff. Creativity does get you places. If you don't want to try out something new because you're afraid you'll lose, you're either not really "competitive" or you're actively trying to pigeonhole yourself.
    It's not like defensive teams are destined to lose to a weather-boosted sweeper. There are humans on both sides - the Rain Offense user can try to bait that stally Jellicent, but the Jellicent player can just as easily play around the Rain user and keep Jellicent healthy while keeping Keldeo at bay.

    I'll respond to the rest later, if I get around to it.

    EDIT: I really hope this post didn't come off as some sort of personal attack, because it certainly wasn't my intention. Sorry if it did...
  3. alexwolf

    alexwolf Fear the D
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,926
    If it's so painfully obvious what makes Keldeo broken, then why isn't this factor (Drizzle) making other Pokemon broken too? And no, 2-3 examples of Pokemon that we banned partially due to Drizzle won't make it, as Drizzle has brought into the metagame much more Pokemon than it has removed. Why so many other offensive rain abusers, such as Starmie, Gyarados, Thundurus-T, Toxicroak, and SubCM Jirachi are not broken? Maybe you have to start considering that Drizzle is not the factor that is breaking Keldeo (assuming Keldeo is broken just for the sake of the conversation) and that the combo of Keldeo's excellent traits in addition to Drizzle is what break Keldeo. And the most logical option is to ban the Pokemon (like we always do), and not single out the traits that contribute in making it what it is and ban whatever fits us best out of those traits (in this case Drizzle).

    And please people, let's keep it civil, this thread has started becoming really shitty and hard to read.
  4. shrang

    shrang I AM CHAMPION CHRISTMAS!!
    is a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Server Moderatoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,320
    I'm sorry but the concept of "countering" (in the traditional sense) every Pokemon in the metagame went out the window in 2007 when D/P was released.

    You clearly didn't get the main message I was telling you to do. If you want it clearly, it's "stop whinging". Is that too much to ask? We are all a community here and I'd prefer if we were more civil and peaceful when we go about our business. Like I said, negativity is very contagious. Stop trying to champion your ideas and attitudes onto the rest of the community. You are just a member of this community like everyone else, stop believing you are all important and the divine saviour of this metagame.
  5. Neliel

    Neliel Sacred Sword

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    565
    what he means is that you are just deciding if you want to lose against X or Y. If you chose Amoonguss you lose natural cure, so scald will ruin your bulky grass, not to mention it has a shitty movepool with only giga drain and nothing else, if you chose breloom you win against ferrothorn but you dont check fighting types anymore while not absorbing ts (and poison heal doesnt give you many hp under sand, even with lseed+protect) , if you use roserade you will have to rely on rest to stay alive and we all know how bad rest is in this metagame.. At the end you realise that the qualities celebi has surpasses its flaws so even if its weak to pursuit/bug and doesnt absorb ts its still the best option to use.
  6. Agent Gibbs

    Agent Gibbs

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    838
    "Why isn't Drizzle making other Pokemon broken too? Oh, but you can't use Manaphy as an example, even though it was largely banned thanks to HydraRest and boosted Surfs. Oh, and you can't mention Tornadus-T, although it would have been far from broken without the perfectly accurate Hurricane that Rain provides. Oh yeah, and let's not mention Thundurus, although that perfectly accurate Thunder in Rain helped push it over the edge. Can we also not mention those Swift Swim users? I know Swift Swim wouldn't have even been worth a mention were it not for Drizzle, but let's just not mention that either."

    Until we can get a reliable and comprehensive list of each Pokemon that has increased/decreased in viability with the advent of Drizzle with empirical evidence to validate such a list (which is all but impossible), I fail to see how this argument or it's antithesis are even viable since they are nothing short of conjecture.

    Perhaps the same reason that so many Swift Swimmers weren't broken?

    Drizzle + Swift Swim? Moody? Sand Veil / Snow Cloak?

    If only Amoonguss had some good utility moves, like Spore...

    EDIT: Oh yeah, by the way...

    Can you please not even go there? This kind of arrogance and bad-mouthing really has no place in this sort of discussion, and it's kinda ridiculous how much of this sort of thing I've been seeing lately.
  7. Zephir

    Zephir

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    When something as intelligent as spamming Hydro pump with one pokemon can be a win condition against a defensive team without a water immunity (2hko-ing a 100/100 resistance with very little prior damages, or killing another key member) you know there's something wrong. But you chose to focus on the form instead of the susbstance.
  8. George Eliot

    George Eliot

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    104
    Objectively speaking we all know how ridiculous Drizzle's benefits are. I can't understand the mindset which accepts this and says, let's just ban everything which Drizzle pushes over the edge, not Drizzle. It's the root of the problem, and it will continue to be a problem until we get rid of it. The only reason that we might want to keep it is if it were promoting incredible versatility / popularising new Pokemon within the metagame, to a greater extent than it was forcing them to get banned and forcing other pokemon out of use, and it just isn't. Even if we remove every possible rain-abusing suspect, Specs Politoed alone centralises the metagame excessively.
  9. alexwolf

    alexwolf Fear the D
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,926
    Even if you do take those Pokemon into account, it is a fact that the overhwelming majority of Pokemon that directly take advantage of rain are not broken. Tentacruel, Jirachi, Gyarados, Toxicroak, Starmie, Hydration Vaporeon, Ferrothorn, Cloyster, Jolteon, Rotom-W, Thundurus-T, and even some Pokemon that are not OU but are very viable in OU, such as Feraligatr, Sharpedo, Tornadus, and Empoleon, none of those Pokemon became broken with Drizzle support. How can you accuse Drizzle of being broken, when the majority of its abusers isn't and only a select few Pokemon are (some of which would be suspects even without rain around, such as Thundurus)? It doesn't make sense. The only valid argument against Drizzle that has been presented from the pro-ban Drizzle side is the increased match-up reliance.

    Not really. The only Pokemon that became unviable in OU due to rain are those that gain nothing from it while getting hurt by strong-water attacks. I am only talking about Pokemon that became unviable due to Drizzle, as even though Pokemon such as Conkeldur and Infernape are not the best Pokemon around, they are still viable and can be used succesfully. You must also take into account that while most Fire-types are hurt by the pressence of rain, the pressence of Drought allows them to still be very viable, somewhat counteracting the effect that Drizzle had on those Fire-types. So, between Steel, Grass, Electric, and Water-type Pokemon, as well as Pokemon with abilities or moves that work in rain, such as Toxicroak and Tornadus, and between the Pokemon that can't stand water attacks while having no other use in OU, it is pretty clear that Drizzle made the pool of OU viable Pokemon much larger.

    I don't get what this is supposed to mean, but i guess you are reffering to the broken swift swimmers such as Kingdra and Kabutops. Still i don't get the relevance of this to our discussion.

    Those are notable exceptions and you know it. Both had very good reasons to be implemented, the first one saving entire playstyles while having pracically zero downsides and the latter getting banned because they were making the metagame too luck-based.

    Not taking into account how meaningless this statement is, there are already Pokemon that can do this, such as Darmanitan in sun and Choice Band Kyurem-B.
  10. Agent Gibbs

    Agent Gibbs

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    838
    Quite frankly, you're understating just how many Pokemon are included in that list. Between the three I mentioned by name and all the fully evolved Swift Swim users, you have a little over 20 Pokemon that were banned or neutered due to the effects of Drizzle. The fact that we have lots of unbroken Drizzle abusers left in OU doesn't really impress me considering how much we've done to make it that way. Not to mention that "Drizzle abuser" is a pretty unclear term in and of itself. I mean, Thunder / Hurricane / Surf Dragonite is obviously a Drizzle abuser for several reasons, but many Pokemon like Ferrothorn get only marginal advantages from Rain (i.e. lessened Fire weakness, stronger STAB) compared to others.

    But all this is beside my actual point, which I will address later.

    The problem is still the same, though. I'm not seeing any concrete evidence as to which Pokemon would suffer/benefit from a Drizzle ban, just guessing. Keep in mind I'm not only addressing the pro-Drizzle side with this. I think that even the pro-ban side shouldn't use this argument that banning Drizzle would improve creativity because, again, there's no way to prove either side. It's just theorymonning.

    Some of these are irrelevant. Steel types are Steel types, they have tons of useful resistances and are some of the few Pokemon to be able to handle Dragon attacks. Banning Drizzle isn't going to make them unviable. There are only 4 Grass-types in OU. Of them, Venusaur would actually benefit from Drizzle's ban due to less weather competition, and Breloom is hardly a Rain abuser (except the fairly outdated BU set). Celebi is still a great answer to bulky Waters due to Natural Cure, reliable recovery, etc. regardless of whether or not Drizzle is around. Ferrothorn is...Ferrothorn. It still has a fantastic support movepool and great typing (it's #2 on the usage stats right now, it's not going to suffer that much). There are also only 4 Electric types. Magnezone still traps Steels regardless. Jolteon is here less for its ability to abuse Rain and more for its speed, and Thundurus-T is OU for its insane power and ability to sweep with either Nasty Plot or Agility (or both). Rotom-W still has great typing and coverage. Bar Rotom-W's Hydro Pump, the only benefit these guys are getting is a 26% more powerful STAB move. Water types will miss their STAB boost, but come on, they're still Water types. Water has always been a great typing, and that's not going to change just because Drizzle is gone.

    As for the other two, I agree that they might suffer, but how do we know to what extent? Perhaps the lack of permanent Rain will make Prankster Rain Dance Tornadus more popular, or perhaps Toxicroak might still be used as an offensive check to Keldeo and Terrakion. There's no way of knowing for sure.

    Let me put it this way, how many Swift Swimmers were broken? The only ones I've ever heard definitely condemned were Kingdra and Kabutops, with a few people arguing for Ludicolo and Omastar as well. Were the others broken? What about Floatzel, or Poliwrath, or Relicanth, or all the other Swift Swimmers that might not have been broken? If the majority of Swift Swim users were not broken and we truly, as you say, always ban the Pokemon, why did we not just ban the handful that were broken?

    You're arguing that if Drizzle were banned, it would destroy the viability of too many Pokemon. Yet back with the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban, we crippled a little under 20 Pokemon because of the brokenness of a handful. If Drizzle is considered to be the breaking point for all those aforementioned bans, why should we not ban Drizzle instead?
  11. UltiMario

    UltiMario

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,180
    This statement implies that only the "top" threats of DrizzleSwSw were actually the ones that would make the combo broken.

    If we banned the abusers on an individual basis, in all likelyhood Kingdra, Kabutops, Ludicolo, Floatzel, Huntail, Gorebyss, Omastar, Qwilfish, Carracosta, and Poliwrath (and maybe even Poliwhirl, thanks to Belly Drum) could easily be sitting in Ubers right now. That's 10-11 out of 19-20 usable Pokemon for the ability that could've been banned. More than half. We crippled around 20 Pokemon, yes, but it was to keep at least 10 out of Ubers. It's very clear the specific combo of DrizzleSwSw breaks anything with good stats, typing, or movepool that it touches. It kept so many of the users out of Ubers that the net change is less crippling to Swift Swimmers as compared to actually banning Drizzle. Kingdra admittedly isn't used often, but it exists thanks to its anti-Drizzle team role. That's a lot better than being Ubers, and a lot better than never being used in OU at all because without Drizzle it would have no niche.
  12. Agent Gibbs

    Agent Gibbs

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    838
    Oh, Drizzle + Swift Swim was definitely more drastic than Drizzle alone, I'm not arguing against that. I simply want to put an ax in this mindset that we only ban the Pokemon. The fact is, Smogon's ban history has its share of condition bans that affected even unbroken Pokemon, and this was done in an attempt to benefit the metagame overall and generally to cause as few bans to Ubers as possible. Likewise, the argument about Drizzle becomes a question of whether or not it would be beneficial for the metagame to ban Drizzle. While (as I mentioned earlier) it is nearly impossible to decide for certain which exact Pokemon might be more or less viable with such a ban, we can all agree that a Drizzle ban would eliminate a very powerful archetype and possibly allow a few Pokemon banned to Ubers to be unbanned. The debate essentially becomes about whether or not it would be worth it. There could be many Pokemon whose viability is drastically affected, and while we would be eliminating all Rain-based playstyles, this also could put less stress on teambuilding from a defensive standpoint, but there's no way to know for sure. This personally why I believe these sorts of debates get so...crazy. There tends to be a lot of theorymonning and "what-ifs" since such a ban would be a very drastic change that we have little experience regarding.

    @Royal Flush: That's just it, we don't want Pokemon to be a gamble. In an ideal competitive metagame, the best player will win. Each of Smogon's bans have been made in order to improve the competitive metagame as such, whether eliminating unnecessary luck through the Moody and Evasion bans, banning broken Pokemon, etc. (not that you can eliminate all luck in Pokemon, but we try). You can't dismiss pro-ban people as "lazy," because someone could just as easily turn around and exaggerate about your position (i.e. "you just want Pokemon to be a complete free-for-all crapshoot with no regard to competitiveness").
  13. Royal Flush

    Royal Flush in brazil rain
    is a World Cup of Pokemon defending champion

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    456
    It's quite funny to see the overall mindset of this community in BW.
    It made me recall a few of MoP's words about banning Salamence back on the last season of DPPt. You're not trying to play the game. At all.
    If you actually argue about Rain centralizing the shit out of this meta or anything similar, you are lying to yourself. You are just lazy. You want Pokemon to be easier, you don't want to take risks. You want to play on autopilot instead of actually thinking ahead, having a plan. You want everything to be counterable (spoiler of your life: after gen 3, this is blatant impossible). Deep in your heart this is exactly what you want, but you keep essaying about things like skill and balance.


    Pokemon in this generation is essentially a gamble. It is a lot more like rock/paper/scissors than Chess. You take risks, sometimes it will pay off, sometimes it won't. It seems like we keep banning the next-big-thing round after round pretending to aim for a balanced meta, but this is rather utopic. A metagame will always shift into something that is dominated by a couple of things, and then it is indeed centralized around those. That's how it works not only in pokemon, but a lot of other competitive shit.
    A wise man once said that Pokemon beats Pokemon with Move, but I feel like people want to beat Pokemon with bans instead.
  14. Vemane

    Vemane

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    It really isn't fair to condemn alexwolf's point because of smogon's ultra-conservative, ultra-simple policy. If the threats were IDEALLY banned, only a handful of them would be in ubers. The rest were tossed simply for simplicity's sake BY smogon, despite some people wanting just a few of them banned.

    Not only that, but if drizzle wasn't around then these threats would not be viable in the first place.

    Drizzle makes SSers strong
    Drizzle+SS is banned
    Those strong SSers are no longer that strong, but can still be used without drizzle/as they were before

    Drizzle+SS ban didn't neuter anything, it just reverted these threats to the nonthreats that they were before.
  15. Agent Gibbs

    Agent Gibbs

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    838
    You're absolutely right! Smogon does advocate a simple ban policy, and a Drizzle ban would be a very simple way to handle it (and just to clarify, I'm not particularly advocating for a Drizzle ban since I'm not so sure a Drizzle-less metagame would be that much better). Now, normally I'd agree with alexwolf that we should just go Pokemon by Pokemon on bans. However, Drizzle has currently been at least a partial cause in bans that have affected a pretty large group of Pokemon (including a complex ban, which is generally frowned upon). At this point, I'd say that Drizzle has had a big enough impact on bans that a ban on Drizzle itself could and should be considered, so we shouldn't limit ourselves to just banning individual Pokemon, even if there are still many Pokemon that can abuse Drizzle without being broken (as is the case with many kinds of team support).
  16. Lavos Spawn

    Lavos Spawn
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    2,958
    or maybe, just maybe, could it be that there are so many more users supporting a drizzle ban than opposing one because drizzle deserves to be banned? i know that's a shocking conclusion to arrive at based on the data of an overwhelming majority of what kd24 and ginganinja call "intelligent, respected members of the community" being against drizzle in ou, but hey, maybe i'm misreading something.

    come on, pocket, you're really reaching. in a legislative body, for example, if 75% of the members are in favor of a proposed bill, and only 25% are against, do you think the camps are "evenly matched"? stop treating this issue like it's no big deal just because you're on the losing end. the users that ou moderators chose to represent the intelligent smogon community are overwhelming opposed to drizzle in ou. can you stop ignoring what's staring us all in the face?

    refer to below
  17. peng

    peng

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    >asks us why other rain abusers aren't broken
    >banned pokemon don't count
    !

    this entire era of pokemon has been based around banning a rain abuser, waiting for the next metagame-defining rain team to show up and then banning its posterboy sweeper too because we realise rain is still incredibly strong.

    sometimes i think the pro-drizzle camp need to take a big step back and look at how much we have had to bend over backwards based on the arbitrary decision that "we ban the pokemon, not the broken ability":
    - drizzle released
    - drizzle + swsw banned (best abusers at the time)
    - manaphy voted uber (best rain abuser at the time)
    - thundurus-i banned (mostly found on rain, the best rain abuser of the time)
    - tornadus-t banned (best rain abuser at the time)
    - current meta

    out of interest, how many pokemon do you think need to take the fall for drizzle before you'd consider that rain is actually the issue here? 5? 10? 20? or would you be perfectly fine in banning 30 pokemon just so we can keep drizzle and make would-be mediocre pokemon like feraligatr and toxicroak usable? apologies if i'm understanding your argument incorrectly, but from months of trying to understand your posts i get the idea that your argument is: the viability of toxicroak, gatr, and jolteon justifies keeping drizzle ou and letting genuinely good pokemon (regardless of weather) get the boot instead?

    also just like to mention that the rain abusers that are not broken have no place in this argument. if you honestly think that rain needs to make every rain abuser overpowered in order to be broken itself then i don't know how you got a place on this debate thread thing, because thats possibly one of the worst pro-drizzle arguments i've ever read


    banning 3+ and pokemon and neutering a bunch more hoping to nerf the greater problem is not logical, especially when we consider that rain is still the most threatening playstyle around months and years later.

    i honestly laugh every time a new poster on the forums gets slated for asking why we don't allow blaze blaziken in ou. we are doing (almost) the exact same thing with rain but on a much larger scale - just taking away the elements of the playstyle that make it broken so we can keep drizzle in ou. for some reason theres a massive taboo on wanting blaze blaziken and sand force excadrill but its a practically encouraged mindset when we apply the same principle to the meta-defining team archtype?
  18. Haunter

    Haunter 100% avocado
    is an official Team Rateris a Battle Server Administratoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tutor Alumnus
    Líder máximo

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,809
    The people who're arguing in the debate thread about drizzle's status were picked for their, undeniable, ability to debate and knowledge of the game, for something that was just supposed to be a game and, might I add, they do not represent the community. Also, whoever picked them didn't obviously care about balancing the pro- and the anti- drizzle parties, given the fact that it was very well known, before the debate even started, that 7 out of 10 people involved were heavily in favor of banning rain from the game. Of course we respect the opinions of the people who're debating and we hope to see some intelligent arguments to come out of that thread, but please take the debate thread for what it is: a game where only 10 people (in no way representative of the player-base) confront each other on an hot topic. Note the one and only time that we, on a large scale, discussed about drizzle (and weather in general) the community ended up to be completely split, and that's the only reason why, at this stage of the metagame, we're still discussing about weather.

    Also, I don't like the direction that this thread has taken in the last two days. Please let's not turn it in a flame war, or we'll have to start to hand out infractions. Thanks.
  19. alexwolf

    alexwolf Fear the D
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,926
    You are confusing guessing with concluding. You can make certain conclusions with the facts you have now, and this is exactly what i did. It doesn't take a genious to understand that what i said is true. Just look at which Pokemon where hurt enough from 4th to 5th gen, to the point of becoming unviable, and take those ones which where hurt the most from Drizzle's pressence. They will all fit in the group that i mentioned earlier. If you consider what i did guessing, then you could also call the statement ''Amonguss, Ferrothorn, and Gastrodon will fall in usage if Drizzle gets banned'' guessing.

    When i mentioned those types, i didn't mean every single Pokemon of those types. I guess you can take out Steel-types as i agree that most of them would still be good enough, without Drizzle, to become relevent in OU. Amoonguss, Gastrodon, Jolteon, Toxicroak, Tornadus, Feraligatr, Azumarill, Empoleon, Vaporeon, Sharpedo, are all Pokemon that could easily lose their viability in OU without Drizzle around. I know that some of them can be argued but this is not the point. The point is how many Pokemon can POTENTIALLY lose their viability on a Drizzle-less metagame

    As i said again there are always exceptions, and this is what Aldaron's proposal was. Aldaron's proposal had huge pros and practically zero drawbacks (any Swift Swim user that lost its use inside Drizzle teams would have lost this use anyway if we had banned Drizzle). So in the swift swim + drizzle case, we had some broken individuals and a solution that could solve any problem that those broken Pokemon were creating without any drawback. I don't really see any similarity with the case we have now, where we have 1 broken Pokemon at most (Keldeo), which not only can be solved by simply banning the Pokemon, but banning Drizzle certainly brings negatives to the table. Whether or not the negatives outweight the positives or vice-verse is a discussion that could take ages, but the point is that it's not worth going for such a drastic change for something that can simply be solved with a single SIMPLE ban and its outcome can't really be predicted, as a Drizzle-less metagame has both positives and negatives compared to a Drizzle meta, unlike the metagame created after Aldaron's proposal, where we knew that there were practically no negatives after the combo ban was implemented.

    Not really. The only options at that time were to ban the broken abusers, Drizzle, or make the combo ban. By banning Drizzle you make all those Swift Swim Pokemon useless, outside of dedicated manual rain teams (which can be used in a Drizzle meta too). By banning the broken abusers you remove three OU viable Pokemon from the metagame. By making the combo ban you keep the OU viable Pokemon to be used outside of Drizzle and you still keep Drizzle in the meta, so you practically solve the situation with zero negatives. Finally, you can't come to the conclusion that Drizzle was the breaking point of the Pokemon that were nerfed due to Aldaron's ban simply because both Drizzle and Swift Swim took equally big roles in making those Pokemon broken.

    Drizzle was a deciding factor only for the ban of 3 Pokemon so far. Any Pokemon that was neutered with Aldaron's proposal would have been nerfed in the same way if Drizzle got banned so you can't really blame Drizzle for neutering those Pokemon. And banning 3 Pokemon to keep 12 and more Pokemon viable in the meta seems as the right decision to me. Also, if rain is the most threatening playstyle atm is up for debate and is not really relevant in this discussion, as most threatening doesn't equal to broken or unhealthy. Finally, the only combo ban that has been made in OU so far was Aladaron's proposal, and this happened because it brought a good solution with practically zero drawbacks to a very complex problem that had divded the community. If you can convince me that Blaziken's case is a complex problem that divides the community and that by banning only Speed Boost Blaziken we solve this problem with zero drawbacks then i am all for banning only Speed Boost Blaziken. The difference between the complex ban that was implemented in OU and the isolated Pokemon + abilities ideas that are thrown here and there, is that the first one had a much larger scale and that Drizzle had a very good reason to be kept in OU that hugely benefited the OU meta and saved entire playstyles.

    Finally, as Haunter said, the 10 people that are taking part in the debate thread are in no way accurately representing how the community feels about Drizzle, so Lavos Spawn and everyone else that says so please stop.
  20. Agent Gibbs

    Agent Gibbs

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    838
    Ok then, reiterate for me. What exactly is your conclusion and how did you arrive at it based upon facts available at the present?

    I can understand that Pokemon that are dependent on weather for success will suffer. Venusaur would obviously fall if Drought were banned, for example, since it depends on Chlorophyll to fulfill its given purpose. Gastrodon might also lose viability with Drizzle banned due to its niche of taking Hydro Pumps/Surfs and Thunders in Rain being eliminated. Not all Pokemon that can abuse weather are like that, though. For example, Jolteon literally just loses a reliable Thunder (I'd look up just how often Thunder is used on Jolteon, but the moveset stats appear to be down). It still has Thunderbolt, Volt Switch, excellent speed, Baton Pass, etc. Ferrothorn only loses its ability to somewhat help its Fire weakness, while meanwhile it still has Spikes, Stealth Rock, great typing, excellent bulk, etc. These Pokemon are not utterly dependent on weather, they just enjoy it.

    There is one other quirk with these arguments in that you have an inherent advantage since Drizzle is currently unbanned and we can see its effects. What I'm saying is that you can see which Pokemon are common in the Drizzle metagame and therefore you can make an educated (albeit unverifiable) guess as to which ones might be hurt by Drizzle's ban. However, we have no such observation as to which Pokemon might be more viable if Drizzle were banned, and so that's anyone's guess. While we could form a decent hypothesis as to which Pokemon would lose viability if Rain were banned, the number of Pokemon that would gain viability could be anywhere from a couple to many.

    Many Pokemon can also potentially gain viability in a Drizzle-less metagame, but how are we to know just how many?

    And I would be inclined to agree with you if, say, Keldeo were the first Rain abuser being tested right now. The concern, however, is that we have made several notable bans at least in part because of Drizzle, and people are wondering if Drizzle wasn't the problem to begin with.

    As UltiMario pointed out, it's unclear as to how many Swift Swimmers would have actually been broken, but let's go with your number, three. If it were just the three, then we could have just banned those and let other Pokemon like Poliwrath, Gorebyss, Seismitoed, etc. have plenty of OU viability due to their niche with Swift Swim. However, by banning Drizzle + Swift Swim, what good did we actually do the metagame? People were concerned about losing manual Rain Dance teams with Swift Swim users, but how often do you actually see those now that all is said and done? How common are those Pokemon that we kept unbanned? Kingdra does enjoy noticeable usage, but that's about it. The Pokemon that we "saved" didn't actually have much of an impact on OU at all after the ban.

    If it was just a small handful of broken Pokemon, would it not have been better to just ban those and leave the many other abusers with their niche rather than ban the combo and weaken all Swift Swim users with only one receiving even decent OU usage after the ban? In other words...
    ...does it really?

    They did, but you cannot ignore that the bans of Drizzle + Swift Swim, Manaphy, Tornadus-T, and arguably Pokemon like Thundurus (Thunder) and Genesect (Thunder, lessened Fire weakness) had one factor in common: Drizzle. Regardless of what other factors might have made an impact, that was a common link between them. The concern is that all of these bans have been missing the main target, which is Drizzle itself (although Genesect and possibly Thundurus might have been banned regardless).
  21. George Eliot

    George Eliot

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    104
    Having a Pokemon banned from OU is a much greater negative than having Pokemon relatively unused in the tier due to lack of their Drizzle-buff. The versatility you say Drizzle promotes barely even exists, alex, because it is cancelled out by the loss in usage of huge numbers of other Pokemon. You think Fire types are the only ones adversely affected? Every other wallbreaker, nearly every wall in the game which can't abuse Drizzle is adversely affected, because Drizzle simply does it better.

    Gibbs ninja'd me but he has it exactly right. All of our recent bans have been closely linked to Drizzle. Drizzle is the problem, we can see that purely by looking at the magnitude of its effects, as well as the number of pokemon it's pushing into Ubers and the stupid centralisation that has taken place because of it. Continuing to ban individual Pokemon, all in the name of the versatility that there's no real evidence Drizzle promotes, doesn't make sense.
  22. yee

    yee
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,110
    I like the intent of this post, but please don't just come right out and say this stuff. A lot of anti-drizzle peeps (me included) would be fine with what we had done if we never won a game again. We want it to be more like chess than rock-paper-scissors. We think the game is easier with the ability in question, and want it to be harder.
  23. SHUCKLE MAN

    SHUCKLE MAN

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,187
    I totally agree with that. Although the same could've been said about the Swift Swim situation. I can't remember exactly what was broken, etc, but say it was just Kingdra and Kabutops, then we could've just banned those and then Omastar, Qwilfish, Poliwrath, etc. could've been viable in OU.

    So I do totally agree with "ban a few can save many more", but the Swift Swim combo ban did have its draw-backs. I do understand why it happened though. At the end of the day, this community isn't really the most patient, the concept of testing the Swift Swimmers one at a time and banning them until all the broken ones are gone would definitely NOT have gone down well with most of the forum, even though it was probably the "correct" thing to do, because it could've taken months.

    It's the same why they drafted up a starting list of Ubers. REALLY, we should've started OU with nothing banned, but the community just isn't patient enough for that.
  24. Curtains

    Curtains

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,123
    very good debate here.

    Pokemon will never be like chess. Chess is way too deep and takes decades of understanding and study like no other game on the planet. Pokemon is much more like poker with the vast amount of bluffing and luck that goes with it. I am not bashing the game by any means. Pokemon is a fun and skillful game. However, it is cute to make the analogy, but any real circuit chess player would find it foolish to compare the two.

    Anyways on topic.... I would like to see some solutions to the issues... What should be the next step? I think enough has been said for both sides really... Should the community just move on with the landorus suspect test or really get to the bottom of the drizzle/sun issue? Honestly I think banning weather now would really be a bad look. The people in charge decided that it would be a weather metagame from day 1 in BW. To have all these suspect test with weather reliant pokemon be reversed would be a huge discouragement for the people that took hours out of real life to help the site.
  25. Royal Flush

    Royal Flush in brazil rain
    is a World Cup of Pokemon defending champion

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    456
    To be quite honest I'm not attacking anyone indirectly, it's rather a conclusion of how most of this current smogon playerbase thinks. Whether the carapace suits you or not, it's up to you to realize.


    Going further, I don't necessarily agree with Pocket arguments or some pro-drizzlers, but I feel like some players address Drizzle as a cake recipe: you follow the steps precisely and always or almost always get the final product aka the win. DPPt Chomp was like that, Manaphy was like that. If anything fits this analogy, it should be banned indeed, but does it really fit?
    Drizzle imo is still about risk-and-reward, you will have better matchups against some teams, you will have worse ones that you must play around it. You cannot play mindlessly and expect to grab wins.
    If anything, ban Keldeo I guess... but huh I kinda bashed Rain though I was overall speaking about the suspect process as a whole. I still can't see a ban after ban making the meta any better, we should know when to stop. Like I said, beating pokemon with pokemon, not with bans.

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