1. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  2. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Two arbitrary debate points cause I'm bored

Discussion in 'BW OU' started by Aldaron, May 2, 2013.

  1. Lavos Spawn

    Lavos Spawn a e s t h e t i c
    is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion

    Mar 17, 2012
    okay the second part where you agree that we need to create a balanced metagame until the majority is satisfied pretty much proves our point. however you commit a severe logical fallacy right here by claiming that regardless of what we have to say about bw2, it is a balanced metagame.

    stop right there

    look at what you just posted...your own personal opinion about how "balanced" the metagame is, lacking any justification. and alongside this frankly silly line of text you're claiming that our opinions on the metagame hold no weight? at least we justify our opinions, which you fail to do.

    and btw, if you think the metagame is balanced and we don't, why not hold some more suspect tests? if it's "balanced" like you say it is, then anything we suspect will inevitably stay ou, and if it's not, then we're right and things will continue to be banned until we eventually arrive at a truly balanced metagame. there's no flaw in reasoning here; it logically holds true that if we continue to ban the broken stuff, then eventually there won't be any broken stuff left and we'll be at this balanced metagame that we all supposedly desire. so the only reason you would oppose more suspect tests is if you were afraid that you weren't right, that things in the current metagame are still broken and will inevitably be banned if tested...and coincidentally, that's the exact postulation that we are supporting and you are attempting to shoot down.

    it's become very clear to me that those who oppose bans simply believe that the metagame right now is "good enough" and have adopted the mentality that we don't need to change any more because it's too hard or it will spoil our precious "good enough" metagame. in other words:

    that mentality, however, gets us nowhere. if we want a better metagame then it's clear what the solution is: suspect test things until we arrive at a point where all the broken stuff that people complain about no longer exists (or at least no longer exists to such a painfully extreme degree).
  2. PureQuestion


    Nov 20, 2012
    Are you kidding me. That was obviously a joke.

    Moving on...

    I have to say, I'm pretty new to this whole pokemon thing, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that this is easily the most controversial metagame. Or maybe it's not, hard to say with how people tend to act. Honestly the arguments are getting to the point where I'm wondering why drizzle hasn't been suspected just to stop the completely endless complaints.
  3. Memphis Grizzly

    Memphis Grizzly

    Apr 7, 2013
    Alright, so if we "were" to start going suspect testing happy exactly when would we call it a day? Till we reach Little Cup perhaps (sarcasm). Do you have an exact format as to what a "balanced meta game" is?

    If team match is so "extreme" I'd like to hear what in the minds of the pro-ban group would refer to a balanced number to team match. So if I run into Sun+Duggy with my T-tar team I'm out of luck, but I'll easily take a Weather less team correct? So I win 1 and lose 1. Sounds like a fair trade off. The players wanting to "balance" team match up only want a meta where they'll be guaranteed wins; regardless of what they are carrying, but also don't factor in hax that is ever present that will cost even a team with the advantage to lose. Team match up=hax either you have the right team or you don't it's the cost for playing such team.
  4. Melee Mewtwo

    Melee Mewtwo Banned deucer.

    Jan 26, 2011
    Funnily enough, it has already been suspect tested. (Back in early BW1 with all the other weathers, iirc)
  5. Nachos

    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Sep 16, 2007
    matchup alone? yeah I admit I do complain about matchup occassionally but to say it is all based on matchup alone is extreme. plus, as more and more pokemon are added, matchup is always going to be a bigger problem, scapegoating weather is not going to solve a problem that requires a big discussion based on how we're going to move forward with regards to the increasing matchup and power levels. with regards to the current day, the fact that there's many many good sweepers in OU right now (and banning them all will just lead to others taking their place) affects matchup more than anything, and they don't need to be reliant on weather either.

    I was describing why there was a reason to use sand rather than just 'it beats rain and sun'.

    The biggest threat of the day will always restrict teambuilding, such as the dragonsteel DPP metagame example from before. I'll also refer to my first post in that it is certain powerhouses themselves that restrict teambuilding more than weather. You want an example? Landorus doesn't need any weather and yet it is probably the best pokemon in OU right now, hence the increased Latias usage, despite the fact it's Tyranitar bait.

    I think this is more of an attack due to me calling out your friend than it is a point, but ok. I hold a similar opinion to undisputed in that the weathers balance each other out, and while I'm not 100% satisfied with OU as it stands, I don't think banning weather is the source of all of our problems. Oh and also, I didn't go into indepth on my opinion about weather because I'm focusing on the first point about whether or not we should consider the future metagame when he consider tiering judgements.

    I am pretty sure I heard this similar argument made a couple of years back with regards to DPP. and yet despite having this final 'balanced metagame', increasing numbers of people don't seem to be enjoying it as much as they used to do they? now maybe I'm wrong there, but I see people who say they enjoyed the 'broken DPP' a lot more than the 'balanced DPP', maybe you might know a few of them.

    I am pretty sure I have not said anywhere that I oppose further suspect tests, but I appreciate you putting the words into my mouth.

    ah yes, way to shit on everyone who thinks opposite to you by saying we're too lazy to want to change anything. oh yeah by the way, that's 53% of us when it comes to weather. who's claiming who's opinions hold no weight, hmm?
  6. Aldaron

    is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Aug 5, 2007
    Alright, since some of you have decided to respond, I'll respond in kind. Also, this took a fuckload of time...damn my impulses.

    What I mean is should I take theorymon about potential cause / effect in future metagames into account when deciding policy for the current one. For the most generic example, if something is potentially (but not definitely, let's say a 50/50 thing) broken right now, but banning it will very probably (theorymon obviously) break 2 or 3 things that are not currently broken now, should I take that future theorymon into account when deciding how to deal with the current suspect?

    You example is a little different from what I meant, as it is more a should we decide current policy based on what future policy will be. I meant should I decide current policy based on what might happen in the future, not necessarily what will happen policy wise.

    I don't actually think it is "rubbish." I'm mostly ok with it, I just wished I could somehow maximize the ability to prepare for most of the metagame with one set of 6 pokemon. I like team match up influencing the outcome of a battle, not determining it.

    That might be part of the thought process, but the main issue is that the council has never thought Drizzle was broken enough on its own to ban.

    I'm not personally worried about big change; if change happens, it happens. If we have to speed up the process to deal with it, I'm ok with that too.

    Ok, so then I'd like to propose George Elliot's example to you, since you seem ok with using theorymon about the future metagame to decide policy. What about "theorymon" about assumed future policy? If Keldeo is broken now, but, hint hint wink wink we believe we are banning Drizzle soon, should I bother suspecting Keldeo now?

    Yea, I'm starting to lean towards it is ok to use theorymon to decide current policy, particularly because I would prefer to minimize the suspect test count. Also, I tend to agree that a Drizzle-less / Drought-less meta will be Dragons / Gen 5 steroid mons dominated, leading to further suspect tests. My question to you d you think a metagame with Drizzle / Drought / Landorus-I / Latios / Kyurem-B / Terrakion (just an arbitrary combination of those mons) banned would still be terrible? I understand that it might terrible in the middle of the tests, but would it still be terrible after all that?

    Here is another question. Would you agree that battling and team building are both (nearly equally) important aspects of "online pokemon" and everything that entails? If you say yes and agree that both are very significant, would you not agree that both aspects should be included in a definition of broken? What I'm leaning towards is if something X is not broken in application but alters the overall metagame's team matchup factor component from "influencing outcome" to "determining outcome," should we not consider suspecting it?

    I guess traditionally, we have always ignored the team matchup factor because in very general terms, it was always just on the influence level. Gen 1 - 4, even if you had a team disadvantage, if you had built a solid team, you could still pull out a decent probability win. Can we say that now? I'm not taking a stance here, just honestly asking. If the answer is yes, what is the point where team matchup factor goes from mere influence to determining?

    I agree with this 100%. I am defining "normal" and "weird" based on what we have observed in practice, not a generalized concept of each.

    I'm not sure I can agree with the usage of the word bias here. Or maybe inherent bias. It's more an "empirical" (quotes necessary lol) observation based on practice than an assumption based on bias.

    The issue you mentioned is exactly the issue in my second point; because of the state of the metagame, countering sun explicitly leaves big holes to other major types more than countering those major types leaves a hole sun. I should clarify that by state of the metagame I mean because Sand / Rain / Stall counter or check strategies are just inherently more mixable than Sun counter or check strategies, even if Sun is individually easier to prepare for, Sun is actually the harder one to prepare for generally speaking. My Latios is good against all of Rain, Sand, weatherless, Stall...but is often is deadweight against Sun (either sacrifice fodder or Volcarona set up bait after a specs Draco Meteor). That's only one example, but I feel like those examples are much more common than the opposite.

    Before I respond to the rest I'll just leave these out there, as I'll probably start repeating myself.
  7. UltiMario


    Aug 11, 2009
    People have been scolded for this before. During the Keldeo and Torn suspect tests, people were repeatedly told NOT to vote to keep them OU just so they could try and get a Drizzle suspect test to ban that instead. On top of that, our future policy for this generation has had stuff like a Darkrai suspect test lined up, and then completely dismantled because people were pushing for bans rather than unbans at the time. Where did that suspect test go? Completely gone. At least with theorymon, you can be certain that Salamence won't suddenly change his mind on what he is and get base 150 SpA, for a kind of comparison to "theorymonning" policy.
  8. yee

    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion

    Jan 3, 2010
    I've been shown a certain something which has required me to step back and ask the council very broad questions, because clearly I have been chasing red herrings.

    What is our current definition of broken?

    Are we just banning right now because some certain things are more powerful than others (Torn-T / Genesect etc.)? I was under the impression that it was a factor only because it was part of a broader effect of directly making any possible BW2 OU meta unbalanced, but was then told things like Doug's Characteristics of an Ideal Metagame have "never been used". It's unquestionable that suspect testing weather is the next step we would take if we did take one based on this poll only because it's the biggest question mark we have to deal with. Neither me or the council knows exactly what would happen if we did put it up for suspect but I'm sure we both agree it would be more likely to result in a ban than anything else. I like to think a certain few members are just kicking the can down the road until XY (in fact I have seen a clear log at least showing someone would like to), but is disagreement on what we can define as "possibly broken" what's keeping it off the block?

    If so, why aren't there more specific details of being "broken"? What is the definition we are considering adding to? There is a bigger disconnect between me and council than I had even thought possible, I originally see a log saying ya'll agree to "ban until a balanced metagame is achieved" but I didn't see there was so much ambiguity in what "balanced" was: I thought it just went without saying that things like better player winning often / diversity / luck / creativity etc. could all be seen as necessary parts of a balanced metagame as Doug laid out, but I seem to not even have a foggy idea of what we're working with. If someone argues that a pokemon is hurting one of those elements, why is it not worth a damn thing?

    So please, any council member, release more specific details of what you look for because if I'm having personal talks with Aldaron about weather and still having trouble getting an idea of what we're even arguing over, I can't imagine the community knows much either. For more than a little while I've been seeing "Why don't we stop this theorymon and just test" pop up again and again because of this, and I know for sure at least a couple of council members are well intentioned people, but accidentally or not have left a lot of people in the dark.
  9. Memphis Grizzly

    Memphis Grizzly

    Apr 7, 2013
    This is exactly what I wanted to know in my post above. Who has an exact format of this ideal meta game? Are these players just seeking bans till they have a concrete feeling of balance, without knowing what they are searching for till they reach it. If so then banning a weather would be just for the sake of having something to ban till the next "over centralized" play style appears.
  10. Curtains


    Jul 6, 2009
    I think as far as pokemon go this generation Genesect is probably the best example of something that is broken. It was fast, versatile, can raise its stats by just coming in and had 1 counter in the entire tier. You felt its brokenness. No matter how you made a team you looked at it and knew that you had a problem with Genesect. genesect was absolutely fucked up as far as balance. I think tornadus-t and deoxys-d were bans just to keep the suspect test moving. Players really had to come up with wild reasons why they were broken. For things like weather and SR you are more or less shaping the metagame. These types of things have to be looked at with the integrity of the game in mind. Questions like "will the resulting metagame be better or worse?" has to come to mind. That is why the people that blindly want to ban SR just because: "i think it is broken. So all broken things must be banned now with no vision of the resulting metagame." have to look deeper.

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