1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Evasion Clause Discussion Topic

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by JabbaTheGriffin, Feb 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Raikaria

    Raikaria

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,316
    My personal stace is actually the abilities are fine.

    If Snow Cloak/Sand Veil were inherantly broken, then every viable pokemon with them would be broken. I can say with certainty that SD Gliscor is a viable pokemon, yet it's not broken, even with Sand Veil, in fact, it usually runs Poision Heal!

    The only pokemon broken with these evasion abilities was Garchomp. Sand Veil and Snow Cloak do not break any of the other pokemon that have them, at least within their respective teirs.

    Therefor, banning the abilities outright is out of the question.

    A complex ban will likly open the Blaziken floodgate again, or Manaphy. No. Complex bans should be a last resort for when something is breaking multiple pokemon, like Drizzle + SS was. As mentioned above, the only pokemon that was broken by Sand Veil/Snow Cloak was Garchomp.

    Finally, we could unban BrightPowder and Lax Incense. Yes, we're overturning an 86.8% supermajority, but this supermajority was in the Garchomp Meta. Indeed, Garchomp was only not suspect itself in that meta because we wanted to test Garchomp without Powder and Incense. Nothing else was suspected broken by those items.

    The meta has changed more than enough to justify a re-test of the evasion items. Garchomp was the main reason for it's banning, and he's gone.

    My opinion is that making a complex ban, or banning the abilities, is just to pave the way for Garchomp's return, be it on non-sand teams, or when Rough Skin is released, while making things awkward for the likes of Gliscor, Froslass and Mamoswine.

    Evasion moves are another bucket, because they can raise your evasion beyond +1, can be Baton Passed, and make breaking BP chains a whole new level of stupid, and without it, we probobly WOULD ban Espeon or BP.

    That said, it's my opinion we made too many special bans for Rain, SS+Drizzle, Manaphy and Thunderus [Thunder sets in the rain 2HKO'ing Sp.Def Jirachi was a pretty big contributeing factor, seeing as Jirachi could beat it otherwise]

    Tl;dr:

    Garchomp's the only pokemon broken by Evasion Abilities, so we shouldn't ban them
    Complex bans are bad
    We only voted on the Evasion items because of Garchomp anyway
  2. AasTmO

    AasTmO

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    154
    I'd love to see the reaction of the pro-ban side to this, as I believe no-one really responded yet, and I also believe this is one of the stronger con-ban arguments floating around.
  3. Antar

    Antar Self-anointed Czar of LC UU
    is a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Official Data Miner

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,177
    Okay, so I probably should have chimed in a few pages ago.

    Complex bans: bad idea. Hard (and annoying) to implement on the server. Don't make me do it. That is all.
  4. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    if you don't want to miss, run a No Guard user or Mold Breaker. that's easily as reliable a strategy as running a Fire Type to avoid Scald burns.

    the entire logic of all your arguments is that you cannot counter evasion. When we present an entire class of moves designed specifically to counter evasion, you say they aren't viable. When we present OU Pokemon who are specifically made to not miss, you say "lalalalalala can't hear you." Only then can you even start comparing evasion to crits.

    i'm going to ignore the Rapid Spin argument because it was a bad comparison and an obvious red herring, but i must highlight this sentence:

    pardon the french, but how the FUCK do you even get off with saying this? of COURSE you can make a team resilient to evasion! run a slowbro! run a skarm! run a bronzong! run a ferro! run a Mew! run so many goddamn things it's ridiculous. People seem to forget that evasion has all of two abusers: Gliscor and Mamo. this bears repeating so i'll say it again:

    THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF EVASION ON GLISCOR AND MAMOSWINE. (i guess you could count things like donphan and such but really they sort of suck)

    Sand Veil does not get amazing distribution, and unlike Stealth Rock, you can damage it. you don't need to counter it directly to get around it.

    so you're saying "since we already banned one unbroken thing we should ban more" and i shouldn't be worried about setting a precedent?

    you don't get it, do you? you're still saying "well i don't want to use evasion's hard counters so i'll pretend it has none."

    well, the argument distinguishing DT/Minimize from SV/SC has already been made, so i'd just like to say one thing. Gliscor only gets four moves. Assuming it runs SD (so it doesn't hit like a little girl), Sub (so it can actually abuse Sand Veil), and Taunt, it gets all of one attack. how easy is that to exploit? (very.) The next time you find a Gliscor running Sub, SD, Acrobatics, Ice Fang, Earthquake, and Taunt on the same set, call me.
  5. AasTmO

    AasTmO

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    154
    Pwnemon, you probably didn't intend it to be funny, but I lol'd there. You might want to cut down on the offensiveness, because that post very well may go off some offensiveness charts.
  6. Jimera0

    Jimera0 You don't understand, Edgar is the one in the hole!

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,692
    Anyway, with that little reminder out of the way I want to comment on this.

    I honestly think this is the first real solid argument against complex banning I've ever seen that just didn't flat out say "complex bans are bad!" without actually explaining why. I always wondered if they were extra difficult to implement, and now I know.

    So now I have another point to make. Is it worth putting poor Antar here through hell to ban something that I've already shown affects less than 1% of games? (and if you don't believe that statistic, here's the post where I calculated it). I believe poor Antar here would agree with me and say "HELL FUCK NO!"

    All joking aside though, seriously, it's about time I had people respond to my calculations and my analysis of this issue with relation to "Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame". So far, I believe I've had exactly one person from the pro-ban side actually respond to the calculation post and exactly none to the CoaDM post. Unless you wish for us on the con-ban side to assume you can come up with no rebuttal for them, I suggest you start posting :P
  7. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,041
    Smogon should be consistent, it doesn't matter if it effects 1% or 100%, if it's broken in combination of other factors than a complex ban is due. Deo-S + 5 sweepers wasn't popular for quiet sometimes until it was made popular. Usually one would prefer for it to reach an annoying and an unacceptable point as the former did before brining up a suspect thread but since they're reviewing all ban files one by one I guess this is a good time as any. I'm pretty sure discussions on Thundrus, Jirachi and Blaziken will come next.

    You cannot unban lax incense/bright powder and not implement a complex ban. Also, implementing it will lay the groundwork for the future should Gamefreak release anymore strong mons with such an ability. A complex ban also always for fairer grounds to judge Garchomp and others on.

    I believe we also made it clear how SC/SV is different from other abilities such as flame body or static in terms of prevention, counters and their overcentralizing impact on the metagame.

    I advise you not to take too much pride in your arguments, any outcome will not be considered a personal victory for you or me.

    There is only two ways to go about this:

    1) Keep everything as is and spare Antar the trouble.

    2) Unban evasion increasing items and implement a complex ban as well as keep the ban on evasion raising moves and moody.

    Otherwise you can unban evasion raising items and wait for aprox 2 weeks before reopening this topic again complaining about the invasion of SC/SV teams.
  8. 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:
    7,120
    Rapid Spin is giving to your opponent a free turn, as it happens with SR and Spikes/T-Spikes. In both situations you are giving to your opponent a free turn. And free is a relative term, since you can't exactly call ''free turn'' a turn in which all of your hard earned hazards are spun away.
    Also something you forgot to list in your Aerial Ace Scizor example is that Gliscor ohkoes Scizor with a +2 Acrobatics before Scizor even moves, which he will have as YOU are switching in on him to counter him right? Anyway don't list me how any OU poke can run some always hitting moves to 2HKO or 3HKO some SV/SC users because it honestly doesn't matter. And anyway good luck fitting Aerial Ace to your Scizor. The point is that those moves are unviable in this meta and are not even counters to evasion itself, as they cannot kill it's users quick enough.


    I have already mentioned that weather is a counter to Evasion raising abilites. Also i never siad running Lum Berry on anything or making needless risky predictions to prevent random status, i just mentioned that if you are paranoid about status you have A LOT of ways to deal with them like carrying a cleric, Lum Berries, pokes with immunites etc. Even if you didn't have it wouldn't matter though because random status are game mechanics and cannot be changed with a clause, unlike evasion raising abilites.


    You haven't got my point at all. I am not claiming that if you don't pack weather or always hitting moves you will be weak to evasion strategies. You won't because most of the pokes that use these strategies are medicore at best. What i said is that if you don't pack counters to those strategies, you will get into situations were your call won't matter, if the RNG decides it. You can be the best player and lose from a noob, even in 1 out of the 100 times you battle, because of Sand Veil or Snow Cloak. I don't know for you but i prefer that ALL the games i play are decided by me in the degree i can control of 'course. We can't prevent crits and random status but we can prevent Sand Veil and Snow Cloak by either a Simple or a Complex Ban. Finally non of the pokes that you mentioned can counter Gliscor under Sandstorm. They are almost perfect checks, but not counters. With enough misses Gliscor can get past them, which can happen. Now you can say back to me that any counter can lose from the poke that it is supposed to counter, with extreme hax, meaning crits, burns, parahax, etc, but the difference as told many times is that the evasion abilites can be prevented with a clause unlike the other effects, which are game mechanics.


    They can be countered, but only by using your own different weather, that's the problem. It doesn't matter if they are broken, as has been said many times, because the problem with evasion in general is not brokeness. DT and Minimize were also banned without being broken.
    Finally the term ''too haxy'' is very subjective and varies from person to person. For me even a game lost out of 100 due to an evasion miss is too much. For you it is not.


    If you mean the calcs that he made tha show the percentage of matches affected by SV/SC, then i have to say this. Everyone knows that the pokes that use those abilites are mediocre at best, so it's only normal that they would affect such a small percentage of the battles. This is because the point is not that those pokes are broken with these abilites, the point is that those pokes can win fights they shouldn't. Just like crits and random statuses, except that those are part of the game mechanics and cannot be changed.


    There are no No Guard pokes that are OU at this moment and Machamp is semi viable at best in OU. I also like the fact that out of all the solutions i presented to prevent burns from Scald you choose the worst to show me. If you want to avoid Scald burns you can carry a cleric or a Water Absorb poke or Celebi or Roserade bla bla bla. But even if you there wasn't any counter it wouldn't change anything because we wouldn't be able to do something about it. We cannot prevent added effects or criticals from happening but we can prevent some abilites from activating by banning them.

    My entire logic is that the evasion raising abilites are winning you games that you shouln't win and unlike crits and random statuses, they can actually be prevented by a clause.
    Also of 'course i am going to say they are not viable, what do you expected me to do? If you go in the SA/SQ thread and you ask for a good SD Scizor counter, should i propose to you Scarf Camerupt? No! Why? Because it isn't viable.
    So no shit like Aerial Ace, Shock Wave, etc are not viable in this meta and if you are trying to prove the opposite then we can stop discussing here. And Machamp, the only OU semi-viable poke is murdered from the most common SC/SV user, Gliscor, so good luck countering such teams with Machamp. So your only viable example is Mold Breaker Haxorus. So in total we have weather inducers other than Sand/Hail respectively for each ability and Haxoruss. For some these counters may be enough for some others they may not. For me they are not, and as it seems for you they are, so there is nothing left to discuss here.

    It is clear that you haven't got my point. When i am saying that a team is weak to pokes with evaision raising abilites, i don't mean that it will have torubles facing it. As you said you can carry any common counter to Gliscor, Mamo, Cacturne etc, and MOST of the times you will be fine. But a few matches are going to be lost because of those abilites, when you should have won, and this means that you are weak to these abilites. It means that you can't prevent those abilites from ruining your game WHEN THEY DO APPEAR. So this means that if the RNG decides to give to your opponent 3 free turns in a row, then if you don't have counters to evasion, then you can't do anything to prevent your hits from missing. You are left helpless, WHEN the misses happen, because you cannot prevent them.

    If they deserve it yes! I am saying what i said before, lol. NOT ONLY BROKEN THINGS GET BANNED. And because not only broken things get banned, Snow Cloak and Sand Veil don't have to break any poke to get banned. They can be banned for making games decided solely by the RNG, leaving it out of the hands of the player.
  9. Entere

    Entere

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    50
    Since I feel kind of tired, I'm going to respond to AasTmO's terrific post (terrific as in awesome, not terrifying):

    1. Nice point with ice beam, I can't say anything but that nobody uses ice beam just to try freeze. However, many (I say many because the number is certainly more than the people who use ice beam to freeze) use the abilities to try to get a free turn off. Also, personally I think one should have consistent rules, so the evasion thing could become broken by a good fast pokemon in the future. I would prefer not to ban pokemon right away. I'd rather try to keep all the pokemon possible.

    2. Again, because there isn't a good abuser yet. See end of one; I don't think one should wait until something's broken to fix it. Just my opinion.

    3. Except for the Machamp case and Aura Sphere, one can fix it using substitute and max HP. Invalid point, really. I guess if comparing to other statuses, evasion has less counters, and the other statuses have uses apart from annoyingness. Confusion / Paralysis / Flinch hax have to be compounded in order to be used effectively.

    4. Ah, but the opponent doesn't choose to evade a specific turn.

    5. See # 3.

    6. It's not about game-breaking. See OP, it's about whether it's needed.

    I think this can't be solved definitively with fact. It's more opinion - naturalist (keep things as they are, if it ain't broke, don't fix it) vs opposing (minimize hax, look towards the future). I still have the opinion complex ban, and I don't think any kind of opinion will change that. I'd rather do a poll to decide than sheer agressiveness in opinion.
  10. Jimera0

    Jimera0 You don't understand, Edgar is the one in the hole!

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,692
    I'm sorry if you think I'm pushing my arguments too much, but pretty much ever con-ban supporter on here has encouraged people to respond to it before I ever did. I'm only echoing them.

    Speaking of which, you still haven't responded to how this ban violates the CoaDM. It is in that post that I point out exactly why the 1% is relevant: because we should not be going to extraordinary means to remove an element of luck from the game, as is detailed in Smogon Policy.

    I'd also like to point out that there's a big fat difference between Deoxys-S and SV/SC: One is fucking broken and the other isn't. The ONLY reason why Deoxys-S was unpopular for a long time was because another broken Pokemon (Excadrill) kept him in check. Once its check vanished he soared into prominence. Another big difference is that Deoxys-S was far, far more successful at its role than any SV/SC user was; it got its hazards or screens up something like 70% of the time, as opposed to ridiculous 4% success rate of SC/SV. Finally, the biggest difference is that SV/SC is never going to become a dominant part of the metagame (at least without Garchomp) because its a terrible strategy. In short, your comparison to Deoxys-S is completely irrelevant.

    Wait, do you even know the definition of "overcentralizing". Overcentralizing means people actually HAVE to run things to counter it and still be viable. The thing is, no one has to run specific things to counter Snow Cloak and Sand Veil to be successful, not when it affects a goddamn total of 1 in every hundred or more games. Excadrill was overcentralizing; if you didn't have checks or counters for him you couldn't succeed. This is not the case for SV/SC.

    Finally I'd like to reiterate how ridiculous this line of your post is.

    You have to be kidding right? You honestly believe that SC/SV will become a dominant part of the metagame. I'm honestly stunned by this opinion. Let me put this into perspective for you. Sand Veil has been around since generation goddamn 3 and Snow Cloak debuted in generation IV, along with the items. Not once in generation IV did evasion abusing teams become prevalent. And that was back when Sand and Hail were the ONLY auto weather in OU. These days we have Sun and Rain teams flying around all over as well. And NOW you expect this stuff to become dominant? I honestly cannot follow this line of logic, probably because there's no logic involved.

    Oh, and one more thing. Here's the only even remotely relevant part of alexwolf's post.

    Have I not established that it is NOT Smogon policy to eliminate any and all Luck factors we can? Have I not established that a reasonable amount of luck is considered to be HEALTHY by Smogon's policy? Or are you suggesting that they are wrong, and that we should change Smogon's policy towards luck so we can head towards a metagame without hax, because boooo hax is lame *cryface*. You are clearly implying that if you could remove all hax from the game you would. Well I have news for you sir; then the game you'd be playing wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. Actually, I think I'm going to make another post regarding the CoaDM, because I only referenced the two most important sections from it in my last post. I could have made arguments relating to about a half dozen other characteristics, but I decided to leave it out because I thought what I quoted would be enough. It is clearly not, so brace youself for an assault on your ideals, not from me but from smogon's policy itself.

    In case I didn't make myself clear enough in that last paragraph; Losing 1 out of 100 games, even if you're the best there ever was, even if it's to a total newbie, is part of Pokemon as a game. It is an intrinsic part of the game that there is never a guarantee of victory, no matter the skill difference between the opponents. If you do not like that, you should not be playing the Pokemon metagame in the first place because you won't be enjoying it anyway
  11. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,041
    The "you too" fallacy. Anyway I'm just reminding everyone nobody is getting a prize if the final decision sways there way, pro-ban or otherwise.

    You are rewording my arguments to suit yours. I didn't call it luck, I called it broken in combination of multiple factors such as substitute and unbanning bright powder.

    Actually even after Exca was banned it took a month or two before it was popularized and the standard Deo-S + 5 sweepers appeared. Others can confirm this.

    There is no way these statistics can be considered facts because they are skewed by the lack of bright powder in the metagame, useage difference, etc.
    And that's an opinion.

    It is, obscurity =/= unbroken.
    With a 30% evasion? Yes.

    Again, this is not about luck, it's about being broken. Now let me post the parts of my argument that were ignored:

    I also like to comment on the issue of Complex Banning itself, if you just keep banning a pokemon with all it's abilities just because one of them happens to be Uber then were are running an unfair metagame here. Programming may be hard, but I'm sure it's worth the work to ensure a fair metagame.
  12. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    first of all, tu quoque means you just called someone a hypocrite, which clearly jimera did not so pardon me but learn basic debate before trying to sound smart. also jimera's not pushing for a "prize" he's pushing for a lack of bans and if you honestly think the realization that there's no "prize" is gonna stop anybody from debating in this thread then oh god. we just want the pro-ban people to respond to our arguments instead of just our counterpoints.

    but oh so clearly as we've already pointed out it's not so please actually attack our arguments instead of just saying "but it is lol"

    well sand veil and snow cloak have had nine years to appear so by now i'm pretty sure they never will.

    if you actually READ jimera's post he made the statistics literally the widest they could possibly be. he assumed that every game in which sand veil or snow cloak appears, the outcome is decided by whether or not you can hit the abuser. He assumed that every hail team ran snow cloak mamo. he assumed many other absurd things which i will not go into here but the point is if you're attacking his statistics for underrepresenting these abilities then oh god

    it's an opinion which we have backed up quite well and you have done jack shit to counter.

    please for once provide an ACTUAL argument as to why it is broken instead of just using the ignorance fallacy of "you can't PROVE it's not so it must be"

    semantics, but it's actually 28, with Bright Powder. And as I've said before, actually back it up with something, ANYTHING, because as of right now Sand Veil and Snow Cloak have an underwhelming record.

    let's play the evasion drinking game: one drink for every time X5Dragon calls evasion broken without any supporting evidence. wait no we'd all get alcohol poisoning and die.

    i'm pretty sure discussions on any of those will come never but that's beside the point.

    what's not beside the point is that yet again, you made the assumption that Evasion should be banned because it is broken without any evidence to back it up. god damnit stop doing that.

    what

    as i've said before, all bans are reconsidered during any truly major metagame shift, so there's no worries about laying the groundwork for anything.

    if the most they could possibly ever even be used is 6.77%, that's about as overcentralizing as Vaporeon.

    already been over this but for some strange reason i doubt you won't count it as a personal victory if they do implement the complex ban.

    3) Unban lax incense and brightpowder and keep everything else the same.

    4) implement the complex ban and keep the items banned too (btw the council is in favor of this one as of right now)

    and i guarantee you that none of these four options will lead to any new topic threads (with maybe the exception of a garchomp discussion if #4 is chosen)
  13. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,041
    Actually it just means "I'm doing something wrong because so and so is doing it too therefore it's ok", but please pick up a flame war with me why don't you?
    Again, I repeated it twice and this is the third time, that was meant for everyone including me everytime I pass by it, but please continue this persecution complex of yours, it's amusing really </me counting to sound smart.



    Actually you didn't, please refrain from saying "no u".



    Your pretty sure, I say it will once it gets popularized the way deo-s + 5 sweepers did. You have to think about the past, present AND future.

    Quote:


    I did, you didn't. Basically his stats are:

    1. Usage
    2. Deciding outcome of battles

    He did not factor bright powder into his stats. I looked over 9 pages again just to be sure but If I missed something please be my guest. However I will post stats provided by DDDRMaster:

    Now I realize that he believes they aren't broken, these do prove that impact Bright powder has on these abilities.




    You need a chill pill.




    I did. You need to stop being lazy and start reading posts other than your own.

    Quote:









    Quote:


    The point is something being obscure doesn't mean it's not broken.



    Even without a shift, mons like Chomp and Exca need to be judged on fair grounds and not lump banned.




    We are talking about a metagame that bans bright powder atm, and you didn't address the prevention and counters part.



    Yes let's make an ability the community is divded about how broken or unbroken it is even more potent. *sigh*
  14. AasTmO

    AasTmO

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    154
    I did not push the statistic post, as the proban side has made it clear that they think every battle lost to hax is one too many (as stated in my summary.. Gosh I love summaries), I was referring to the posts featuring the Smogon Philosophy (under About, up top), and the Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame adressing post by Jimera. I'm on a phone, so unable to link, but I'm sure you can find the posts. Look for huge, bolded letters.

    To swiftly respond to Entere: over Ice Beam, take Lava Plume Heatran. I (and many with me) run it for the increased burn chance.

    One final question to pro-ban: how is it that one of your arguments is "It's broken, it's just obscure" and one other argument, when attacked on brokenness is "It's not about it being broken, it's about how we want the metagame to be"?

    On the brokenness DDRMaster calculated the odds correctly (something I failed to do) and given those odds of a free turn for one of the current OU pokemon, I'd like to see why it's broken. Proban, please restate the reasons clearly as they appear to have gone lost.
  15. Jimera0

    Jimera0 You don't understand, Edgar is the one in the hole!

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,692
    This discussion in respect to the CoaDM

    I've already made one post referring to the Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame (found here if you wish to read it). However, in that post I only referred to two characteristics, as I felt that those two alone were enough to condemn the bans in question. However, I've come to believe that a more comprehensive check of these bans against the CoaDM is in order, and as such I will do so now. I will go through each of the characteristics in order, and attempt to apply them to the current discussion at hand. Also, I'll be using hide tags instead of quote tags for each section so that this post doesn't get insanely huge. Any bolding within the hide tags is emphasis done by me, not something found in the source material.

    Competitiveness (open)
    The metagame should encourage players to play to win.

    Explanation:
    This characteristic may seem incredibly obvious, but it isn't if you consider how many aspects of other games are intended solely for enjoyment or entertainment. Nowhere is this more prevalent than ingame Pokemon, where the vast majority of the game is focused on exploration, adventure, collecting stuff, and general amusement.

    The metagame should place little value on anything that is not inherently competitive, where players are directly or indirectly competing against other players with clearly defined results that determine winners. The metagame environment should reward winning, and encourage players to do anything possible within the rules in order to win. While some players may "play just for fun", or carry personal opinions about "winning the right way" -- these ideals should not be a focal point of the metagame. The metagame should attract players that find pure competition to be enjoyable in itself, and are most entertained when they win.

    Issues and Concerns:

    This makes the metagame "too serious" or "cutthroat"
    "C'mon, this is Pokemon..."

    Other Comments:
    This characteristic is really the fundamental underlying difference between the Pokemon GAME and the Pokemon METAGAME. Essentially, we are stripping out all the non-competitive elements of ingame pokemon, and playing metagames with the remaining competitive elements. Anyone serious about arguing this characteristic should read "Playing to Win" by Sirlin (www.sirlin.net) to get an understanding of the general concept of "competition" in this context.


    There is no particular conflict either way with this characteristic, as it is primarily referring to the aspects of the Pokemon games other than battling. SC/SV not BrightPowder and Lax Insence have any relation to this characteristic.

    Variety (open)
    The metagame should have the widest possible variety of playing options and strategies that are viable and competitive for knowledgeable players.

    Explanation:
    As they say, "Variety is the spice of life". And nowhere is that more true than in the world of gaming. Game makers discovered long ago that players crave diversity, change, and improvement. That's why most successful games are very broad, and are constantly adding new elements. For this reason, a high-quality metagame should be inviting to a wide number of people and personalities. By constantly striving for maximum variety, we can maximize the potential player base, which has the inevitable effect of increasing the number of good players, good strategies, and overall quality of competition. A varied metagame is fresh and exciting, and provides a constant source for investigation and discovery.

    If we limit variety, or allow it be reduced, we effectively "shrink" all aspects of the metagame. A game with limited variety is boring to all but the most diehard participants. In a low-variety metagame, the best playing strategies become widely known and predictable, and participation wanes. For this reason, we should constantly strive for as much variety as possible. And, when limits to variety become apparent, the limits should be removed, if possible.

    Issues and Concerns:

    Too much variety is chaos.
    Variety without quality is useless.
    No one can master a game with too many options
    "Wide" is sufficient, not "widest"
    How knowledgeable should players be?

    Other Comments:
    This characteristic is typically underlying arguments about "centralization", or when people complain about the game being "boring".


    Here comes the first strike against the bans, particularly the complex and flat ban on SC/SV. Either one of these options WILL have an impact on the variety of team combinations and Pokemon available, though admittedly it won't be huge. Still, banning the abilities certainly won't increase variety in any way, as it's not like they're anywhere near centralizing. No one runs anything specific to combat evasion abilities as is, as there is no need to when it only shows up in less than 1% of games. As such, if the bans are implemented there will be a net decrease in variety.

    Balance (open)
    All viable playing options and strategies should be as competitively balanced as possible, in relation to each other.

    Explanation:
    When any elements of the metagame are considerably better than others, it gives an intrinsic advantage to players that prefer or excel with the superior elements, and handicaps players who are most proficient with other elements. This skews the player base, and hinders the potential to develop new ideas and attract new players. In order to ensure widespread appeal, the metagame should not be unbalanced for or against any particular viable strategy or expert playing option, if it is reasonably possible to avoid.

    Issues and Concerns:

    How unbalanced is too unbalanced?
    Imbalance is easy to detect, but hard to quantify
    Balance can be bad, if the balanced level is mediocre or worse

    Other Comments:
    This characteristic is typically underlying arguments about something being "overpowered". Variety refers to the breadth of aspects of the metagame; Balance addresses the magnitude of those aspects relative to each other. While these characteristics are probably closely correlated, they are two distinct aspects and care should be taken when discussing the merits of each.


    I don't think anyone can make a truly solid argument that SV/SC unbalance the game, given how rarely they appear and how rarely they affect the outcome of matches. Certainly, they are not overpowered by themselves. Maybe combined with Garchomp, but that's one Pokemon. You don't see us banning Stoutland in OU because Excadrill was overpowered, just because they share the same ability.

    Stability (open)
    The metagame should have stable content that is consistent over time.

    Explanation:
    In order for the metagame to be analyzed, mastered, and proliferated -- it must not fluctuate excessively. This characteristic applies to both the scope of changes and the frequency of changes to the metagame. While the metagame will voluntarily and involuntarily experience changes, large or frequent instability should be avoided if possible.

    Issues and Concerns:

    How do you measure stability?
    Stability is fine, but what about stagnation?
    What does it mean if the metagame fails to stabilize?

    Other Comments:
    Stability is likely to be cyclical. With each change there will be a period of instability, and the subsequent relative stabilization is an indicator that the metagame is "ready" for the next change.


    Again, this is another strike against the bans as the changes would cause some degree of instability. Now it would be fairly limited, as the changes are not large ones, but it would still create some instability as Pokemon like Froslass are removed. The real danger would be in lower teirs though, especially if the abilities were banned flat out, as multiple Pokemon would be removed from their respective teirs entirely. Still, this wasn't mentioned before because the change would be relatively small, and the resulting instability minor. Still, there's no reason to artificially cause any instability at this point. You could argue the game is becoming stagnant with all the volt-turners, but I doubt anyone would expect the elimination of SC/SV to change that.

    Adherence (open)
    The metagame should adhere as closely as possible to the rules, mechanics, and spirit of the actual Pokemon game.

    Explanation:
    We are not making a new game, we are metagaming the existing game of Pokemon. The actual Pokemon game itself should be the canon of the metagame. While we can question the choices and wisdom of the game makers, we must abide by the evidence of their creation. Any departure from the game itself, disconnects us from our foundation and begins down a slippery slope away from being a true "Pokemon metagame", towards becoming an entirely new game unto itself. If that happens, the metagame will lessen its fundamental appeal and connection to the player base. Adherence to the actual game ensures that all players can readily understand the mechanics of the metagame, and provides a common bond for all metagame players of all skill levels. This makes the metagame accessible to a wide audience of players, and creates an intrinsic recruiting base for new players.

    Issues and Concerns:

    Which version or versions should be adhered to?
    What elements of the game are considered canon?
    Basic gameplay, ingame challenges, sponsored tournaments, special events?
    Is branded literature and game guides considered to be an authentic source for information?
    The Pokemon game makers do not design for or care about the metagame -- why should we "obey" every stupid thing they do?

    Other Comments:
    We will never have access to the source code of the real games, nor can we read the minds of the game makers. As such, we can only make educated guesses as to the rules, mechanics, and spirit of the pokemon game. And since the game itself has many hidden and unpublished mechanics, we must rely on ingame research to inform our opinions and metagame designs.


    This is perhaps the biggest blow to the pro-ban arguments that I have not mentioned before. By trying to strip SC/SV from the game for no other reason than because we don't like it, we are vereing away from a true Pokemon metagame into something else. It is a small step in that direction, but according to this we are to adhere as closely as possible, not as closely as we feel like. This aspect is obviously overrode by the other characteristics, but so far we have yet to encounter another characteristic that suggests the bans are worthwhile. As such, according to this characteristic, what we SHOULD be doing is leaving this mechanic well enough alone.

    Skill (open)
    The metagame should require knowledge and practice to become an expert player and to achieve consistent success at the highest levels of play.

    Explanation:
    Although the metagame is based on Pokemon, which has fairly simple basic gameplay, the metagame should require skill to master. The ability to increase proficiency through study and hard work is the hook that draws players to become avid practitioners of the metagame. The metagame should recognize and reward players with the most knowledge, talent, and dedication. All players should feel that it is within their power to "master the metagame".

    Issues and Concerns:

    Simple essential gameplay should not be compromised
    Don't add artificial complications to increase skill requirement
    Intellectual and strategic skill, not physical or execution skill
    Do skills erode?
    Ratings systems, tournament formats, rankings, etc...

    Other Comments:
    This characteristic addresses how the metagame is played, and how success is defined and rewarded. While it can be difficult to truly determine who is "the best" at any given time or in any given competition -- the overall metagame should cultivate a perception (if not reality) that more skilled players will experience greater success than lesser skilled players.


    This is the characteristic many pro-ban proponents make the core of their argument, but they seem to do it not truly understanding what the characteristic really refers to. The key sentence here is the last one, which points out, in no uncertain terms, that skill refers to the perception of the metagame as a whole and not to individual games. Neither SC/SV nor the evasion items make it so that skill is not rewarded the vast majority of times. While they may impact one game every now and then, overall the perception that skill pays off in Pokemon remains. No noob is going to get to the top of the ladder spamming evasion boosting items and SC/SV. The strategies are not nearly reliable enough. It might allow them to blindly luck through a game or two, but overall? They'll still suck. I also note that nowhere here does it say that Skill should be emphasized at the expense of other characteristics. Also, no where does it specify that luck factors are the anathema of skill. I hope that my point has been made clear here.

    This also seems an apt place to point out why the evasion clause came into place in the first place. Many of the proponents claim that Double Team and Minimize were banned in the name of skill, not because they were broken. While the validity of this statement is up for debate, I would like to point out the vast difference in the scope of the evasion increasing moves as opposed to the abilities. The issue with the moves is that they have such an incredibly wide distribution. In fact, Double Team is learnable via TM in generation V by every last single Pokemon that learns TMs. This is as opposed to Snow Cloak and Sand Veil, which combined have 28 Pokemon that have access to them, including NFE pokemon. If Double Team and Minimize were allowed, they WOULD have a wide impact on skill accross the entire metagame, perhaps to the point where we really would have a metagame where skill did not guarantee consistent success. That is the difference.

    Luck (open)
    The metagame should allow a reasonable degree of chance to affect all facets of gameplay and game outcomes.

    Explanation:
    Game players love the excitement, tension, and unpredictability associated with luck factors in games. While Pokemon is not a game of "pure chance", luck is a contributing factor in almost all major gameplay elements. If the metagame seeks to eliminate or unreasonably reduce elements of chance, it would run contrary to part of the basic appeal of Pokemon gameplay.The metagame should have many features that rely on random probability, and allow luck to have a significant role in determining competitive outcomes.

    Issues and Concerns:

    Should luck be zero sum?
    How much luck is "reasonable"? What makes luck "unreasonable"?
    Are Skill and Luck mutually exclusive? Or complimentary?

    Other Comments:
    While some players supposedly despise luck, it is a compelling underlying lure for many players. While this characteristic can be maddeningly hard to quantify and analyze, it's existence as a positive feature of the game should not be ignored.


    I've already gone over this, but I'll do so again. This here clearly, undeniably, with utmost clarity, states that even though some players supposedly claim to despise luck (I'm looking at you Alexwolf) that Smogon officially considers it to be a, I quote "postive feature of the game". It also quite clearly states that we should not seek "to eliminate or unreasonably reduce elements of chance". I don't know about you, but I fully consider that going to the lengths of a complex ban in order to remove a factor that only affects 1% of games or less is "unreasonable".

    Efficiency (open)
    The metagame should be as efficient as possible in execution of gameplay and resolving outcomes.

    Explanation:
    Anything that does not directly help the metagame, hurts the metagame. Many elements of ingame Pokemon require little more than time, perseverance, or rote repetition to succeed. The metagame should place no value on these things. For serious competitive players, these elements are boring and distracting. They lessen the competitive challenge of the game and discourage expert players. The metagame should present the most direct and efficient mechanisms for players to play the game and determine winners. Any game element that does not directly contribute to improving the metagame, is inefficient and unnecessary. Such elements should be mitigated or removed, if possible.

    Issues and Concerns:

    Defining "unnecessary" complications and distractions
    What's the hurry?
    Playing the game should not be "hard work"
    Play vs preparation/practice

    Other Comments:
    Don't make players "earn" anything. No wasting time. No frills. No inconsequential elements. Get on with it. Game on.


    Alright this is the final nail in the coffin for the pro-ban argument. I believe I've quite clearly shown that these bans do not help the metagame at all, at least not according to the CoaDM. So, the question is, how DOES this unecessary ban hurt efficiency? Well for one it would cause more annoying hang ups for people trying to use new teams when the server won't let them on the ladder because they accidentally or unknowingly broke the new ban. It's a small concern, but it is just one more in what has quickly become a list of many.

    In conclusion:

    Well look at that, it turns out that the bans negatively impact even more characteristics than I thought the did in my earlier, more casual analysis. I'd greatly appreciate if people would begin making rebuttals. I understand that this is MY interpretation of the CoaDM, and as such it may well be flawed. So, pro-ban proponents, I challenge you to find those flaws and make some arguments actually relevant to smogon policy. Make your arguments as to how I interpreted things wrong, and as how to your concerns outwiegh mine. Enough with the pointless auxillary arguments about whether or not leftovers or bright powder are more effective, or what the counters are to SV Gliscor and focus on the real core issues. Respond to this, because THIS is the criteria on which our decision should be made. If you can convincingly show that your interpretation is right, and that SV/SC and evasion items should be banned, then I will reconsider my position. But until then, let this stand as my ultimate argument for the council to consider. I believe that the decision, as the current evidence stands, is rather clear. So you had better get cracking pro-ban corner. The clock is ticking.
  16. Tobes

    Tobes
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,572
    If I don't see a decrease in hostility I this thread I will start dishing out infractions. You have all been warned.

    Edit: lol jimera you are like the most inopportune ninja ever. I'm not complaining about your very good post but come on how could you possibly ninja me with something that big >:/
  17. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,041
    There would be need for that Tobes, I already made my closing statements and I doubt anyone is going to come up with anything new other than "I think" and "I'm sure".

    These are core issues. One has to consider every outcome of this topic and argue accordingly.

    @Aastmo there is a difference between "broken by itself" and "broken due to a combination of factors".

    And again, I urge everyone to think about this one overlooked point: we can't ban a pokemon for one ability & banish him to ubers when he has 2 others which can place him anywhere from NU to OU thus depriving all these tiers from legitimately using these mons just because of nothing.
  18. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    this is really the real kicker here. I remember JabbaTheGriffin saying to me in IRC quote, "if you had an opportunity to decrease luck why would you not take it." well here you go. Luck is part of Pokemon, and along with skill and adherence makes this nice little trio, namely the trio of why i wouldn't want to take it.

    who remembers the No-Luck Pokemon server someone tried to start months ago? I remember that. I also remember every comment containing the phrase, "no longer Pokemon." Well that's what we have if we ban sand veil and snow cloak from the game just to reduce luck. "no longer pokemon."

    the rest of this post is @ X5Dragon:

    thinking that you should get the last say in an argument is incredibly childish, and telling the mods to infract someone who tries to post after you even more so. originally this post was going to be a response to you but i couldn't do it without fear of an infraction so i ended up deleting the behemoth.

    also this

    EDIT:
    so you're saying ban an ability instead of a mon, to keep the mon from going ubers. that's been like exactly NOT smogon's policy for years
  19. X5Dragon

    X5Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,041
    I'm pretty sure I said I was done with discussing this topic because it's about trading opinions and not new facts now, how exactly do you read my posts? Backwards?
    I...didn't do that either.
    You know what's funny? Claiming harrassmant from our side when it is you who went to my userpage and posted an insult which, out of adulthood I deleted without reposting it here. I can easily ask a mod to reveal it once more so you should be looking at a hell of a lot more than an infraction.
    Good, you can google. Now read the page.
  20. JabbaTheGriffin

    JabbaTheGriffin Stormblessed
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,045
    This thread is going absolutely nowhere fast. I'm going to discuss with Haunter, Bloo, Earthworm, and Aldaron whether we should open it back up to discussion. I'm really disappointed at the direction this thread took.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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