1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

The Support Clause

Discussion in 'Stark Mountain' started by Game Freak201, Jul 17, 2010.

  1. Game Freak201

    Game Freak201

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    652
    As the title suggests, this thread is here to discuss how the support clause can be applied to a suspect. The reason why I came up with this is due to the reasoning for Salamence's ban from the standard metagame. Did we stretch it too far, or were we justified in our use of it on Salamence?

    I would like to remind potential posters that this isn't a thread to discuss why Salamence is broken or not. We already dealt with that mess in another thread. Of course, I won't be opposed to using pokemon as examples to see if they fulfill the definition of the support clause that we choose to use which is shown in the following line.

    Here's my opinion in this.
    I believe that the support clause can only be used as an argument whether a pokemon is broken or not due to being able to consistently being able to set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep. With this definition in mind, we know that Wobbuffet is broken due to the support clause since the combination of Shadow Tag and Encore can easily and consistently allow for a myriad of pokemon to set up with ease for a sweep. Meanwhile, Salamence doesn't fulfill the support characteristic due to the fact that MixMence doesn't have the ability to choose who to kill. As of such, it would be impossible to know the hole that Salamence would make on any given battle until the damage is already done. As of such, it's not possible for Salamence to provide for a sweeper on a consistent basis to allow it to sweep easier.
  2. lati0s

    lati0s

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,492
    In the time since the uber clauses were created the community has seemed to have made a shift from "ban things only if they are broken" to "ban things to achieve an ideal metagame" meaning the the uber clauses are pretty much worthless as people will just vote for the metagame they like better, not whether or not they think that the suspect is actually "broken".
  3. Game Freak201

    Game Freak201

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    652
    I noticed that shift as well. I still belong in the "ban things only if they are broken' camp since I don't believe in the concept of this 'ideal metagame'. In the end, it's just up to someones preference of what an ideal metagame is if we go that route. There's even a thread that discussed that in PR.

    Though your post was insightful for this discussion, I would still like for you to post how the suspect clause should be applied.
  4. Im new here

    Im new here

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Although i'm relitivly new to competative pokemon i have played a number of other competative games, and it seems that most, if not all games are following the trend of trying to create an ideal metagame rather than just fixing what is broken. By doing this most games end up getting messed up, and in many cases it takes a lot longer to fix what was originally not broken, resulting in people qutting the game. Although i believe most other competative games could eventually have a perfectly balanced "metagame" if changes are constantly bought in i dont think that will ever be possible with pokemon. The reason i believe this is the fact that pokemon factors in luck, with things like accuracy, crits, flinch etc. I'm not saying that people win or lose purely on luck, but if luck factors come into a game then it can never be 100% balanced. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the salamence ban in anyway since i'm far and away from having an in depth knowledge of competative pokemon, but my point is, that pokemon will never have a perfectly balanced metagame because luck comes into most, if not all battles.
  5. UltiMario

    UltiMario

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,158
    I'd like to mention that pretty much, it's a law of science that you can't have an ideal anything. You can get close, but you'll never make it. Anything banned on the theory of an ideal metagame (like Mence may have been) needs to get unbanned and the whole process needs to start from scratch. You cannot look for what you cannot find, it's like looking for the fountain of youth, no matter how hard you try, you'll never find it, but people keep on looking anyways.

    Also, I'm not exactly sure how Mence would even fit the support Clause. It is the sweeper, saying that it helps something else sweep late game after it has done its own damage holds about as much water as "Rhyperior(/replace with anything, really) is extremely good once you get rid of all its counters in a match". It's normally the one doing the real damage rather than something else. If anything it's the offensive characteristic that would get Mence, but with Cressy as a counter and a handfull of checks, along with a few Gimmicks (like Heatproof Bronzong since everyone runs Levitate) Mence only goes so far in sweeping.

    More on topic of the support Clause, does it REALLY apply to anyone but Wob? Off the top of my head the closest I can think of that could go with it would be Baton Passers of epic proportions (Mew) or Pokemon that cripple possible counters with Sleep (Darkrai). It's stuff that help others sweep but all these Pokemon could also hold their own as well, which I'm guessing contributes to their banning. That's sorta the point though. The Support Clause was sorta made for Wob, and it really doesn't apply to any other Pokemon until another Shadow Tagger comes along (most likely anyways). Nothing quite fills the support clause without filling another clause better like Wob did. The closest thing that comes to it is Magnezone, but it can't even beat most the steels it traps, so it's not really a problem like Wob was. I find it plain silly anything but Wob would get banned under the support clause.
  6. Despotar

    Despotar

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,119
    It may not be completely broken, but it's good any many ways. (Obviously.)
    Offensively, it has great stats and movepool. Access to Dragon Dance, Outrage, Earthquake, Fire Blast, Draco Meteor, etc. Makes it a big threat to anything.
    Defensively, it only has 3 weakness's, and 95/85/85 defense's aren't bad at all.
    Supportivly, it has access to things like Wish, Toxic, etc. It may not be broken in any one characteristic, but it's above average in all.
    Also, there will be a suspect test to see if it should be lower back to OU eventually, so we'll see what happens.
  7. UltiMario

    UltiMario

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,158
    Many Pokemon are all-around great, just in a different Balance. Mence is an amazing attacker with decent defense and support, and say, Blissey can fire off a decent Flamethrower or Ice Beam or Seismic Toss, can wall a chunk of the tier all day long and has amazing support options with Wish or Aromatherapy.

    Being all-around good =/= Broken.
  8. EpitomeOfFailure

    EpitomeOfFailure

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    A wise person once said: "As perfection can not be reached, trying to archieve perfection is not important. What is important, however, are the things we do to reach perfection."

    Thist to completely agree with "ban only broken mons".

    Also, about support charestic.

    For example, we have a sweeper X, who would greatly appreciate having wall/tank/scarfer Y removed. This is wondered assuming Salamence can blow a Y sized hole on a team.
    If Salamence (propably MixMence in this case) can muscle through Y to help X sweep, how does it matter, if Salamence KOs something different instead? I remember some Mixed sets carrying Roost - which makes being weakened less of an issue - and mostly Salamence doesn't have to sacrifice itself when breaking though walls.
    Also, most mons capable of surprising MixMence by switching on resist (if succesful) and outspeeding with scarf either mostly cannot take too much hits - or rarely even carry scarf at all because of lackluster offence stats.
    So, why couldn't Salamence break Y after breaking something else?
  9. boredomisbliss

    boredomisbliss

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    224
    Yea I've also been wondering what exactly is meant by the support clause. Many people I saw were arguing Salamence uber under the support clause, which in my opinion isn't really how it was meant to be. I mean wallbreaking... isn't it just part of being offensive, or something to be put under the offensive clause?

    If we look at some ubers that are around because of the support clause what are they,
    Wobbuffet, who can use Shadow Tag with Encore, Safeguard, w/e to ensure one turn of free setup
    Deoxys-S, with the fastest hazards, taunt, screens, and such in the game

    The nature that these help another pokemon sweep is much different; they use their unique attributes (Shadow Tag and highest speed in the game) along with support moves to help another pokemon sweep. What does Salamence do? Use offensive moves to deal a lot of damage, and take out their wall. Wait, isn't that offensive clause, since that wall essentially just counts as 1 kill?
  10. Erazor

    Erazor ✓ Just Doug It
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,670
    I believe that it was legacy raider who first used wallbreaking as part of the support characteristic, for latios' suspect test. Personally, i think that the way it's used now is if someone can't prove that suspect x breaks the offensive characteristic, they say "support characteristic". I think that wallbreaking should fall under the OC - if you can kill a couple of walls each game then i would definitely think of the suspect as an offensive threat.
  11. MrIndigo

    MrIndigo

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,245
    The fact that wallbreaking now falls under Support Clause by standard practice is true; but this isn't really a problem with wallbreaking so much as an inherent problem with the idea of the clauses: The clause themselves are defined in subjective terms so the process and results are going to be subjective. Subjectively applying objective criteria leads to subjective results, and Objectively applying subjective criteria leads to subjective results too.

    I will have a longer, more in depth explanation when I get back from work.
  12. Coldcut

    Coldcut

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    I agree. With the logic used for the support clause, any pokemon that can eliminate an enemy pokemon could be judged suspect by the support clause.

    With Stealth Rock, Sandstorm, and Life Orb (not to mention enemy attacks) all eating away at its health, Salamence can't switch in and fight all day. Even a free switch and an attack (assuming SS and SR) will take off 41.25% of its health, and each additional turn takes off a further 16.25%, even if the enemy doesn't attack.
  13. TheValkyries

    TheValkyries

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,838
    It's not the Support Characteristic that's the problem here, it's the Offensive Characteristic. It assumes that the only feat of offensive brokennes is the ability to consistently sweep through teams. MixMence isn't a sweeper but it is offensively broken. It can 2HKO everything in the metagame with no set-up whatsoever by simply spamming one move. That's pretty broken. There may be other examples of such feats, but obviously they aren't the root cause of this thread.

    Regardless, you are correct in that the Support Characteristic is being abused where it shouldn't, but that's because it's picking up the slack for the other characteristics that are too limiting in their definitions to account for all of the broken pokemon. Until we can change the definitions to something more adequate, I'm afraid we're going to have to rely on our instincts about a pokemon's strength over whether or not they fit a certain characteristic.
  14. BaldWombat

    BaldWombat

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    This is what I was first thought of when I read the OP. I believe Latios was deemed Uber under Support Clause because its Specs 130 Base Draco Meteor was able to take a massive chunk of health out of any poke on a consistent basis that it allowed other pokemon to muscle their way through their counters and sweep. By the definition of the Offense Clause Latios couldn't be deemed Uber for this as it really isn't easily sweeping through the opponents team.

    As the clauses are currently stated there is no problem with the way the clauses are being used IMO. Where the disconnect lies is in what people think of when they hear the word support as opposed to what the definition of the clause states. In order to make the Support Clause go along withe general idea of the word support you would have to rewrite the clause to be more specific and broaden at least the Offense Clause from just easily sweeping the opponents team to allowing another pokemon to easily sweep, which is more of a support role in reality.
  15. Deaga

    Deaga

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    417
    Are you suggesting blissey is even decent offensively? Really?
  16. Aura Guardian

    Aura Guardian

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,401
    ... Except that Mence isn't required to run Life Orb. I had a decent team on OU using Dragon Dance Mence.
    Same EVs/nature
    LEFTOVERS
    Dragon Dance
    Outrage
    Earthquake
    Fire Blast

    So, after a free switch and attack, you're hovering at 75% and furious. Don't assume the now-deleted analysis sets were the only things you could use.

    EDIT @Coldcut: I never said it was my set. Only that I was modifying an analysis set slightly. I was posting this set just to make a point. I also didn't say I was using that set to sweep.
  17. IcyMan28

    IcyMan28

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,106
    I think the Support Clause has been stretched too far, as wallbreaking has always been around and will continue to be employed. Logically speaking, if Mence can be banned under the Support characteristic for punching random and unspecific holes in the opponents team, then so should things like Infernape, Breloom, etc. The ability to break through the opponents team is offensive strength, and nothing more.

    I find support to be more along the lines of tactics that utilize more than brute force to create a winning condition. Take Deoxys-S, for example, the ultimate support pokemon. It's status as the fastest pokemon in the game meant that it could set up Spikes, Stealth Rock, or the notorious Dual Screens with ease from the start of the game, something that ANY pokemon could take advantage of (which is different from using a lure to help something specific sweep).

    And then there are pokemon like Mew, Darkrai, and Kyogre. Mew's bulk, stats, and movepool allow it to become the best Baton Passer in the game - I'm sure that few would argue that Mew has an offensive presence that much greater than his fellow Base 600 brethren, and if it does, it does not stem from sheer stats so much as from its limitless movepool.

    Darkrai has an 80% accurate Sleep move that not only removes an opponent from play, but also triggers an additional 12% of passive damage from its Bad Dreams ability.

    Finally, there is Kyogre. Stats and strength aside, the Rain is provides would make OU a much different place. Rain is a very powerful strategy, limited mostly by the similar typing of its sweepers and the short duration of the weather. Kyogre could change all of that even if it didn't threaten such powerful attacks, as Kindgra and Kabutops would have free reign to wreak havoc.

    In UU, Froslass is another example. Her ability to set up Spikes allowed several pokemon to effortlessly rip through UU, Moltres and Swellow being most notable (both of whom are less controversial now).

    The only exception to this, IMO, is Latios, and even then it is a tough call to make. His bulk and typing allowed him to easily and consistently switch in and pound any opponent with STAB, Specs Draco Meteor. The difference is, pairing him with a late-game cleaner of average strength and coverage could win you the game. The amount of damage he could do in one or two hits was too much to deal with, and, unlike pokemon such as the frail Infernape or SR-weak Mence, he could switch in to do it again and again because he did not require setup and wasn't on a timer.

    Tl;dr - Wallbreaking doesn't fit the SC on its own, and the Support Characteristic should be saved for less conventional damage-dealing tactics.
  18. Sir Azelf

    Sir Azelf

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    242
    Ah i was waiting for a thread like this.

    Its true, the support clause has been taken too far. I think the subjectiveness of them makes that kinda inevitable though to be honest. Though i don't mind along as long as we have good players voting (i.e the current suspect processes) so they know what they're talking about and not poorer players who have brought up horrid points in the past threads for various suspects to be banned. Thank goodness those sort of things arent listened to because they cant get the CRE to vote.

    (I seem to be using this quote quite a few times lately) To quote RaikouLover 'People really need to figure out what the difference between the support characteristic and a lure is'. Obviously this doesn't apply to Mence, but yeah something to think about still and to not just scream suspect at something just because it took out your walls lol.
  19. Coldcut

    Coldcut

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    I am aware of, and have used myself, various other viable sets, including the one you just mentioned, and I'm pretty sure you were not the first to use Leftovers over Life Orb. However, the New MixMence set, which does use Life Orb, is the one that seems to have contributed the most to its ban, so that is the one I commented on. Remember, Salamence was not banned due to its sweeping potential, on which "your" set aims to capitalize, but due to its wallbreaking "support" provided by the New MixMence set.
  20. -Eddie-

    -Eddie-

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    151
    Honestly, I think Salamence didn't qualify under the support characteristic at all. I think people just wanted it banned, but since it just barely missed offensive characteristic, people started saying it followed the support characteristic. I mean seriously, a wall-breaker supports late-game sweepers by weakening walls!? GASP!
  21. Chou Toshio

    Chou Toshio @Fighting Necktie
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    8,170
    This was true from the onset, and will be true no matter what system you implement.
  22. MrIndigo

    MrIndigo

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,245
    Unfortunately, I'm really busy with law firm job applications at the moment, but I'll try and get to my big post this evening when I'm wrapped up with the day, but as a teaser I will point out the following fact:


    The very fact that Uber is a playable format automatically implies that there is no pokemon that is outright 'broken'. It follows from this that the clauses cannot be used to only remove "broken" pokemon, and make no judgment of target metagames. Those of you who complain that the clauses should be used for this purpose are playing the wrong format; you should be playing Uber, not OU.
  23. DropTheNuke

    DropTheNuke

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    147
    Absolutely.

    Wobbuffet can come in on Blissey, Encore, Tickle it to death, then have Scizor/Tyranitar/Metagross/Snorlax pursuit it to death. Salamence, on the other hand, has no way of consistently killing the same Blissey. Instead, it's strength as a wallbreaker only allows it to punch random holes in the opponent's team, depending on the opponent's play. Other Pokemon like MixApe and Breloom are also able to do this.

    Wallbreaking as a role really doesn't fit into the support characteristic. It doesn't fit into the offensive characteristic either. Having the ability to 2HKO the OU metagame minus Cress doesn't make it a sweeper.
  24. Nightmare

    Nightmare

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    290
    Personally, I think Salamence does break the Offensive Characteristic more than the Support Characteristic, even though I feel it's more of an OU Pokemon. CB Salamence works great as a lead and can tear a new one into teams in a way that Garchomp could not with an Adamant Nature and 405 Attack, and Specsmence also can do severe damage as well. Mixmence can also work as a wallbreaker with 1 or 2 turns of setup, putting it in something that even the biggest tankbuilders can't do, but you have to be lucky enough to set it up. Even if they called it Support Characteristic, it really is more of the Offensive Characteristic.

    I should know, I've had 3 90+ Win Streaks in the Battle Tower in D/P (one with tradebacks), and the last 2 featured Salamence using Outrage over Garchomp just for the extra kick in power to defeat things that Garchomp could not, and the extra speed over Dragonite.

    It's different, than say, Garchomp or Specs/Soul Dew Meteor Lati@s which more of just rely on superior speed and just drill your main offensive Pokemon a new one then open the floodgates for the rest of your team to come through. Salamence just overwhelms you with sheer power.

    -James
  25. overtime

    overtime

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    We already have Garchomp in ubers, & now Salamence. Might as well throw Dragonite there as well cause he has his own niches ( agility, better bulk, inner focus & extremespeed for leads( fake-out especially), element punches/beams/blasts, superpower, roost)& could fall under this "Support Clause" in the eyes of many.

    Any 5th gen non-legendary or pseudo-legendary dragon will be overused over a long period of time & sent packing to the uber tier. This happened with Salamence when it came along int the 3rd , as with Garchomp in the 4th. The quote "A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it can consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep. " Then Scizor, Metagross, Magnezone, & many other OU steels should be uber as well because as of late they are being splashed into Uber teams. Wobbuffet fits this clause well, even if Shadow Tag & Encore is all it can do. But all in all the clause is too subjective & Salamence & Garchomp in ubers are examples of this

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)