-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Ok I'm posting this because Alice is lazy (Wobbuffet "discussion")
- Thread starter Jumpman16
- Start date
Well, yes, Encore will end before the Counters come anywhere close to killing Starmie, and then you can Recover. In a stall situation, spinning first just seems more reasonable than wasting an indefinite amount of Recover's PP. Of course, in the situation outlined, you're better off surfing if you know what's coming.
Allowing for leftovers recovery, Adamant CB Dugtrio doing the absolute minimum every round still easily kills 172HP Starmie spamming Recover in 3 turns. Jolly takes 4 turns at minimum damage, but that fact is negligible because it's faster. It's much more likely that these will be 2 and 3 turns, respectively. Remember, Encore lasts 4-8 turns.
That's a poor example, especially Blissey. Blissey is basically required to keep special attackers from being an indomitable force, and annoying as she may be, without her the really aren't any "good" special walls left (the lack of recovery moves and significant HP differences between her and Pokemon like Empoleon being an example of why this is). Not only that, but at least you can still play pokemon against Blissey and Garchomp. They're only "annoying" insofar as any good Pokemon is annoying if you don't have the right Pokemon to stop it. Wobbuffet, on the other hand, doesn't let you play Pokemon. You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait. And with not a damn thing you can do to stop it if the Wobb user has even a single shred of intelligence, I'd consider that something different entirely to the game being played whenever wobbuffet isn't on the field.
You're still missing what I'm getting at. It might not be broken. It might not overcentralize OU (which I have no doubt it wont, seeing as its hard to overcentralize when there's no way to stop you other than just wearing you down, which almost every team can already do). The point I'm making is that even if at the end of the day Wobbuffet is decided not to be uber material, it should still be up to the discretion of the whole community if whether this game-changing Pokemon is allowed in OU or not. Its not just adding in a new good Pokemon, its adding in a whole new element and I definitely believe whether we actually want the new element is something that should definitely be considered.
Why? Primarily, people play Pokemon for fun. Even those of who are super-competitive about it play it for fun. If people generally decide that any game with Wobbuffet is "bullshit" rather than "fun", then I think that's a very big problem right there. Why should it been down to a small group of "Policy Makers" to decide what game the rest of the community has to play, especially when the Pokemon they've decided to introduce not only alters the game but has also rocked the community as violently as Wobbuffet has? Especially considering a lot of the views of these Policy Makers are fairly inconsistent; For example, potentially game-breaking tests like unbanning Wobbuffet have been given the green light while much less drastic fact-finding missions like a one month ban on Garchomp are being cautiously discussed at best. Maybe you guys would be better at telling us if he's broken or not, but just because you can prove that doesn't mean he should be unbanned.
QibingZero brings up a very good point. There are two sides to the usage statistics but it seems like only one side is being paid any attention to. We all know that used correctly (which isn't very hard) Wobbuffet can be one of the most devastating Pokemon in the game; I don't think that point has ever been up for debate. Which is why I think looking at Wobbuffet and saying "Oh he only has 7987 usages he isn't overcentralizing, the data is suggesting he isn't uber" is missing the point almost completely. Why not look at all the people who aren't using what is quite obviously a fantastically abusable Pokemon? I think by now every Shoddy Battler has realized he's legal, so the only reason I can fathom they aren't using him is because they don't want to: He stands alongside Pokemon like Garchomp as Pokemon more or less guaranteed to score at least one kill before dying, yet the difference between them in March was 39713 usages. I think that in itself is a very telling statistic, and along with the huge amount of anti-Wobb posts in all these discussions, there's plenty of that backing you were looking for in my argument, Jump.
It's a fine example when you remember the specific reason I brought it up: "Generally, the community doesn't want Wobbuffet. It doesn't want to use Wobbuffet, it doesn't want to play Wobbuffet." This, largely, was as true of Blissey last spring as it is of Wobbuffet right now. Maybe you weren't paying attention (you were registered but whatever) but this is a fact. Many, many people complained about Blissey without adding convincing reasons as to why she should indeed be shipped off to uber (probably because there aren't any). The exact same is true of Wobbuffet for the most part—can you honestly say that the community that you'd have me believe is mass anti-Wobbuffet has posted convincing arguments as to why it should be banned instead of just "it's cheap" or "it makes the game less fun"? Or that anything can be conclusively decided without examining battle logs and statistics in addition to this general sentiment—which is the "*why*" I brought up in my last post?
And thanks but I don't think I need a reminder on why the metagame needs Blissey and why it's the best special wall, lol. In case you've forgotten I wrote her analysis and I personally had to add that reminder in bold to at least one tier discussion thread because many members of the community kept saying why it should be shipped off to uber because it's "overcentralizing the metagame".
The second, more valid part of your paragraph is predicated on one brow-raising statement: "You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait." So, you mean to have me and us believe that Wobbuffet is capable of killing every pokemon it faces? The "set-up" bait argument rings a little more true, but you're implying it can turn every pokemon into hapless set-up fodder. This is a blatant exaggeration and you know it. And because I think you're missing why I'm opposing your posts so much: I will reiterate: for the record I feel Wobbuffet is closer to uber than standard. You're not exactly doing a good job trying to convince me or anyone else worth a damn with your "it's not fun" arguments (hint: you probably are not going to convince me or anyone who has played pokemon at a high level that Wobbuffet is uber without battle logs or statictics).
As long as you remind yourself that many members of our community do not yet have the experience required to sound off on issues such as this. You can feel this is unfair, or elitist, or simply not true, but good luck arguing against it. The Smogon community has enjoyed its greatest influx of new members in the DP era, and many of these people had and have not enjoyed the months and months of solid, competitive battle necessary to weigh in on issues like this.
Regardless, this is going to come down to convincing arguments anyway, not "it's not fun" or "nobody wants it". Again, *why?* To put this in perspective, how many people do you think knew about Tickle Wobbuffet until I made this thread? In many way, someone who barely even plays competitive anymore pokemon (me) has taken this Wobbuffet issue to the level it needs to go to get anything done, and that's somewhat disappointing when you think about it. The Doormen, the Alices, the VILs, they're all content to play on the shoddy ladder and whore Wobbuffet, but how many of us knew first hand before this thread both that and how these great battlers are using Wobbuffet to their immense advantage? And how many know now? And more importantly, how many will try to use Wobbuffet towards the same aim now in an attempt to prove once and for all *why* Wobbuffet is uber? That's why I made this thread—I want people to use this set to prove something to the community. "It's not fun" has been falling on deaf ears since 2004.
People play on the ladder to win, to increase their ranking and rating. This is really the most baffling long-term "argument" that has somehow endured since I got into competitive pokemon many years ago. If we are talking about competitive play, we are talking about winning. Some frowned on Baton Pass teams in Advance, but besides the fact that they could be countered by a decent player in tournament play, nobody really expected arguments them to hold up when discussion tournaments play. I honestly don't care about non-ladder play because you can and should be setting rules with your opponents before hand. You can play with one uber, with Double Team, with OHKOs, and even with a Metronome team if your opponent agrees beforehand. That has no bearing on the ladder. The ladder is there for people who want to play competitive pokemon to win.
And more recently, the ladder has been a place to test whether Wobbuffet is indeed "uber" and/or whether it indeed "overcentralizes the metagame". It hasn't proven to have done the latter so far, but may still be guilty of the former. We don't know yet. And a large part of that is because we don't have much hard evidence to that end, which, again, is the main reason I made this thread.
As far as the Policy Makers are concerned: expecting us or any policy makers (e.g. the government) to unequivocally agree on everything is laughable. We have to work through our differences just like any other group. Go reread the 33-page Garchomp thread I had to close if you honestly need a reminder on why it's nearly impossible for the general community to "decide on" sticky issues like this. (And I'd consider asking you what a one-month ban "fact-finding mission" on Garchomp would solve anyway but I've already heard all those arguments and nobody is convinced, which is why we're currently trying to arrive at more accurate definitions of "overcentralize" and "uber" first.)
And I reiterate that the "don't want to use it" argument is very, very silly, especially if you're going to stand by your "Pokemon more or less guaranteed to score at least one kill before dying" argument. Besides, there's enough of a "it's not that hard to beat" sentiment in these threads, too. If it's really that good, and everybody knows about it by now, but people aren't using it anyway on the ladder (which, again, is a place to win), then what's the real problem here, SubVersion? (hint: it's both that people are too shortsighted to see that whoring it now is the best way to get it banned and that people are letting their "it's not fun" principles cloud what I hope is their better judgment in an arena where winning is king [the ladder])
This is so very very true. I my self didn't join smogon untill this past November. We should disrgard these peoples opinions, for some of them may be of value. But just remember wisdom is experience.
Anyway I just fought one of these on Shoddy and it was seriously the worst battle every. There where a good ten turns of no progress what so ever. At no point when trying to take it out did I think that this thing should be allowed in OU. I feel like I need a poke with powerful Dark or Ghost type moves on my shoddy team now, and thats not right.
I got demolished by a Garchomp. I feel I need a poke with powerful Ice or Dragon type moves on my shoddy team now, and thats not right.
You don't need a counter for Wobbuffet though, so I don't really understand what all the commotion's about.
If you can take the rest of the opponent's team, Wobbuffet is technically countered, especially since if it's the last pokemon, you've already basically won, since you can set up in its face, and then when your Encore is done, you kill it ruthlessly.
For example, if you have a nice Smeargle counter, Wobbuffet's efforts have now been in vain to get Smeargle in safely, because Smeargle will die to the Smeargle counter. If Smeargle manages to get the pass off and passes to something like Lucario, then just do your best to take Lucario then.
The only thing that's relatively hard to take down is the WobTrio combo since you can get Encore-trapped. Your best bet is to just be careful what you use against Wobbuffet and make sure you don't get a statusing move Encored.
Basically what I'm saying is that, if you can take the rest of your opponent's team, then Wobbuffet's efforts are going to be useless, and therefore he's countered.
If you really hate Wobbuffet that much and want a "counter", then just spike up the field so it can't come in very much, and with Toxic Spikes, it's screwed since it can't recover health. At least that'll limit the amount of times it can come in.
If you can take the rest of the opponent's team, Wobbuffet is technically countered, especially since if it's the last pokemon, you've already basically won, since you can set up in its face, and then when your Encore is done, you kill it ruthlessly.
For example, if you have a nice Smeargle counter, Wobbuffet's efforts have now been in vain to get Smeargle in safely, because Smeargle will die to the Smeargle counter. If Smeargle manages to get the pass off and passes to something like Lucario, then just do your best to take Lucario then.
The only thing that's relatively hard to take down is the WobTrio combo since you can get Encore-trapped. Your best bet is to just be careful what you use against Wobbuffet and make sure you don't get a statusing move Encored.
Basically what I'm saying is that, if you can take the rest of your opponent's team, then Wobbuffet's efforts are going to be useless, and therefore he's countered.
If you really hate Wobbuffet that much and want a "counter", then just spike up the field so it can't come in very much, and with Toxic Spikes, it's screwed since it can't recover health. At least that'll limit the amount of times it can come in.
I don't see why you are saying that he is worthless if he is the last Pokemon. First of all, he can still Mirror Coat or Counter, so unless you have a lot of very powerful Pokemon left or else have a strong Bug/Dark/Ghost-type, he still has potential to kill your entire team by reflecting their own attacks back. But the point is, there's really no point in bringing this up, as that is not exactly a likely scenario in the first place.
Ok fine, Wobbuffet might win if you only have Choice users left, otherwise, just set up in its face if it's the last pokemon. Sure, it can Encore you while you set up, but then what's it going to do? Not like it can switch to anything to take advantage of it. Nobody said that since he's the last pokemon you're only allowed to use attacking moves on him.
On the contrary, it's also most likely not going to be at 100% health if it's the last pokemon, and without recovery, it's toast given the offensive nature of OU.
Bleh, I guess this is an unlikely scenario though. The stuff I said in my post before is still true though.
Bologo, while what you say does hold true in a majority of situations, the Wobbuffet team does have the advantage that you can no longer say "okay, I may not have a Heatran counter, but I have six Earthquakers, so I'd like to see him try". Since if Wobbuffet Encores anything Heatran can come in on, your "cover" is technically blown.
Of course most teams, especially those with 6 Earthquakers, usually do have something that can come into Heatran. Point is, Wobbuffet's presence distorts the "he can't come in so I don't care" argument.
Of course most teams, especially those with 6 Earthquakers, usually do have something that can come into Heatran. Point is, Wobbuffet's presence distorts the "he can't come in so I don't care" argument.
All I'm saying with regards to Blissey is that she , liked or not, actually adds a much needed element to the game (special walling) while Wobbuffet adds nothing. The hatred of the two can't be compared because Bliss is a necessary "evil" in this highly-competitive game, while Wobbuffet isn't necessary at all.
You can act all elitist with your "lol i don't need a reminder on how good blissey is i wrote the analysis", but I was simply providing backing to the point I was making about her. Which I assume you'd want me to do, right?
Yes actually, seeing as the Wobbuffet can choose exactly what it faces while the opponent has no say in the matter. Or are you actually implying that people bring Wobbuffet in on things that can kill it? Yes, it will eventually wear out and die, but it should never be left in against something that can kill it unless the Wobbuffet player decides to sacrifice it.
Is it really? If you can't 2HKO Wobbuffet (or OHKO if it doesn't spend the first turn Encoring), then your only option is to either attack or perform a set-up move. If you do the former, you die before Wobbuffet does; The latter, you're set-up bait. Where's the exaggeration? Unless we're dealing with an inexperienced Wobbuffet user, he should never even be on the field where this situation is avoidable by the opponent.
I acknowledged all this:
Even the people playing to win, the top-level competitive players, are playing Pokemon because they enjoy it. Whatever their ultimate goal (to just have fun/to win), the only reason they're here in the first place is because they enjoy the game. I'm not going to speak for any of them with regards to Wobbuffet making the game "un-fun", but the potential is definitely there for Wobbuffet to do this in the long run.
You're absolutely right that a lot of people don't have enough experience (either with competitive battling or with Wobbuffet himself) to make a decision on whether he ruins the game for them. But when I look into the process going on in the Policy Review forum and all I see are discussions of the raw statistics, then I'm worried - Because the people we both agree do have the experience to make calls on this matter seem to be ignoring a fundamentally massive portion of the argument.
I don't actually care all that much for the banning of Garchomp. That's a discussion for a different thread; The example was just meant to illustrate how "Hey let's unban a universally considered uber pokemon" gets a round of applause while "hey maybe we should test one particular pokemon's current impact on the metagame" is met with nothing but skepticism. I was pointing out the level of inconsistency when it comes to approving tests - radical things get through while more simple things don't get a chance.
There's a few interesting things here. Firstly, you think Wobbuffet is more uber than standard, correct? So is it safe for me to assume that you believe that, used correctly, Wobbuffet is one of the best Pokemon in OU? If that's correct, then I'd like you to explain to me how such a fantastic Pokemon is being used less than Donphan, or Jolteon, and is only slightly more popular than Alakazam or Crobat. While all the other Pokemon regarded as the "best" in OU are all firmly placed at the very top of the Shoddy statistics (Garchomp, Blissey, Gengar, Gyarados etc), Wobbuffet is being so largely neglected he may not even be OU soon. Neither of us believe its because he's a bad Pokemon.
Secondly, you're absolutely right about people's better judgment being clouded and the short-sightedness of most battlers. For the record, since the day he was unbanned, Wobbuffet has been on my team (although admittedly I've never played Shoddy religiously). But what has always irked me is that if we're going to admit that such a large amount of people aren't using Wobbuffet for no reason other than they "don't want to", then what use are the statistics that are being collected? If the userbase from which the data is being collected are purposefully acting stupid in regards to Wobbuffet then the data is hardly reliable or solid, which is why I really don't like to see almost all the weight being placed on it. At the same time, it should definitely be looked at as to why people are acting stupid: If you can weed out all the people whose opinions you believe to be invalid and poll the rest, I'd imagine we'd get some interesting data that would far more accurately represent the views of the community than statistics which are being so heavily affected by the biases of the player base. Especially considering the number of people not using Wobbuffet far exceeds the people who are; Surely there must be someone in that group intelligent and experienced enough to explain what's going on.
Ive been using it in a team with T-tar and it has been working okay but since the team isnt based around Wobb (sorta like IPLs) then it doesn't do as well as I hope it would. I usually can get rid of Skarm and Celebi pretty easily though.. and maybe a Starmie or two that are desperate enough to try and kill it off.
No...why would I care about why Blissey is or is not needed by the metagame? You know I already know why, and regardless I don't care one way or the other about the point you were trying to make. For the third time, the reason I brought her up is because many, many people have cried for her to be shipped off to ubers, because she is cheap, or because she is boring, or because she "overcentralizes the metagame", all without (obviously) convincing arguments (which is at least one thing I can safely assume we agree on). Your insistence on lecturing me on the merits of the metagame's #1 special wall in order to prove that it's different from how people are arguing against Wobbuffet is preventing you from either realizing why I am using her as an example, or that seeing that I am 100% right in reminding/telling you about the popular opinions about her on this forum for the past year, or both.
And the "Wobbuffet isn't necessary at all" argument isn't very sound, because there are a ton of pokemon in the standard metagame that aren't really "necessary" from at least the "necessary 'evil'" standpoint you're talking about. Do you really think the structure of the metagame as we know it would crumble if we banned Heracross? Or Infernape? Or Porygon-Z? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "it wouldn't", and therefore follow that with "why don't we ban them, they not really necessary". Either refute that or drop the Blissey "argument" once and for all.
Can you show me a few logs where Wobbuffet singlehandedly faints all six of the opposing pokemon? I'd appreciate it.
To answer your question: yes, I am implying that exactly. Unless you didn't actually mean to imply with your ultimatum that Wobbuffet grants every team an automatic win because "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait" when facing it. Since these are one's only options against Wobbuffet 100% of the time and all. Can you tell me how it logically follows that "it should never be left in against something that can kill it" when "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait"? And why would you need to sacrifice a pokemon that's capable of killing every pokemon or otherwise turning them into set-up bait (these aren't rhetorical questions)?
Theoretically, your argument is a blatant exaggeration simply because you are still implying that Wobbuffet is capable of either killing every pokemon (all of them) or turning them into set-up fodder, and that there is no gray area where. You know, where Wobbuffet ever faints or is incapable of Countering or Mirror Coating all six opposing pokemon or Encoring them allowing another pokemon to set up.
To put it even more simply in an attempt to show you why you are blatantly exaggerating, let's break it down. "If you can't 2HKO Wobbuffet (or OHKO if it doesn't spend the first turn Encoring..." There are pokemon who can 2HKO or OHKO Wobbuffet. Off the top of my head: Heracross can OHKO. Tyranitar can OHKO. Gengar can OHKO. Scizor can OHKO. Weavile can OHKO with a little luck from Night Slash, or Swords Dance "if it doesn't spend the first turn Encoring". These at once invalidates your "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait" argument.
It is rare that a "pokemon beats pokemon with move" "argument" holds any water, but you've actually managed to construct one of the few scenarios where it works. Please stop trying to make Wobbuffet out as this ungodly pokemon that either kills literally every pokemon or turns them into setup fodder, because you quite simply are not right.
Finally something that we can see eye-to-eye on! But for the third or fourth time, this is why I made the thread. I honestly want people to whore Wobbuffet to the point where it becomes obvious that it is "uber", which is as close to your "un-fun" as I'll get.
I don't think we are, which is why I don't think the topic is going anywhere. I've championed the importance of logs a few times in this thread (and, again, finding out via battling is why I made the thread), and Colin himself has admitted that on some issues, a subjective approach is necessary. Not sure what more you want.
It's going to start creeping off subject, but I again implore you to tell us how banning Garchomp for a month will test its impact in any way we can measure. "Hey, Garchomp sure isn't whoring teams like it used to!" You've seen in my Policy Review thread the ambivalence towards banning it for a month because it would be virtually impossible to deduce much from such a banishment before we determine what is really meant by "overcentralize" and what a viable number of standard pokemon is.
And Wobbuffet "universally considered uber", haha. You're literally wrong about that and you know it, don't exaggerate.
It may be because because "people don't want to use him", but that does not mean, for the third time, that that's not a silly reason when the ladder exists for those who want to win at competitive pokemon first and foremost.
Yes, and that's what a thread like this exists to determine. I can't exactly make people use Wobbuffet, but I can sure as hell try. If people are still too-shortsighted to see that this is the best and really only way to (re)remove it from standard play, then, as I alluded to in my last post, *that's* the real problem with this community.
After using Wobbuffet, I mostly see him as a utility pokemon for trapping walls as long as he's at a good 80%-100% health or occasionally killing a choiced pokemon locked in a NVE move. He makes it easier to sweep sure, but it's not like he will ensure it. I feel he also needs some maintenance if you want to maximize his effectiveness. If you intend to keep him around for awhile you're going to have to use 2 slots on your team for a spinner (since Toxic spikes make him near useless) and a wisher for obvious reasons.
If you're using that Smeargle-pass strategy, it's going to be easily countered so we can't assume Lucario is going to have something like a belly drum and salac boost passed to it. Besides killing walls, all Wobbuffet does effectively is allow for a turn of setup. It's practically the same thing as setting up on the switch, except Wobbuffet makes setting up easier by removing some variables. IMO Wobbuffet isn't game breaking just annoying to deal.
If you're using that Smeargle-pass strategy, it's going to be easily countered so we can't assume Lucario is going to have something like a belly drum and salac boost passed to it. Besides killing walls, all Wobbuffet does effectively is allow for a turn of setup. It's practically the same thing as setting up on the switch, except Wobbuffet makes setting up easier by removing some variables. IMO Wobbuffet isn't game breaking just annoying to deal.
You know, recent discussion on this got me thinking. Doesn't using Tyranitar as your Pursuiter get rid of any chance for Wobbuffet to restore its health whilst Tickle stalling opposing walls?
Suppose that neither player was using an auto-weather Pokemon on their team (Tyranitar, Hippowdon, Abomasnow). Granted, many teams do, but not all. Now lets say Wobbuffet comes in on Choice user, or anything with just four standard attacks, and counters for the KO. Wobbuffet is left badly dented and is left in KO range for any of the opponent's other offensive Pokemon.
But now suppose you do the same trick as Alice does on one of their walls but instead with another strong Pursuiter (I guess Weavile is your only other option but whatever). With no Sandstorm/Hail in play, couldn't Wobbuffet just Encore/Tickle/something else until all its HP is restored? If this was possible Wobbuffet would now be primed and ready to take out another Pokemon that decides to attack it and can't OHKO.
You could theoretically take out three or four of the opponent's team with just Wobbuffet and your Pursuiter and little damage incurred. If weather changers are a big issue you could always include some kind of Rain Dance Pokemon/theme in your team I guess. Leftovers recovery obviously wouldn't work against Hippowdon, but once it is killed by the Alice strategy the weather could be permanently removed using Rain Dance. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out there.
Something to think about, I guess. Like Jumpman though, I'm not going to argue one way or the other about its tier status. I don't like it, but I know I don't have a convincing argument that can be backed up so I'm not going to bother.
Suppose that neither player was using an auto-weather Pokemon on their team (Tyranitar, Hippowdon, Abomasnow). Granted, many teams do, but not all. Now lets say Wobbuffet comes in on Choice user, or anything with just four standard attacks, and counters for the KO. Wobbuffet is left badly dented and is left in KO range for any of the opponent's other offensive Pokemon.
But now suppose you do the same trick as Alice does on one of their walls but instead with another strong Pursuiter (I guess Weavile is your only other option but whatever). With no Sandstorm/Hail in play, couldn't Wobbuffet just Encore/Tickle/something else until all its HP is restored? If this was possible Wobbuffet would now be primed and ready to take out another Pokemon that decides to attack it and can't OHKO.
You could theoretically take out three or four of the opponent's team with just Wobbuffet and your Pursuiter and little damage incurred. If weather changers are a big issue you could always include some kind of Rain Dance Pokemon/theme in your team I guess. Leftovers recovery obviously wouldn't work against Hippowdon, but once it is killed by the Alice strategy the weather could be permanently removed using Rain Dance. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out there.
Something to think about, I guess. Like Jumpman though, I'm not going to argue one way or the other about its tier status. I don't like it, but I know I don't have a convincing argument that can be backed up so I'm not going to bother.
I think these two excerpts together quite nicely illustrate how apparently I'm not getting my point across clear enough. Your point is that people have ignorantly clamored for Blissey to be sent to ubers, and that it's the same with Wobbuffet. My point is that these two scenarios are significantly different because unlike Blissey, there is no part of the metagame that needs Wobbuffet to avoid falling apart.
Your second point here is again off the mark, because you've completely removed any sort of context from the argument. Its not about "Removing unnecessary Pokemon", its about Blissey herself being necessary. You could remove Heracross, Infernape or P-Z and like you said, the only difference in the metagame would be that they aren't there. Remove Blissey and we'd have a huge problem. So while people may complain about how un-fun Blissey is, tough luck, because without her the metagame would be in a shambles. This can't be compared with people complaining about Wobbuffet for the same reason, because the metagame works just dandy without him.
Also, I spoke about the benefits of Blissey for what, three lines? And you consider that a "lecture"? Speaking of exaggerations.
Either we've got our lines very heavily lost or you're going off on a complete tangent. Take note of the line where I say "Yes, it will eventually wear out and die". I think that very clearly shows that no, in no way was I ever claiming that Wobbuffet tears through six Pokemon unhindered. However, my statement that "You either die or become set-up fodder" is obviously not one assuming that Wobbuffet has already been beaten up - which will obviously happen during the process of Counter/Mirror Coating something to death. And considering you didn't take too kindly to me pointing out the bleeding obvious with regards to Blissey I didn't think I'd need to point this out, either. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was talking about healthy Wobbuffets, although I don't see why that should be necessary in a debate where we're discussing if a Pokemon is fit for OU or not; We could argue any Uber pokemon is OU-worthy if we discussed scenarios where they only have 5% HP, after all!
Err, sorry, but no shit. "If you can't" is a very key clause here which apparently you've ignored? "If you can't", by the very nature of the wording, implies that some things can. I honestly don't see what point you're trying to prove here. It's like you're arguing with me about an issue I never raised.
Again, it does do this to every Pokemon not part of the exceptions that I quite plainly stated (and you so kindly provided examples of). And at no point did I say he could sit around doing this all day, which brings me back to you assuming for some reason that I think Wobbuffet has infinite HP and never dies despite me stating quite the opposite just a couple of sentences before.
I don't know what banning Garchomp would tell us exactly, but that's kind of the point. Its a test that wouldn't have any real negative impact on the metagame and might (or equally might not) turn up some interesting information, not necessarily with regards to Garchomp's uber-ness or over-centralization, but rather just how the game might work without him. It seems fairly harmless but is probably never going to be done, which is quite in contrast with unbanning Wobbuffet, a test where nobody knew what might happen by bringing him into OU yet the test was done anyway. I just don't get the logic behind that.
Considering he was banned throughout Advance and has only just recently been unbanned in DP, I'd say the wide, wide majority of people either considered him Uber or weren't convinced he'd fit in OU at the time of his unbanning. So it wasn't "universal", but of all the things we're discussing here I don't see the point in hanging me on a technicality - especially when the difference between "universal" and "the majority" doesn't make any significant difference. (And I'm aware my rebuttal to this point is equally as moot)
We agree on this! It is a stupid reason not to use him. But if Wobbuffet is even half as good as I (we?) think he is, then the lack of people using him can only be attributed to this stupid mentality, and thus doesn't reflect at all on Wobbuffet's most suitable tier placement. This is why I don't like so much weight being placed on the stats; The people not using Wobbuffet for no good reason at all (the number of "fuck off with your fucking uber" quitters I've faced on Shoddy is embarrassing) are also making up the majority of people being tested, throwing the results completely out of whack.
If that is, as you put it, a problem with this community... Then maybe this community is not the right place to be testing Wobbuffet?
I disagree with this assessment. If this were the case, every single successful team would need Blissey. I have made successful teams without it. Therefore, Blissey cannot be necessary.
I've already tried to get that through to him but he seems to be missing my point as much as he thinks I'm missing his. Let's try this again...
No, the reason I brought up Blissey is to illustrate how bad an idea it is to take "popular opinion" as gospel in cases when the re-tiering of a pokemon is brought into question. How hard a corollary is that to understand?
Logic does not need context to be applicable to an argument—in fact it's often unwanted. By your logic you can never apply scenario A to scenario B because they differ slightly in context, though their premises still coincide exactly. So, I reiterate, it doesn't matter if or why Blissey actually shouldn't be uber, though your reasoning there is flawed anyway as I've pointed out since, in addition to what Obi said, the metagame no more "needs" pokemon like Heracross and Infernape than it does Wobbuffet. It matters that popular opinion on the matter on the tiering of a given pokemon can often be very faulty and steeped in a lack of solid competitive experience.
You say: 'Its not about "Removing unnecessary Pokemon", its about Blissey herself being necessary.' No, the argument isn't about Blissey, it's about you saying "Wobbuffet isn't necessary at all" as a reason that hatred of Blissey and Wobbuffet can't be compared. This isn't true, because, as for reasons stated at least four times now, the hatred of them can and should be compared since if that many people didn't/don't know or care about why Blissey is a necessary part of the metagame, then how can we place much of any stock in the hatred towards Wobbuffet now? Reread that please, it's important and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
As for your last point, you're actually still talking to me about Blissey in the context of why the metagame needs her, even though I have told you why the metagame implications don't matter three times now. That's bordering on "lecture", exaggeration or not.
To requote you, again: "You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait." Your words, unedited and, more importantly, unqualified in the initial post with which I took issue. If you don't want people to pick on obviously shaky arguments, don't wait a post or two to qualify them. Implying that Wobby is capable of doing this to every pokemon approaches at once the line between uber (or, in this case, broken), and not uber. You therefore should definitely have been more clear, because it is necessary that exaggerations stay out of discussions like this. It was one of a few unnecessary exaggerations you've made, and these are going to be picked on by most observant people you debate with.
Let me juxtapose your quotes so you can see the point I'm trying to prove.
"You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait."
"If you can't 2HKO Wobbuffet (or OHKO if it doesn't spend the first turn Encoring..."
The latter qualifies the former, but the former stood unqualified until I pointed out it was wrong. Again, next time be clear from the beginning or your inconsistencies will be picked on by anyone paying attention.
"Quite plainly stated" a post too late and after I kind of nudged you in that direction. You literally did say that with your "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait." And just so we're clear, I'm being obstinate about and making a "big deal" out of this because it's obviously not true—people have indeed lost even with Wobbuffet on their team. I'm not going to let you or anyone say "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait" without calling you on it, because that's kind of the entire point (no pokemon is that broken).
There wouldn't really be a concrete goal behind that test though, which is problematic in and of itself but also because the Garchomp issue is much more split down the middle than this Wobbuffet one. As Mekkah said in the Policy Review thread, there will never be 100% consensus on the tiers anyway, so trying to arrive at that consensus is a lost cause and we need to have a concrete reason to shake things up.
The Wobbuffet test is difference because we can at least attempt to measure the extent to which it overcentralizes standard play or is uber (though definitions of both words need polishing). If it proves to do either or both, it will be banned again. It's that simple. It's not as easy to measure Garchomp impact on standard until we determine, among other things, what overcentralization really is. Maybe if it'd started out as an uber we'd view it differently but alas that isn't the case.
I'd argue that nobody really gave Wobbuffet much thought until now, kind of like nobody gave Deoxys-S or the necessity of Species Clause much thought until recently, but whatever.
Again, that's why I made this thread. Because I'm pretty sure that whatever "overcentralization" is, it's just as hard to glean that phenomenon from statistics as it is from battle logs and intelligent, experienced people sounding off on it (and, therefore, just as hard to take legitimate issue with determining "overcentralization" from the latter). I think your issue is more with Colin than myself, but I doubt he'd be as averse to using something else in addition to stats to determine overcentralization as you'd think.
Even though I disagree I'm not sure if you mean to imply that you have a more plausible alternative, and citing past usage of Wobbuffet doesn't really matter if my efforts to get people to whore it on the ladder now are realized.
No, the reason I brought up Blissey is to illustrate how bad an idea it is to take "popular opinion" as gospel in cases when the re-tiering of a pokemon is brought into question. How hard a corollary is that to understand?
Logic does not need context to be applicable to an argument—in fact it's often unwanted. By your logic you can never apply scenario A to scenario B because they differ slightly in context, though their premises still coincide exactly. So, I reiterate, it doesn't matter if or why Blissey actually shouldn't be uber, though your reasoning there is flawed anyway as I've pointed out since, in addition to what Obi said, the metagame no more "needs" pokemon like Heracross and Infernape than it does Wobbuffet. It matters that popular opinion on the matter on the tiering of a given pokemon can often be very faulty and steeped in a lack of solid competitive experience.
You say: 'Its not about "Removing unnecessary Pokemon", its about Blissey herself being necessary.' No, the argument isn't about Blissey, it's about you saying "Wobbuffet isn't necessary at all" as a reason that hatred of Blissey and Wobbuffet can't be compared. This isn't true, because, as for reasons stated at least four times now, the hatred of them can and should be compared since if that many people didn't/don't know or care about why Blissey is a necessary part of the metagame, then how can we place much of any stock in the hatred towards Wobbuffet now? Reread that please, it's important and I don't want to have to repeat myself.
As for your last point, you're actually still talking to me about Blissey in the context of why the metagame needs her, even though I have told you why the metagame implications don't matter three times now. That's bordering on "lecture", exaggeration or not.
To requote you, again: "You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait." Your words, unedited and, more importantly, unqualified in the initial post with which I took issue. If you don't want people to pick on obviously shaky arguments, don't wait a post or two to qualify them. Implying that Wobby is capable of doing this to every pokemon approaches at once the line between uber (or, in this case, broken), and not uber. You therefore should definitely have been more clear, because it is necessary that exaggerations stay out of discussions like this. It was one of a few unnecessary exaggerations you've made, and these are going to be picked on by most observant people you debate with.
Let me juxtapose your quotes so you can see the point I'm trying to prove.
"You either die or let it turn you into set-up bait."
"If you can't 2HKO Wobbuffet (or OHKO if it doesn't spend the first turn Encoring..."
The latter qualifies the former, but the former stood unqualified until I pointed out it was wrong. Again, next time be clear from the beginning or your inconsistencies will be picked on by anyone paying attention.
"Quite plainly stated" a post too late and after I kind of nudged you in that direction. You literally did say that with your "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait." And just so we're clear, I'm being obstinate about and making a "big deal" out of this because it's obviously not true—people have indeed lost even with Wobbuffet on their team. I'm not going to let you or anyone say "you either die or let it turn you into set-up bait" without calling you on it, because that's kind of the entire point (no pokemon is that broken).
There wouldn't really be a concrete goal behind that test though, which is problematic in and of itself but also because the Garchomp issue is much more split down the middle than this Wobbuffet one. As Mekkah said in the Policy Review thread, there will never be 100% consensus on the tiers anyway, so trying to arrive at that consensus is a lost cause and we need to have a concrete reason to shake things up.
The Wobbuffet test is difference because we can at least attempt to measure the extent to which it overcentralizes standard play or is uber (though definitions of both words need polishing). If it proves to do either or both, it will be banned again. It's that simple. It's not as easy to measure Garchomp impact on standard until we determine, among other things, what overcentralization really is. Maybe if it'd started out as an uber we'd view it differently but alas that isn't the case.
I'd argue that nobody really gave Wobbuffet much thought until now, kind of like nobody gave Deoxys-S or the necessity of Species Clause much thought until recently, but whatever.
Again, that's why I made this thread. Because I'm pretty sure that whatever "overcentralization" is, it's just as hard to glean that phenomenon from statistics as it is from battle logs and intelligent, experienced people sounding off on it (and, therefore, just as hard to take legitimate issue with determining "overcentralization" from the latter). I think your issue is more with Colin than myself, but I doubt he'd be as averse to using something else in addition to stats to determine overcentralization as you'd think.
Even though I disagree I'm not sure if you mean to imply that you have a more plausible alternative, and citing past usage of Wobbuffet doesn't really matter if my efforts to get people to whore it on the ladder now are realized.
Got to agree with Deoxys-S being the single best offensive team counter, but that's out of the topic. Anyways.
I do place a certain measure against Wobbufet, but none too hard. For my team, it's just pathetic to see an opponent with a Wobbufet, as it's based on Toxic Spikes, and with moves like Sub, Protect, and Cosmic Power, there's not much a Wobbufet can do against my team, so in this case, i can't say anything about Wobbufet, yet.
I do place a certain measure against Wobbufet, but none too hard. For my team, it's just pathetic to see an opponent with a Wobbufet, as it's based on Toxic Spikes, and with moves like Sub, Protect, and Cosmic Power, there's not much a Wobbufet can do against my team, so in this case, i can't say anything about Wobbufet, yet.
When it comes to overcentralization, I had always thought that
1. Pokemon that materially reduce the number of Pokemon in a metagame are overcentralizing to that metagame. (mainly in reference to OU)
and
2. A goal of the tier list is to maximize the diversity of the Standard metagame. In turn, this means maximizing the number of Pokemon in the Standard metagame.
Basically, if the inclusion of one Pokemon decreases the number of Pokemon in the metagame or the exclusion of one Pokemon increases the number of Pokemon in the metagame, then to me that Pokemon was overcentralizing that metagame and thus should be banned from it.
However, the recent discussion trying to define what overcentralization is has led me to question my own perceptions of overcentralization. I'd like to know what overcentralization is before I go into any "serious" discussion over a Pokemon's tier status, and quite frankly, I don't see how ANYONE can engage in serious discussion over a Pokemon's tier status until a definition of overcentralization can be established.
It seems to me that most of the discussion in this thread is just us "spinning our wheels," so to speak. Then again, I don't know how much more we can do at this point. *shrugs*
1. Pokemon that materially reduce the number of Pokemon in a metagame are overcentralizing to that metagame. (mainly in reference to OU)
and
2. A goal of the tier list is to maximize the diversity of the Standard metagame. In turn, this means maximizing the number of Pokemon in the Standard metagame.
Basically, if the inclusion of one Pokemon decreases the number of Pokemon in the metagame or the exclusion of one Pokemon increases the number of Pokemon in the metagame, then to me that Pokemon was overcentralizing that metagame and thus should be banned from it.
However, the recent discussion trying to define what overcentralization is has led me to question my own perceptions of overcentralization. I'd like to know what overcentralization is before I go into any "serious" discussion over a Pokemon's tier status, and quite frankly, I don't see how ANYONE can engage in serious discussion over a Pokemon's tier status until a definition of overcentralization can be established.
It seems to me that most of the discussion in this thread is just us "spinning our wheels," so to speak. Then again, I don't know how much more we can do at this point. *shrugs*
That's what I've been telling people to do since I don't have the time nor the teambuilding skills to do it myself!
Interestingly enough, I think it would be fairly safe to say that its partially because of Blissey that teams without her can be successful. That is, her over-powering grip on almost every special attacker generally means people use such Pokemon a lot less than their physical counterparts - meaning even if she's not on the team you're still in a good position to win as long as you're not completely left open on the special side. Remove the need to consider Blissey and we'd likely find a different picture being painted.
That could actually be an interesting discussion, but not for this thread, so I digress.
Let's use a less borderline Pokemon, then:
The OU metagame works just fine without Rayquaza, and thus doesn't need him.
The inverse of that is not that OU only needs 6 Pokemon and the rest should be removed. I don't know how to make this point clearer.
I know exactly what you're saying, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm not (and never have been) suggesting we should be taking opinions from idiots. By looking at the Shoddy stats I can see a hell of a lot of people who aren't using him, and I very much doubt there's nobody in that group who has a knowledgeable opinion. We don't have to look at the group as a whole and say "Well almost everybody hates him", it can be narrowed down to people who actually know what they're talking about. People are avoiding Wobbuffet, no doubt, and I think it is short-sighted to liken every single one these people to those too ignorant to see why Blissey is important.
Seriously? So if we were talking about Garchomp and I said "Garchomp can kill most OU Pokemon it faces before it gets killed itself", you would turn around and say "Not Weavile! Not Mamoswine! Stop making it out to be something invincible, lol show me the logs where it kills 6 things completely unaided, rant rant rant"? Because that's exactly what you're doing here, and its completely stupid.
DISCLAIMER: From this point forth, when referencing Wobbuffet's capabilities, I am only talking about Wobbuffets who haven't already been completely crippled.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
Again, I'm not insinuating that a Garchomp test would give us any new information on over-centralization (or to what extent Garchomp does it), and in fact it might not turn up anything of interest. But the thing is, its a simple and easily workable test that might give us something interesting (10 more Pokemon might become usable for unforseen reasons, who knows?), but even if it doesn't there's really no harm done. At the very least, it would most likely do away with the "If we ban Garchomp, then something else will just take its place and we'll want to ban that!" argument, which is still a small step forward on the whole Garchomp issue.
Of course, again, all my comparison between the two tests was meant to show was that an almost harmless test probably isn't going to be done while a test that could have knocked the metagame around completely went ahead with no public (as in, on the forums) discussion until the day before it happened. I'm not saying either test is more worthy than the other.
No, I don't have a better alternative. Right now there is no better alternative, although I don't think it would be so hard to create one: For instance an invite-only Shoddy server (and only inviting decent/level headed battlers) could be better if a large enough sample crowd was collected. All I'm alluding to here is that if Smogon/Shoddy's core userbase is so horribly aligned to the anti-Wobbuffet side (which again is something I'm drawing from the stats), then I don't see how efficiently any tests can be done here.