Uh... Flygon can't Nasty Plot, Swords Dance, Agility/Rock Polish, or Cosmic Power... that's the problem really...Hm, sounds exactly like Scarf Flygon's current role, only with 102 base speed and a higher attack stat.
Uh... Flygon can't Nasty Plot, Swords Dance, Agility/Rock Polish, or Cosmic Power... that's the problem really...Hm, sounds exactly like Scarf Flygon's current role, only with 102 base speed and a higher attack stat.
I wasn't aware that Garchomp could. What the hell are you talking about?Uh... Flygon can't Nasty Plot, Swords Dance, Agility/Rock Polish, or Cosmic Power... that's the problem really...
Sorry, I thought you were referring to Mew verses Flygon, not Garchomp verses Flygon, my apologies.I wasn't aware that Garchomp could. What the hell are you talking about?
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.[...]the thing is, by nerfing it in such ways, we are providing 'biases' for certain other pokemon. For example, if we nerfed Fire Blast, we would see a rise in Skarmories. If we nerfed Swords Dance, we'd see a rise in Cressalias. If we nerfed berries, we'd see a rise in Mamoswine. Ultimately, we can't 'nerf' a single Pokemon in such a way and be equal to all of the Pokemon in the meta-game.
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:[...]with Soul Dew clause, we're not modifying a Pokemon's movepool or its ability or its stats or anything, like we would be with a Swords Dance ban or a Sand Veil ban.
I encourage you to read Aldaron's most recent post in this topic.FlareBlitz said:If we're going to muck around with that, 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?
I understand what you're saying.ChouToshio said: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.
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:[...] 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.
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: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.
The difference is a matter of time. It takes a LOT of manpower and time investment to ban or unban a Pokemon.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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...The main problem with arguments like this is that we wouldn't know where to stop. Granted, the tiering process vastly subjective, but a system where we can ban certain moves on certain pokemon would just increase that tenfold.
That's kind of why Flygon wasn't OU until Garchomp was banned.Hm, sounds exactly like Scarf Flygon's current role, only with 102 base speed and a higher attack stat.
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.Although, banning moves that make a pokemon good (Outrage on Garchomp/Salamence) kinda deafeats the whole purpose of using them, doesn't it?
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.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.
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.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.