We're old enough to not necessarily believe in any old Clause, right?

[mtr]

I think we need to keep in mind that the main reason to not test something is that it takes over a month to do. I mean we could test anything we want, it would just be a waste of time in most cases.

I don't see why we would waste a month of testing time and probably over a hundred cumulative man-hours in order to test something that is clearly not going to improve the game. I still haven't seen a single person say that they think evasion is a competitively viable strategy - in fact, several people have pointed out how underwhelming they think it will be, in which case I'm not sure why we would even bother attempting to re-introduce it.

This is a good argument to move Evasion far down the list of stuff we plan to test, but we simply can't ignore it, because it is still a part of the game. Also, we can adapt the test to curtail the amount of time we spend on it. Its a fair bet that if Evasion moves are somehow gamebreaking, many players will attempt to abuse them during the test. So let's run statistics throughout the second week of the test (not the first, when people are just trying the moves out). If the amount of people using the moves is higher than a certain threshold, the test continues. If its below the threshold, the test is stopped and Evasion moves are allowed. We may wish to use weighted statistics, but at that point, we might as well spend the month.

All in all,

Species Clause
OHKO Clause
Evasion Clause

seems to be a solid course of action on the basis of the effects on the metagame that removing each clause will have.

 

[obi]

Though "you should feel the same way about Sand Veil and Snow Cloak" is somewhat of a fallacious argument of division, I would still like to know how your thoughts do not directly extend to these Abilities that take even less time to abuse than OHKO and evasion moves. Many people would argue that Garchomp's Sand Veil enough "of an effect" to give it the mere percentage points it needed to be voted uber two times in Stage 3. In your opinion, why do we need to test any pokemon that can abuse these Abilities before banning them?

I think the difference there is that Garchomp isn't solely Sand Veil. It has other unique attributes. Double Team is 100% probability manipulation, as are OHKOs (other than things like Sturdy and Aura Sphere, I guess, but in those cases it has no effect). If Double Team was something like "Does some random, constant effect, and raises the user's evasion 1 stage", then it would have to be examined to see if that extra effect adds something competitively to offset the increased luck factor.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Isnt Aqua Tail 100% probability manipulation? There is a chance it does damage, and there is a chance it does nothing.

I dont see how that is different to Evasion from a perspective of increasing the luck factor and not from brokenness.

It would not ruin the game (which is why it will pass), but it would almost definitely make it marginally worse. I am opposed to making Pokemon a worse competitive game, and I am certainly opposed to wasting a month to do it.

I disagree. It will almost definitely make it marginally better.

Ok it may have a "negative" effect on 1 in 100 battles. But it will have a positive effect on every battle. There are a whole host of potential strategies and counter strategies evasion could bring to the game. It's not completely uncounterable. Haze is perfectly viable if people are using evasion passers that arent threatening pokemon otherwise, like Ninjask for instance (and in fact is generally the case with all evasion passers, as they need to waste two slots on dt and bp) Yawn and Perish Song are even better.

Of the three tests listed here, Evasion is the most likely to change. So its not like the wasted month is actually going to be spent on more important issues.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jumpman16]

I think Species clause is a case of "let's test everything" gone too far. The second you remove the clause, you are changing the entire game and how it is played.

I have been maintaining that "how it is played" has perhaps been wrong the whole time. Again, if we are not willing to make that mental leap and question old standards regardless of our comfort level with them, then we are not being faithful to the spirit of the Suspect Test at its core.

1) The Team Building aspect, creating a Team based on the Metagame that will give me an edge over other players, and tweaking teams so that it can "deal" with every threat in the game.

2) The Battling aspect, where the team battles against another, and the ability to deal with imperfect information.

Species clause absolutely and utterly destroys 1. DPPt has a ridiculous amount of threats already, and now having the potential to deal with any threat twice? three times? it changes 1) as we know it and I don't think it's a direction we should be considering. I don't think species clause should be tested at all. Even if we tested, it'll take MANY months to get a REAL testing (if you think it's "obviously broken" after a week then you're simply playing the new game with the old mindset) to get any results, and I don't think it's worth destroying the team building aspect of Pokemon over it. If anyone sticks in a "what if it doesnt have a huge effect" then I believe that player has never, ever, played competitive pokemon seriously enough and doesn't know what they are talking about

1) as we know it might be based on a wrong metagame that should never have had Species Clause, regardless of how long it may take to test.

We already have a game with imperfect information, and I believe evasion and OHKO only adds more variability to the game, making this imperfect information game even more imperfect with no further tools to deal with such uncertainty, other than the specific opportunity cost of the player using evasion/ohko moves. Obviously, since there's a trade off involved here, I believe OHKO/Evasion should be tested to see how much this tradeoff is and if players are able to capitalize on the added variability created by OHKO/Evasion.

How can you say this and be unwilling to accept that there's an opportunity cost of using more than one of the same pokemon on a team?

1) Mark many random players in the months before the test. Get their statistics. Start the test, and see how the statistics of these random players changed. This should be from the best players, good players, mediocre players, etc, to see how it has changed. Obviously, there's the "if you play more you get better" effect, so weighing on that, you should be able to see the change in variance of win/loss or some other measure.

2) See how many people use OHKO/Evasion at the first month, and then the last month. If no one uses it, then it is not broken (opportunity cost of OHKo/Evasion is not worth it) and shouldn't be banned. If a significant number of players use it (some cutoff decided before hand, obviously it'll be arbitrary, but i'm sure we can work out a measure based on what type of players use it and then based on experiment 1) then it should be banned since the added variability is something we should never be going for.

I'd be more inclined to consider option 1 if only because not banning something because it isn't used as much is a faulty way of going about banning things. Ask Wobbuffet.

I don't want to test species clause. I agree with Tangerine on that point. Mostly, it just means we're playing an entirely different game from what we've hitherto been accustomed to playing. I'm sure there is a good chance that a game without species clause would work just fine... but that doesn't mean we should embrace it.

It doesn't mean that we should ignore the possibility that the different game that we have been playing all along has essentially not been Pokémon just because it's more covenient to do so.

I agree completely with phil, I don't understand how the metagame is broken or non-competitive at the moment that these clauses have to be added to fix them or make the metagame more competitive.

I thought we were talking about removing clauses?

Species Clause completely changes the metagame as we know it, and why introduce it now after many long months of testing? It requires someone to completely re-evaluate how you currently play the game, and how many counters/checks/answers are sufficient enough for a certain threat. The possibilities and combinations become almost endless, and it takes away from the little skill we have left in the game and makes it completely random and luck-based.

Besides my oft-repeated "maybe what we know has been wrong all along", how does having more possibilities and combinations inherently detract from skill? How can you state that with the utter certainty that is needed for us to correctly and fairly forego a Species Clause test?

Evasion Clause feels almost exactly like Species Clause, albeit a bit more fair. It still gives the user a chance to lose the final outcome if the opponent still hits through it, but it still will require players to change the current thoughts on checks, answers, counters, revenge killers, etc. With Pokemon like Gyarados or Salamence, Lucario or Scizor, Infernape or Swampert, etc., it is hard to be able to prepare for these Pokemon more than once while still being capable of handling any other Pokemon. With Double Team available to them, your "guaranteed counter" or reliable answer isn't so reliable anymore. A miss in the fast-paced metagame of today will be deadly to players. Not to mention, it creates a more luck centered metagame. A competitive game should strive to let the best player win, so why hinder this even more than it already is with evasion being able to totally change a game around.

No OHKO clause just rewards bad players. Why should we allow something that gives an automatic free kill? If it isn't adding much variety anyway (most of the Pokemon who learn it, will likely not be used), and is it isn't forming new counters (most of the Pokemon with sturdy are used enough, and OHKO wouldn't be common enough to make players feel like they need a new counter). I don't see why the metagame would be improved by adding this clause. It hardly promotes new strategy, diversity, or competitiveness, or any other thing you want to add. It is a gimmick that could hurt good players and help bad players in situations it shouldn't, which shouldn't happen in a competitive area.

In my humble opinion, this is mere theorymon, and very spotty theorymon at that. How can any of the threats you mentioned have room for Double Team in their movesets and still pose the same threat they currently do? And how are OHKOs a viable "automatic free kill" when they only hit 30% of the time, and are by your admission only available to pokemon that "will likely not be used"? Have you ever even played any competitive pokemon with OHKO and Evasion? I have, as I recounted in this post in January. Since then, Stealth Rock has become even more relevant as the most used move in competitve pokemon per moveset ("probably", I'm aware that EQ and TB are used more but most people don't run more than one SR user per team), cutting the viability of Lapras, Walrein and Dewgong, the expected best users of OHKO moves due to Sheer Cold's lack of immunities.

So while Walrein and Lapras may have new toys to play with in Pain Split and Block, respectively, no one can say with any certainty that these toys will make those pokemon any more viable than they already are. And besides Scizor, Rotom, a pokemon that singlehandedly stymies the use of all the other OHKO users by itself, was the most used pokemon in Standard last month (and yes, I am accounting for the use of the original Rotom, why shouldn't I), up from 14th in January.

What evidence do you have to support your suspicion that Evasion and OHKO users will have any marked impact on the game given the facts I just relayed, let alone to support that these clauses shouldn't be tested anyway?

Edit:

I also want to say that it seems like we are testing for the sake of testing. To be fair, I think we are done with dppt and we have tried our best to make the metagame as fair as possible and this is as good as it will likely get. There is no need to abolish clauses to add a new dimension to the game for no reason other than "good players won't use it/it won't be used often/it would be interesting". I think we should enjoy the metagame we have created, not to mention we should finish dealing with Manaphy, Latias, and possibly Salamence in the future.

To be fair, I think this is an incredibly lazy mentality. And I'll be honest—the attitude of many of you in this thread who have posted against testing Clauses is disappointing to me, as you are hardly trying to form valid arguments against testing them (excluding posters like Tay and Tangerine, who in my opinion have attempted to flesh out their arguments with viable thoughts and expound on their suggestions).

I think the difference there is that Garchomp isn't solely Sand Veil. It has other unique attributes. Double Team is 100% probability manipulation, as are OHKOs (other than things like Sturdy and Aura Sphere, I guess, but in those cases it has no effect). If Double Team was something like "Does some random, constant effect, and raises the user's evasion 1 stage", then it would have to be examined to see if that extra effect adds something competitively to offset the increased luck factor.

I'm aware of Garchomp's "other unique attributes". You didn't address the main point of the paragraph you quoted, which I will repaste: Many people would argue that Garchomp's Sand Veil enough was "of an effect" to give it the mere percentage points it needed to be voted uber two times in Stage 3. And again, you just said: "I don't feel they need to be tested for how powerful they are, as any effect is too much of an effect." Isn't Sand Veil enough of an effect to have pushed Garchomp over the uber edge, especially given how close both of its votes were?

And I don't know how many times I have to ask you to actually respond to more than one or two points in my responses to you, obi. You literally always do this when I respond to one of your posts in this forum—from the Fixing UU thread to the Stage three and beyond thread to the Using simple majorities for tiering votes thread, and it's very irratating. I don't know whether your repeated refusal to engage me in this forum when I take the time to address every one of your points is an indication of concession or apathy, but it would be good to know either way so I can decide whether to engage you in the future (look up any of the threads I just mentioned if you think I'm being unduly crass).

 

[Tangerine]

I have been maintaining that "how it is played" has perhaps been wrong the whole time. Again, if we are not willing to make that mental leap and question old standards regardless of our comfort level with them, then we are not being faithful to the spirit of the Suspect Test at its core.

1) as we know it might be based on a wrong metagame that should never have had Species Clause, regardless of how long it may take to test.

That's irrelevant. "How is it wrong"? There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play Pokemon. The spirit of the Suspect Test was to create the most competitive "brand" of Pokemon with as least restrictions as possible, and unless we're willing to rewrite every analysis and every article, testing species clause is something that should not be considered. It is irrelevant if we have been playing the "wrong" game the entire time, because in the end, the game is how we define it. We set the restrictions based on our analysis on how we think the game should be played (for a good reason, of course).

The mentality isn't "You aren't playing Pokemon unless you play with the least rules possible", it is "How can we take the game of Pokemon and shape it to the best competitive game possible", because obviously, the game of Pokemon has innate issues.

If you think the team building aspect is irrelevant... you'll be pissing off a lot of players and likely give an unnecessary edge to a competitor who doesn't use species clause... it's simply an unnecessary and unpopular thing to test which will just ostracize players at its best. Is this what you really want to do with the suspect test, in the hopes that you'll play the "right" game (whatever "right" is but you haven't made clear by what standards you have placed this in)

How can you say this and be unwilling to accept that there's an opportunity cost of using more than one of the same pokemon on a team?

Because species clause DESTROYS an aspect of Pokemon we have. Evasion,OHKO, is a tiny issue compared to species clause.

You Know how Pokemon is played. You know that you need to be able to "counter" or "check" or have some other plan to deal with a specific Pokemon if it shows up. Now imagine if you have to consider dealing with TWO. You can't DEAL with all those threats without essentially demolishing the competitive game.

 

[Jumpman16]

That's irrelevant. "How is it wrong"? There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play Pokemon. The spirit of the Suspect Test was to create the most competitive "brand" of Pokemon with as least restrictions as possible, and unless we're willing to rewrite every analysis and every article, testing species clause is something that should not be considered. It is irrelevant if we have been playing the "wrong" game the entire time, because in the end, the game is how we define it. We set the restrictions based on our analysis on how we think the game should be played (for a good reason, of course).

I patently disagree with what you've stated is the spirit of the Suspect Test. I am saying this instead of saying that you're straight up wrong in the interests of politeness, even though I have every right to do so since it was I who:

1) introduced the term "Suspect" into competitive play
2) defined what the term means
3) chiseled away at it repeatedly to improve our understanding and its universal applicability, and
4) pasted it close to a dozen times by now times both here and in Stark Mountain.

I'll paste it once again for posterity, from my OoO thread:

Suspect: Any Pokémon, move or clause that respectively may benefit competitive standard or uber battle if moved or implemented elsewhere.

No one has ever expressed his or her disagreement with this definition. I may not be the only focal point on everything Suspect (it's obviously quite the opposite given how many threads I've posted and how many times I've encouraged input from a wide variety of sources), but you definitely don't get to tell us that the spirit of the Suspect Test has anything to do with the fewest number of restrictions.

Or imply that removing Species Clause would inherently result in a less competitive game. We have little to no evidence to support that Species Clause cannot make competitive pokemon better. Nor do we to support that it will make it worse.

The mentality isn't "You aren't playing Pokemon unless you play with the least rules possible", it is "How can we take the game of Pokemon and shape it to the best competitive game possible", because obviously, the game of Pokemon has innate issues.

Sure it does. Is the inherent brokenness or noncompetitiveness of two or more of one pokemon on the same team one of them?

If you think the team building aspect is irrelevant... you'll be pissing off a lot of players and likely give an unnecessary edge to a competitor who doesn't use species clause... it's simply an unnecessary and unpopular thing to test which will just ostracize players at its best. Is this what you really want to do with the suspect test, in the hopes that you'll play the "right" game (whatever "right" is but you haven't made clear by what standards you have placed this in)

Yes I have, by the very definition of Suspect I've been using for almost two years now. And I'm not implying team building is irrelevant any more than you are implying that lack of Species Clause is inherently broken or will definitely destroy the team building aspect. Or that this should not even be considered regardless because it will 100% piss off a lot of players. Or that that is any reason to not do what is right anyway. How many people do you think were actually happy with Wobbuffet in standard for 4-5 months? You should be able to answer this question better than anyone else since it was you who read all of its bold votes last summer.

Because species clause DESTROYS an aspect of Pokemon we have. Evasion,OHKO, is a tiny issue compared to species clause.

Besides the fact that you seem to be forgetting we are advocating a test (unless you are implying that you feel Species Clause would be removed as a result), the entire test has "destroyed" various aspects of pokemon we had previously observed. The fact that there are other posters who don't even agree with you that Evasion and OHKOs are a "tiny issue" is indication enough that there is merit to testing all the Clauses.

You Know how Pokemon is played. You know that you need to be able to "counter" or "check" or have some other plan to deal with a specific Pokemon if it shows up. Now imagine if you have to consider dealing with TWO. You can't DEAL with all those threats without essentially demolishing the competitive game.

I think we can agree that my imagination is likely one of the last character traits that I am in need of developing. I think that we can also agree that imagination can only do so much and shouldn't be depended on entirely, especially when you have the tools and ability to make more informed, empirical decisions.

 

[Tangerine]

Actually Jump, the definitions are absolutely identical. I'm not sure why you're drawing the line and telling me our definitions "differ". It's simply another way to approach the statement you've so nicely bolded.

"Least amount of Restrictions" means, we only restrict things that don't benefit the competitive game. We don't restrict things that may benefit the competitive game. Obviously we will include everything that benefits the game, and exclude everything that does not. "least" is simply a modifier to make sure that we only exclude the things that do not benefit the game, ie, test as many things as possible.

However, I thought we have determined many, many times that in order for something to be a suspect, there needs to be significant theorymon in order for it to be "tested". There is no significant argument on how species clause accomplishes this, you are proposing we test it just in case. This is why, despite the "least" modifier I use, I don't think there is any evidence on species clause improving the game we have right now, and there's no need to "change" the game in order to test it. Unless someone can give us a solid theorymon evidence on how it benefits the CURRENT competitive game, I don't believe it should be tested since we do have arguments on how it will hurt the game we have right now.

Sure it does. Is the inherent brokenness or noncompetitiveness of two or more of one pokemon on the same team one of them?

I'm not implying anything regarding how that may be "innately broken". Things are broken or "over powered" ONLY relative to the metagame/mentality that players have. Species clause is clearly broken in that sense, since players do consider what other players are using to make their decisions and to build their teams.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Wobbuffet, since its introduction into play was not our decision.

You can test species clause if you want, but just note that if you do test it, you can't simply say after two weeks "this is broken so we're reinstating it" since in the end you're not going to get a proper reading of the test. Unless you are willing to run this test for months and months and guide the revamp the entire site's analysis, articles, etc, while teaching players "how to approach the game with Species Clause", it's going to be a complete and utter waste of time, and the end result isn't even something desirable.

It's ultimately "your choice", but I'm done trying to save you time and effort, so yeah.

 

[Jumpman16]

Actually Jump, the definitions are absolutely identical. I'm not sure why you're drawing the line and telling me our definitions "differ". It's simply another way to approach the statement you've so nicely bolded.

"Least amount of Restrictions" means, we only restrict things that don't benefit the competitive game. We don't restrict things that may benefit the competitive game. Obviously we will include everything that benefits the game, and exclude everything that does not. "least" is simply a modifier to make sure that we only exclude the things that do not benefit the game, ie, test as many things as possible.

We have not excluded everything that hasn't benefited the competitive metagame. See my Sand Veil/Snow Cloak argument. This is why I question your definition of the Spirit of the Suspect Test. No one, myself included, has ever seriously striven to ban all Snow Cloak and Sand Veil pokemon, or especially ban moves like Metronome and Acupressure (easier to address because they aren't tied to pokemon that arguably do benefit competitive pokemon). Moves like Flash and Sand Attack have the same effect on accuracy as does Double Team...yet there's no talk of banning them either. Why haven't you "does this benefit competitive pokemon" proponents ever brought any of these moves up?

However, I thought we have determined many, many times that in order for something to be a suspect, there needs to be significant theorymon in order for it to be "tested". There is no significant argument on how species clause accomplishes this, you are proposing we test it just in case. This is why, despite the "least" modifier I use, I don't think there is any evidence on species clause improving the game we have right now, and there's no need to "change" the game in order to test it. Unless someone can give us a solid theorymon evidence on how it benefits the CURRENT competitive game, I don't believe it should be tested since we do have arguments on how it will hurt the game we have right now.

Clauses are obviously going to be viewed differently from Pokemon. The reason we don't have any "evidence on species clause improving the game we have right now" is because no one has ever tried. You can't really think that's a fair argument against ever testing it, can you? And I'm not the only person to state that the onus of proof is on those who want things to stay banned.

I'm not implying anything regarding how that may be "innately broken". Things are broken or "over powered" ONLY relative to the metagame/mentality that players have. Species clause is clearly broken in that sense, since players do consider what other players are using to make their decisions and to build their teams.

I've already stated that it is going to be a mental leap for us to really analyze the removal of any of these clauses. If people aren't willing to change their mentality on something even if it is "right" to do so, then we will actually have reason to be disappointed in our community, won't we? Not to mention the possibility that this metagame/mentality phenomenon has constantly been challenged by the Suspect Test for 1½ years already.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Wobbuffet, since its introduction into play was not our decision.

This doesn't change the fact that people were really pissed off about it. They were just more pissed off that it was dropped into the OU (and only) Standard Ladder on the then-Official Server. You're talking about people being pissed off by a test, on a separate ladder created precisely to decrease turbulence.

You can test species clause if you want, but just note that if you do test it, you can't simply say after two weeks "this is broken so we're reinstating it" since in the end you're not going to get a proper reading of the test. Unless you are willing to run this test for months and months and guide the revamp the entire site's analysis, articles, etc, while teaching players "how to approach the game with Species Clause", it's going to be a complete and utter waste of time, and the end result isn't even something desirable.

It's ultimately "your choice", but I'm done trying to save you time and effort, so yeah.

So are you assuming the Clause will be repealed, then? You haven't actually answered that question, and it seems a lot of your resistance is under the assumption that it will be.

And I think we can agree that my perseverance and willingness to contribute to Smogon are likely two of the last character traits that I am in need of developing.

 

[TAY]

No one, myself included, has ever seriously striven to ban all Snow Cloak and Sand Veil pokemon, or especially ban moves like Metronome and Acupressure (easier to address because they aren't tied to pokemon that arguably do benefit competitive pokemon). Moves like Flash and Sand Attack have the same effect on accuracy as does Double Team...yet there's no talk of banning them either. Why haven't you "does this benefit competitive pokemon" proponents ever brought any of these moves up?

I'm quoting only this part since the rest was for Tangerine (and he and I have different views on Species Clause), and the answer to this was in my head but only made it into my last post indirectly:

I admit that if Evasion Clause was not already in place, there is a good chance we would not be considering banning it, and I know that that is not in line with the idealized functionality of the suspect tests.

I would support the removal of those moves, as well as any others which have low competitive viability and increase the luck factor of the game. However, even if I brought them up, their removal from standard would hardly be a priority (in fact I expect the response would be somewhere along the lines of "who cares?"). It is only feasible for me to argue for Evasion Clause because it has already been in place for so long, and not many people feel strongly about reinstating evasion moves - not the case with some of the Pokemon suspects. I know it's pretty ridiculous to expect different results based on whether the move was already banned or not, but I probably would not even have the opportunity to make my argument if Evasion Clause was not the status quo.

Suspect: Any Pokémon, move or clause that respectively may benefit competitive standard or uber battle if moved or implemented elsewhere.

If you accept what I laid out in my previous post:

I'll sum up my argument here:

1. Evasion moves have low competitive viability.
2. Evasion moves increase the luck factor of the game by having a small chance to give one player a large advantage
3. The suspect test will take over a month to complete.

then evasion moves should remain banned by the definition of suspect. They are benefiting competitive Pokemon by staying right where they are!

No one has disagreed with any of my "facts" so far; however, Hipmonlee made an argument which indirectly opposes them, so I will address that here:

...Especially since evasion moves are so widespread. It basically adds another option to every single pokemon in the game. Players have to decide whether or not using evasion is worthwhile and those sorts of decisions are what make pokemon a competitive game. Whatever your thoughts on evasion it is completely doing something for us competitively.

Just because players have more options doesn't mean they are playing a more competitive game. If every Pokemon was suddenly able to use Bubble, there would be no improvement in the game. This is because Bubble, like Double Team and Minimize, has low competitive viability. Having to balance risk vs reward is only good for a competitive game if the risk and reward are of similar and significant levels. Evasion moves might improve the game if they were competitively viable, but as you have yourself pointed out (as have several others), Evasion moves are an extremely poor competitive choice.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I exaggerate.

I can think of a few sets that could be viable. Like, DT/sub rotom with charge beam. I think this set will be usable, but not at all broken.

I think DT passing will be quite good, but not at all uncounterable.

I think CM Cune with DT is another option in the place of Sleep Talk. I dont think either set outclasses the other though. Nor is it clear which one is introducing more luck into the game.

And then having DT + Sub on pretty much anything is plausible if you can remove counters enough for you to sweep with only two attacks.

But none of these even begin to approach brokenness.

The concern that one in every sixty four battles a ninjask will be able to dt and baton pass a swords dance before being hit (and one swords dance isnt enough to sweep all teams anyway) is not nearly strong enough to outweigh the addition of these sets. Especially when there are plenty of perfectly viable methods of countering it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jumpman16]

I think it is only fair to Hipmonlee to state that I am in complete agreement with his last post—there aren't very many things we agree upon but the necessity of Evasion Clause has long been one. In addition to "DT passing will be quite good, but not at all uncounterable", I feel that while one can argue that the use of an Evasion Move by itself is noncompetitive, trying to make a viable Baton Pass set with one is, and actually makes team building for the DT user a nontrivial, competitive exercise (unlike slapping DT on any random sweeper).

I'm quoting only this part since the rest was for Tangerine (and he and I have different views on Species Clause), and the answer to this was in my head but only made it into my last post indirectly:

I would support the removal of those moves, as well as any others which have low competitive viability and increase the luck factor of the game. However, even if I brought them up, their removal from standard would hardly be a priority (in fact I expect the response would be somewhere along the lines of "who cares?").

It is only feasible for me to argue for Evasion Clause because it has already been in place for so long, and not many people feel strongly about reinstating evasion moves - not the case with some of the Pokemon suspects. I know it's pretty ridiculous to expect different results based on whether the move was already banned or not, but I probably would not even have the opportunity to make my argument if Evasion Clause was not the status quo.

Yes, who cares. They aren't used much anyway, and only on very few pokemon are the Evasion Abilities even an issue. And it's not even a coincidence that the best pokemon with an Evasion Ability was just banned, fairly, by the Suspect Test Process. But indeed, who cares about Sandslash, and Cacturne and the rare times Froslass will be in play in a hailstorm. As you say, "evasion is a statistically poor strategy". This is almost inarguable on paper, as both sides of the debate will agree. You also say that Evasion has "gamebreaking results". This I'm not so sure about. Which is why I want to test it.

As per the Order of Operations implemented in July 2008, the clauses are what we're focusing on now, so that basically addresses your concern about priority.

The thing is, I kind of have to be less subtle about it—who here has even ever played against OHKOs and Evasion competitively? Again, I think I'm as imaginative as anyone else, but I don't even have to call upon my imagination to argue against the necessity of those clauses because I played against DT and OHKOs many, many times in Advance. It would almost be fair for me to demand that anyone who has ever played against these things competitively to step forward and give his or her opinions so we can listen to someone who is actually speaking from experience (kind of the point of doing the tests in the first place and not just "polling badgeholders"). Because in this regard, I honestly and literally have a better idea of what we're talking about (OHKOs and Evasion in standard play) than anyone else until someone else steps forward with accounts of concrete experience against or with them.

This isn't some offhand compliment of myself for having never refused those challenges in Advance, but I think that it bears mentioning that for all of my talk and presence and arguments in the Suspect Test in almost two years, this is about the first time I am actually speaking from experience. I'm not even going to argue that my worlds of experience against Evasion and OHKOs in the Battle Tower and Frontier in 4+ years has any place in this discussion, but one couldn't really fault me for doing so compared to the rest of the community which still otherwise has little to no experience against them (at least less than I do, which is why I want to hear from someone else).

If you accept what I laid out in my previous post:

then evasion moves should remain banned by the definition of suspect. They are benefiting competitive Pokemon by staying right where they are!

The definition of Suspect also contains the word "may". If you want to suspect me of being semantic by pointing this out and not having intentionally worded the definition this way, you can, but I don't really have to listen! We don't know much of anything certain about how Evasion and OHKOs will play out in Standard (and virtually nothing about lack of Species Clause), and this is why I continue to maintain that I want to test all of them (in addition to the fact that I seem to be the only one who has experienced any of these competitively).

 

[eric the espeon]

Even if the Species Clause, Evasion moves and OHKOs do not improve the metagames directly, simply removing unnecessary rules (if indeed they are) can easily be interpreted as a benefit. Simplicity is to be aimed for, and unless there is demonstrable need for a rule or ban (in the form of some kind of harm to the metagame when they are removed) it should not be in place. It is quite possible that these moves will be able to demonstrate the harm they cause, but we currently seem to be basing three game-wide clauses on experience from several generations back, and very inexact theorymon. I think that testing is called for.

As for ordering, I am putting Species Clause first as it seems the most important and most interesting to test. OHKO should hopefully be a less controversial test for some people as it can more easily be seen to "add something" other than luck.

Species Clause
OHKO Clause
Evasion Clause

 

[Philip7086]

Isnt Aqua Tail 100% probability manipulation? There is a chance it does damage, and there is a chance it does nothing.

I dont see how that is different to Evasion from a perspective of increasing the luck factor and not from brokenness.

The key difference here is obviously choice. If a user chooses to use inaccurate moves, then so be it. However, that is distinctly different from forcing a player to raise their chances of missing.

I also don't think anybody is questioning the existence of evasion-based strategies. The real issue is the legitimacy of evasion-based strategies in a competitive environment. Is luck really something we want to promote as competitive players? I don't think so.

 

[TAY]

Yes, who cares. They aren't used much anyway, and only on very few pokemon are the Evasion Abilities even an issue. And it's not even a coincidence that the best pokemon with an Evasion Ability was just banned, fairly, by the Suspect Test Process. But indeed, who cares about Sandslash, and Cacturne and the rare times Froslass will be in play in a hailstorm. As you say, "evasion is a statistically poor strategy". This is almost inarguable on paper, as both sides of the debate will agree. You also say that Evasion has "gamebreaking results". This I'm not so sure about. Which is why I want to test it.

Well I probably should have phrased that better; I meant "potentially gamebreaking results", or something along those lines. I was more clear about that in my posts subsequent to that one.

Anyway, since there is now clear disagreement on whether Evasion moves provide a viable competitive strategy, they should be tested. However, I will certainly be arguing for the continuation of Evasion Clause if and when players find Double Team and Minimize to be unusable in a competitive setting.

I am now only worried that the clause will be removed just because voters find it to be "not broken", since I have gotten the feeling that players have voted along those lines for the Pokemon suspects. The definition of "suspect" makes it clear that the intent of the suspect tests is to make Smogon's Pokemon a better competitive game, and keeping a move that is both luck-based and unviable is quite contrary to that goal. I will be sure to remind players of that frequently!

Let's testing.

 

[obi]

Isnt Aqua Tail 100% probability manipulation? There is a chance it does damage, and there is a chance it does nothing.

I dont see how that is different to Evasion from a perspective of increasing the luck factor and not from brokenness.

That's a good point. I've been thinking about this, and it seems inconsistent of me to say what I say, so I guess I withdraw my objections.

I'm aware of Garchomp's "other unique attributes". You didn't address the main point of the paragraph you quoted, which I will repaste: Many people would argue that Garchomp's Sand Veil enough was "of an effect" to give it the mere percentage points it needed to be voted uber two times in Stage 3. And again, you just said: "I don't feel they need to be tested for how powerful they are, as any effect is too much of an effect." Isn't Sand Veil enough of an effect to have pushed Garchomp over the uber edge, especially given how close both of its votes were?

And I don't know how many times I have to ask you to actually respond to more than one or two points in my responses to you, obi. You literally always do this when I respond to one of your posts in this forum—from the Fixing UU thread to the Stage three and beyond thread to the Using simple majorities for tiering votes thread, and it's very irratating. I don't know whether your repeated refusal to engage me in this forum when I take the time to address every one of your points is an indication of concession or apathy, but it would be good to know either way so I can decide whether to engage you in the future (look up any of the threads I just mentioned if you think I'm being unduly crass).

If I don't respond to a point, it's because I feel I or someone else has already adequately addressed it. In this case, I would just be rewording my quoted post, so it didn't seem important for me to do that. If you feel that a point actually hasn't been addressed, feel free to bring it up again as you did here. Just to explain where my reasoning was in this case:

For Garchomp, it isn't just Sand Veil. It's Garchomp as a whole, and you cannot try and separate them, or use reasoning on one to override reasoning on another. As Garchomp is not solely an element that strictly increases luck, it is up for debate. I don't agree with taking the vote and then pushing it in either direction to try and compensate for that luck, considering that the votes themselves are already taking that into account. It would essentially be counting Sand Veil twice.

Another possibility for me not engaging in ping pong quote posting is that I may be short on time, so I just address the points I consider the most important points.

 

[Jumpman16]

While Garchomp is not solely an element that strictly increases luck, Evasion and OHKOs aren't strictly elements that strictly increases one's chances of winning. We have never, ever, ever striven to specifically minimize luck in the game. That is not the spirit of the Suspect Test Process, nor is it the ultimate goal of Smogon as we strive to make ourselves the most competitive community possible. As far as I'm concerned, competitiveness and luck are not mutually exclusive, especially in Pokémon. The mere presence of an option that hinges on luck does not necessarily detract from the skill or competitiveness of a given contest. The competitor still has to decide whether to employ this option or not, which I'd again argue is a competitive decision by itself, and on top of that, this option has to actually be significant enough to considerably change the outcome of the contest.

Now, you have argued that "any effect is too much of an effect". I don't personally think that is true, nor does Hip, but that has been your argument. I suppose your latest post indicates what I sought to point out two weeks ago, in that "you should feel the same way about Sand Veil and Snow Cloak", options of luck in the game like Aqua Tail (vs. Waterfall) that are not necessarily significant enough to considerably change the outcome of the contest, at least beyond the "who cares" factor TAY mentioned. (And when such an option *has been*, without argument, significant enough to change the outcome, as with Garchomp, we have removed said option from the contest through the Suspect Test.) I'm not suggesting that people should have considered Sand Veil twice. I'm not suggesting that we should try and separate them. I'm pointing out that someone like you should have taken issue with the voters having to consider Sand Veil even once, since "any effect is too much of an effect", and that this should bug someone like you precisely *because* we cannot try and separate them.

Everyone is short on time, by the way, so you must pardon my confusion as to why you would repeatedly ignore points I do raise again in threads in this forum.

 

[Veedrock]

Evasion is going to be tested as long as Hip visits Smogon. His points are all completely valid (not that opposing views aren't, but you cannot achieve 'watertight' reasoning). OHKO is in a similar ship but has less going for it.

BUT! I am completely opposed to removing clauses for 'simplicity.' If by some measure Evasion/OHKO are not 'obviously broken' (because all points given thus far are mostly true on both ends, so a split vote is very likely), but end up annoying and turning matches into a chore (and of course completely swaying some), I would not be a proponent of removing the clause for the sake of a simpler ruleset. Where in the hell is the validation in that argument? This is hardly a reason for anything at all and I hate seeing it used. A happier metagame (and as such community) is a healthier one, even if that requires something so complex as a damn move ban.

Species clause is not something that can be tested. As mentioned already it'd be a completely different metagame, so just how do we tell if an entirely new metagame is ban-worthy or worth implimenting? Do we play the test period and simply choose which metagame we prefer? Several problems to be associated with that. Firstly people will have a natural bias towards having the clause because that is what we're accustomed to. Next is the issue of 'ubers.' Pretend that during the testing period, Salamence raises complete hell is easily dominates the test (he's just an example, though proof of overlapping dragon domination can be found here). So now the question stands, is Species Clause the problem or is Salamence 'uber'? It can be looked at from both perspectives, and no doubt will be argued from both ends. Removing Species Clause will actually result in more bans, while most supporters state they want as few bans as possible. But if we decide Salamence is the problem, does that determine Species Clause is acceptable and we should ban Salamence, or do we ban Salamence mid-test? If we decide to ban things during the testing of the clause, we're having a suspect test within another suspect test, which is tedious and essentially we're back to square one. If we continue with banning within the test until we achieve balance and finally hold the final vote to remove/keep the clause, will it even matter by that point? Most voters will have forgotten pre-removal from playing so much suspect that they can't make accurate comparisons (possibly resulting in a bias result).


So there are 3 end possibilites:

1. We pass the removal of the clause without balance (for whatever reason...), resulting in throwing away practically everything we've achieved over the past year and having to start over, this time attempting to ban things rather than unban them.
2. We achieve balance during the test, taking the time to test suspects within the test, trying to make a 'fair' vote in a stable metagame, all resulting in a biased vote and/or a severe diminishing of interest. We can pass the removal and disrupt the entire community (suspect is a very small percentage of the population), whilest throwing away everything we've achieved so far
3. We achieve balance during the test, taking the time to test suspects within the test, trying to make a 'fair' vote in a stable metagame, all resulting in a biased vote and/or a severe diminishing of interest. We can keep it and have all of the effort put into this specific test will be completely wasted.

The results, no matter which way we look at it, will be undesireable.

 

[vashta]

on behalf of Reflect_Suicune:

The validation comes from the fact that "we" banned them in the first place. We are not (in the case of a suspect test in its favor) "adding" evasion and OHKO moves to the metagame, we are restoring them, and I cannot stress this point enough. It is very easily argued that Pokemon can already be a chore, and that matches are already very easily swayed by other annoying characteristics, including, but not limited to, Sand Veil, Critical Hits, the 10% side effects of Ice Beam, Flamethrower, and Thunderbolt, etc...

This misconception that "we don't have enough of a reason to unban OHKOs and evasion" has no validity to it at all. As I, and others, have stated several times. The real issue at hand, or for neutrality's sake, the potential issue at hand, is that "We do not have enough of a reason to continue banning OHKOs and evasion".

Furthermore I think some need to be reminded that this is not a thread for discussing whether or not to unban the clauses, but rather a thread for discussing whether or not to test their unbanning. If you think the suspects require a different testing system, or have a preference on the outcome, then so be it, but I have yet to see any valid arguments in opposition to the testing of OHKOs and Evasion Clause.

Also I must show my support for the latter part of Veedrock's post, in that he made very valid points in opposition to the testing of Species Clause. I am not sure where I personally stand on the issue but I must say I do not disagree with anything he said about it.