I kind of agree with that, because it would be bad banning each pokemon getting access to BP and a move like quiver dance in the future. As venomoth back when it was banned, this is actually the fact to be able to boost both speed and offensive stats, then passing it to the appropriate pokemon which makes it broken and the perfect solution to fix that would simply be implementing the BP clause. May be it wasnt useful before because there were no way of abusing it but right now, it definitely is.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Metagame Metagame Discussion Thread
- Thread starter macle
- Start date
because bp clause is utterly stupid and way too complex
The thing about Baton Pass Clause is that it's refined to fix the main cause of the issues in other tiers. Ranging from Geomancy + BP to Combusken's use in NU.
NU is the best example of that were combusken could BP speed + Bulk Up or SD to Xatu/Musharna or a direct abuser like a physical attacker.
The Baton Pass Clause suits the ''impact of the metagame'' part as it has less impact to the current metagame to just take out the broken part and leave the rest be. I do however not agree with the way they have done it in making this a specific case as it makes allot of the Smogon rules/systems to be more of a joke then something to be competitively taken serious(As far a it's ment to be atleast.)
In LC, as I tried to point out with my previous post, that has never been an issue.
If anything it has been a decent strategy to put in work for a select few pokemon like SD mienfoo + Carvanha as a prime example.
With the intro of Cutiefly we have seen that this has defiantly changed. While this is more a discussion if Baton Pass should be banned all together, Cutiefly should be banned all together or we adding the BP clause and showing the BP Clause to be the way of approach for this generation as well.
I don't think banning BP itself is a bad idea. removing baton pass would take away the dominant threat with little direct impact on most other pokemon there viability. The only ones to suffer from this will be Stored Power abusers(Munna/Mime)/Recipients who have no real use outside of that, and Mienfoo. Now Mienfoo in particular also doesn't suffer as much from banning BP as it still has multiple other viable sets in Scarf, Fast Taunt, Defensive and LO(not seen that in ages).
Banning Cutiefly would take away a new threat and would be a good way of fixing the issue as well, in fact it would be most in line with the impact of the metagame changing only positively. While I love this mon and think it's a great asset to LC(A bit less then how Fletch worked, but comparably) I can see this option work as well.
Adding Baton Pass clause or the wild suggestion of banning Quiver + Baton Pass seems denigrating to our rules. LC tries to have logical rules that fix only the most directly broken aspects of the metagame. If we were to add more complex things into it it could scare of new people from playing this tier.
I also want to point out that this would be the ''first'' time in this generation for other metagames to consider banning Baton Pass as it's more easily done then refining only the broken aspect of it and then only applying it to this specific situation. main issue being that people will quickly compare it to many other situations that it should count for as well. And while that is more ap case to case thing they aren't completely wrong in thinking that way.
This is just my opinion on the primary named solutions to the matter of discussion, regardless of these solutions being considered by the council or not.
tl:dr, BP clause is stupid, banning BP is a good option. Cutiefly is cute:
NU is the best example of that were combusken could BP speed + Bulk Up or SD to Xatu/Musharna or a direct abuser like a physical attacker.
The Baton Pass Clause suits the ''impact of the metagame'' part as it has less impact to the current metagame to just take out the broken part and leave the rest be. I do however not agree with the way they have done it in making this a specific case as it makes allot of the Smogon rules/systems to be more of a joke then something to be competitively taken serious(As far a it's ment to be atleast.)
In LC, as I tried to point out with my previous post, that has never been an issue.
If anything it has been a decent strategy to put in work for a select few pokemon like SD mienfoo + Carvanha as a prime example.
With the intro of Cutiefly we have seen that this has defiantly changed. While this is more a discussion if Baton Pass should be banned all together, Cutiefly should be banned all together or we adding the BP clause and showing the BP Clause to be the way of approach for this generation as well.
I don't think banning BP itself is a bad idea. removing baton pass would take away the dominant threat with little direct impact on most other pokemon there viability. The only ones to suffer from this will be Stored Power abusers(Munna/Mime)/Recipients who have no real use outside of that, and Mienfoo. Now Mienfoo in particular also doesn't suffer as much from banning BP as it still has multiple other viable sets in Scarf, Fast Taunt, Defensive and LO(not seen that in ages).
Banning Cutiefly would take away a new threat and would be a good way of fixing the issue as well, in fact it would be most in line with the impact of the metagame changing only positively. While I love this mon and think it's a great asset to LC(A bit less then how Fletch worked, but comparably) I can see this option work as well.
Adding Baton Pass clause or the wild suggestion of banning Quiver + Baton Pass seems denigrating to our rules. LC tries to have logical rules that fix only the most directly broken aspects of the metagame. If we were to add more complex things into it it could scare of new people from playing this tier.
I also want to point out that this would be the ''first'' time in this generation for other metagames to consider banning Baton Pass as it's more easily done then refining only the broken aspect of it and then only applying it to this specific situation. main issue being that people will quickly compare it to many other situations that it should count for as well. And while that is more ap case to case thing they aren't completely wrong in thinking that way.
This is just my opinion on the primary named solutions to the matter of discussion, regardless of these solutions being considered by the council or not.
tl:dr, BP clause is stupid, banning BP is a good option. Cutiefly is cute:
I know I haven't been too active in LC lately, but I've read up on the forums (Gen 6 and Gen 7) for a while now, and I'd like to play again on PS! soon.
Getting that out of the way, I'd like to clarify something: is the problem QD + Baton Pass or just Cutiefly in general? From what I've seen, everyone has used Cutiefly for QD + Baton Pass (for good reason), but banning Cutiefly just for that discredits key factors about the Pokémon such as a) being a good Fighting-type check and b) being a good sweeper with Quiver Dance.
It almost feels like the Celebi suspect at the end of Gen 6 UU: Celebi is a top tier threat, but being able to pass boosts (SD + BP and NP + BP) with relative ease is what makes it suspect worthy. Other than that, Celebi can run good wallbreaking sets with SD or NP and support sets, which is good for the metagame imo. From what I can tell, Cutiefly could hold a good place in the metagame (Fighting-type check, QD sweeper), but what makes it suspect worthy is being able to pass QD boosts rather easily.
My opinion now, which can change when I hop onto PS! soon and play more games, is that if it's just QD + BP that makes Cutiefly broken, then the problem should be solved through a Baton Pass ban / Baton Pass clause / whatever. I don't think it's right to ban Cutiefly just because it's really good at passing boosts when it could have a really viable and valuable niche in the LC metagame. However, if QD + BP and being a too good of sweeper with QD (or anything else about it really) is what makes Cutiefly broken, then I'd say just to ban it.
Getting that out of the way, I'd like to clarify something: is the problem QD + Baton Pass or just Cutiefly in general? From what I've seen, everyone has used Cutiefly for QD + Baton Pass (for good reason), but banning Cutiefly just for that discredits key factors about the Pokémon such as a) being a good Fighting-type check and b) being a good sweeper with Quiver Dance.
It almost feels like the Celebi suspect at the end of Gen 6 UU: Celebi is a top tier threat, but being able to pass boosts (SD + BP and NP + BP) with relative ease is what makes it suspect worthy. Other than that, Celebi can run good wallbreaking sets with SD or NP and support sets, which is good for the metagame imo. From what I can tell, Cutiefly could hold a good place in the metagame (Fighting-type check, QD sweeper), but what makes it suspect worthy is being able to pass QD boosts rather easily.
My opinion now, which can change when I hop onto PS! soon and play more games, is that if it's just QD + BP that makes Cutiefly broken, then the problem should be solved through a Baton Pass ban / Baton Pass clause / whatever. I don't think it's right to ban Cutiefly just because it's really good at passing boosts when it could have a really viable and valuable niche in the LC metagame. However, if QD + BP and being a too good of sweeper with QD (or anything else about it really) is what makes Cutiefly broken, then I'd say just to ban it.
The main thing about this is that it goes against the precedent set by higher tiers and smogon as a whole. We can of course break from this, although it might get some flack, but if we look back it's been pretty consistent that if it's a an element on a pokemon that's arguably making it broken then it's the mon as a whole that goes. For example King's Shield on Aegislash was thrown around a ton but shot down pretty hard.
The main reasoning for this is the whole idea of not banning sets/nerfing mons to keep them legal. This is the same thing as why Blaziken is banned and not Speed Boost Blaziken, why Greninja was banned and not Protean Greninja (or Protean in general!), and in LC why Yanma was banned when a majority of the council reasoning was that Hypnosis+Compoundeyes was the biggest issue rather than the Speed Boost sets.
So, for Conversion specifically, the issue here is that the move itself isn't broken. Conversion when used without the Z Crystal is actually pretty bad, and far from broken. The issue is that Z-Conversion on Porygon gets pretty busted, but unfortunately we can't ban Z-Conversion mainly because it'd have to be an in-battle modification. This actually isn't without precedence, so it's debatably an option - the precedence is actually Mega Rayquaza, where the ban was clicking the mega evolution button on sets with Dragon Ascent rather than banning the move itself. Of course that was banning a form instead of a move, so it's not a perfect comparison, but the (loose) precedent is there.
However, is Z-Conversion broken on Porygon or is it a broken move? While no other pokemon gets conversion, we "luckily" have moves that function almost identically on mons in LC. For example Z-Trick or Treat does the same thing in a +1 to all stats, without the conversion effect. Unless people are arguing that conversion's type-changing effect is the biggest reason that Porygon's busted with Z-Conversion then we have equivalent moves. If people can agree that the other +1 to all stat moves are broken then there's a much stronger case that Z-Conversion is a viable banning target (along with all other moves like it) but so far that hasn't seemed to be the case. +1 Pumpkaboo is certainly an interesting mon, but not a particularly fantastic one.
So why is Porygon with +1 Z move so much better? In the end, it really seems to come down to the fact that Porygon has great bulk, fantastic special attack, just enough speed, a very good special movepool, and Z-Conversion. While you obviously can make the case that it's Z-Conversion breaking the mon you could do the same for any of the other characteristics I mentioned, making a conversion ban a clear nerf to Porygon. After all, maybe it's actually Download that's the issue - Porygon's the only one with Download so it's not like there'd be any collateral damage for banning that either.
Maybe I've missed something in playing with Z moves that give +1 to every stat and they're actually broken in general. If you can argue that successfully that'd be a good way to maybe go for a +1 Z-move ban. However banning the move conversion would be a direct attempt to nerf Porygon by banning a move that by itself isn't broken - you might as well argue that Download is the real issue and should be banned. I'd hate to see Porygon go (it's a fun mon and without it freemissy becomes harder) but that's the most logical option in my mind if it's indeed deemed broken.
@Cutiefly/BP unless chains lacking Cutiefly are seen as problematic for a lot of the same reasons above Cutiefly should go. We shouldn't ban a move just to save one mon, no matter how cute it is. I think there's actual potential to be argued for BP in general being dumb, but don't ban BP to save Cutiefly. Complex bans or clauses, on the other hand, suck.
Merritt I think I've addressed the second half of your post regarding porygon (fourth paragraph onwards) in my post, so i'll just respond to the first three:
what precedent has been set in this regard? there have been few cases regarding this, but if you're referring to our basic tiering philosophy of preferring pokemon bans to item/move ones, as well as simple bans to complex ones, this should be taken into account. however, there's a reason each suspect is assessed individually: it's because sometimes the same course of action might not be optimal for every given case.
king's shield on aegislash is fundamentally different because aegislash has various qualities that push it over the line. it was a new addition to the metagame and king's shield-less aegislash had not been established as a balanced threat in the tier prior. also, it was determined that even if KS-less aegislash weren't broken, it wasn't healthy for the metagame or a good addition to it; aegislash isn't the only pokemon in the tier that learns king's shield anyway (king's shield smeargle isn't broken, so it would be far less appropriate to just ban king's shield). as for speed boost blaziken... it isn't the only pokemon that gets speed boost. the same pattern exists in all your examples where there is far less of an apparent, proven correlation and you would have to complex ban if you wanted to nerf that specific pokemon. porygon does not present any of these issues.
like i said, banning conversion is synonymous to banning porygon when it comes to nerfing porzgon: we banned eevium z, basically the same logic applies though you could argue that it's a slightly less "clean" ban. if your argument is that conversion, a bad move in its own right, should not be broken, i could just as easily argue that conversion and z-conversion are essentially the same move except the latter is enabled by a z-crystal. i don't think conversion's competitive uses would be missed anyway, and that is pretty negligible collateral.
EDIT- I've seen repeated references to this being a "complex" ban when it isn't. What is being proposed is a simple ban on Conversion in LC.
what precedent has been set in this regard? there have been few cases regarding this, but if you're referring to our basic tiering philosophy of preferring pokemon bans to item/move ones, as well as simple bans to complex ones, this should be taken into account. however, there's a reason each suspect is assessed individually: it's because sometimes the same course of action might not be optimal for every given case.
king's shield on aegislash is fundamentally different because aegislash has various qualities that push it over the line. it was a new addition to the metagame and king's shield-less aegislash had not been established as a balanced threat in the tier prior. also, it was determined that even if KS-less aegislash weren't broken, it wasn't healthy for the metagame or a good addition to it; aegislash isn't the only pokemon in the tier that learns king's shield anyway (king's shield smeargle isn't broken, so it would be far less appropriate to just ban king's shield). as for speed boost blaziken... it isn't the only pokemon that gets speed boost. the same pattern exists in all your examples where there is far less of an apparent, proven correlation and you would have to complex ban if you wanted to nerf that specific pokemon. porygon does not present any of these issues.
like i said, banning conversion is synonymous to banning porygon when it comes to nerfing porzgon: we banned eevium z, basically the same logic applies though you could argue that it's a slightly less "clean" ban. if your argument is that conversion, a bad move in its own right, should not be broken, i could just as easily argue that conversion and z-conversion are essentially the same move except the latter is enabled by a z-crystal. i don't think conversion's competitive uses would be missed anyway, and that is pretty negligible collateral.
EDIT- I've seen repeated references to this being a "complex" ban when it isn't. What is being proposed is a simple ban on Conversion in LC.
Last edited:
I agree with most of your points, and honestly a lot of the precedent we have is loosely related to the current issue since we haven't had something exactly like this before.
I guess the main point is that it's purely a nice coincidence that Conversion is only legal on Porygon, and that shouldn't be the main reason why it's ok to ban the move rather than the pokemon. You covered this mostly in the original post, and where I disagree with you is mostly on whether or not the secondary effect of Conversion is what pushes the move too far. I think it's actually the combination of a Z-move that gives +1 to all stats and Porygon, not necessarily Z-Conversion and Porygon. While this isn't really objectively testable since other LC pokemon don't get Conversion and Porygon doesn't get other +1 to all stat moves, I really do see it as largely the qualities of Porygon, not the move, that make it such an overwhelming threat.
Regardless, if Conversion is the main factor that's decided as the issue, I'd like to suggest a Conversion+Normalium Z ban rather than a flat Conversion. This would still be a teambuilder ban instead of an in battle modification while being a stronger statement that it's Z-Conversion that's broken rather than the base move. While this would prevent you from running something like Z-Tri Attack and Conversion on the same set, a flat Conversion ban would do the same.
I think the Phantump/Pumpkaboo point has merit so I'd like to explain why it doesn't convince me that Porygon has to go - I genuinely do believe that Conversion is what breaks Porygon here, and if it had Forest's Curse instead, it would not be nearly as overwhelming.
Normal Z-Conversion Porygon is comparable to Eviolite Agility Porygon, which was a high C/low B set in ORAS and did not see any buffs in gen 7. They both have the same bulk, but Agility Porygon is able to outspeed several major Scarf users, can attempt to sweep more than once throughout the match, and is slightly easier to set up bulk-wise, whereas Z-Conversion Porygon has more power and (if I remember correctly) an immunity to Taunt and Encore the turn on which it sets up. An extra boost to Special Attack is especially significant against slower teams (though +2 18 SpA Tri Attack still isn't strong enough to OHKO even Tauntfoo after Stealth Rock), but not to an extent that would put Normal Porygon above other high or top tier sweepers.
Electric Z-Conversion Porygon has important advantages over Normal Z-Conversion Porygon that make it much more restricting in teambuilding:
1. Thunderbolt actually provides coverage, and with BoltBeam, Porygon is able to hit the vast majority of the metagame for at least neutral damage, allowing it to run Recover, Magnet Rise, or other defensive moves without giving up important coverage;
2. The Scarf users that check Electric Porygon (Drilbur, Mudbray, Sandile) are much more niche than the Scarf users that check Normal Porygon (Mienfoo, Pawniard, Rufflet, Scraggy) if we exclude the existence of either set; and
3. Thunderbolt gets better rolls than Tri Attack.
Electric Conversion Porygon has enough flexibility and raw power to make it feel unreasonably difficult to deal with compared to, say, Scraggy or Shellder, where Normal Conversion Porygon does not. This isn't to say Normal Conversion Porygon isn't viable, because it can beat most of Electric Conversion Porygon's checks quite handily and is still a decent sweeper on its own. Physical Porygon variants aren't super great but they can beat Whirlwind Munchlax if you can't wait until Porygon is your last Pokemon to set up. There are other various niche Conversion types such as Bug, Ghost, and Psychic that have their own sets of checks. This boosts Z-Conversion's effectiveness even further because if you guess the wrong variant, you're almost guaranteed to lose a Pokemon, as opposed to a one trick Trick-or-Treat pory. (For those of you who played Swirlgar in gen 6 LC, you can think of Electric Porygon as Cotton Guard + Calm Mind Swirlix, Normal Porygon as Belly Drum Swirlix, and the remaining variants as Calm Mind + 3 attack Swirlix. Individual Conversion Porygon variants aren't nearly as ridiculous to deal with, of course, but the idea is still the same.)
So it's not the +1 to all stats, but rather those in conjunction with the ability to change checks and STAB moves on a whim that pushes Conversion Porygon over the edge.
I don't see the issue with treating base Conversion and Z-Conversion as the same entity when being able to boost all your stats (when paired with new item Normalium Z) is just a mechanical buff that Conversion received in the transition from gen 6 to gen 7. And I think that (Z-)Conversion is the broken aspect here because we have very strong evidence that Porygon isn't at all broken without Conversion based on how it was in gen 5 and 6, so Conversion effectively makes every Pokemon that uses it broken.
Normal Z-Conversion Porygon is comparable to Eviolite Agility Porygon, which was a high C/low B set in ORAS and did not see any buffs in gen 7. They both have the same bulk, but Agility Porygon is able to outspeed several major Scarf users, can attempt to sweep more than once throughout the match, and is slightly easier to set up bulk-wise, whereas Z-Conversion Porygon has more power and (if I remember correctly) an immunity to Taunt and Encore the turn on which it sets up. An extra boost to Special Attack is especially significant against slower teams (though +2 18 SpA Tri Attack still isn't strong enough to OHKO even Tauntfoo after Stealth Rock), but not to an extent that would put Normal Porygon above other high or top tier sweepers.
Electric Z-Conversion Porygon has important advantages over Normal Z-Conversion Porygon that make it much more restricting in teambuilding:
1. Thunderbolt actually provides coverage, and with BoltBeam, Porygon is able to hit the vast majority of the metagame for at least neutral damage, allowing it to run Recover, Magnet Rise, or other defensive moves without giving up important coverage;
2. The Scarf users that check Electric Porygon (Drilbur, Mudbray, Sandile) are much more niche than the Scarf users that check Normal Porygon (Mienfoo, Pawniard, Rufflet, Scraggy) if we exclude the existence of either set; and
3. Thunderbolt gets better rolls than Tri Attack.
Electric Conversion Porygon has enough flexibility and raw power to make it feel unreasonably difficult to deal with compared to, say, Scraggy or Shellder, where Normal Conversion Porygon does not. This isn't to say Normal Conversion Porygon isn't viable, because it can beat most of Electric Conversion Porygon's checks quite handily and is still a decent sweeper on its own. Physical Porygon variants aren't super great but they can beat Whirlwind Munchlax if you can't wait until Porygon is your last Pokemon to set up. There are other various niche Conversion types such as Bug, Ghost, and Psychic that have their own sets of checks. This boosts Z-Conversion's effectiveness even further because if you guess the wrong variant, you're almost guaranteed to lose a Pokemon, as opposed to a one trick Trick-or-Treat pory. (For those of you who played Swirlgar in gen 6 LC, you can think of Electric Porygon as Cotton Guard + Calm Mind Swirlix, Normal Porygon as Belly Drum Swirlix, and the remaining variants as Calm Mind + 3 attack Swirlix. Individual Conversion Porygon variants aren't nearly as ridiculous to deal with, of course, but the idea is still the same.)
So it's not the +1 to all stats, but rather those in conjunction with the ability to change checks and STAB moves on a whim that pushes Conversion Porygon over the edge.
I don't see the issue with treating base Conversion and Z-Conversion as the same entity when being able to boost all your stats (when paired with new item Normalium Z) is just a mechanical buff that Conversion received in the transition from gen 6 to gen 7. And I think that (Z-)Conversion is the broken aspect here because we have very strong evidence that Porygon isn't at all broken without Conversion based on how it was in gen 5 and 6, so Conversion effectively makes every Pokemon that uses it broken.
Last edited:
Hey I've been playing quite a bit of lc recently and i wanna talk about my thoughts on bp / cutiefly
after playing through most of the oras tiers, there have been a ton of fixes that have been suggested and then subsquently implemented, never with a 100% perfect solution since something always slipped through the cracks. i would be pretty against just adding a clause that just covers what is apparently the broken strat atm in QD pass. if you wanna ban bp im of a heavy believer that it should just be covered by a blanket baton pass ban. sure this removes things like dry passing or things like sd / np pass which might not be as broken, but banning bp will result in more problems in the future since it wasnt only cutie that bp gained since the gale wings nerf helps it protect against fletch which was a problem last gen.
also @ banning conversion / banning qd i think nerfs like this to keep a pokemon is just a terrible idea bc it creates a terrible precedent where if something broken comes up you just "nerf" the mon in order to keep using it. this could mean ppl start proposing non-pure power meditite to be allowed in lc since its the only mon that gets it and meditite itself isnt broken without it. creating complex bans just to save a mon just doesnt work out in any metagame and really should just be avoided as much as possible in order to preserve a simplistic & competitive metagame.
after playing through most of the oras tiers, there have been a ton of fixes that have been suggested and then subsquently implemented, never with a 100% perfect solution since something always slipped through the cracks. i would be pretty against just adding a clause that just covers what is apparently the broken strat atm in QD pass. if you wanna ban bp im of a heavy believer that it should just be covered by a blanket baton pass ban. sure this removes things like dry passing or things like sd / np pass which might not be as broken, but banning bp will result in more problems in the future since it wasnt only cutie that bp gained since the gale wings nerf helps it protect against fletch which was a problem last gen.
also @ banning conversion / banning qd i think nerfs like this to keep a pokemon is just a terrible idea bc it creates a terrible precedent where if something broken comes up you just "nerf" the mon in order to keep using it. this could mean ppl start proposing non-pure power meditite to be allowed in lc since its the only mon that gets it and meditite itself isnt broken without it. creating complex bans just to save a mon just doesnt work out in any metagame and really should just be avoided as much as possible in order to preserve a simplistic & competitive metagame.
The reason I think we should be banning Conversion and not Porygon is that the move is broken on every single Pokemon that uses it in Little Cup. While that may be only one Pokemon, it still holds up to other tiering policies; they just banned Blaziken because Speed Boost wasn't broken on every single other mon you could use in OU. Z-Conversion is broken on every single Pokemon that can use it in the tier, so from that point it would set no dangerous precedent. It would be difficult to justify another Z-move ban under a potential Z-Conversion ban because the rest of the really good Z-moves have subpar users that rely on those Z-moves to have a niche. This is like banning Drifloon instead of Unburden because of Treecko or (complete hypothetical) banning Buneary instead of Z-Splash because of Magikarp.
I find that Baton Pass is unique because stat passing has the potential to "break" any Pokemon. Even a Magikarp at +6 everything becomes a force; the potential of Baton Pass to make so many Pokemon so strong makes me lean towards just a straight-up BP ban. BP got buffed heavily by the addition of Cutiefly and the nerf to Gale Wings. Being able to boost three stats at once, including the most important one to a BP chain (Speed) makes BP chains that feature Cutiefly too good to be ignored for the same reason that, in reality, a BP chain featuring a Flying-resist in Gen 6 would've been a much bigger problem. I'd like to see Pokemon like Cutiefly stay in the meta because they are not broken without Baton Pass; Cutiefly is fast and has a great typing but is relatively frail and suffers from the rise of Poison-types. However, the advent of Z-moves and various new mechanics and buffs and nerfs make passing a +3 Attack or a +2 Special Attack far too easy for Baton Pass to be balanced. For these reasons, and my opinion that Baton Pass in most forms is simply unfun to play against and with, I support a straight-out ban of Baton Pass.
I find that Baton Pass is unique because stat passing has the potential to "break" any Pokemon. Even a Magikarp at +6 everything becomes a force; the potential of Baton Pass to make so many Pokemon so strong makes me lean towards just a straight-up BP ban. BP got buffed heavily by the addition of Cutiefly and the nerf to Gale Wings. Being able to boost three stats at once, including the most important one to a BP chain (Speed) makes BP chains that feature Cutiefly too good to be ignored for the same reason that, in reality, a BP chain featuring a Flying-resist in Gen 6 would've been a much bigger problem. I'd like to see Pokemon like Cutiefly stay in the meta because they are not broken without Baton Pass; Cutiefly is fast and has a great typing but is relatively frail and suffers from the rise of Poison-types. However, the advent of Z-moves and various new mechanics and buffs and nerfs make passing a +3 Attack or a +2 Special Attack far too easy for Baton Pass to be balanced. For these reasons, and my opinion that Baton Pass in most forms is simply unfun to play against and with, I support a straight-out ban of Baton Pass.
Your reasoning is flawed. A Conversion ban will set a dangerous precedent. Banning Conversion to keep Porygon in LC because Porygon is the only pokemon to get Conversion is like banning Thousand Arrows to keep Zygarde in OU; their moves obviously are one of the traits that makes these pokemon banworthy, but it is not the sole reason, and therefore should not be separated from the pokemon it is unique to. Porygon has amazing stats, movepool, and abilities, that when combined with z-Conversion, push it over the top. It can essentially become any type with great neutral coverage (because it's movepool is so large), will have +2 special attack to break every mon but Munchlax (because of Download), and possesses amazing bulk in conjunction with Recover, making it extremely hard to kill (great stats all-around). If a decent mon -let's just say Croagunk- were to get z-Conversion, it wouldn't be broken; it just doesn't have the raw stats, movepool, or recovery to abuse z-Conversion the same way Porygon does. The problem is Porygon itself and not the move.
Yes, it is exactly like that. We banned Drifloon because it had unique traits (Recycle, WoW, Acrobatics, decent natural bulk+typing) that, when paired with Unburden, made it broken. Unburden by itself is not broken and Treecko is evidence of that; it's a pokemon with Unburden that is barely viable because, despite sharing an ability with 2 broken pokemon, does not have any major traits that make it worth using.
By your own wording, provided here:
"Porygon has amazing stats, movepool, and abilities, that when combined with z-Conversion, push it over the top."
you noted that Z-Conversion is the breaking factor to Porygon. It takes the Porygon determined to be balanced, with its amazing stats, movepool, and abilities and makes it too good. You then compared it to the Drifloon-Treecko relationship I described, a situation in which the decision was one I agreed with. However, there is no figurative Treecko in this Porygon situation. If Drifloon was the only remaining Pokemon in the tier with Unburden, the ability could have been banned without any negative repercussions, as it would have broken every single Pokemon in the tier that had access to it. However, there existed Purrloin and Treecko, who would be negatively affected by the expanse of an Unburden ban but (and this is key) were not broken by it. This ban, in my mind, would be similar to the Shell Smash ban we put on ORAS LC UU, in that every single Pokemon in the tier that learned the move was broken by it. Every single Pokemon in SuMo LC that learns Conversion is broken by it, so the move should be banned.
e: The point that a decent Pokemon such as Croagunk would be balanced even with access to Z-Conversion (with which I agree) is not relevant, as it is purely hypothetical. Like I said earlier, the fact that there is no Treecko or Croagunk to Porygon is why banning the move would be okay and not set a harmful precedent in this case, just like with the LC UU Shell Smash ban.
Last edited:
Smogon policy isn't to ban the Pokemon every time. To my understanding, bans try to do the following three things:
1) solve the issue at hand;
2) remain as simple as possible;
3) minimize collateral damage to relevant competitive strategies.
The first point is obviously the most important, while the relative importance of 2) and 3) seems to depend on the situation. For example, the OU baton pass clause heavily favours 3) over 2).
Normally, banning a Pokemon is great for all three points. It certainly solves the issue of having a broken Pokemon; the only Pokemon that is directly hindered by the ban is the banned Pokemon itself; and banning a single instance of a specific mechanic is about as simple as it gets. In this case, however, we have an even better solution. We know for sure that banning Conversion would still solve the issue of Conversion Porygon, because Porygon wasn't broken in gen 6 and did not see any direct buffs in gen 7 outside of Conversion; banning a move is just as straight-forward as banning a Pokemon; and we only lose a couple of sets instead of an entire Pokemon from the ban. I don't understand how the precedent set by banning Conversion could be so terrible or dangerous, as long as it's actually applicable to the rules laid out by this ban.
The direct comparisons to Conversion Porygon don't hold up because this is such a unique situation. Banning King's Shield may not have solved Aegislash's issue at all; there was no evidence whatsoever outside of pure theorymon that Aegislash would stop heavily restricting teambuilding or causing 50/50s or whatever else it was banned for, even if it didn't have access to King's Shield. This goes for Zygarde as well - removing Thousand Arrows still leaves it with 216 base HP, good offensive typing, and two great boosting moves. Hypnosis + Compoundeyes Yanma is a complex ban, which carries its own set of issues regarding slippery slope, and is also more complicated than just banning Conversion. Banning Unburden or Speed Boost to free Drifloon or Blaziken would hinder Pokemon that are clearly not broken but still somewhat relevant, such as Treecko or Scolipede, which causes much more collateral than banning Conversion on Porygon, which causes no collateral at all.
Banning Pure Power on Meditite is very different. For starters, Pure Power is an ability, not a move - it's a totally different aspect of the game. You could just as well say that since we banned Eevium Z and Gengarite instead of Eevee and Gengar, and Eevium Z/Gengarite are competitively only usable by Eevee/Gengar, we should ban Conversion instead of Porygon, since Conversion is only usable on Porygon. I don't think either Pure Power or Gengarite is a good argument for Conversion, because when you start delving into different mechanics that are treated completely differently in-game, you're bound to find points for both sides of the argument. Other than that, Pure Power has a direct comparison in Huge Power, which clearly isn't broken on Azurill or Bunnelby, where Conversion does not. You could even make an argument point 3 related to how Telepathy Meditite may not be competitively relevant enough to be worth considering collateral, similarly to how Binacle being nerfed by PU banning Shell Smash was acceptable (and chances are, it wouldn't be).
1) solve the issue at hand;
2) remain as simple as possible;
3) minimize collateral damage to relevant competitive strategies.
The first point is obviously the most important, while the relative importance of 2) and 3) seems to depend on the situation. For example, the OU baton pass clause heavily favours 3) over 2).
Normally, banning a Pokemon is great for all three points. It certainly solves the issue of having a broken Pokemon; the only Pokemon that is directly hindered by the ban is the banned Pokemon itself; and banning a single instance of a specific mechanic is about as simple as it gets. In this case, however, we have an even better solution. We know for sure that banning Conversion would still solve the issue of Conversion Porygon, because Porygon wasn't broken in gen 6 and did not see any direct buffs in gen 7 outside of Conversion; banning a move is just as straight-forward as banning a Pokemon; and we only lose a couple of sets instead of an entire Pokemon from the ban. I don't understand how the precedent set by banning Conversion could be so terrible or dangerous, as long as it's actually applicable to the rules laid out by this ban.
The direct comparisons to Conversion Porygon don't hold up because this is such a unique situation. Banning King's Shield may not have solved Aegislash's issue at all; there was no evidence whatsoever outside of pure theorymon that Aegislash would stop heavily restricting teambuilding or causing 50/50s or whatever else it was banned for, even if it didn't have access to King's Shield. This goes for Zygarde as well - removing Thousand Arrows still leaves it with 216 base HP, good offensive typing, and two great boosting moves. Hypnosis + Compoundeyes Yanma is a complex ban, which carries its own set of issues regarding slippery slope, and is also more complicated than just banning Conversion. Banning Unburden or Speed Boost to free Drifloon or Blaziken would hinder Pokemon that are clearly not broken but still somewhat relevant, such as Treecko or Scolipede, which causes much more collateral than banning Conversion on Porygon, which causes no collateral at all.
Banning Pure Power on Meditite is very different. For starters, Pure Power is an ability, not a move - it's a totally different aspect of the game. You could just as well say that since we banned Eevium Z and Gengarite instead of Eevee and Gengar, and Eevium Z/Gengarite are competitively only usable by Eevee/Gengar, we should ban Conversion instead of Porygon, since Conversion is only usable on Porygon. I don't think either Pure Power or Gengarite is a good argument for Conversion, because when you start delving into different mechanics that are treated completely differently in-game, you're bound to find points for both sides of the argument. Other than that, Pure Power has a direct comparison in Huge Power, which clearly isn't broken on Azurill or Bunnelby, where Conversion does not. You could even make an argument point 3 related to how Telepathy Meditite may not be competitively relevant enough to be worth considering collateral, similarly to how Binacle being nerfed by PU banning Shell Smash was acceptable (and chances are, it wouldn't be).
I think Levi hit the nail on the head when it comes to Pory. As much as I get that we should try and adhere to as much precedence as possible, the simple fact is that we really don't have any precedence on this. This is a completely different mechanic that we're probably going to have to adjust our policies on, especially in LC where something such as +1 to all stats has much more stronger affect than in other metagames.
There have been multiple instances where banning the Pokemon wasn't the course of action taken by smogon (Soul Dew, Aldaron's Proposal, Mega Evolutions , Sand Veil, BP clause) because it was simply not the best way to go about the problem. If you have a clear sight in mind of what that problem is, and a way to fairly easily eliminate that problem without causing harm to much else (exactly like this situation), we should take it. Nothing else at this point has access to Conversion, thus it seems to be a very easy option for us. Rejecting this is just using hypotheticals, and for all this arguing about "how Smogon does things", hypotheticals is definitely not in that category. If something else happens to get Conversion in the future, I see no harm in revisiting a ban on Conversion, but at this point it just seems dumb to me to arbitrarily reject a viable option just because something might happen. And whether you package it as Z-conversion or just a ban on conversion itself, it has the same functional outcome, so the debate on that doesn't make much sense to me.
Btw, I feel people are blowing the "we have to set a precedent" thing completely out of proportion. No matter what we do, I guarantee OU is going to do their own thing and not give a second thought to how LC does things. Let's do what's best for the LC metagame, not what's best for other metagames. This idea has always been around in LC, with banning moves like sonic boom / dragon rage, as well as certain items. LC is simply a different entity as other metas, and as such sometimes we might have to go about things differently. Not to say this is always the case, I'm just saying that we shouldn't shoot anything down simply due to the influence of other metagames.
There have been multiple instances where banning the Pokemon wasn't the course of action taken by smogon (Soul Dew, Aldaron's Proposal, Mega Evolutions , Sand Veil, BP clause) because it was simply not the best way to go about the problem. If you have a clear sight in mind of what that problem is, and a way to fairly easily eliminate that problem without causing harm to much else (exactly like this situation), we should take it. Nothing else at this point has access to Conversion, thus it seems to be a very easy option for us. Rejecting this is just using hypotheticals, and for all this arguing about "how Smogon does things", hypotheticals is definitely not in that category. If something else happens to get Conversion in the future, I see no harm in revisiting a ban on Conversion, but at this point it just seems dumb to me to arbitrarily reject a viable option just because something might happen. And whether you package it as Z-conversion or just a ban on conversion itself, it has the same functional outcome, so the debate on that doesn't make much sense to me.
Btw, I feel people are blowing the "we have to set a precedent" thing completely out of proportion. No matter what we do, I guarantee OU is going to do their own thing and not give a second thought to how LC does things. Let's do what's best for the LC metagame, not what's best for other metagames. This idea has always been around in LC, with banning moves like sonic boom / dragon rage, as well as certain items. LC is simply a different entity as other metas, and as such sometimes we might have to go about things differently. Not to say this is always the case, I'm just saying that we shouldn't shoot anything down simply due to the influence of other metagames.
Corporal Levi
You have me sold for the most part (and I was leaning the other way) - but why should we be willing to ban moves separately and not abilities? Maybe Pure Power isn't a great example because of Huge Power, but why did we ban Vulpix in Gen 5 and not just Drought, when Drought was clearly what was truly broken? (Not a rhetorical question - I want to know your thoughts).
On a related note, it would be nice if we as a metagame had an official banning policy outlined somewhere. It would make discussions like this a lot more productive.
You have me sold for the most part (and I was leaning the other way) - but why should we be willing to ban moves separately and not abilities? Maybe Pure Power isn't a great example because of Huge Power, but why did we ban Vulpix in Gen 5 and not just Drought, when Drought was clearly what was truly broken? (Not a rhetorical question - I want to know your thoughts).
On a related note, it would be nice if we as a metagame had an official banning policy outlined somewhere. It would make discussions like this a lot more productive.
I don't want to talk about Baton Pass because I don't really have much time rn but I think banning BP would be the way to go. I might do it tomorrow if I can.
What seems clear to everyone is that z-conversion porygon is broken and unhealthy for the metagame. So what are our options against this?
- Banning Porygon: Porygon isn't broken by itself. It's a very good pokemon in the metagame but not really broken. Only its z-conversion sets are unhealthy for the metagame and really, really difficult to stop. It can't be t waved because of electric typing from thunderbolt and it's really hard to outspeed, hit strong enough to go through its +1 defenses along with recover and living one or two hits from its +2 spatk. Other than that, porygon has some other sets, just like the bulky attacker porygon with download and recover, wall or even scarf sets. None of this are unbalanced or broken for little cup and objectively don't deserve a ban. Banning a whole mon just for one move shouldn't be the way to go. Is Porygon broken for having access to a broken move? No it isn't. It just happens to be the only pokemon with access to it, and every pokemon with decent enough stats and movepool would be broken with it. Obviously, ridiculous examples like Magikarp wouldn't be broken, but that's just an absurd comparation.
- Banning Z-Conversion: z-conversion is a z move, which needs a specific item, which makes it more difficult to just ban it. It would need to be a complex ban because you should restrict the usage of normalium z + conversion together. However, there is another option, where z conversion is banned and you can just run normalium z and conversion if you want to, but you can't transform it into z conversion. There is actually a precedent on this, which is mega rayquaza in ubers, where you can run dragon ascent in regular rayquaza but you can't evolve it, while everybody agreed with this. This brings some controversy though, as it might be considered to go against the game mechanics, which we can't really change by ourselves, so it would be disregarded if it was considered this way.
- Banning Conversion: regular conversion itself isn't broken, it changes your typing to the one of your first move and that's all, not a big deal right? So why should we ban conversion then? Well, if the option before said can't happen if the policy ended up considering it against the pokemon game mechanics, that would mean the conversion move is broken. It's not broken in its regular form, but it's broken because of being able to transform into z-conversion, which is ridiculously good.
tl;dr we should ban conversion because it can turn into a z move that is objectively just too strong for the metagame, not the only mon that happens to get it
What seems clear to everyone is that z-conversion porygon is broken and unhealthy for the metagame. So what are our options against this?
- Banning Porygon: Porygon isn't broken by itself. It's a very good pokemon in the metagame but not really broken. Only its z-conversion sets are unhealthy for the metagame and really, really difficult to stop. It can't be t waved because of electric typing from thunderbolt and it's really hard to outspeed, hit strong enough to go through its +1 defenses along with recover and living one or two hits from its +2 spatk. Other than that, porygon has some other sets, just like the bulky attacker porygon with download and recover, wall or even scarf sets. None of this are unbalanced or broken for little cup and objectively don't deserve a ban. Banning a whole mon just for one move shouldn't be the way to go. Is Porygon broken for having access to a broken move? No it isn't. It just happens to be the only pokemon with access to it, and every pokemon with decent enough stats and movepool would be broken with it. Obviously, ridiculous examples like Magikarp wouldn't be broken, but that's just an absurd comparation.
- Banning Z-Conversion: z-conversion is a z move, which needs a specific item, which makes it more difficult to just ban it. It would need to be a complex ban because you should restrict the usage of normalium z + conversion together. However, there is another option, where z conversion is banned and you can just run normalium z and conversion if you want to, but you can't transform it into z conversion. There is actually a precedent on this, which is mega rayquaza in ubers, where you can run dragon ascent in regular rayquaza but you can't evolve it, while everybody agreed with this. This brings some controversy though, as it might be considered to go against the game mechanics, which we can't really change by ourselves, so it would be disregarded if it was considered this way.
- Banning Conversion: regular conversion itself isn't broken, it changes your typing to the one of your first move and that's all, not a big deal right? So why should we ban conversion then? Well, if the option before said can't happen if the policy ended up considering it against the pokemon game mechanics, that would mean the conversion move is broken. It's not broken in its regular form, but it's broken because of being able to transform into z-conversion, which is ridiculously good.
tl;dr we should ban conversion because it can turn into a z move that is objectively just too strong for the metagame, not the only mon that happens to get it
I think ban Porygon personally. Imagine if we decide Z-mirror move Vullaby is broken, we can't ban Z-mirror move because of all the other mons that have it aren't broken, but people will be arguing that we should ban z-mirror move. We'd end up banning Vullaby but it seems dumb that Porygon gets special treatment cos nothing else has conversion, and people played with it in ORAS. I guarantee that if Porygon was a newly introduced Pokemon, we'd only be considering banning the Pokemon, but I feel people are just attached to it because it's been an LC staple every generation. As for reasons why it's broken, it's been covered pretty well already. Levi summed it up well with the Swirlix comparison, though I believe Normal and Electric are the main viable options.
As for Cutie, I don't feel Cutiefly is broken by itself, but it's the baton passing to other Pokemon that makes it overpowered. There's only 1 100% check to Cutiefly passing, and that is Whirlwind Lax. You can say Haze Mareanie, but even then, Cutie can pass to Gothita. You can say Clear Smog Foongus, but Cutie can pass to Magnemite or Gothita. Haze A-Grimer isn't reliable enough because it gets worn down, and if they have Diglett it's a 50/50 whether you haze or attack. On the whole banning thing, I really think we should consider nerfing baton pass. It was annoying last generation and matchup-based and with cutiefly it's a lot worse. I really don't think full baton pass is healthy for the metagame
As for Cutie, I don't feel Cutiefly is broken by itself, but it's the baton passing to other Pokemon that makes it overpowered. There's only 1 100% check to Cutiefly passing, and that is Whirlwind Lax. You can say Haze Mareanie, but even then, Cutie can pass to Gothita. You can say Clear Smog Foongus, but Cutie can pass to Magnemite or Gothita. Haze A-Grimer isn't reliable enough because it gets worn down, and if they have Diglett it's a 50/50 whether you haze or attack. On the whole banning thing, I really think we should consider nerfing baton pass. It was annoying last generation and matchup-based and with cutiefly it's a lot worse. I really don't think full baton pass is healthy for the metagame
Agree with Rowan as well when it comes to BP. I realize that BP itself isn't a broken move, but when combined with other attributes it is borked. Sure, the main problem is Cutiefly, but let's not lie to ourselves and say BP hasn't been a problem before. Torchic based teams were already borderline, SD pass mienfoo when supported properly could wreck shit, and full BP was so controversial it was suspected (didn't agree with this, but it happened). Yes, if you're dry passing BP it is not broken, but more often than not this is not how the move is being used. We're not banning stuff based on their minimum potential, you should base it on maximum potential. Pheromosa isn't broken when used sub optimally, yet it will most likely be banned. Using BP in a non-broken manner shouldn't automatically disqualify it for being suspected. Again, this stuff doesn't have to come down to just banning the Pokemon, we should be focusing on the main issue, and right now I have a very hard time saying that comes down to Cutiefly itself.
Some arguments for banning Porygon, not Z-Conversion.
Levi is saying that we should just ban Z-Conversion because we know Porygon without it is not broken because we have evidence by playing with it in Gen 6.
However, we had evidence that Carvanha wasn't broken before Speed Boost in gen 5, yet gen 5 still banned Carvanha. We have evidence that Misdreavus wasn't broken before Nasty Plot was released in HGSS, yet we still banned Misdreavus. Literally the only reason we're arguing to ban Z-Conversion is that it's a unique move. Even though, because Yanma was banned anyway, Speed Boost actually was unique to Carvanha in BWLC.
Aegislash also had a unique move in King's Shield, yet we didn't ban King's Shield, or test it without (some would argue that it's broken without King's Shield, but we're not sure on that because we just banned the whole mon.)
I just don't think we should consider banning Z-Conversion over Porygon just because we used Porygon in gen 6. As I said earlier if Porygon was released this gen we would 100% be considering banning it, so why are we giving bias to older Pokemon?
Levi is saying that we should just ban Z-Conversion because we know Porygon without it is not broken because we have evidence by playing with it in Gen 6.
However, we had evidence that Carvanha wasn't broken before Speed Boost in gen 5, yet gen 5 still banned Carvanha. We have evidence that Misdreavus wasn't broken before Nasty Plot was released in HGSS, yet we still banned Misdreavus. Literally the only reason we're arguing to ban Z-Conversion is that it's a unique move. Even though, because Yanma was banned anyway, Speed Boost actually was unique to Carvanha in BWLC.
Aegislash also had a unique move in King's Shield, yet we didn't ban King's Shield, or test it without (some would argue that it's broken without King's Shield, but we're not sure on that because we just banned the whole mon.)
I just don't think we should consider banning Z-Conversion over Porygon just because we used Porygon in gen 6. As I said earlier if Porygon was released this gen we would 100% be considering banning it, so why are we giving bias to older Pokemon?
a) Carvanha ban - 'tis a fair point.
b) Missy ban - incomparible to Porygon.
You can't ban Nasty Plot, because that would unnecessarily affect other Pokemon with Nasty Plot that aren't broken.
You shouldn't ban Nasty Plot just on Misdreavus, because then it becomes a more complex ban.
Easy solution is to just ban Misdreavus.
With Porygon, banning Conversion is neither complex nor affects other Pokemon.
c) Aegislash ban - incomparible to Porygon.
As you said, we don't know for sure whether it would have been broken or not without King's Shield, so testing without King's Shield would have been an unnecessarily complex course of action, so it was decided to just ban Aegilslash. With Porygon, we know for sure that it is balanced without Conversion.
So you have a point there with Carvanha - but in my opinion, I don't think it matters. Who cares what has happened in the past? Consistency is nice, but I think it's more important to to focus on the best option for the metagame right now. Banning Carvanha a long time ago is not a reason to not pick the best option for the metagame - the best option being to ban Conversion. Why? Because banning Conversion reduces change. Banning Porygon, an S-ranked Pokemon, would cause a shift in the meta and possibly have a knock-on effect. This has the potential to become inconvenient to deal with. Meanwhile, by banning just Conversion, we do not lose the entire Pokemon, just the single broken set. There is no potential for future inconvenience here, as the other Porygon sets remain, and we know they are balanced. So banning Conversion is the logical decision here.
I agree that precedent shouldn't be the only deciding factor, but why should we care about reducing change? "Oh no, we only have 3 years till generation 8 comes out we won't have time to adapt to a Porygon-less meta". Every ban causes a shift, that's just what happens, we have never worried and should never worry about banning a Pokemon because of knock-on effects. Why is keeping non-z-conversion Porygon "good for the meta"?
My point about Aegislash is that Porygon gets bias simply because it is an older Pokemon, which I don't agree with.
Quick response to why we shouldn't do this - a teambuilder ban is always better than an in battle modification. Both in terms of cart accuracy and in terms of understanding. If somebody goes into battle with Normalium Z and Conversion and sees they can't click the Z-Conversion button that creates confusion in a way that preventing them from starting that battle in the first place doesn't.
Mega Rayquaza was exceptional, had its own loose precedence in the form of banning mega forms (granted this was done by banning the stone), and was done directly by chaos. We really shouldn't do this if at all possible, since this would be a sim mod which would be far less clear than banning z-conversion on the teambuilder side. I would infinitely support banning the base move conversion over that.
Those were decisions made at a different time by different people. The community is always evolving, new people come and old people become less active. As such, how policy is approached changes alongside it. We don't need to adhere to the precedents set in the past; we should keep things simple and in the best interest of the community. Banning Conversion is a new solution that preserves Porygon while eliminating the broken aspect of the Pokemon without being an inordinately complex ban. The way I see it, if people are being seriously vocal about banning Conversion, then it is either because 1) they think the move is what is more broken, not the Pokemon, or 2) they want Conversion-less Porygon in the metagame. And I think the enjoyment of the community is something to take into consideration when it comes to banning. That is why threads like this exist. If you like Porygon, and you want it to stay in the metagame, this is where you can say that. Maybe that wasn't how things were done in the past, but again we are an evolving community. If Porygon continues to be broken without Z-Conversion, then maybe a suspect for the Pokemon itself is in order. But for now, I like Porygon without Z-Conversion, and I would like to see it given a chance without the move.
Policy is more important than people's feelings about a particular mon. Drifloon is my favorite mon, but even though it was deemed broken and banned, I wouldn't advocate for some silly way of nerfing it just to preserve it and keep it in the meta. Adhering to precedents and policy keeps bans from being confusing to new users, maintains the formality of the tier, and prevents LC from becoming a laughingstock like what ensued after the PU suspect of Dynamic Punch. While Conversion isn't that complex in nature, in this scenario it is complex because it's an indirect way of nerfing Porygon. Conversion by itself is not broken, but rather it's broken on Porygon with Normalium Z. Unless a move or ability is inherently uncompetitive, like Swagger or Moody, the simplest course of action is to just ban the broken mon, not the broken part of it.