Eon Tourney, the follow-up. Should Lati@s be allowed in OU

[jrrrrrrr]

The "we should follow in-game precedent" argument doesn't hold much water. If we did this, then Celebi, Jirachi and Deoxys-E would be Uber.

Everyone has acknowledged that they are completely different pokemon with/without Soul Dew. The issue is whether or not people think that items should be banned. From what I've gotten out of this topic, the general consensus is "sometimes".

Personally, I think it is hypocritical to ban Soul Dew without taking all other items into consideration. Sub/BP/Sand Veil Chomp has a ~75% chance of getting a free Swords Dance in 5 turns, and Garchomp has significantly fewer counters than Lati@s. How is that not broken? Banning items leads down a slippery slope of more banning, which adds more complicated rules and makes the game that much more difficult to get into and enjoy. We shouldn't be looking for things to ban.

Pokemon is a game of power. The best pokemon are used. If Pikachu did not get Light Ball, it would not be UU. But it does, so we classify it solely based on the potential it has because of the one item. What reason is there to do something different with Lati@s?

If there is an item that makes one (well, two) pokemon Uber, then the pokemon is the problem and not the item.

 

[Aldaron]

So you consider banning an item to be more complicated than banning a Pokemon?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Yes, Aldaron.

There is precedent for "banning" pokemon, by relegating them to different tiers. This is done for the balanced game etc etc. There is no precedent for banning items. We would have to draw a whole bunch of new lines in the competitive game to ban an item, i.e. what is banned, on which pokemon and in what circumstances and I really feel that it is much more trouble than it is worth just for the sake of Lati@s, which I feel is uber even without Soul Dew.

 

[Jumpman16]

The "we should follow in-game precedent" argument doesn't hold much water. If we did this, then Celebi, Jirachi and Deoxys-E would be Uber.

We're not going to follow in-game precedent to the letter when attempting to craft the most competitive game possible. This is why Double Team and OHKOs have been banned for like 8-9 years, why Celebi was unbanned for much of Advance, and why we are considering the unbanning of Deoxys-S, and now Lati@s. In-game has a different stance on all of the above. The bottom line is that we are striving to create something approaching both the most competitive and diverse standard metagame possible, and if forbidding Lati@s from holding an item that not only only affects them but may make them less suited for standard play then it's something worth considering.

Everyone has acknowledged that they are completely different pokemon with/without Soul Dew. The issue is whether or not people think that items should be banned. From what I've gotten out of this topic, the general consensus is "sometimes".

Isn't the general consensus a much more specific "for Lati@s" and not "sometimes?" Nobody's arguing about any other items or any other pokemon. As Maniac already said, the only other three pokemon we would even possibly consider, and the real issue regarding them is that with their respective niche items they are in the tier that allows them to see the most use. We are considering Lati@s and Soul Dew in the same exact light.

Personally, I think it is hypocritical to ban Soul Dew without taking all other items into consideration. Sub/BP/Sand Veil Chomp has a ~75% chance of getting a free Swords Dance in 5 turns, and Garchomp has significantly fewer counters than Lati@s. How is that not broken? Banning items leads down a slippery slope of more banning, which adds more complicated rules and makes the game that much more difficult to get into and enjoy. We shouldn't be looking for things to ban.

"Slippery Slope" is a fallacious argument for a reason. What evidence could you possibly have that we could have cause for "more banning"? And even so, if you were able to come up with more evidence, what negative impact would that make if the bottom line is arriving at the most competitive while diverse metagame?

Besides, "a free Swords Dance" 75% of the time at the cost of 99% of your HP or 28% of the time at the cost of 25% of your HP is hardly game breaking when you "only" have two other moves and needing Sand Stream (not 100% guaranteed even if it is "99% guaranteed") when comparing it to the free boost Lati@s would have with Soul Dew. And further, your example is one of the reasons we are also considering Garchomp in our Policy Review anyway. We're not really just being exclusive to Lati@s and Soul Dew. If you can think of any other pokemon/item combination that is making the pokemon in question less suited for standard play, by all means feel free to post a thread in this forum, as topics and discussions like this are what this forum is for and why you were given access.

Pokemon is a game of power. The best pokemon are used. If Pikachu did not get Light Ball, it would not be UU. But it does, so we classify it solely based on the potential it has because of the one item. What reason is there to do something different with Lati@s?

The reason is as alluded to above: creating the most competitive and diverise standard metagame possible. It's really that simple when you think about it.

If there is an item that makes one (well, two) pokemon Uber, then the pokemon is the problem and not the item.

The only way to really determine that is by testing them. And your hypothesis only holds water because there isn't an item that boosts all five stats for, say, Metagross, a pokemon certainly perfectly suited for standard play but likely uber with "114 Base Speed" being its most unimpressive stat. It's a ridiculous example but it underlines the fact that issues like this need to be considered on a case by case basis.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

We're not going to follow in-game precedent to the letter when attempting to craft the most competitive game possible.

It sounds like we agree here.

The bottom line is that we are striving to create something approaching both the most competitive and diverse standard metagame possible, and if forbidding Lati@s from holding an item that not only only affects them but may make them less suited for standard play then it's something worth considering.

"Slippery Slope" is a fallacious argument for a reason. What evidence could you possibly have that we could have cause for "more banning"? And even so, if you were able to come up with more evidence, what negative impact would that make if the bottom line is arriving at the most competitive while diverse metagame?

While there isn't anything specific that I can mention that would be grounds for more banning besides the Yache/BP Chomp, this argument was more aimed at future generations of Pokemon. I was just pointing out that doing this with Lati@s is something that has yet to be done in the 12+ years that competitive pokemon has existed, and should be looked at as such.

The reason is as alluded to above: creating the most competitive and diverise standard metagame possible. It's really that simple when you think about it.

If that is the bottom line, there isn't really any argument against it. I'm all for testing new things out to make the game more fun. I just don't think that banning Soul Dew will do anything to Lati@s' Uber status, and that banning things that we think might be broken will force us to define what "broken" actually means.

The only way to really determine that is by testing them. And your hypothesis only holds water because there isn't an item that boosts all five stats for, say, Metagross, a pokemon certainly perfectly suited for standard play but likely uber with "114 Base Speed" being its most unimpressive stat. It's a ridiculous example but it underlines the fact that issues like this need to be considered on a case by case basis.

I agree with the fact that we should test them, as I said up there ^. Up until now, everything we've said has been in agreeance. This is where I have a differing opinion. I don't think that a case by case basis is the best solution to this. We can look at a pokemon's stats and movesets and analyze what it can do once it switches in, but Pokemon is a team game- there is no "I" in Pokemon! (sorry for being so lame). They also have a huge impact on their teammates, and I think that this is being ignored.

Lati@s is not only a huge threat to any Uber team, they also make all of the pokemon around them better. Latias is one of the best support pokemon in the game. Latios is one of the best attacking pokemon in the game. They both have amazing typing, an amazing trait (with that comes immunity to spikes/tspikes), and enormous, unpredictable movepools. Their contributions to victories don't come solely from their sweeping potential, as I am sure you are aware of.

I was just answering the question posed in the topic: Should Lati@s be allowed in OU?

I don't think so, even without Soul Dew. I might be wrong, but so far I have yet to see any convincing arguments for unbanning them other than "hey, we tested all this other stuff so why not do this one too?" Wobbuffet and Deoxys-S were barely used in Ubers, which is why I don't understand why the status of Lati@s, a pokemon that is exceptional in Ubers, was called into question to begin with.

 

[obi]

Nobody's arguing about any other items or any other pokemon.

Actually I'd support banning BrightPowder, Lax Incense, and the like, because I favor minimizing luck.

 

[IggyBot]

Actually I'd support banning BrightPowder, Lax Incense, and the like, because I favor minimizing luck.

I agree, and I think a majority of players would as well.

Now for the real question: Everyone posting here seems to have come to a general concensus that Latios and Latias should be tested in OU, something needs to be done about it.

So what exactly are we going to do?

 

[Mekkah]

I think we're a bit hestitant because we still need to solve "What is uber?" in some way or another. That is the reason I haven't wondered aloud about Manaphy much lately.