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

np: OU Suspect Testing Round 1 - ...wait, I'm not Jumpman16!

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by Philip7086, Dec 1, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chomper The Sharptooth

    Chomper The Sharptooth

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    301
    By precedent (Soul Dew clause) we've shown we can allow ourselves to tweak our Pokemon to keep them OU. While I didn't like Soul Dew clause for that reason I don't see how it's any different than banning Dark Void, after all Soul Dew wouldn't be broken if Rampardos had it.

    I still think we shouldn't ban anything but Pokemon (and inconsistent -_-) but domeface isn't wrong because we've done this sort of thing before.
  2. Haunter

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

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,621
    Banning items doesn't set any precedent about banning moves, if anything because there are no broken items other that SD on the Lati twins. And anyway, nobody in their right mind would actually support Giratina\Palkia\Dialga in OU without their signature item (they would be still broken).
  3. domeface

    domeface

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    I'm not suggesting banning certain moves on certain pokemon, for that very reason - it opens a huge can of worms that results in a hugely slippery slope. However, in this somewhat unique situation, we can ban a move outright and only affect broken pokemon, possibly to the extent of them becoming OU-worthy, similar to the Soul Dew Clause last gen - it applied to all pokémon, but only actually affected Lati@s.

    But by this reasoning, couldn't one argue that if Soul Dew is a broken item, so too is Light Ball? Since the net boost it provides is +2/+2, while Soul Dew only grants a +1/+1, and the stats boosted by Light Ball are definitely as useful as Soul Dew's, possibly even moreso. The key difference that makes Soul Dew broken and Light Ball not is that the pokemon who can use the boosts are much better built to abuse them in Soul Dew's case than Light Ball's. If Light Ball had been available to Latios it would have been unbelievably broken, but relegating it only to Pikachu prevented this.

    I understand that the analogy is not perfect, as there is no hold item which grants a +2/+2 to SpA and SpD, but we all know that if such an item did exist and only worked on Luvdisc, nobody would find an issue with it.

    So is the case with Dark Void and Spore; despite Spore being numerically superior and Sleep Powder numerically almost identical, neither move is available to a pokemon as well-equipped to abuse Sleep as Darkrai. His stat spread, access to Nasty Plot and near-perfect two-move coverage make him absolutely perfect for a Sleep abuser. This doesn't apply to the likes of Breloom, who has mediocre two-move coverage and low speed preventing him from being the monster Darkrai is despite Spore being numerically superior.

    You may argue that as it's the fault of the pokemon and not the move, why should the move be banned and not the pokemon? While this is a valid viewpoint, we have precedent for going against it in the form of the Soul Dew clause - 491 of the pokemon that could hold it weren't broken with it (or at least weren't any more broken with it), and yet it was banned rather than the 2 pokemon it was broken on. This is because the other 491 pokemon wouldn't use it anyway, so the banning of the item only directly affected the two broken ones.

    But if we were to phrase it carefully, we are merely following a precedent that has already been set, by the Soul Dew clause. We would make it very clear that only outright bans on moves are allowed. This could open the door to Ho-Oh sans Sacred Fire and similar things, but not Rayquaza sans ES or DD, as outright bans on ES or DD would massively affect a large number of perfectly non-broken pokemon.

    As to Darkrai still being broken sans Dark Void, I happily admit that that is indeed very possible; however, I'm of the opinion that since Darkrai's best set, Nasty Plot, relies heavily on DV to set up, and almost every common Darkrai set utilises DV (and even sets that don't run DV may rely on the opponent assuming you are to work properly), the removal of DV will make enough of a difference to Darkrai that it's impossible to accurately theorymon whether or not it will still be broken, thus necessitating a test.

    EDIT: @PokéMontage:

    Oh, wait...
  4. Haunter

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

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,621
    Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how banning items affects a possible banning move policy. Anyway, if I recall correctly, on Shoddy Battle, the soul dew clause didn't prevent you from using Soul Dew on Lati@s, it just made the item have no effect when equipped. So you could technically equip the item, but without gaining any stat boost.

    Eh, I kind of agree here, but I'm sure that somebody may say that Breloom has 130 base Atk, access to swords dance and technician mach punch, bla bla bla. So yeah, theoretically Breloom is a well equipped sleep abuser as well.

    Then again you can technically equip every Pokemon with sould dew, you can do it in-game and I'm sure it may be programmed on PO as well if need be. Though this a pretty dumb argument to be honest.
    Again I don't support the use of the SD analogy here. It's not really relevant whether a move is one Pokemon exclusive or it can be learned by a large number of Pokemon. The point is that, from a philosophical standpoint, trying to avoid Pokemon bans by banning certain moves on certain Pokemon should also apply to non-exclusive moves such as ES and DD.

    Anyway since this argumet is becoming quite slippery, I'll just stop here.

    Also @ people posting in here: since I had to delete\edit some semi-inflammatory posts earlier, I suggest everybody to think twice before posting as I'll start infracting that kind of post, thanks.
  5. Ice-eyes

    Ice-eyes Simper Fi

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,658
    The bottom line is this: the following should be the criteria for banning moves / abilities. If a move / ability is so good that it breaks several pokemon with that move, and is a significant factor in the brokenness of those pokemon (think Inconsistent), then it should be banned. If, however, the move / ability itself is not good enough to break multiple pokemon, then any one pokemon that is broken with that move should be banned. In the case of exclusives, it has to be applied a little differently, but think. Soul Dew is an exclusive item that is a massive factor in Lati@s' brokenness, and many pokemon would be broken with an item that gives +50% to SpA and SpD. Dark Void, however, is not broken in and of itself. Many other pokemon have comparable (even better in the former case) sleep moves like Spore and Sleep Powder, yet none of these are broken.
  6. B-Lulz

    B-Lulz You ain't gotta love it 'cos the hood gone love it
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,392
    The bolded bit is the exact reason why I think Inconsistent should be banned, and not Sand Veil/Snow Cloak. This post hit the nail on the head for me. Banning abilities really should be a last resort imo.
  7. alexwolf

    alexwolf King of Conquerors
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,504
    And something else to domeface...if you are saying that we should nerf a pokemon with a move,which makes the combination of those 2 broken,why not put a lvl clause...for example why ban dark void and not restrict darkrai being only lvl 80 or 90 to make up for the possesion of dark void...ur arguement was that if we ban a move completely from ou it shoudn't create any slippery slope,'cause only if all of the move's users were broken with that move it would be banned,which funny enough happens only to darkrai...and u support that banning a move is better than banning a poke...so if we decrease the lvl of said pokemon it would be even better, cause a restriction on lvl is even less of a ban than a ban of a move...do u support putting a lvl clause???
  8. dragonmaster951753

    dragonmaster951753

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    Alexwolf.... i think you are going too far

    But i would like to hear the reasons as to IF dark void was to be banned, how would Darkrai survive? I want to hear this from the people saying he is OU without DV. I still believe he would be Uber, i feel like without DV he would run specs and how Dark Pulse, Psychic, Focus Blast, Spacial Rend (maybe not Psychic but couldn't hurt) and with him being able to hit ANYTHING unresisted backed with specs and fast speed, he would still wreck OU by himself
  9. More Cowbell

    More Cowbell

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,276
    Alexwolf, just keep this on the topic, don't start about level clauses, as it doesn't have shit to do with this.
  10. domeface

    domeface

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Such a debate would be pointless as theorymon is never a match for actual evidence. To turn down a DV ban because Darkrai would still be Uber is ridiculous, since it's impossible to know that without testing. I'm by no means claiming Darkrai will definitely be OU without DV, I'm saying that given what we know, there is a good enough chance of it that it warrants a test.

    @alexwolf: aside from everything else, a level clause would create yet another slippery slope where Kyogre, Arceus et al will all have to downleveled to fit in OU. The only way for a level clause to work would be to make everything Lv90, which defeats the whole point.

    EDIT: @Haunter Soul Dew being equipable but having no effect would be impossible to implement with our new strict mechanics policy, so I believe the point still stands. As to the relevance of Soul Dew Clause where moves are concerned, it basically shows that elements that can be added to a pokemon but aren't necessarily always present (ie, items/moves/abilities, not stats or typing) can be banned outright if they are only used by pokemon who are broken with them, even if numerically superior items/moves/abilities exist but are not broken on the pokemon who can use them. An item is effectively a move that is used by default either every turn (Life Orb, Leftovers, Soul Dew) or once when prompted (Berries, Focus Sash), so if we can outright ban an item that is technically numerically inferior to others and can be used on pokemon who are not broken with it, but do not use it because it's useless on them, then why can't we do the same for a move?
  11. Raikaria

    Raikaria

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,312
    Just on this point:

    Yes, several moves are more then their numerical stats. Take Stealth Rock, for example, or Thunder Wave.

    However, I'm compareing two moves which are identical except for their numerical stats. Don't mention the type, as there's roughly the same number of pokemon with an immunity ability [Justice Heart and Herbivore]

    As soon as you bring in Breloom or Darkrai into the logic [IE: Darkrai can abuse the move more] you're supporting that Darkrai is broken, not Dark Void.

    The point is, if Dark Void is broken, every pokemon with a move that did the same, or better, would, logically, be broken, unless they had a very good reason otherwise.

    This is not the case. Spore is better than Dark Void. Breloom is a perfectly good pokemon, armed to abuse Spore as well as Darkrai can abuse Dark Void. Vrey few claims of Breloom being broken are in my memory.

    So, by this logic, Dark Void is not broken. If Darkrai is too much for the metagame to handle, it's Darkrai that is broken, not Dark Void.

    Oh, and, to draw some paralells between Darkrai and Breloom:

    Both have a 90%+ accurace Sleep Move.
    Both have a move which gives them +2 in their stongest attack stat, and can then use a STAB which will outspeed most [Dark Pulse/Mach Punch]
    Both have a very high attack stat.
    Both have reasonable ability to switch in [Breloom by type and Poision Heal, Darkrai by natural bulk.]
    Both can abuse their sleep move to almost ensure at least one KO. [SubPunch Breloom, NP Darkrai]

    What breaks Darkrai is probobly not Dark Void, but it's high speed coupled with it. Dark Void helps, yes, but if it was Breloom's speed, it would be nowhere near as much of a threat. Imagine Breloom with Base 125, or even 110, Speed. He'd probobly be out of OU before you could argue otherwise. [And he'd still have a lower BST than most of 4th Gen OU too!]

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. By logic, banning Dark Void would entail banning Spore, which is a superior version of a 'broken' move, so, logically, is broken itself. There's no logical argument as to how Dark Void would be broken, while Spore is not. Unless you're talking Doubles/Triples. But then it's banned via the Sleep Clause.

    I will hold this veiw about Spore and Dark Void unless someone can give me a VERY good reason otherwise. And that would be a reason that dosen't include the ability of the pokemon that carry the move to abuse it, as we are argueing if a move is broken, so the ability of a carrier to abuse said move is a moot point.

    tl;dr:
    Compareing the numerical values on Spore and Dark Void is perfectly acceptable, as it's the only comparison to make.
    Darkrai is broken, Dark Void itself not, although it is a contibuteing factor.
  12. fidgety

    fidgety

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    170
    the difference is latias actually had a very good chance of being ou without soul dew. darkrai already has more spa than latios more speed than most of ou. only 4 that likely exist or will be used after a couple rounds of suspect that outspeed darkrai w/o a speed up + ko back: jolteon, ninjask(is outclassed now), agirudaa, aerodactl, crowbat, meloetta-step(unreleased), + swellow/weavile have a speed tie (unreliable) while latias was on the high end of the average @ the time (100-110). darkrai can go +2 in a single round latias could only +1 in that time.
    + you criticize alexwolf/gravityzero about opening a slippery slope when you were opening 1 yourself in fact gravityzero's give or take no less.
  13. domeface

    domeface

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Please, that was actually painful to read. Is it really that difficult to use the Shift key every once in a while? And does it really take that much longer to type 'at' or 'and' instead of '@' or '+'?

    Onto your actual argument. You seem unable to grasp the concept that you cannot make these assertions without evidence. You have not played in a metagame where Dark Void is banned and Darkrai allowed, so you cannot possibly know that Darkrai would still be Uber without the move. You may share your opinion on the matter, and state that you are of the belief that Darkrai is still Uber without Dark Void, but your opinion is not a fact. You have no evidence to back up your claims (you say that you've used Darkrai in Ubers without DV and that it's powerful there, therefore it must be too powerful for OU. This is universally accepted as utter bullshit reasoning that means absolutely nothing. A pokemon's performance in Ubers has nothing to do with its performance in OU), therefore they are mere opinions, and should be expressed as such. Haunter, cosmicexplorer and the other intelligent people who disagree with me have managed to express their opinions as just that (not to mention complete with capital letters and all), while you seem intent on spouting your opinion as fact.

    As to the 'slippery slope' I am supposedly creating, the furthest it can go would be to the banning of Sacred Fire on Ho-Oh or Psycho Break on Mewtwo, but the number of situations where the banning of a signature move results in an otherwise Uber pokemon becoming OU is sufficiently few that the 'slipperyness' is minimised.
  14. fidgety

    fidgety

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    170

    so your saying with darkrai even if it doesn't have void around ALL PLAY SYLES will be viable (that is the definition of a healthy meta-game). no, stall will be non-existant. mence ban ring a bell, before it stall could not hold it's own, afterwards it was usable since the things that blocked it were gone and a healthy meta was established. with darkrai 1 to 2 shotting every wall in existence that will not be the case.
  15. Mario With Lasers

    Mario With Lasers Self-proclaimed DEAD king
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    7,168
    Does even Nintendo banning Soul Dew in their Battle Facilities and official tournaments, even when Ubers are allowed, mean anything to this debate?
  16. Arc Tech

    Arc Tech

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    740
    Nope, since they often ban things which are event only. It has no relevance on its power or on Smogon policy.
  17. Chomper The Sharptooth

    Chomper The Sharptooth

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    301
    Justice Heart won't stop Dark Void from working (Otherwise Scarf Terakion would be a great Darkrai counter), but Herbivore will stop Spore. Seeing as there are immunes to Spore it is only "strictly better" than Dark Void in the sense Light Ball is "strictly better" than Soul Dew. You could say it's because Soul Dew has better users, but the same can be said for Dark Void!

    Just playing devils advocate...
  18. More Cowbell

    More Cowbell

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ok, let's put it like this:

    Breloom with Spore =/= broken
    Darkrai with Dark Void = broken (arguably, many will agree)

    Now the fact is that Spore is a better move than Dark Void (same effect, higher accuracy), and the fact that even with a worse move, Darkrai is broken, while Breloom, a high-tier OU, is not. I guess that places Darkrai above that, and with that into Ubers.
  19. FastFlygon

    FastFlygon

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    Rankurusu should be banned.

    And here's why:

    Many of you will remember a thread by DougjustDoug. It was entitled, "Charateristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame", and in it, people attempted to answer the question of what kind of metagame we wanted to create. The second point on that list is as follows:

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

    Now let me explain how this relates to the banning of Rankurusu. As most of you will no doubt know, Rankurusu is available with the ability Magic Guard. This ability makes it immune to all forms of passive damage: it must be taken out by direct attacks. But how does this relate to the banning of Rankurusu?

    One of the main playstyles in copetitive Pokemon is Stall. Heavy Stall, the main subfacet of this, is the intention to eliminate all of your opponents Pokemon using various forms of passive damage. Whether damaging weather, Entry Hazards or Status, eventually, the enemy team succumbs to the conditions and is defeated. But Rankurusu makes this entire playstyle totally unviable. Let's start with the obvious. Magic Guard means it is unkillable using passive damage. However, there is another Pokemon with access to Magic Guard: Clefable. Surely then, Clefable should also be banned?

    The problem with this mentality is that although Clefable is immune to passive damage, there is little else it can try and do. Disregarding Magic Guard, it is almost completely outclassed by Blissey and Chansey as a defensive Pokemon, and as an Offensive Pokemon, there are many better options. Compare thier base Defenses:
    Clefable: 95/73/90
    Rankurusu: 110/75/85
    As we can see, Rankurusu is clearly superior in Defense, and slightly superior in Special Defense. Now lets see how they individually deal with commonly seen 5th generation Pokemon:

    To start with, we'll look at Roobushin. The standard Bulk Up set, which is becoming very common in the 5th generation metgame due to it's ability to counter many top threats.
    +2 0 Atk. Roobushin Payback Vs. 252/252 Rankurusu - (124-146)+1 0 Satk Rankurusu Psychic in Return - (330-390)
    +2 0 Atk. Roobushin Drain Punch Vs. 252/252 Clefable - (380-450)
    Clefable is generally unable to hit Roobushin in return.
    As we can see from these calculations, even a +2 Super Effective attack coming off a powerful pokemon barely scratches Rankurusu, while it deals heavy damage in return. I have chosen Roobushin since it is sometimes seen on stall teams as a counter and utility check.

    Another offensive pokemon seen on stall teams is Tyranitar. I'll assume a fairly bulky spread with 80 Atk Ev's - this is still Stall after all.
    Tyranitar Crunch Vs. 252/252 Rankurusu - (224-266)
    +1 Focus Blast in return - (420-496)
    Tyranitar Stone Edge Vs. Clefable - (144-169)
    As we can see, Rankurusu takes heavy damage from the Crunch but is not Ko'd, and rips Tyranitar apart in return. While Stone Edge does not do huge damage to Clefable, all it is really able to do in return is Thunder Wave, which can be easily dealt with by a cleric.

    A final Point I would like to make is that on it's own, Clefable cannot beat stall. It gets Softboiled, but it's only real boosting move is Belly Drum, which is very risky and forces it to run a Physical set, meaning Desukan can easily remove Magic Guard and allow Clefable to be killed by passive damage. On the other hand, once stall is unable to force Rankurusu out with Roar, it will often sweep through the team, forcing the stall player to PP stall it if he or she wants to have any hope of beating it. Due to the decent amount of PP Rankurusu usually finds available, this is very tedious and difficult. Clefable can also be crippled by a Burn, whereas the only status which worries the Psychic Type is sleep, and a Heavy Stall Team has no real way to capitalise on the free turns it gets in this manner.

    So to conclude, (or just as a tl;dr point) I believe Rankurusu should be Banned because it's ability allows it to remove Heavy Stall as a viable playstyle, thereby infracting the second point of DougjustDoug's "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame".

    FastFlygon
  20. XienZo

    XienZo

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    746
    ^Why can't you just stick in some Rankurusu counter into a heavy stall team to stop it?

    If all potential counters are unviable for w/e reason on a heavy stall team, you need to cover that in your argument too.
  21. Arc Tech

    Arc Tech

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    740
    Percentages are preferable to the actual numbers.

    I myself thought Rankurusu might prove to be broken later on, for the reason you mentioned (destroying stall) but there a a variety of ways to deal with it (even if it would make the team not quite heavy stall). CBtar handles offensive versions pretty well, and sableye and spiritomb handle defensive cm psychic/focus blast versions. Encore also ruins cmers, and unaware pokes might be able to handle it. I doubt it will be voted uber, and if it was a suspect this round, I would vote it OU.
  22. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer pewpewpew
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,555
    lol are you serious? SubCM Clefable's done the exact same thing to stall since forever. Why isn't that broken?
  23. SJCrew

    SJCrew Believer, going on a journey...
    is a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,927
    You have it all wrong; I'm not making any hypothetical claims about Darkrai with or without Void, I'm dismissing your test on the idea of it being fundamentally counterproductive. That's not a question we should be asking ourselves to begin with, frankly, because it takes us to deeper level of balancing that we as players should not tread: weakening the Ubers. The process you're suggesting is entirely different from the one in which we're engaged now, which is to get rid of singular culprits.

    Case in point: You want Darkrai + Dark Void banned. Keeping Darkrai in OU under certain conditions does not help balance the metagame, it only begs the question what other measures we could be taking to balance other Ubers in a similar way. You do not see the future repercussions of banning a move that isn't in and of itself broken because the convenience of the current situation blinds you. Dark Void is not a broken move just because Darkrai abuses it to make himself broken. Accusing it as such and subsequently banning it is illogical.


    Also, understand this: in the context of our current suspect testing policy, your hypothesis is irrelevant.



    If you really want to know what a Darkrai without Dark Void can do, use him on the ladder with your own custom set and tell us what you think. No need to push for complete policy reversal when 90% of the community including the guy in charge is vehemently against it.
  24. FastFlygon

    FastFlygon

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    539
    I've beaten clefable. It has weaker defenses, and is less threatening. But every Rankurusu counter is offensive. Beyond PP stalling it, I can't beat it.
    I'm testing Taunt/Roost Mew, but I doubt it will help.
  25. TLK

    TLK

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    406
    No, because just because Rankurusu does well against stall teams doesn't mean it's broken. Heavy stall is still a viable strategy, in fact with team preview it's arguably one of the more viable strategies going. All stall teams have to consider the likes of Rankurusu who can seriously hurt it's chances.

    I run a heavy stall team and don't have many problems with Rankurusu as long as my counter isn't gone. Spiritomb, for example, is very viable on a stall team (spin blocker with no weaknesses and "counters" lots of common Pokemon like Deoxys-A), and generally the best thing Rank is going to hit it with is unSTABed Shadow Ball. Spiritomb can use Rank as set up bait for more offensive sets, or attack it's unboosted defence stat with moves like Sucker Punch or Pursuit. With Pressure, Spiritomb can easily stall it out if Rankurusu stays in and tries to set up more (why it would do that is beyond me).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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