Poll: Would you still play in Smogon's OU if all perma-weather was banned?

[Sensei_Bobbilytus]

The goal is not to make people happy, it is to create a desirable metagame that is fun and fair to play in.

How can you argue that you're trying to make the metagame fun if you're goal isn't happy people? I understand that it's absolutely insane to assumme you can just walk in and say "I don't like weather, give me a tier", and assume further that everyone has that right, but something I'm a little lost on is that clause =/= tier, though I can see where outwardly the difference in selectible stratagies and pokemon would essentially make it a tier in itself.
And I do agree that such an idea would cause a particualrly unfavorable divide in the suspect testing process, as weatherless teams would have signifigantly different threats, but at the same time I could argue that you(Woodchuck) can't sit there and argue that, on one hand, banning weather or making a non-weather tier/clause would only be satisfying a small group of the player-base, while then stating that such an act would cause a dramatic skew in OU and usage-stats.
You've effectively just said the group who wants weatherless play is too small to matter in the metagame for their opinions to be heard, yet their too large to be given their own playground because it will profoundly effect the overall statistics.
Much as I say when the topic of entry-hazards comes up: if THIS many people complain about it, it's clearly an issue. And I find it difficult to believe that this goal of a fun metagame can be met by telling the people who play in it to shut their mouths and deal with it, because it's not really a problem and they aren't worth the time it would take to fix it since thier happiness isn't a concern.

I think it's pretty self-evident, that no matter what path is chosen, there will be a portion of the player-base that will be unhappy with the decission. I personally love Drizzletoed, and I've never used him with Hydration or Swift-Swim pokemon. I think weather was a really poorly done mechanic in the past that perma-weather pokemon helped to find usage, and I think it would be absolutely terrible to ban weather just people are stubbornly against it while others depend on it like a crutch and can't win without it. Extremes will exist no matter what rules are in place, and so will complaints.
But at the same time, I DO think it's imperative to make a simple and effective way to safely allow some players to make a team without having to reserve anywhere from a single moveslot to a whole pokemon just for anti-weather, since there are already so many threats to prepair for and roles to fill.

 

[JALMONT]

How can you argue that you're trying to make the metagame fun if you're goal isn't happy people? I understand that it's absolutely insane to assumme you can just walk in and say "I don't like weather, give me a tier", and assume further that everyone has that right, but something I'm a little lost on is that clause =/= tier, though I can see where outwardly the difference in selectible stratagies and pokemon would essentially make it a tier in itself.
And I do agree that such an idea would cause a particualrly unfavorable divide in the suspect testing process, as weatherless teams would have signifigantly different threats, but at the same time I could argue that you(Woodchuck) can't sit there and argue that, on one hand, banning weather or making a non-weather tier/clause would only be satisfying a small group of the player-base, while then stating that such an act would cause a dramatic skew in OU and usage-stats.
You've effectively just said the group who wants weatherless play is too small to matter in the metagame for their opinions to be heard, yet their too large to be given their own playground because it will profoundly effect the overall statistics.
Much as I say when the topic of entry-hazards comes up: if THIS many people complain about it, it's clearly an issue. And I find it difficult to believe that this goal of a fun metagame can be met by telling the people who play in it to shut their mouths and deal with it, because it's not really a problem and they aren't worth the time it would take to fix it since thier happiness isn't a concern.

I think it's pretty self-evident, that no matter what path is chosen, there will be a portion of the player-base that will be unhappy with the decission. I personally love Drizzletoed, and I've never used him with Hydration or Swift-Swim pokemon. I think weather was a really poorly done mechanic in the past that perma-weather pokemon helped to find usage, and I think it would be absolutely terrible to ban weather just people are stubbornly against it while others depend on it like a crutch and can't win without it. Extremes will exist no matter what rules are in place, and so will complaints.
But at the same time, I DO think it's imperative to make a simple and effective way to safely allow some players to make a team without having to reserve anywhere from a single moveslot to a whole pokemon just for anti-weather, since there are already so many threats to prepair for and roles to fill.

Sorry about that I was in a rush for dinner and didn't proofread that part.

What I meant to say was that the goal is to create a metagame that is stable and that most people will enjoy. The goal isn't to try and please every group out there. If you try to, no progress will ever be made. On the clause/tier thing, I don't understand how you could implement a weather clause without it becoming its own tier. Could it be an option for unrated battles?

The thing is I'm not trying to argue that this tier/clause would impact usage stats. I'm not saying that only a small group of the playerbase would want a weather clause/tier. What I am saying is that it might affect usage stats. I don't know how many people want a weatherfree tier or option. For all I know a large majority of people are in favor of this idea, or it could be the other way around.

But this is where I get stuck. Adding a weather tier/clause simply because people don't like it is effictively bypassing the voting system. Hey voters, we can't find any reasons to ban weather except that we just don't like it so we would just like our tier. Why should we give people a tier to make teambuilding simpler by not having to worry about weather? If you don't want to worry about weather, there's always RBY OU. I don't understand this thinking that by somehow eliminating weather will make teambuilding easier. The goal of the metagame isn't to make it as close to 4th gen, but mold it into its own, unique metagame.

And then I don't get why this clause/tier is needed now. Why can't people wait for the metagame to develop and for the suspect testing to do its thing and ban the abusers? The problem isn't weather, in my opinion, it's the pokes that abuse it, like Garchomp, swift swimmers etc.

I completely agree that extremes will exist no matter what happens. That paragraph I completely agree with. Honestly, if anything I think that a clause should be added for unrated battles that you can use for nonweather. I think that would be the best way to do this if a weather clause was ever added. Honestly, it really comes down to how many people would want to play without weather. Perhaps a poll should be created.

I hope this made sense and I didn't contradict myself as it's getting late my time.