Uh... Flygon can't Nasty Plot, Swords Dance, Agility/Rock Polish, or Cosmic Power... that's the problem really...
-
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.
Pokemon specific bans in OU
- Thread starter Aldaron
- Start date
Uh... Flygon can't Nasty Plot, Swords Dance, Agility/Rock Polish, or Cosmic Power... that's the problem really...
I wasn't aware that Garchomp could. What the hell are you talking about?
The only issue I have with the notion of pokemon-specific restrictions, is that the implementation of such restriction kind of spits in the face of team-building creativity.
The idea is that "some sets," and not others, are too powerful to be allowed. The reason why this is an issue is that part of the most interesting part of the game (where real innovation comes to play) is set building, and it's only natural to aim to create the strongest sets possible using the moves/items/abilities that GF has made available to the pokemon.
While it's true that outright bans completely remove all that pokemon's sets from the meta, at least it is set that, amongst pokemon allowed in the standard tier, one is free to do anything in terms of building one's own sets.
I feel that specific restrictions would simply create the attitude, "If a set is too strong, we can ban it." which would seriously undermine player's playtesting and freedom to build strong sets.
The idea is that "some sets," and not others, are too powerful to be allowed. The reason why this is an issue is that part of the most interesting part of the game (where real innovation comes to play) is set building, and it's only natural to aim to create the strongest sets possible using the moves/items/abilities that GF has made available to the pokemon.
While it's true that outright bans completely remove all that pokemon's sets from the meta, at least it is set that, amongst pokemon allowed in the standard tier, one is free to do anything in terms of building one's own sets.
I feel that specific restrictions would simply create the attitude, "If a set is too strong, we can ban it." which would seriously undermine player's playtesting and freedom to build strong sets.
There is one major problem I see with this approach: it violates the fuck out of our "let's follow cartridge mechanics as faithfully as possible" philosophy. Honestly it doesn't make sense for DJD to take pains to implement Acid Weather in Shoddy2 if we're just going to turn around and say "Oh and garchomp can't use SD and mence can't use dragon dance and etc." Now, you might counter with "how is soul dew clause any different?" And really the ultimate difference is, we're saying "No Pokemon can use Soul Dew" versus "This particular Pokemon cannot use this particular move". If we're going to muck around with that sort of thing, what's to stop us from declaring Rayquaza OU but "only with no EVs in ATK or SATK"? Or saying Arceus is OU as long as it uses Icicle Plate or something? Ultimately, I don't find this method of balancing the metagame practical or consistent with Smogon's stated goals.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to Mew verses Flygon, not Garchomp verses Flygon, my apologies.
Yah, I do agree with Chou, restricting people's creativity is not going to be a good thing... specially consider I don't get a blast out of Pokemon for using the same standard things every time, I get a blast out of it for creating new and innovative teams. And if we limit that, eh, there's not really a point to play. I don't really care about beating other people, I just enjoy developing new teams that work and surprise others.
Ah Flare, you have a good point there... something I was just thinking about (not that I think your wrong, in fact, I think your right), what about unique moves, like Seed Flare. Would Shaymin be uber without Seed Flare? And surely, since it is such an isolated move, it is not effecting the meta-game much as a move like Swords Dance is... It'd be like banning Seed Flare altogether... just a thought.
Yeah I think with cases like Seed Flare we could feasibly just ban the move (although in this particularly instance I think Skymin would still be Ooba just because of ludicrous flinchhax combined with absurd subseeding).
One of the main criteria for a ban is that it must be discrete. This is easy with Pokemon since each Pokemon is its own entity, and easily banned or unbanned.
I know Sirlin isn't god, but he does do a good job of explaining it with this example: assume that we're playing an FPS game where the optimal strategy is to camp at the sniper tower for 3 minutes. Now let's assume that there's a bot that kicks people if they camp for 3 minutes. That doesn't help at all, now the best strategy is to camp for 2:59 rather than 3:00.
Back to Pokemon. Let's say that using SD-YacheChomp is the best strategy. But to balance Garchomp, we ban Yache Berry on Chomp. How did that help? Now the best strategy is SDLO or SubSD Chomp, which then proceed to centralize the game again. Now we're playing a game with a perverted ruleset that's no better than our original game.
Also, as ChouToshio said, this does disincent creativity and the sharing of strategies quite a bit. If someone found the next LeadAzelf, with this policy why the hell would they ever post their team to raise awareness about it? They would just keep it to themselves, do well in tournaments with it, and minimize awareness so the Smogon policymakers couldn't do crap about it.
I know Sirlin isn't god, but he does do a good job of explaining it with this example: assume that we're playing an FPS game where the optimal strategy is to camp at the sniper tower for 3 minutes. Now let's assume that there's a bot that kicks people if they camp for 3 minutes. That doesn't help at all, now the best strategy is to camp for 2:59 rather than 3:00.
Back to Pokemon. Let's say that using SD-YacheChomp is the best strategy. But to balance Garchomp, we ban Yache Berry on Chomp. How did that help? Now the best strategy is SDLO or SubSD Chomp, which then proceed to centralize the game again. Now we're playing a game with a perverted ruleset that's no better than our original game.
Also, as ChouToshio said, this does disincent creativity and the sharing of strategies quite a bit. If someone found the next LeadAzelf, with this policy why the hell would they ever post their team to raise awareness about it? They would just keep it to themselves, do well in tournaments with it, and minimize awareness so the Smogon policymakers couldn't do crap about it.
Because it's basically a ban on the supposed "one best strategy", and what it leads to is a game of second-best strategies. This isn't any better than our original game.
How is banning a Pokemon different? Well, a Pokemon as a whole is far more discrete an entity than one item on one Pokemon or one move on one Pokemon. If you remove a Pokemon, you're removing a host of overcentralizing strategies, and essentially creating a new metagame. Remove a move/item, and you're not making a new metagame, you still have the other old, overcentralizing strategies.
How is banning a Pokemon different? Well, a Pokemon as a whole is far more discrete an entity than one item on one Pokemon or one move on one Pokemon. If you remove a Pokemon, you're removing a host of overcentralizing strategies, and essentially creating a new metagame. Remove a move/item, and you're not making a new metagame, you still have the other old, overcentralizing strategies.
Well yeah, but things like Kyogre do more than things like Latios, to say the least.
Anyways, going back to what I said earlier to corroborate Choutoshio's point:
Let's assume for a second that I'm an excellent battler and I'm always coming up with new sets to use (I'm not, but whatever). Now let's say I make a great new set up, like DDMence (lol). Under these new rules, why the hell would I tell anyone about it?
What I would do is save it for a tournament, use it to win, then if anyone complains that it's overpowered, I can just say that the enemy team was unprepared or that I counterteamed him. No way I'm laddering with this set to give it more attention. And there's no way I'll talk about it on #stark or post a team with it in RMT. That would just raise the attention of the smogon policymakers to the set, and it might be banned. Instead, I'll just keep it secret, so it takes a long, long time for the bureaucracy of smogon to ban the set itself.
That's not the kind of environment we should promote on smogon. Sure, it's good to get a killer set to surprise the opponent in a tourney, but people share their teams afterward. Just look at the RMT archive.
Currently, this doesn't happen since banning a Pokemon means a lot more than banning a set. I'm concerned that moving to bans-by-set will create an atmosphere of knee-jerk reactions to metagame changes, which is perfectly reasonable seeing as banning a set means less than banning a Pokemon.
Anyways, going back to what I said earlier to corroborate Choutoshio's point:
Let's assume for a second that I'm an excellent battler and I'm always coming up with new sets to use (I'm not, but whatever). Now let's say I make a great new set up, like DDMence (lol). Under these new rules, why the hell would I tell anyone about it?
What I would do is save it for a tournament, use it to win, then if anyone complains that it's overpowered, I can just say that the enemy team was unprepared or that I counterteamed him. No way I'm laddering with this set to give it more attention. And there's no way I'll talk about it on #stark or post a team with it in RMT. That would just raise the attention of the smogon policymakers to the set, and it might be banned. Instead, I'll just keep it secret, so it takes a long, long time for the bureaucracy of smogon to ban the set itself.
That's not the kind of environment we should promote on smogon. Sure, it's good to get a killer set to surprise the opponent in a tourney, but people share their teams afterward. Just look at the RMT archive.
Currently, this doesn't happen since banning a Pokemon means a lot more than banning a set. I'm concerned that moving to bans-by-set will create an atmosphere of knee-jerk reactions to metagame changes, which is perfectly reasonable seeing as banning a set means less than banning a Pokemon.
Where's the problem? No one made any promises to the Pokemon. We aren't tiering them to make them happy; they're pixels! And we are most certainly capable of deciding which pixels will aid us the most. We'd weigh the options carefully, and decide first if we need to make a change, and second, what change we need to make.
Now, I should say that I would disagree with a change like the one you suggested. Dropping Garchomp does nothing positive. Moving him into OU would make Flygon plummet down to BL. You'd simply exchange one Ground/Dragon type for a more powerful, centralizing version. Of course, I recognize this as an example.
Barring a Sand Veil ban (which no one but you brought up), everything suggested so far is completely kosher with natural game mechanics. We wouldn't be altering anything. Yes, we recognize that Dragon Dance Salamence exists, we are simply not permitting its use in a specific metagame. Just like how we recognize that Kyogre exists, we simply don't allow it to be used in OU. Squirtle may always learn Bubble at level 8, but it's not forced to keep that move. We don't need to alter any movepools or game mechanics. We're just adding clauses. Just like Soul Dew Clause.FlareBlitz said:
I encourage you to read Aldaron's most recent post in this topic.FlareBlitz said:
I understand what you're saying.ChouToshio said:
But I should remember that placing restrictions on options does not equate to placing restrictions on creativity. Restrictions can actually broaden your range of viable options, like how Starmie and Kingdra have benefited from Latias' banishment. While removing Salamence' Outrage limits the number of options you have, it may just increase his number of viable options.
I agree that we shouldn't ban or unban things because "it's supposed to be there". Whether or not nerfed Garchomp is suitable for OU, we should only allow it if we have cause to believe it would improve our metagame.mtr said:
What? How is this at all different with Pokemon specific bans? If such a person found "the next lead Azelf" now, he could still hide it if he was so inclined. If it was popularized and deemed to be uber, the only difference Pokemon specific bans would make would be that the move/other would be banned instead of the Pokemon. How does that change that person's motivation at all? Am I missing something?mtr said:
The difference is a matter of time. It takes a LOT of manpower and time investment to ban or unban a Pokemon.
My fear is that banning sets will lead to knee-jerk reactions to good sets or metagame changes as a result of them, thus leading to more bans and an atmosphere of secrecy to prevent them.
Alot earlier in the thread it was mentioned lowering the level of the pokemon. Is any garchomp over powering at level 90? It still has SD, so it has a niche over flygon and other dragons, but it doesn't have the raw stats to do it. Actually, level 90 is a bit too much. Once Garchomp is lowered down so its max speed is less than base 100's, It isn't broken anymore thanks to lower stats and Flygon and mence being counters (maybe not, but we'd have to test it). THere was a tournament earlier allowing a level 75 groudon in it, and they wanted to see what happened. Now, is a level 75 groudon broken? I doubt it. But it allows a variety of clorophyl users to be used in OU, diversifying the metagame. So tell me, is lowering levels a good solution, rather than moves?
Ok, let's be realistic about this please; If you do make some new phenomenal set that no one else even realizes (which won't happen), once you use it in a tourney to great effect, then your opponents will know what is up. They will try it out, tell people about it, and it will catch on. All it takes is one battle for something to catch on and popularize.
To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure anyone would deliberately hide sets from everyone and then only use them in tournaments, but even if this was the case, why wouldn't this already be happening. If I have an excellent set and I don't want to ladder with it, then I won't be telling people if I plan to use it in a tournament.
You are basically making random assumptions about what "could" (and I use that term loosely) happen but your same arguments could apply to right now and honestly don't make much sense.
Is it really diversifying the metagame when every team will basically either be running Sun or some weather to cancel sun? Sure, you get a few new sweepers to come up to OU but if anything, that will eliminate many of the great usable Pokemon. And I think the "common" sense part is important here, we don't have the time to find and set an arbitrary level restriction for different ubers, when we could just eliminate a move or item that made them broken. As the OP says, we don't need to unban and test every Pokemon (such as Groudon or Darkrai), just the ones currently teetering on suspect that may have one broken move.
We stop by using common sense. With the entire suspect test process, we have found which sweepers and Pokemon are broken because of one move or item (or maybe a few). Massive changes won't be needed to bring these Pokemon to OU. Why would we bother testing Rayquaza or Mewtwo, both of whom are obviously Uber from their massive attack stats, vast movepools, abilities, etc. We are in charge of Pokemon, we don't have to follow what the creators of the game give us. They sure didn't ban Garchomp...
That's kind of why Flygon wasn't OU until Garchomp was banned.
Anyway I'm not a particular fan of this idea, but I think it could work. Some of these suspects had some strong versatility that was overshadowed by some other sets. I wouldn't mind seeing some more defensively oriented Manaphys/Latias.
As a side note, I wasn't around when Garchomp got the banhammer, but wasn't his choice scarf set one of his more broken sets? He had a perfect speed to use choice scarf and still hit hard enough that some walls weren't so keen to switch in.
Isn't this somewhat similar to how stuff was done in GSC? With the whole not allowing Legendary's to have Hidden Power, no Perish Song + Mean Look + Hypnosis etc. Even though that metagame was comparably different than it is in DPP, I don't see why this would be a bad idea. Although, banning moves that make a pokemon good (Outrage on Garchomp/Salamence) kinda deafeats the whole purpose of using them, doesn't it?
I don't think any such Pokemon is only "good" because of one set or item, but Uber instead. These Pokemon, even with handicaps that we present to them, are still good because of their stats and other movepool. We just want to get rid of them move or item that makes them Uber, not the things that make them good in OU.
No HP on legendaries was sort of a cartridge obedience thing - without RNG manipulation getting flawless DVs and the right Hidden Power was like one-in-a-million on the cartridges.
Yes, but by banning X set or X move or whatever, we are favoring a certain style of play. Now I don't have a problem with this, if it is favoring a strategy of play, such as Rain Dance, or Sunny Day, or Trick Room, but I do have a problem where it effects only a few pokemon, like for example Fire Blast with Skarmory. If it only effects Skarmory, all your doing by removing the move and making it 'counterable' is ensuring that every team runs a Skarmory, just to stop Garchomp. Which is not cool - I don't want to be forced to run a Skarmory - I don't like running standards. Now on the other hand, lets say we banned Swords Dance, and it made walling in general more viable. I might say, ahhh... that might work. Because it made walling in general more viable. However, as stated before, because it is too selective, banning Swords Dance on Garchomp would not be ideal, we would have to ban Swords Dance on all pokemon. That's why moves like Seed Flare could be banned, and unique items like Soul Dew could be banned, but moves like Swords Dance, or items like Yache Berry (ok, this one might be possible), cannot be banned unless they are banned for all pokemon.
The main problem we have with the banning of certain moves/items is arbitrariness. With arbitrariness, we could 'technichally' make a metagame where all pokemon are nearly equally viable. How? Well, we could say Gyardos was only able to run tackle, Salamence only Dragon Rage, etc. while things like Unknown could run full set. So when we decide to pick this line, that we will choose, we need to make sure it isn't arbitrary. We need to make sure it has a definition - for example, unique moves and items, or perhaps, unique moves and items, plus obviously overpowered moves/items. I don't know what it should be, but it needs to be well defined.