SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)

[Toljik]

Because that would be altering game mechanics, which cannot be done without extreme hacking and tampering of the game's code. Banning Swagger is something that can be easily implemented in cartridge play, while removing secondary effects is not.

The difference is arbitrary because we don't play on a cartridge. Why would it matter to Showdown whether a rule change would require hacking an X/Y cartridge or not?

Personally I'd be in favor of that Ice Beam part. Nobody likes being frozen.

Because at some point you are not playing pokemon anymore. You made it so different that is no longer the game that got people hooked up in the first place.

And that is subjective. What is "not Pokemon" to you could be "still Pokemon" to someone else. I've met people (and I'm not one of them) who've insisted that Smogon's clauses, as they are now, makes simulators a totally different game from the cartridge.

 

[KztxL7]

Because Ice Beam doesn't have Priority, and has a 1/10 chance of happening.

 

[Toljik]

Because Ice Beam doesn't have Priority, and has a 1/10 chance of happening.

Swagger doesn't have priority either, and look at all the people in this thread who want to ban it.

 

[Alejandro36]

Because Ice Beam doesn't have Priority, and has a 1/10 chance of happening.

And yet, as you can see, there are people who would remove the freeze part, if given the chance.

 

[Sergeant Spooky]

Swagger doesn't have priority either, and look at all the people in this thread who want to ban it.

Swagger does have priority when used by Pranksters. That's what this entire thread has been about.

And even if "Gale Coldness" or whatever was made, it's still only a 10% chance of occurring.

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

The moderators have already made it clear that changing game mechanics will not happen, so Toljik , stop right now.

Let's keep this discussion focused. We've established that there is an "acceptable" amount of luck involved in this game. We are deciding if priority swagger is within that acceptable amount.

The 100% chance (ignoring the established priority subs and (lol) abilities that ignore it) to have a 50% chance of hurting yourself and not moving is almost certainly not, and I don't see how we can justify it in any way

 

[Toljik]

Swagger does have priority when used by Pranksters. That's what this entire thread has been about.

I'll refer you to the OP:

The options that are being considered right now are:

• ban the move Swagger;
• ban the move Swagger in conjunction with the ability Prankster (complex ban);

The moderators have already made it clear that changing game mechanics will not happen, so Toljik , stop right now.

Let's keep this discussion focused. We've established that there is an "acceptable" amount of luck involved in this game. We are deciding if priority swagger is within that acceptable amount.

Then the moderators should stop the people who are seriously suggesting a Confusion Clause or change the OP.

 

[Morningstar]

To me, the entire problem is much too complex to pin it down to one aspect of the strategy. The problem with the strategy is that it allows a player to play highly aggressively, while also playing highly defensively. It creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the opposing player. If you try to knock out the pokemon utilizing the strategy, you'll either just hurt yourself, or you won't do anything, which gives the using pokemon another turn of leftover recovery to make another substitute when you finally manage to break it, or it gives it the knock out through using foul play. Even if you do move, you'll only hit a substitute which you may or may not even break.

A complex problem needs a complex ban, no?

 

[Morningstar]

Then the moderators should stop the people who are seriously suggesting a Confusion Clause.

This, Confusion wears out when a pokemon switches anyway so this kind of clause would be ineffective unless that little quirk is removed by GameFreak.

 

[Lee]

Arguments that are annoying me:

i) Why should we keep Swagger?

That is not how this works and if you think it is then you should probably leave this thread. For as long as I've been on Smogon the goal has been to ban as few things as possible. A ban is an absolute last resort; the ban hammer should be wielded with restraint, not a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders.

2. It's uncompetitive!

'Uncompetitive' is term that people throw around that effectively means 'this doesn't match up with my own personal, subjective idea of what Pokemon should be.' Usually this is some form of minimal luck, maximum skill battle of wits. And if that's your opinion then Pokemon doesn't match up with your idea of what Pokemon should be. Go play chess.

3. It's at the top of the ladder! It's unstoppable! It has no counters! RAAAAAWR!

No it's not. It's an ineffective and quite often shitty gimmick. In Gen III we called them 'annoyers' and it was usually something like Confuse Ray Umbreon; we just got on with it back then...those were the days.~

 

[Alejandro36]

And that is subjective. What is "not Pokemon" to you could be "still Pokemon" to someone else. I've met people (and I'm not one of them) who've insisted that Smogon's clauses, as they are now, makes simulators a totally different game from the cartridge.

You have a point there, but regarding all the other clauses, they don't exist merely because they involve luck. The exist because teams abusing it would be very broken if they didn't. If there was no OHKO clause, I can imagine teams with bulky scarfed pokemon with an OHKO move dominating (and destroying stall as a playstyle). The Evasion clause also got banned because it was too powerful, not just because it was luck reliant (as the brief dominance of sand veil Garchomp, who ended up banned too, showed very well). Moody was actually banned for being too overpowered as well, not just because of the luck aspect. Drizzle + swift swim was banned because rain teams were so good, etc, etc.

But prankster swagger is entirely different. It is simply not the overpowered strategy that people seem to think it is (how many prankster players got to the top 10 of the OU ladder?). It does bad against stall, for example. And some pokemon like blissey can stop it completely. People simply want to ban it because it is annoying to play against, but this is something that has never been done before.

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

I didn't think a ban discussion could be worse than MKhan's, but with people seriously suggesting to change game mechanics, ban all confusion, and bring back evasion, I don't know what's considered "sane" anymore

 

[dr00]

my main qualms about this aren't really the same as others. i do agree that it's very luck-based, but i really like using flinch parahax, which i feel is a legitimate strategy as well, so i have no problem in-and-of-itself.

i feel like there are two problems with prankster + swagplay that differentiate it from other forms of strategies that rely on luck though.

first, it's very difficult to plan ahead to counter the strategy due to prankster giving priority, and swagplay can be its own worst enemy with hax going the wrong way. what i mean by this is, it's almost pointless to build your team to counter the strategy, because swagplay can potentially cause more damage to itself than any counter strategy. you just play normally against swagplay and hope for the best. this is only really a problem, as others have mentioned in the species clause discussion, in that any amount of teambuilding done to counter swagplay pretty much goes out the windows when you play an entire swagplay team. which brings me to point two:

i see a few people making teams entirely of prankster swagplay users seemingly for the sole purpose of annoying other players until they forfeit. this, to me, is similar to the endless battle problem. it's not so much to me that it's uncompetitive (mindless teambuilding relying on luck and bad player beating a better player, etc.) but rather unsportsmanlike (making it an unenjoyable match for your opponent in the hopes that he or she leaves). i suppose we would need some statistics to show us how effective this strategy is. how often do they win by forfeit. how high of a rating do they really get, etc.

i know the two aren't entirely the same. as i said, i feel that swagplay a legitimate strategy (and don't feel that way about endless battle), but in a 'this is why we can't have things kind of way', i would agree to a swagger ban. i would rather have a new rule that simply restricts swagger to one, two, or so per team, but i feel that all of the other parts of prankster swagplay are still viable without swagger that i could support just the simple ban.


tl;dr ban swagger (but i would prefer a simple move restriction if anything)
one final caveat as well, i feel that this might 'run its course'

 

[Sinning]

Arguments that are annoying me:

2. It's uncompetitive!

'Uncompetitive' is term that people throw around that effectively means 'this doesn't match up with my own personal, subjective idea of what Pokemon should be.' Usually this is some form of minimal luck, maximum skill battle of wits. And if that's your opinion then Pokemon doesn't match up with your idea of what Pokemon should be. Go play chess.

If you're really going to argue this point, then I argue that we should remove all bans. Pokemon, by nature, is a non-competitive game. The question here is, is Smogon about making pokemon competitive? If this community truly cares about being competitive, we will ban things that take away interaction between players. Or is evasion clause, sleep clause, and any other clause enforced here somehow outside of the subjective ideas of what pokemon "should be?" In that case, we should stop enforcing these things, and play the game as-is. Any other option is catering to players' (no matter how large the majority) subjective opinions of what pokemon "should be."

 

[Thorhammer]

Then the moderators should stop the people who are seriously suggesting a Confusion Clause or change the OP.

You don't understand what "changing the mechanics of the game" means. Banning Swagger would not change the game's mechanics; you can set up a cartridge match and tell people that they're not allowed to bring Pokemon that know the move Swagger. Removing Ice Beam's freeze effect would change the game mechanics; you can't set up a cartridge match and tell people they're allowed to use Ice Beam but it can't freeze anything.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

The difference is arbitrary because we don't play on a cartridge. Why would it matter to Showdown whether a rule change would require hacking an X/Y cartridge or not?

Um, no, it's not arbitrary. Simulators are designed to simulate the in-cartridge experience. Everything we implement on the simulators is based on real in-game mechanics, and we do not implement anything on the simulators unless it is possible in-game. This includes not only game mechanics, but also Dream World abilities, event Pokemon, etc. The only exception to this is the Sleep Clause, which has been around for a long time and was allowed only because of the severity of the case. Even then, such a clause can still be somewhat enforced in cartridge play through an agreement between the two players (i.e. neither player is allowed to sleep more than one opponent, and if they do, they forfeit by default). There is literally no way to enforce a ban on secondary effects in the actual cartridge without banning all moves that have secondary effects (unless you want a rule where a person who gets hax with Ice Beam/Flamethrower/etc. loses by default, which would be unfair since that is out of the player's control, unlike the conscious use of sleep moves).

And no, banning Pokemon does not change the game in the same way that altering mechanics and game code would. When you alter the game's code, you actually change the game at its core to the point where you can't even replicate the results on a real, unaltered cartridge. Bans are nothing like this. Any simple ban can be easily implemented on a cartridge through simple rules that players must follow. Not only that, but bans have a precedent that traces back to the original games. VGC events have banlists, as do Battle Frontier facilities and such, so there is definitely precedent for creating our own banlists.

 

[Alejandro36]

i suppose we would need some statistics to show us how effective this strategy is. how often do they win by forfeit. how high of a rating do they really get, etc.

This. Exactly. I personally think that if people were prepared against them (and I'm not talking about runing crap like Numel, I mean doing things like running 0 Atk IVs on rotom) and did not rage quited so much, we would realize that the prankster strategy is just not reliable enough to get high on the ladder. The problem is that those teams are relatively new, and they do well against this offensive inclined metagame, so it has taken many people by surprise. We should wait a little bit until the metagame stabilizes and then see if they are as broken as it seems.

 

[haunter]

Then the moderators should stop the people who are seriously suggesting a Confusion Clause or change the OP.

Just a few posts below the one you quoted, I clearly stated that we're not going to alter inherent in-game mechanics to nerf SwagPlay. I assume people who reference to a confusion clause are asking to ban the moves that induce confusion as their primary effect. That would be feasible, although sub-optimal.

 

[blazeVA]

3. It's at the top of the ladder! It's unstoppable! It has no counters! RAAAAAWR!

No it's not. It's an ineffective and quite often shitty gimmick. In Gen III we called them 'annoyers' and it was usually something like Confuse Ray Umbreon; we just got on with it back then...those were the days.~

This is the best thing right here. People have forgotten, or are entirely ignoring, that this strategy has always been a thing. People who argue about Prankster making it unable to be revenge killed don't pay attention to the fact that one could use this strategy in Gen III, where on many Pokemon it WAS impossible to revenge kill, and yet did not have the impact people believe Prankster does. Is it because of the difference in the metas? Maybe, but I wouldn't say it was too different(maybe a bit TTar centric, but otherwise similar).

The problem with this strategy is Foul Play. Parafusion isn't offensive enough to have enough kick to really defeat Pokemon. It's the addition of Foul Play that's the issue, as it allows said Parafusion Pokemon to deal massive damage to other Pokemon. If we say "No Swagger + Foul Play" the strategy loses its teeth, and no longer is it going to impact people as strongly. Klefki isn't going to be staying in on Lando-T or Garchomp if it doesn't have Foul play.

 

[Wizarus]

I'm honestly all for banning Swagger, it's just a glorified Sheer Cold/Fissure/Guillotine. They have counters, but who was running sturdy to counter those moves? If Smogon's goal is to make the game as competitive as possible, then Swagger has no place in the metagame.

 

[akaRyan]

I think it could be banned, but it may not be a huge issue. It would need specific testing, i.e. splitting testers into two groups: ones who put this strategy on their teams, and ones who don't. Match them in groups of two, and then ask the victims of the strategy their thoughts on the match, i.e. did they ever want to forfeit, did they feel like it was an even match, or did they think it was no problem to counter? I think I'll do some testing with some friends and see what happens.

 

[Liarliarpantsonfire]

Arguments that are annoying me:

i) Why should we keep Swagger?

That is not how this works and if you think it is then you should probably leave this thread. For as long as I've been on Smogon the goal has been to ban as few things as possible. A ban is an absolute last resort; the ban hammer should be wielded with restraint, not a nonchalant shrug of the shoulders.

2. It's uncompetitive!

'Uncompetitive' is term that people throw around that effectively means 'this doesn't match up with my own personal, subjective idea of what Pokemon should be.' Usually this is some form of minimal luck, maximum skill battle of wits. And if that's your opinion then Pokemon doesn't match up with your idea of what Pokemon should be. Go play chess.

3. It's at the top of the ladder! It's unstoppable! It has no counters! RAAAAAWR!

No it's not. It's an ineffective and quite often shitty gimmick. In Gen III we called them 'annoyers' and it was usually something like Confuse Ray Umbreon; we just got on with it back then...those were the days.~

Back in Gen III there was no Prankster though. There's no comparison whatsoever to this suspect right here. The "go play chess" argument also holds no sense, pokemon is no chess but it's no poker either. Swagger reduces a match to pure luck and nothing else. I believe this was already agreed on a while ago. First argument is valid though, but keep in mind that a ban is needed when something makes the metagame unhealthy, which Swagger definitely does. The majority of the counter-arguments toward a Swagger ban I've seen so far are uneducated comments like "go play chess" or "use own tempo".

So unless contra-ban brings up some decent arguments for once, Swagger should be banned and the problem will be solved really.

 

[blazeVA]

Back in Gen III there was no Prankster though. There's no comparison whatsoever to this suspect right here.

Wrong. The problem with Prankster Swagger was that its impossible to revenge kill, but without Prankster you could use Choice Scarf. Gen III didn't have CS, so there was impossible to revenge kill Swagger Pokemon. And yet? Swagger was never banned.

 

[Alejandro36]

Swagger reduces a match to pure luck and nothing else

This is simply not true. There are right and wrong ways to play prankster. And there are good ways to build a prankster team also (for example, using ditto, hazards, etc). Is not "pure luck".

So unless contra-ban brings up some decent arguments for once

I have already offered a different argument. Hisorically, smogon has banned thing for being broken (as too powerfull) not just because they are luck based, annoying to play against, or because a lot of people want it banned. Prankster teams are not powerfull enough to derserve a ban. They lose a bunch of games because of pure luck too.

 

[Sinning]

Swagger reduces a match to pure luck and nothing else
This is simply not true. There are right and wrong ways to play prankster. And there are good ways to build a prankster team also (for example, using ditto, hazards, etc). Is not "pure luck".

So unless contra-ban brings up some decent arguments for once​

I have already offered a different argument. Hisorically, smogon has banned thing for being broken (as too powerfull) not just because they are luck based, annoying to play against, or because a lot of people want it banned. Prankster teams are not powerfull enough to derserve a ban. They lose a bunch of games because of pure luck too.".

Ah yes, choice scarf ditto and hazards. The epitome of skill and superior play.

While Swagger alone does not turn the game into "pure luck," Swagger alone is simply never used. It's Swagger, in tandem with Thunder Wave and Prankster, and to an extent, Foul Play, that is used, and that is where the problem is created.

Just because things have not been banned in the past does not mean that they do not warrant bans now. Just because ancient people used to stone others over trivial matters does not mean we should continue to do it. Likewise, just because Parafusion was fine then, does not mean Parafusion combined with Prankster and Foul Play is acceptable. The argument really has no legs, given that Prankster did not exist then.