np: UU - Here It Goes Again

[umbarsc]

If you have no comparative background to see what a potentially non-broken metagame looks like - how can you determine what is broken in that tier? You need a frame of reference and that is what this builds.

I don't get it. Why do we need that frame of reference to determine if it sweeps teams, stalls, or supports other Pokemon? I'd argue that the extra month is worse because memories fade, making the vote less accurate. The extra month gives us more information about the Suspect, none of which is relevant to the three characteristics.

 

[BurtonEarny]

Out of the three, I want Honchkrow back. The metagame would be a lot better with it around, in my opinion.

I think absol is the better fit in UU. They are essentially the same mon, except
-Honchkrow has more opportunities to come in (even if he is SR weak)
-Honchkrow gets dual stab (this is big for me, he gets super power AND STAB Drill peck)
-Is immune to entry hazards beyond SR (huge for a stall breaker)
-Has the option of running insomnia
-Can survive an attack
-Is neutral to priority attacks

Absol
-has slightly more power and speed
-isnt SR weak
-cant switch into as much
-isnt immune to spikes
-gets SD

I think both of them having that ridiculous ability makes them difficult to handle, but absol has more "checks" than Honchkrow. Honchkrow is just plain and simple a better Absol. Honchkrow gets many more switchins, and is sturdier. I mean if you are using a poke that can basically kill any of its counters in one hit AND has a heightened chance to do so, then at least use the lesser of two evils.

Though, Im the minority I think, as alot of people are saying Hochkrow is fine...

 

[lati0s]

There are a few different reasons for it to be removed. As Erazor pointed out, it lets other Pokemon come to the forefront and demonstrate themselves as being potential broken. For example, without the suspects removed Shaymin wasn't widely considered a huge threat - but that has changed.

And this should be done before voting on the suspects, why?

With regards to the characteristics, you are supposed to use your experiences before and after the removal of suspects.

And your experiences after the removal of the suspects help you to tell if the suspects broke the BL characteristics how?

Do you recall in the early suspect tests when there were requirements on both ladders? This is similar.

I didn't support that system either

We've experienced metagames without Latios, Latias, and Manaphy for months; the same can't be said of this UU metagame. If you have no comparative background to see what a potentially non-broken metagame looks like - how can you determine what is broken in that tier? You need a frame of reference and that is what this builds.

I really don't think that a frame of reference is necessary for me to be able to tell if shaymin swept teams with ease or if crobat was able to give too much team support. etc.

 

[A.P.]

Yes, it was. Those general points you've brought up may be easy to see, but what about other facts, facts that only come through experience, not theorymon?

 

[lati0s]

They come through experience with the suspects, not from experience in a metagame without them.

 

[A.P.]

OK, sorry about that.

@ Caelum/RB Golbat (is it DP Crobat now?): When does the test end? Will it coincide with the release of the June stats?

 

[YaM]

LO Roserade is a huge pain, it can take status, set up spikes and and has good special defense, if you don't resist its attacks you're going to be hit very hard, and if you do resist its attacks, it will sleep you. Along with good 90 base speed it is literally a thorn in my side.

Yanmega is also very scary for offensive teams not packing priority, as it can outspeed almost all Pokes after a boost. It also hurts Rain/Sun teams.

I noticed an increase of SubPunchers like Azumarill, Toxicroak

 

[Erazor]

Azumarill is great in this new Metagame, and Yanmega is really dangerous as well.
Tangrowth is also a really nice pokemon, even though he's NU. Those defenses are amazing, and he can Leech seed the crap out of Regirock, Steelix, and Registeel... which, incidentally, all wall Swellow, and to a lesser extent, Mismagius. They really have fun.

Technitop is everywhere nowadays, and it's amazingly useful.

 

[Draco Zephyr]

Yanmega is without a doubt one of the most threatening late-game forces avaiable, I have seen SubPetaya, Reversal, and LO variants running rampant after the fall of Chansey. Priority users are also increasing in usage due to their ability to check Yanmega (although Sub variants, like the one I use, can byapss this), like Absol, Scyther, etc.

 

[Itsuki]

I'm sorry if this was discussed but when is the deadline of the testing? I know its a month testing but is there an exact date? I'm just curious as I just hit the requirements.

 

[Tint]

I still don't understand the point of playing a suspect less UU in relation to banning things. I get the point of finding new suspects, but why don't we just vote on the suspects beforehand? A suspectless metagame doesn't show us much, if anything, about how broken the suspects are, just how broken some pokemon are once they are gone. Maybe I'm just thinking too hard, but maybe someone can actually make this make sense to me.

 

[Mrobinson587]

Yanmega and Ambipom. Maybe it's just the type of teams I run but Ambipom has been by far the most annoying pokemon in UU for me to face since the beginning of the new UU.

 

[A.P.]

Ambipom is so easy to wall though.

Yanmega is a bitch, always haxing me to death.

: (

 

[Heysup]

I guess I'm kind of late to this discussion, but here is why we are doing a suspectless metagame.

Firstly, we need a point of reference and the ability to tell if the metagame stabilizes and if the Pokemon made a big impact at all.

If this Pokemon causes such an impact to the tier, limiting what's viable to very little, seeming broken versus anything else, it deserves to be banned. The only way you can know this is if you have tested the metagame without the suspect. You cannot arbitrarily say "this Pokemon was broken" without actually knowing if it effected the metagame. A clearly broken Pokemon effects the metagame, no?

Crobat is an awesome example of this. We now see way more offense, about the same amount as you see stall or balanced teams. You see more Pokemon that could simply not function with Crobat in the tier, like TechniTop, Ambipom, Swellow, Neutral Nature base 80 Scarfers (Medicham, Blaziken, etc), DD Feraligatr etc being viable, and creating a more stable metagame without some Pokemon making every other strategy but the one involving it practically useless. It is not versatility that matters, what matters is the fact that you can play the metagame without having a broken strategy floating around, with the only way to compare to the strategy is to use it yourself.

Basically what I'm trying to say is (tl;dr just read this):

You need to know if the Pokemon actually broke something. How do you know if a strategy isn't broken without the suspect if you don't play it without the suspect? You can't. And that's the reason why we play a metagame without the suspect, to see if the suspect was truly the culprit of breaking the metagame, not something else. That's why they're called suspects, because we suspect that they broke the metagame, we can't know until they are gone however.

 

[AeroGP]

The problem is thinking that just evaluating the suspects alone based on the characteristics is enough to prove they did something. It's not; you can't just jump to conclusions without a frame of reference. If a pokemon is truly broken for a certain characteristics, the effects of their presence that are related to those characteristics will dissipate when they are removed, and you won't see that by just banning on the spot and hoping that during the next suspect evaluation the effects do dissipate. You can't multi-task this.

You need to know if the Pokemon actually broke something. Period.

It may just be a problem with the characteristics being completely suspect-centric in their description. No matter what you think, though, those characteristics DO have a distinguishable effect on the metagame, and if you ban something and that effect does not dissapear...

 

[lati0s]

I guess I'm kind of late to this discussion, but here is why we are doing a suspectless metagame.

Firstly, we need a point of reference and the ability to tell if the metagame stabilizes and if the Pokemon made a big impact at all.

Having a big impact on the metagame =/= broken. ever. Broken pokemon can and usually do have a big impact on the metagame but this is not what makes them broken.

If this Pokemon causes such an impact to the tier, limiting what's viable to very little, seeming broken versus anything else, it deserves to be banned.

if a pokemon truly did limit viable pokemon to "very little" and beat everything else, then yes it would be broken. please note that this does not apply to any of the suspects as through the test time UU remained the least centralized metagame.

The only way you can know this is if you have tested the metagame without the suspect.

bull crap. so you're telling me that I have to play Without crobat (or any other suspect) to see if it can beat other pokemon.

You cannot arbitrarily say "this Pokemon was broken" without actually knowing if it effected the metagame.

For the last time affecting the metagame does not make a pokemon broken no matter how much they affect it.

A clearly broken Pokemon effects the metagame, no?

Usually (not always, see wobuffet), but that does not mean that a pokemon that affects the metagame is broken.
the inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true.

Crobat is an awesome example of this. We now see way more offense, about the same amount as you see stall or balanced teams. You see more Pokemon that could simply not function with Crobat in the tier, like TechniTop, Ambipom, Swellow, Neutral Nature base 80 Scarfers (Medicham, Blaziken, etc), DD Feraligatr etc being viable,

Again, affecting the metagame, and checking/countering other pokemon does not make a pokemon broken.

and creating a more stable metagame without some Pokemon making every other strategy but the one involving it practically useless.

now this is something that would actually make a pokemon broken, and would fall under one of the uber characteristics. however if a strategy obseletes all other strategy's then that that would be obvious from playing with the suspect and playing without it would still be unnecessary.

It is not versatility that matters, what matters is the fact that you can play the metagame without having a broken strategy floating around, with the only way to compare to the strategy is to use it yourself.

If a strategy is truly broken it should be obvious fronm playing with/against that strategy.

You need to know if the Pokemon actually broke something. How do you know if a strategy isn't broken without the suspect if you don't play it without the suspect?

this is very unclear, but it sounds like you're trying to say that if there exists a broken strategy using pokemon x, then playing without x should happen before voting on x becuase the metagame without x may contain a similar strategy with pokemon y. this is false if there is a clearly broken strategy utilizing pokemon x then banning/voting pokemon x should hold priority.

You can't. And that's the reason why we play a metagame without the suspect, to see if the suspect was truly the culprit of breaking the metagame, not something else. That's why they're called suspects, because we suspect that they broke the metagame, we can't know until they are gone however.

if a pokemon is sweeping/supporting/walling excessively to the point that it becomes a suspect whose fault could it be but the suspects, I'm not saying that banning the suspects might not cause other pokemon to become broken, but if a pokemon is broken whose fault could it possibly be but that pokemon's.

@everyone- please remember that having a large effect on the metagame does not make a pokemon broken, I'm getting really tired of saying this.

 

[Tint]

I still don't get this all. If you want to see if there's something to stop say Shaymin from being broken, won't these counters come to the forefront more easily if you actually have to deal with Shaymin?

And this whole point of seeing if the metagame without the suspect will differenciate(?) is pointless. Any relativley strong pokemon will affect the metagame, that doesn't mean it's broken. If you take Swampert out of OU, for example, it would change the metagame. That doesn't make Swampert broken, and it didn't mean it broke something. It was just something everyone has to deal with.

And this:

If this Pokemon causes such an impact to the tier, limiting what's viable to very little, seeming broken versus anything else, it deserves to be banned. The only way you can know this is if you have tested the metagame without the suspect. You cannot arbitrarily say "this Pokemon was broken" without actually knowing if it effected the metagame. A clearly broken Pokemon effects the metagame, no?

Crobat is an awesome example of this. We now see way more offense, about the same amount as you see stall or balanced teams. You see more Pokemon that could simply not function with Crobat in the tier, like TechniTop, Ambipom, Swellow, Neutral Nature base 80 Scarfers (Medicham, Blaziken, etc), DD Feraligatr etc being viable, and creating a more stable metagame without some Pokemon making every other strategy but the one involving it practically useless. It is not versatility that matters, what matters is the fact that you can play the metagame without having a broken strategy floating around, with the only way to compare to the strategy is to use it yourself.

Doesn't make sense. Scizor alone has made almost an entire type of team almost unusable (hail), and severly limit's pokemon like Alakazam, Azelf, Gengar, Pory-Z, and Weavile from doing anything really. Azelf is almost never seen outside of a lead, and Gengar has a whole new set as a way to get by it.

I'm only trying to say that you can't really base how broken something is just because it affects the metagame in a drastic way. Scizor does the same thing, and so does Swampert, neither of which are broken. I understand the point of seeing if any new broken pokemon can arise, but I think these should be two entirely different aspects.

tl;dr:
Seeing a metagame change without a pokemon in it doesn't mean it's broken, and you can't determine something as broken if you're not using it.

 

[Heysup]

I guess my post went whooosh! and missed the target.

I am not saying if the the Pokemon effects the metagame it's broken, I'm saying that if it was broken, you need to see the effects of the suspect Pokemon being removed in order to legitimately prove that it was the culprit. If the problem is still there after you banned the Pokemon, you then just banned a Pokemon for no reason. Thats the reason for suspectless metagames, that is why we need to test the metagame without the suspect.

A Pokemon like Scizor centralizes the metagame, but it doesn't fulfill any of the characteristics. If you removed Scizor without testing the metagame without Scizor first, you could have just made the metagame even more broken, Pokemon like DD mence (For example) being able to sweep without worry, etc.

You have to understand, the goal is to ban the least possible amount of Pokemon. If the Pokemon made a more stable, less-broken metagame then the new one without it, then obviously it wasn't broken, and something else has to be done.

You are just trying to theorymon a Pokemon's banning based on the fact that you suspect that it was too good for the metagame, when you have no idea what the hell good is in the first place? Testing a metagame without a suspect not only gives us a base to work with, it gives us a way to see if the Pokemon was the thing breaking the metagame.

So keep in mind:

We didn't know if Crobat was definitely the culprit of it's own Broken metagame forsure, until we had this test without it.

We didn't know what an unbroken metagame was either, so we couldn't even form a base without it. Please tell me how you plan on justifying banning a Pokemon in a metagame that you haven't played yet? And being Psychic / seeing the future are both invalid answers, sorry.

Why would we ban Crobat? What is it too strong for? You have no idea until you test the metagame without it, because you haven't played in the metagame it's supposedly too strong for. That's my point.

Crobat is just an example.

 

[petrie911]

Everyone here seems to be missing the point. We all know that the statement "If a pokemon affects the metagame, then it is broken" is false. However, it's also irrelevant, as that's not the purpose of testing the metagame without the suspect. The real test is if the metagame doesn't change when the suspect is removed.

For example, suppose we thought Milotic might be broken, but when we removed it, people just used Slowbro and Lanturn a bit more, and the metagame remained about the same as before, just without Milotic. Then clearly Milotic wasn't broken, and we made a mistake.

Since unbanning a Pokemon is an extremely arduous process, we better make damn sure that we're right when we ban them. That is the purpose of testing without the suspect. It's one more way to make sure we aren't being too ban happy.

EDIT: Hmm...seems Heysup beat me to this.

 

[umbarsc]

Please tell me how you plan on justifying banning a Pokemon in a metagame that you haven't played yet?

We can't, but I don't see your point, because we have played in that metagame.

You are just trying to theorymon a Pokemon's banning based on the fact that you suspect that it was too good for the metagame, when you have no idea what the hell good is in the first place? Testing a metagame without a suspect not only gives us a base to work with, it gives us a way to see if the Pokemon was the thing breaking the metagame.

This would be an extremely good argument if "it breaks the metagame" were one of the characteristics. If it sweeps teams, then it doesn't matter how many Pokemon it keeps in check, it would still be banned due to the offensive characteristic.

 

[Heysup]

We can't, but I don't see your point, because we have played in that metagame.

I'm assuming you misunderstand the argument (because otherwise your statement is blatantly false).

The argument started with the question "Why do we need to test the metagame without the suspects?"

If you just misunderstood, and said that we actually have played in a metagame without the suspects, then you are correct, but the argument is that would shouldn't be playing in the metagame without the suspects.

If you believe that the metagame with Crobat (for example) = the metagame without Crobat, then I'm afraid that is obviously completely false. (X=/=X-1)

Clarify this please.

This would be an extremely good argument if "it breaks the metagame" were one of the characteristics. If it sweeps teams, then it doesn't matter how many Pokemon it keeps in check, it would still be banned due to the offensive characteristic.

Right, but you can't know if the Pokemon was fullfilling the characteristic, or if something else caused it to sweep so easily. Let's use Hockey as an example. A player X can be a pretty average player (like Messier, who was still great but not "Gretzky" great), but score the most goals in the league when paired with amazing play-maker Y (players like Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux etc). Clearly the more valuable player is player Y, because it can take any average player and make them a scoring machine. The question is, how do you know that? You can't know which player is more valuable, untill you actually know that player can take anyone and turn them into a scoring machine. Back to Pokemon: How do you know Crobat broke the offensive characteristic, or if something else made it that way without testing that possible outcome? You can't, enough said.

 

[Tint]

Right, but you can't know if the Pokemon was fullfilling the characteristic, or if something else caused it to sweep so easily. Let's use Hockey as an example. A player X can be a pretty average player (like Messier, who was still great but not "Gretzky" great), but score the most goals in the league when paired with amazing play-maker Y (players like Gretzky, Yzerman, Lemieux etc). Clearly the more valuable player is player Y, because it can take any average player and make them a scoring machine. The question is, how do you know that? You can't know which player is more valuable, untill you actually know that player can take anyone and turn them into a scoring machine. Back to Pokemon: How do you know Crobat broke the offensive characteristic, or if something else made it that way without testing that possible outcome? You can't, enough said.

...but that's only with support. I don't see how Honchkrow needs to go through this. It swept teams, relativley unchecked, or at least the nominaters thought so, because it went under the offensive characteristic. In your example, Honchkrow is the leading goal scorer with no help. If we take him away, what does that show us? Nothing. We knew he could score already. If an offensive pokemon can sweep teams, then taking it away doesn't show us anything. If there were things to stop it, they would have arrised due to sheer competitivness, not because the pokemon who could stop Honchkrow was overshadowed by Honchkrow. It makes no sense to me. Sure, with support characterisic, that's fine, we need to know if it's just Crobat, or if the things it's helping are broken too, but not with offensive pokemon. If they can sweep, then taking them away doesn't allow for counters to show, because there's no need for you to find a Honchkrow counter if your playing a metagame without him. Quit using Crobat as an example, we understand the point of testing without that, explain how you can determine if Honchkrow is broken any more by testing without him than you already knew previously.

Oh and:

You have to understand, the goal is to ban the least possible amount of Pokemon. If the Pokemon made a more stable, less-broken metagame then the new one without it, then obviously it wasn't broken, and something else has to be done.

I understand the concept of pokemon thank you.

You are just trying to theorymon a Pokemon's banning based on the fact that you suspect that it was too good for the metagame, when you have no idea what the hell good is in the first place? Testing a metagame without a suspect not only gives us a base to work with, it gives us a way to see if the Pokemon was the thing breaking the metagame.

It's not theorymon if you played with the pokemon, played against it, and many people come to the same conclusion. It's called TESTING. If anything, basing a ban on a metagame without the pokemon is theorymon, not the other way around.

 

[Stagnant]

I'll just throw a few random things out there...

First off, Wobuffet was accused of being "broken" however the metagame didn't change after his banning.

Next the current process that we are in for testing suspects isn't 100% needed in my opinion however, it does not hurt to see what changes with the suspects gone. No point in arguing over something that will probably won't change. if you dislike the phase then don't play. Ugh I hate ignorance. Simply go with the flow... it makes things so much easier.

Third why the heck did no one nominate Yanmega as a suspect? Seriously threats to it are Regice, Chansey, Registeel. Thats it! Blaziken eats them alive and thier switchins alive. Yanmega, its self, has several ways of dealing with its "counters" Hypnosis, Air Slash flinch (yes i'm counting this I've lost so many times because of it), Tinted Lens, Speed Boost + Item choice, U-turn, reversal... toxic... yata yata. Having to carry a wall for it is just absurd. Priority doesn't mean squat to it unless it is the last Pokemon because you can see priority users from a mile away.

Finally, with Shaymin And Crobat gone it really opened the doors for other pokemon to shine. But i don't care if they comeback or not.

 

[Tint]

Next the current process that we are in for testing suspects isn't 100% needed in my opinion however, it does not hurt to see what changes with the suspects gone. No point in arguing over something that will probably won't change. if you dislike the phase then don't play. Ugh I hate ignorance. Simply go with the flow... it makes things so much easier.

Third why the heck did no one nominate Yanmega as a suspect? Seriously threats to it are Regice, Chansey, Registeel. Thats it! Blaziken eats them alive and thier switchins alive. Yanmega, its self, has several ways of dealing with its "counters" Hypnosis, Air Slash flinch (yes i'm counting this I've lost so many times because of it), Tinted Lens, Speed Boost + Item choice, U-turn, reversal... toxic... yata yata. Having to carry a wall for it is just absurd. Priority doesn't mean squat to it unless it is the last Pokemon because you can see priority users from a mile away.

It's not me arguing about it being wrong, I just want the reason behind it.

And to move on, Yanmega is ridiculous. I have to start my team off with a Registeel or Chansey, then add Azumarril, Arcanine, Hitmontop, etc. as a check, then put something to switch into the Blaziken. It's crazy to be honest, and Air Slash is the worst move in the game.

 

[lati0s]

@heysup you seem to be saying that you need to play without the suspects because if removing them doesn't fix the metagame then they weren't broken.

this is completely false, imagine a metagame with pokemon A, B and C. from playing this metagame we notice 2 things
1. A is way overpowered, it sweeps teams with ease and nothing at all can beat it at full health.
2. A is a perfect counter to B and C, however outside of A neither B nor C has any counters at all.

now by your logic, in this metagame, A should not be banned because removing A does not fix the metagame (since with A removed B and C do the exact same thing A was doing), thus A is not broken, this is clearly absurd and your logic is clearly wrong.