Ok I'm posting this because Alice is lazy (Wobbuffet "discussion")

[Jumpman16]

I think its fair for the community to say "This is what we think the competitive pokemon metagame should be. This is what we will enjoy playing." and for the tiers and the playing environments to be servants to that philosophy on certain levels.

http://www.smogon.com/about

Smogon is the most comprehensive and accurate online resource for competitive Pokémon battling. We offer articles and advice via our community forums to help fans of the game compete at every level while honing their skills in every aspect of competitive Pokémon from team building to battling tactics. Our over 15,000 member organization is growing at an ever increasing rate, constantly expanding our knowledge base and our ability to be at the cutting edge of the game.

Read the rest of "The Philosophy of Smogon" and see if you can find any mention of "enjoyment". Here's a spoiler: you won't. "This is what we will enjoy playing" has never been our goal. Of course, by banning DT, for example, we may have arrived at a more enjoyable game in a roundabout way, but we banned DT expressly because it promotes luck, which directly opposes the "skill" referenced in our Philosophy more than once.

In the future, please don't attempt to speak on behalf of the community as if you have been around long enough to both know its history and why it was created the way it was. Our philosophy centers around skilled competition, while yours would center around some mix of that and enjoyment...you're free to find a community full of people that are "servants to that philosophy".

And for some perspective, the reason I don't play the ladder on Shoddy is because I, yes, don't like it. I don't pretend that the competitive metagame is something that inherently must bring its players enjoyment, though.

 

[SubVersion]

Going back to the problem with logs for a moment (this is going to be a very long moment), I see an inherent... difficulty in using any argument against them in such a way the requires us to consider the number of logs we see.

Firstly, we move into dangerous territory when we say "Logs of Wobb winning don't count because we don't also see logs of it losing". Imagine there was a Pokemon which, while below average most of the time, had an ability that has a 1/50 chance of activating at the start of any given battle. If it does activate, the Pokemon's BST becomes 5000. Obviously, this Pokemon would have a 1/50 chance of being unstoppable by anything other than itself (assuming the opponent's also hits that 1/50 chance during the same battle). Whether we'd ban this Pokemon or not is irrelevant, the point is, would seeing only one log out every fifty where it has any noticeable impact really matter? Would those 49 other battles make any difference to how completely broken it is in that one battle? Obviously Wobbuffet is nowhere near as broken or powerful as anything of this kind, but it is the same argument taken to an extreme and I really don't see it making too much of a difference.

Suppose we ignore the previous paragraph completely, and decide that the only way logs will help is if we see every log that involves Wobbuffet. We're once again in an uncomfortable position, because we've just given ourselves more stuff to arbitrarily define. If Wobbuffet is on winning teams too much, what do we define as "too much"? 50% win rate? 60%? 90%? Suppose we say a 50% win rate for Wobb is too much, but then we discover that Garchomp and Gengar also have the same win rate. Do we ban them as well? How do we even define the term "winning" with relation to Wobbuffet? Does it count as a win when he just happens to be on a winning team? Does it count as a win only when he either kills or incapacitates at least two Pokemon? Why just two, why not one or three? Does Wobbuffet setting up a BellyZard sweep count as a "win" for Wobbuffet? The point I'm making is even if we had access to every log featuring Wobbuffet since he was unbanned on the ladder, it wouldn't make any difference to just seeing the ones where he does something significant because without also defining all this other stuff we can't draw any proper conclusions.

The only feasible way to evaluate Wobbuffet via logs is to look more at the effect he has on individual battles rather than anything else. A log of two good players, with Wobb involved, can tell us so much through proper analysis. Did the other player get beaten by Wobb through a weakness in his team, or did he have no choice? Did he make a bad move that resulted in Wobb doing something significant, or did Wobb capitalize on something the other player could do nothing about? If Wobbuffet dies without doing anything, is that because the other player had a team not threatened by Wobb, or did the Wobb player make a mistake? You don't necessarily need to see the logs where Wobbuffet dies early, because I can tell you how that happens 99% of the time: He encored when he should have countered or he countered when or he should have encored. Sometimes, Toxic Spikes. It doesn't make the more positive logs any less informative.

That being said, I'm sure the intention wasn't for winning Wobbuffet logs to be the only ones posted. What is stopping people who want Wobb to remain OU from posting their own logs where they hand him his ass? Albeit we haven't seen many logs at all yet, but none of them have been about Wobb failing to have an impact. Surely the onus should be on pro-Wobb players to provide logs just as much as it is for the anti-Wobb players?

I suppose this brings me back to the argument Amazing Ampharos brought up, where one winning log of Farfetch'd would seem to indicate via this method that Farfetch'd is a really good Pokemon. I really don't think that's the case, though, because we're able to rationalize more efficiently than that: If we can compare Infernape and Blaziken and decide that Infernape is the only one dangerous enough to be on the threat list, then surely we can look at Farfetch'd and Wobbuffet and determine that one is a threatening Pokemon and one is not in all but the most outrageously unlikely situations.

And for some perspective, the reason I don't play the ladder on Shoddy is because I, yes, don't like it. I don't pretend that the competitive metagame is something that inherently must bring its players enjoyment, though.

I can't be the only one who thinks this is an unfortunate situation. I play Pokemon because I enjoy playing it, not because I enjoy rigidly adhering to whatever the statistics say in spite of how entertaining they make things. While "enjoyment" might not pop up anywhere in the Smogon charter, its the reason why most - if not all - of us came here in the first place and I really do think that grants it some importance.

 

[Lord Alchemy]

I can't be the only one who thinks this is an unfortunate situation. I play Pokemon because I enjoy playing itit, not because I'm enjoy rigidly adhering to whatever the statistics say in spite of how entertaining they make things. While "enjoyment" might not pop up anywhere in the Smogon charter, its the reason why most - if not all - of us came here in the first place and I really do think that grants it some importance.

This is 100% true. No one is here because they "want to win", we're here because we "want to win, at Pokemon". Why would people then choose to win at Pokemon? I can't really come up with any conclusion other then 'because they enjoy Pokemon'. You can extrapolate this further by applying it to various successful strategies and teams, people will generally gravitate towards playing styles they enjoy the most. It even applies to what tiers you play the most.

I will say there can be extreme cases where people simply enjoy Pokemon and will end up using any strategy they can to win, but this is not always the case, much like there are extreme cases where people use whatever they want the most and completely ignore the effectiveness in a competitive environment.

 

[Lyfsaho]

This is 100% true. No one is here because they "want to win"

O_o

, we're here because we "want to win, at Pokemon". Why would people then choose to win at Pokemon? I can't really come up with any conclusion other then 'because they enjoy Pokemon'. You can extrapolate this further by applying it to various successful strategies and teams, people will generally gravitate towards playing styles they enjoy the most. It even applies to what tiers you play the most.

I will say there can be extreme cases where people simply enjoy Pokemon and will end up using any strategy they can to win, but this is not always the case, much like there are extreme cases where people use whatever they want the most and completely ignore the effectiveness in a competitive environment.

You're entering an entirely subjective matter. If i want to enjoy a battle, I play it on wifi. The next guy takes more pleasure from spending a couple of hours trying to climb the shoddy ladder.

@ Sub : no one ever said logs of wobbuffet winning were detrimental or didn't help to evaluate it's performance. what was stated is that they alone do not suffice, even should they be unanimous (which they are not).

@ lord alchelmy and sub : I'm surprised that two smogon members who, judging by their post count, have been here for a bit, try to challenge a principle which is absolutely set in stone. Wobbuffet's usage is low, it does not centralize the metagame. It's OU. You're beating a dead horse at the moment.

 

[Aziraphale]

http://www.smogon.com/about



Read the rest of "The Philosophy of Smogon" and see if you can find any mention of "enjoyment". Here's a spoiler: you won't. "This is what we will enjoy playing" has never been our goal. Of course, by banning DT, for example, we may have arrived at a more enjoyable game in a roundabout way, but we banned DT expressly because it promotes luck, which directly opposes the "skill" referenced in our Philosophy more than once.

In the future, please don't attempt to speak on behalf of the community as if you have been around long enough to both know its history and why it was created the way it was. Our philosophy centers around skilled competition, while yours would center around some mix of that and enjoyment...you're free to find a community full of people that are "servants to that philosophy".

And for some perspective, the reason I don't play the ladder on Shoddy is because I, yes, don't like it. I don't pretend that the competitive metagame is something that inherently must bring its players enjoyment, though.

To be honest, if you don't enjoy this, what's the point?

Enjoyment doesn't need to be mentioned because this is all about a game, which we play at this level because that's what we like. If at any point it isn't enjoyable odds are we'll either find something else to do, or schism and play a variation that we do enjoy more.

That's why we want the metagame as diverse as possible, so that we aren't fighting the same 6 pokemon all the time, that's why tiers other than OU exist. If it was truly about competitive battling, we'd have taken the game purely as it is and winning with the tools exactly as given in the game, but because we want to enjoy doing that, we've tried to prune out the elements that hinder out enjoyment.

A lot of the issues we have with these debates about the restrictions that are in place are purely there because people think they'd enjoy things more like that.

 

[Lyfsaho]

That's why we want the metagame as diverse as possible, so that we aren't fighting the same 6 pokemon all the time, that's why tiers other than OU exist.

Incidentally, some recent tier movings concerning UU (notably Steelix and Jynx from BL to UU) indicate just how little said metagame is taken into consideration at all, sadly. I considered creating a topic about it, but discounted it for that very reason.

Anyway, this is off topic, so let's get back to the original purpose of the thread.

 

[Jumpman16]

To be honest, if you don't enjoy this, what's the point?

What's the point of what? Playing pokemon competitively? I...don't, because I don't particularly enjoy grinding on the ladder, for several reason I will not get into here.

If, for some reason, by "this" you mean being involved in pokemon in general, I would merely state that one does not have to actually play competitive pokemon all the time to care about the state of competitive pokemon. For example, sports franchises rely on the insight and input of coaches, general managers, and owners actually more than they do of their players.

Enjoyment doesn't need to be mentioned because this is all about a game, which we play at this level because that's what we like. If at any point it isn't enjoyable odds are we'll either find something else to do, or schism and play a variation that we do enjoy more.

That's why we want the metagame as diverse as possible, so that we aren't fighting the same 6 pokemon all the time, that's why tiers other than OU exist. If it was truly about competitive battling, we'd have taken the game purely as it is and winning with the tools exactly as given in the game, but because we want to enjoy doing that, we've tried to prune out the elements that hinder out enjoyment.

A lot of the issues we have with these debates about the restrictions that are in place are purely there because people think they'd enjoy things more like that.

As I mentioned in my last post, the correlation between "ban Double Team" and "not fun" does not inherently speak of any causation of one of the other. It has virtually everything to do with DT promoting luck instead of skill. Our tiers exist to balance the standard metagame and then the UU metagame, not inherently because we "want to enjoy" playing pokemon competitively. Everything "we've tried to prune" from the metagame has been to promote balance and skill—I implore you cite just one example of something that we've pruned from pokemon expressly to increase enjoyment.

And, again, "people think they'd enjoy things more" does not inherently align with our philosophy, and I've given many examples of why this is true. Those of you who want to play a metagame with enjoyment inherently at its forefront are free to not play on the ladder, or find other communities where enjoyment is the ultimate goal of playing competitive pokemon.

stuff about logs

This is all true (something else we actually agree on. It isn't accurate to just consider the logs where Wobbuffet dominates, because the other logs where it is dealt with handily matter just as much. I will remind you all, however, of what I said in just my third post in this thread, back on page 4:

"All that said, go prove me wrong or something, you guys. Go prove that Wobby does not indeed own seven or eight walls, and it will then likely stay in standard, right? Or go prove that it does and it will likely be banished again. There's only so much words can do on a topic like this (yes, even another certified Jumpman Wall of Words)."

I state here the importance of both sides of the Wobbuffet issue. As I said a few days ago in a reply to a Lord Alchemy post, I do actually feel that, if enough people actually used the set that I explained in the OP, it would likely prove to be more "uber" than "standard" material. The problem is that, after over two months, there is still literally little proof that this set or any Wobbuffet set is too powerful for the standard metagame.

And contrary to what you may think, I personally am really not at all making this argument from a purely statistical standpoint. The evidence I am more interested in would come from the above quote from page 4. As it stands, with little evidence to EITHER end, we seriously have little else place to look with any kind of objectivity besides #39 -> #43 -> #43 -> #46 in weighted usage on the ladder.

 

[Odinwolf]

@ lord alchelmy and sub : I'm surprised that two smogon members who, judging by their post count, have been here for a bit, try to challenge a principle which is absolutely set in stone. Wobbuffet's usage is low, it does not centralize the metagame. It's OU. You're beating a dead horse at the moment.

Actually, based on the actual definition of the tiers, the difference between Ubers and OU has little to do with usage. Ubers is a banned tier for pokemon determined to be too powerful for a balanced standard metagame. The definition of Uber, up until these recent tests, has been based on Power, not usage. In the same way, BL is a banned tier for UU. There are subjective issues that come into play, judgment calls, based on more than just usage. I would argue that Manaphy didn't "centralize" the metagame before it was banned to Ubers. It was just deemed too powerful. In the same vein, Garchomp has clearly centralized the metagame. It is far and away the most used pokemon in OU and every team must pack ice moves and/or 1-2 pokes that can threaten to revenge kill him to be successful. However, the judgment call made by the community is that Garchomp fits into the metagame and thus is OU instead of Uber. So no, this is not a principle that is "set in stone."

In the future, please don't attempt to speak on behalf of the community as if you have been around long enough to both know its history and why it was created the way it was. Our philosophy centers around skilled competition, while yours would center around some mix of that and enjoyment...you're free to find a community full of people that are "servants to that philosophy".

I don't claim to be speaking "for the community." I am merely pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the players here, on smogon, that play the competitive metagame and believe in this philosophy of competition over enjoyment, have made it pretty clear they disagree with Wobb being allowed in OU. Calling my argument into question based on my post count is a total invalid arguing point.

The point is that five, maybe ten people that have the power to force changes and think Wobb should be unbanned are forcing this change on a huge community of people with a similar mindset that do not want the change to take place and have posted valid arguments and battle logs demonstrating why this change is detrimental to the game, regardless of whether Wobb "centralizes" the metagame. Are these handful of policy makers so much smarter, wiser and better informed about the game that their opinions outweigh the rest of the community here? Does having power make your opinion more important or valuable? Does might make right?

And for some perspective, the reason I don't play the ladder on Shoddy is because I, yes, don't like it. I don't pretend that the competitive metagame is something that inherently must bring its players enjoyment, though.

So Colin doesn't play the ladder and you don't play the ladder and I'm willing to bet that some more of the people advocating this decision don't play on the ladder, but somehow you all are better informed than all the people who do play? Because you've got some usage statistics? *shrug* I would argue that your inactivity would make your opinion less valuable in making this decision.

There is more to balancing a metagame and developing a healthy competitive environment than statistics. There are several people in the policy review forum that have made that argument so I won't rehash it again. I think that, like Obi has said on numerous occasions, a final decision needs to be made on what the tiers are and the definitions for each of them. If they are going to be purely usage based, then the current system needs to be scrapped and completely restarted. If they are going to continue to be a combination of power and usage, like they have been for some time before this point, then certain policy reviewers need to start listening to the voice of the community and stop worshiping usage stats as all-knowing lawgivers.


EDIT: Just to make sure this is clear, I care a great deal about the future of this community and the health of the competitive game and that is why I'm involved here. I do not have personal beef with Obi, Jumpman or anyone else involved with the "other side" of the argument. I am an administrator, policy maker and community leader at Smashboards and I know how incredibly difficult it is to make decisions that effect thousands of players. So I have a great deal of respect for the effort that these guys put into the community. I simply call into question reasoning that I find flawed or people that are unwilling to listen to a great body of like-minded players.

 

[Aziraphale]

You know what, I've tried to think of a succinct reply outlining how everything boils down to enjoyment of the game.

The act of trying to alter the fundamental rules of the game is an obvious example of this, you're removing elements of the game that make it undesirable and thinking that seeking balance is anything other than that is completely missing the point.

Until everyone involved in the decision making process can be on the same page as to what they actually want and can be sure that is what the community wants, all of this debate is just going to go round in circles because it all comes down to "well, I think teh status quo is fine!" "no way, we need more pokemon used regularly!" "nuh-uh, we need less so that it's easy to strategise!" etc etc etc

 

[Lord Alchemy]

O_o

Excellent point. So you're here because you enjoy winning? Are you sure you're not here because you enjoy winning at Pokemon? If someone likes the thrill of beating someone else there are hundreds of other activities they could engage in, some much simpler then Pokemon and many that are actually beneficial to ones real life (economic situation, social status, etc).

So why pick Pokemon to win at? Why not go play Smash, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Halo, Counter Strike, or any other game that has a competitive community? My point still stands. You're not here because you enjoy simply winning, but winning at Pokemon. If you didn't like Pokemon, you wouldn't be here. And I seriously doubt anyone else would be either.

You're entering an entirely subjective matter. If i want to enjoy a battle, I play it on wifi. The next guy takes more pleasure from spending a couple of hours trying to climb the shoddy ladder.

This is confusing beyond comprehension, assuming you're trying to make a point. I was talking about people being here because of enjoyment of Pokemon, and then you come up the brilliant discovery that people take pleasure grinding the ladder. I'd be damned if that wasn't enjoyment factoring into their decision to play Pokemon.

The separation between Shoddy and WiFi is negligible, its basically the same environment. Grinding the Shoddy ladder isn't as simple as seeing a number increase or decrease, they actually have to participate in playing Pokemon to change that number.

With that said, I prefer in game battling myself and use Shoddy primarily as a testing ground before I get down to my half assed breeding. But its mainly the interface difference that causes this for internet based games. I much prefer battling in person just because it makes things that much more intense.

@ lord alchelmy and sub : I'm surprised that two smogon members who, judging by their post count, have been here for a bit, try to challenge a principle which is absolutely set in stone. Wobbuffet's usage is low, it does not centralize the metagame. It's OU. You're beating a dead horse at the moment.

Thanks for basically saying that Sub nor I have any choice in the matter in Wobbuffet's tiering. It isn't like people can disagree with our all powerful, non-battling Policy Makers in the way they set up the tiers. But I guess you figured that us being here for awhile would somehow have brain washed us into being statistic whores. Unfortunately some people just simply don't see every as numbers, and we feel the need to beat dead horses until its mulch.

And honestly, the way tiering works now is completely arbitrary. You'd think everything is usage based, but then how do you explain Garchomp? People want Wobbs usage to be through the roof before banning it, but Garchomps currently is. Garchomp has such an absurd lead in the weighted usages that it would clearly be Uber if the tiering came down to usage statistics.

But it isn't. SO WHY IS THAT? Clearly there is no real direction for the tiering system currently, and nothing is really set in stone.

 

[xcfrisco]

Excellent point. So you're here because you enjoy winning? Are you sure you're not here because you enjoy winning at Pokemon? If someone likes the thrill of beating someone else there are hundreds of other activities they could engage in, some much simpler then Pokemon and many that are actually beneficial to ones real life (economic situation, social status, etc).

So why pick Pokemon to win at? Why not go play Smash, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Halo, Counter Strike, or any other game that has a competitive community? My point still stands. You're not here because you enjoy simply winning, but winning at Pokemon. If you didn't like Pokemon, you wouldn't be here. And I seriously doubt anyone else would be either.

I'm here because I just like winning. I heard about netbattle, downloaded it, and found out I was pretty good at pokemon.

I don't play any of those other games you mentioned because I suck at them. To me, pokemon wouldn't be fun if I wasn't completely destorying people all the time.

 

[Lyfsaho]

Actually, based on the actual definition of the tiers, the difference between Ubers and OU has little to do with usage. Ubers is a banned tier for pokemon determined to be too powerful for a balanced standard metagame. The definition of Uber, up until these recent tests, has been based on Power, not usage. In the same way, BL is a banned tier for UU. There are subjective issues that come into play, judgment calls, based on more than just usage. I would argue that Manaphy didn't "centralize" the metagame before it was banned to Ubers. It was just deemed too powerful. In the same vein, Garchomp has clearly centralized the metagame. It is far and away the most used pokemon in OU and every team must pack ice moves and/or 1-2 pokes that can threaten to revenge kill him to be successful. However, the judgment call made by the community is that Garchomp fits into the metagame and thus is OU instead of Uber. So no, this is not a principle that is "set in stone."

Yes, there is no 100% objective Tier List - that's impossible. But following the statistics is simply the best bet to keep it as objective as possible. Oh, and it sounds to me as if you'd be having a bit more success in trying to advocate a Garchomp ban than a Wobbuffet one.

I don't claim to be speaking "for the community." I am merely pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the players here, on smogon, that play the competitive metagame and believe in this philosophy of competition over enjoyment, have made it pretty clear they disagree with Wobb being allowed in OU.

You don't claim to be speaking for the community, but in your next two paragraphs, you seem to presume a great deal - perhaps a bit too much. While, as I repeat, this is largely irrelevant, I'd wager the amount of disagreement with Wobbuffet's banning has been decreasing at a very steady rate and will continue to do so. Much of his prior opposition was down to the simple fact that he's unique and brought a new kind of threat to the metagame.

 

[Jumpman16]

I don't claim to be speaking "for the community." I am merely pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the players here, on smogon, that play the competitive metagame and believe in this philosophy of competition over enjoyment, have made it pretty clear they disagree with Wobb being allowed in OU. Calling my argument into question based on my post count is a total invalid arguing point.

Who said anything about your post count? The "arguing point" was that you professed to know what this community's philosophy was, and I showed you that you were flat out wrong by pasting the opening paragraph of and linking to our actual philosophy. Your ignorance of this is what indicated to me that you haven't been around long enough to know our history, not your post count. Don't make assumptions.

And besides that, how can you even go from saying:

"I think its fair for the community to say 'This is what we think the competitive pokemon metagame should be. This is what we will enjoy playing.' and for the tiers and the playing environments to be servants to that philosophy"

to saying:

"the overwhelming majority of the players here, on smogon, that play the competitive metagame and believe in this philosophy of competition over enjoyment, have made it pretty clear they disagree with Wobb being allowed in OU"?

You see the contradiction in this, right? At first you indicate that the philosophy of the community values enjoyment, then you state that community values competition over enjoyment. You may want to pick a story and go with it before trying to persuade anyone.

The point is that five, maybe ten people that have the power to force changes and think Wobb should be unbanned are forcing this change on a huge community of people with a similar mindset that do not want the change to take place and have posted valid arguments and battle logs demonstrating why this change is detrimental to the game, regardless of whether Wobb "centralizes" the metagame. Are these handful of policy makers so much smarter, wiser and better informed about the game that their opinions outweigh the rest of the community here? Does having power make your opinion more important or valuable? Does might make right?

For all intents and purposes, Wobb has been "unbanned" for over four months, ever since Colin allowed it on the ladder in early February. The two months following that featured nothing but "theorymon" on BOTH sides, for whatever reason, even though Wobbuffet had been available to use on the ladder. As far as I am concerned (take that literally, not figuratively) no one has posted any "valid arguments" for either side, since theorymon is useless now that we can actually use Wobbuffet. And as I stated earlier today, I've actually been calling for logs for over two months now. The other Policy Reviewers may underline sheer statistics more than I have, but the fact still remains that as far as actual proof from from battle is concerned, there has not been much of anything concrete to go on until I asked people to post logs.

In fact, the only concrete things we have to go on, again, are the aforementioned #39 -> #43 -> #43 -> #46 in weighted usage on the ladder and the fact that the argument that Shed Shell and U-turn usage has not gone up as was expected by many of the people against Wobby. Again, I'm not speaking for Colin, but even if he doesn't seem interested in analyzing something other than numbers, "that's why I made this thread". What else would you expect Colin to be interested in

So Colin doesn't play the ladder and you don't play the ladder and I'm willing to bet that some more of the people advocating this decision don't play on the ladder, but somehow you all are better informed than all the people who do play? Because you've got some usage statistics? *shrug* I would argue that your inactivity would make your opinion less valuable in making this decision.

First of all, not all of us are basing the decision on statistics, as I hope I've made clear by now. Second, what if I stooped to your level and countered with: "I still know a lot more about competitive pokemon than you and the majority of people"? How would you reply? Would you get offended? Would you continue to make the faulty assumption that I don't watch many, many battles even if I don't play?

There is more to balancing a metagame and developing a healthy competitive environment than statistics. There are several people in the policy review forum that have made that argument so I won't rehash it again. I think that, like Obi has said on numerous occasions, a final decision needs to be made on what the tiers are and the definitions for each of them. If they are going to be purely usage based, then the current system needs to be scrapped and completely restarted. If they are going to continue to be a combination of power and usage, like they have been for some time before this point, then certain policy reviewers need to start listening to the voice of the community and stop worshiping usage stats as all-knowing lawgivers.

This is kind of repeating your stance, which is fine, so I'll just repeat that "the voice of the community" has been encouraged in the form of logs for over two months.

 

[Odinwolf]

I never said that the philosophy of Smogon was "enjoyment." What I said was, I think it is reasonable for the community to decide what the competitive pokemon game should be like and for the rules to flow from the ideal set by the community. You assumed that because I used the word "enjoy" in a sentence that I was saying that pleasure was or should be the core deciding point of the rules. I never said that. You are making assumptions.

And no, I am not contradicting myself. Players can value competition over pleasure, but still seek out the most desirable form of competition to be a part of. If you play Roller Hockey, there are puck games and there are ball games. If I enjoy playing puck games more than I enjoy playing with a ball, then I am selecting a competitive environment based, at least in part, on enjoyment. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not playing to win.

Likewise, the entire competitive pokemon scene is really all about judgement calls based on theory, numbers, experience and yes, enjoyment. If we were only concerned with pure competition, playing to win at the expense of all other philosophies, then Smogon would be a site that didn't have tiers. It would be about playing with every pokemon and every move and every strategy without regard to value, balance, usage or enjoyment. There would be no evasion clause, no species clause, no sleep clause or any other restrictions. If it was available within the game, it would be legal to play with.

But somewhere along the line, the players decided that the game would be better by reducing luck. That meant banning evasion. The players also decided that putting all opponents to sleep may not only increase luck, but is also an incredibly boring and "overly powerful" strategy. That's a judgement call. It is entirely possible that a balanced metagame of some sort could arise without those restrictions. The game would just look vastly different and no one is interested in going there. Why? Well, mostly because they enjoy this version of pokemon better and because they feel this is a "better" competitive environment.

Pokemon players also seem to value diversity, which is why tiers have been created to create new environments of play. Why is that done? Because players enjoy new and different competitive environments. Because there are things to be learned from restricted game rules. There is some kind of subjective value that causes the community to ban certain pokemon, create UU environments that intentionally exclude auto-weather and play Little Cup. Just because those are competitive environments doesn't mean that pleasure doesn't have a LOT to do with their creation.

So don't be so foolish as to assume that pleasure doesn't have a lot to do with how Smogon's rules and the competitive pokemon world has evolved over time. This is not a purely objective system. Judgement calls have been made all along and certain philosophies that aren't based 100% on statistics have become core parts of the "design" philosophy Smogon and competitive battlers use to create the rules under which competitive pokemon is played.

To again address YOUR assumptions, I never operated under the idea that you don't watch a great deal of battles. Watching and reading logs is a great deal different than playing and being one of the people in the trenches pushing the game in new directions. Reading logs probably makes you really good at theorymon. That still doesn't make your subjective opinion on what competitive pokemon should be any more valuable than the huge portions of the community that disagree with you. For all your knowledge, you are still just a handful of powerful people in a big community full of pretty knowledgeable people that disagree with you. The primary difference between you is that you have the power to force changes onto people and they are powerless to stop it unless they do what you say and play with Wobb until he is rebanned.

Just because you all have the power to force changes, does not mean people should have to jump through hoops to satisfy you. If a huge portion of the players have outright rejected Wobb as a valuable addition to standard play, they should not be forced to use him to make a couple of guys reading logs and looking at statistics happy. It's time to stop pretending this is an objective system. Either make it a purely objective system, or acknowledge that its subjective and then go ahead and say the couple of you that think Wobb should be unbanned are superior enough to make this decision on behalf of everyone else. At least that would be intellectually honest. Pretending that a system full of clauses, poorly defined tiers and dated judgement calls is objective to push changes onto people just isn't honest or fair.

 

[Jumpman16]

I never said that the philosophy of Smogon was "enjoyment." What I said was, I think it is reasonable for the community to decide what the competitive pokemon game should be like and for the rules to flow from the ideal set by the community. You assumed that because I used the word "enjoy" in a sentence that I was saying that pleasure was or should be the core deciding point of the rules. I never said that. You are making assumptions.

You said that it would be fair for the community to say "This is what we will enjoy playing", qualifying that statement directly afterwards as a philosophy, a fair one for the community. There isn't even the slightest bit of assumption going on there at all. And "core deciding point of the rules" hasn't entered into this discussion either, don't know where you got that from.

And no, I am not contradicting myself. Players can value competition over pleasure, but still seek out the most desirable form of competition to be a part of. If you play Roller Hockey, there are puck games and there are ball games. If I enjoy playing puck games more than I enjoy playing with a ball, then I am selecting a competitive environment based, at least in part, on enjoyment. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not playing to win.

Likewise, the entire competitive pokemon scene is really all about judgement calls based on theory, numbers, experience and yes, enjoyment. If we were only concerned with pure competition, playing to win at the expense of all other philosophies, then Smogon would be a site that didn't have tiers. It would be about playing with every pokemon and every move and every strategy without regard to value, balance, usage or enjoyment. There would be no evasion clause, no species clause, no sleep clause or any other restrictions. If it was available within the game, it would be legal to play with.

I've already stated that we have tiers to promote balance, not to inherently promote enjoyment, and that correlation does not equal causation.

But somewhere along the line, the players decided that the game would be better by reducing luck. That meant banning evasion. The players also decided that putting all opponents to sleep may not only increase luck, but is also an incredibly boring and "overly powerful" strategy. That's a judgement call. It is entirely possible that a balanced metagame of some sort could arise without those restrictions. The game would just look vastly different and no one is interested in going there. Why? Well, mostly because they enjoy this version of pokemon better and because they feel this is a "better" competitive environment.

The "somewhere along the line" you're referring to with a hint of vagueness was in 2000 and before, when competitive battle just picked up on the internet. Double Team and Minimize were frowned upon, if not outright banned on PBS (Pokemon Battle Simulator or Porygon's Big Show depending on who you are). Sleep was less the "judgment call" you seem to think it was for whatever reason: both freeze clause and sleep clause were observed in Stadium 1, and the latter has never been seriously considered to be lifted in any generation of competitive play, especially not since 2003 when Breloom and Smeargle both got the Spore that has been Parasect's signature move.

In spite of this, though, we questioned convention in 2006 and tested evasion by holding a tournament on NetBattle that allowed Double Team and Minimize. It was widely accepted that Double Team Zapdos and Umbreon could pull off BP chains far too easily and let their teammates dominate because of the passed evasion, and that therefore evasion should remain claused. You are either making yet another assumption that we have never questioned ourselves on the viability of evasion with regard to a balanced competitive metagame, or you are literally ignorant of this tournament and its results. Either way, it is getting kind of annoying to give you a history lesson on the evolution of this community and competitive when you are so set on proving to me and everyone else that you know what you're talking about.

Pokemon players also seem to value diversity, which is why tiers have been created to create new environments of play. Why is that done? Because players enjoy new and different competitive environments. Because there are things to be learned from restricted game rules. There is some kind of subjective value that causes the community to ban certain pokemon, create UU environments that intentionally exclude auto-weather and play Little Cup. Just because those are competitive environments doesn't mean that pleasure doesn't have a LOT to do with their creation.

I called Aziraphale on this earlier, but since you guys seem set on saying the tiers were created with diversity in mind:

http://www.smogon.com/articles/tiers

Smogon's tier system is used to rank Pokemon into several groups based on their perceived power and usage in competitive play. These tiers dictate which Pokemon can be used in the various metagames of competitive play. Each metagame encompasses different Pokemon, and therefore each one is unique in its style of play. The standards set by Smogon's tier system seek to balance competitive battling, ensuring no Pokemon is "too powerful" or over-centralizes the metagame it appears in.

Nowhere is diversity mentioned in our article about tiers, just like nowhere is enjoyment mentioned in our article about our philosophy. Again, both can result from their respective foundations, but this does not mean that either are the goals. And seriously, the fact that I have twice been able to just link to articles on our main website to refute your claims should say enough about your apparent lack of understanding of the history of this community.

So don't be so foolish as to assume that pleasure doesn't have a lot to do with how Smogon's rules and the competitive pokemon world has evolved over time. This is not a purely objective system. Judgement calls have been made all along and certain philosophies that aren't based 100% on statistics have become core parts of the "design" philosophy Smogon and competitive battlers use to create the rules under which competitive pokemon is played.

We've made judgment calls quite a bit a long the way, but we're not so stubborn as to be set in stone about our ways. This is why we have tested evasion, Hidden Power (Advance), Celebi (Advance) Wobbuffet, Deoxys-E (Advance), Lati@s (Advance and DP), and Deoxys-S in competitive battle in the past half decade. Obviously the unbanishment of ubers is going to be a pretty subjective move. And I don't think anything in our philosophy has been "100% based on statistics", but we sure have never operated with "enjoyment" in the forefront of our minds when making decisions like the ones above either.

To again address YOUR assumptions, I never operated under the idea that you don't watch a great deal of battles. Watching and reading logs is a great deal different than playing and being one of the people in the trenches pushing the game in new directions. Reading logs probably makes you really good at theorymon. That still doesn't make your subjective opinion on what competitive pokemon should be any more valuable than the huge portions of the community that disagree with you. For all your knowledge, you are still just a handful of powerful people in a big community full of pretty knowledgeable people that disagree with you. The primary difference between you is that you have the power to force changes onto people and they are powerless to stop it unless they do what you say and play with Wobb until he is rebanned.

When you think about it "pushing the game in new directions" is kind of the whole problem here. There was absolutely no mention of Tickle Wobbuffet set until I, someone who doesn't even battle on the ladder, posted it here on the forums. I honestly hope you're not trying to attribute any kind of entrepreneurship or whatever to you "battle veterans", because it really says something when someone who doesn't even play has to post and plead for the entire community to actually do something. Wobby's usage has steadily dropped since it was allowed on the ladder. Yeah, way to push the game in new directions. You guys still bitch and moan about how cheap Wobby is, starting in the winter, all spring long. I agree with you for the most part in posting this thread and ask you all to post your findings so we can have something to combat the hard evidence that people are using it less and less. For over two months I have had to beg you guys to post outside of "Wobbuffet is cheap/boring/unfair", because those discussions and threads do not go anywhere or accomplish a damn thing, and nothing. Alice doesn't post this thread for two, three, four weeks after she said she should. I have to beg ipl to actually post in this thread and post in PR in general. And now I have to beg for you guys to post logs, willing to even bend the rules against posting logs. So please, don't even begin to imply that you battlers are actually doing anything groundbreaking, not in this thread. You are doing nothing "valuable" by bitching about Wobbuffet and whining about your ladder ranking and taking Colin to task for allowing it. What is valuable, for the last time, is input that is plainly based on your experiences with and against Wobbuffet.

And my "opinion" on what competitive battle should be aligns with the philosophy that has been a part of Smogon from the very beginning, the same philosophy you have proven you're not very familiar with.

Just because you all have the power to force changes, does not mean people should have to jump through hoops to satisfy you. If a huge portion of the players have outright rejected Wobb as a valuable addition to standard play, they should not be forced to use him to make a couple of guys reading logs and looking at statistics happy. It's time to stop pretending this is an objective system. Either make it a purely objective system, or acknowledge that its subjective and then go ahead and say the couple of you that think Wobb should be unbanned are superior enough to make this decision on behalf of everyone else. At least that would be intellectually honest. Pretending that a system full of clauses, poorly defined tiers and dated judgement calls is objective to push changes onto people just isn't honest or fair.

I don't think it's possible for "Policy Reviewers" to be 100% subjective or objective, so whatever. The fact remains that Colin unbanned Wobb on the ladder over four months ago and several of you refuse to accept it. I've both posted this thread and officially moved Wobby from Limbo to OU to get you guys to understand how it can be moved back to uber. But you guys still refuse to use it, and it remains in the standard metagame. At the end of the day, what are you going to do about it? Boycott Shoddy? Continue to complain on Smogon? Or actually do something?

And if you have this much of an issue with the way things are run here, you're free to go join another community. It's not as if you actually agree with our philosophy anyway, so maybe this place isn't a good fit for you.

 

[SubVersion]

This is 100% true. No one is here because they "want to win"

O_o

I'd just like to applaud you on your ability to take half a sentence out of context (the context being found in the other half of the sentence), and reply as if it is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. This sort of blatant misrepresentation draws into question whether you're here to make valid points, or just to argue. But I digress.

@ lord alchelmy and sub : I'm surprised that two smogon members who, judging by their post count, have been here for a bit, try to challenge a principle which is absolutely set in stone. Wobbuffet's usage is low, it does not centralize the metagame.

If usage is directly proportionate to centralization, then please explain to me why Garchomp's current status is OU. You can't? That's because this point is wrong and was little more than a jab at the intellect of Lord Alchemy and myself.

Everything "we've tried to prune" from the metagame has been to promote balance and skill—I implore you cite just one example of something that we've pruned from pokemon expressly to increase enjoyment.

I wasn't around in the GSC era so I may be totally wrong, but wasn't there some sort of unspoken "soft ban" on Wobbuffet during that time? He certainly wasn't uber or overpowered given that one could just indefinitely switch between Pokemon in order to stall him out, but I seem to recall hearing about people generally accepting not to use Wobbuffet because his inclusion more or less automatically added 70-odd turns to a battle. I realize there's a distinct difference between an actual ban and a soft ban, but if I'm not totally off the mark here, I think that is a great example where the community decided to shun something in the name of "fun" rather than for any other valid reason.

Again, I might be wrong, and I'd like to know if I am because I'm not sure where I heard this.

(also I guess I'll take this opportunity to point out that on Wobbuffet's smogon analysis, he was apparently moved to OU on May 30, 22008.)

 

[Lyfsaho]

I'd just like to applaud you on your ability to take half a sentence out of context (the context being found in the other half of the sentence), and reply as if it is the stupidest thing you've ever heard. This sort of blatant misrepresentation draws into question whether you're here to make valid points, or just to argue. But I digress.

Actually, since i'm directly adressing someone when i quote his or her post, I assume he or she knows the second part of the sentence (which I in fact proceeded to quote in the next paragraph, which you then left out). However, fear not, I'll be sure to quote your entire text from now on so that you may, in future situations, grasp the exact context of my reply.

If usage is directly proportionate to centralization, then please explain to me why Garchomp's current status is OU. You can't? That's because this point is wrong and was little more than a jab at the intellect of Lord Alchemy and myself.

Garchomp's current status is OU because it is an unique case - a pokemon which was actually never in doubt of being OU when it first appeared (partly down to the fact that it is not legendary and is obtainable like any other normal pokemon), and which over long periods of time has proven to be overcentralizing. As this is a first, it is natural that his situation is handled a little differently.

But by all means, if you prefer, let me rephrase my point this way - Wobbuffet does not even need to be number 1, as garchomp is. But the simple fact that in 16 + pages of arguing on this topic, no one has been able to jusitfy why, if wobbuffet is so powerful and overcentralizing, it is not amongst the top most used pokemon - it is indeed closer to becoming BL - should make it's tier placing more than clear.

 

[Syberia]

I wasn't around in the GSC era so I may be totally wrong, but wasn't there some sort of unspoken "soft ban" on Wobbuffet during that time? He certainly wasn't uber or overpowered given that one could just indefinitely switch between Pokemon in order to stall him out, but I seem to recall hearing about people generally accepting not to use Wobbuffet because his inclusion more or less automatically added 70-odd turns to a battle. I realize there's a distinct difference between an actual ban and a soft ban, but if I'm not totally off the mark here, I think that is a great example where the community decided to shun something in the name of "fun" rather than for any other valid reason.

If you used Wobbuffet in GSC, you were pretty much playing 5 vs 6. It's pretty much the same thing as, say, using Magikarp. There was no ban on it per se, but using it would be incredibly stupid on the part of whoever used it.

 

[SubVersion]

Actually, since i'm directly adressing someone when i quote his or her post, I assume he or she knows the second part of the sentence (which I in fact proceeded to quote in the next paragraph, which you then left out). However, fear not, I'll be sure to quote your entire text from now on so that you may, in future situations, grasp the exact context of my reply.

The point isn't whether everyone else would realize that Lord Alchemy's post had more to it than that, the point is that you chose to ignore everything else and respond to a fragment that completely misrepresents what LA was trying to say. Don't give me any of this smartass "well fine i'll quote EVERYTHING in future ololol" bullshit because you don't need to quote everything, just everything relevant, and I'd say the latter half of that sentence is pretty fucking relevant and if you don't respond to it as well then you may as well not respond at all.

Garchomp's current status is OU because it is an unique case - a pokemon which was actually never in doubt of being OU when it first appeared (partly down to the fact that it is not legendary and is obtainable like any other normal pokemon), and which over long periods of time has proven to be overcentralizing. As this is a first, it is natural that his situation is handled a little differently.

Firstly, answer the question. You stated that usage is directly related to overcentralization. In order to justify a point that is not, and never has been true, you need to explain why Garchomp has not been deemed overcentralizing.

Even if your vague "Well, that's different" response wasn't a really terrible argument, who are you to say that Wobbuffet isn't a special case where usage statistics might not apply? You're in no such position to say "They don't apply to Garchomp, but they do to Wobbuffet" for no particular reason other than it supports your arguments.

Virtually the only thing I enjoy about using statistics in these sorts of discussions is that at least statistics are a solid base to work outwards from. Fracturing other people's arguments into incoherent points and creating arbitrary and totally imagined definitions of what is "new" or a "first" or "special" is called "grasping at straws" and isn't very convincing.

@Syberia: Well like I said, I know it was rubbish back then, but whether I am correct or not in my thinking that using Wobbuffet at all was somewhat frowned upon is more important to the general idea of "fun" being something to consider.

 

[Lyfsaho]

The point isn't whether everyone else would realize that Lord Alchemy's post had more to it than that, the point is that you chose to ignore everything else and respond to a fragment that completely misrepresents what LA was trying to say. Don't give me any of this smartass "well fine i'll quote EVERYTHING in future ololol" bullshit because you don't need to quote everything, just everything relevant, and I'd say the latter half of that sentence is pretty fucking relevant and if you don't respond to it as well then you may as well not respond at all.

if i answer this, it'll just lead to you being offended again, so i'll just repeat myself and point out that if you had read my post in question, i proceeded to quote the second part of Alchemy's post in the next paragraph.

Firstly, answer the question. You stated that usage is directly related to overcentralization. In order to justify a point that is not, and never has been true, you need to explain why Garchomp has not been deemed overcentralizing.

"never has been true"? Of course usage is directly related to overcentralization.
This is theorymon, but do you harbor even the slightest doubt that Kyogre, Giratina, Deoxys-A, Palkia, Dialga or the likes would immediately establish themselves in the top 5 of most used pokemon if they were unbanned in the standard metagame ?
In the end, every decision has at least a tiny amount of subjectivity to it, that is unavoidable. This subjectivity is the reason why Garchomp still resides in OU and will likely continue to do so.

Even if your vague "Well, that's different" response wasn't a really terrible argument, who are you to say that Wobbuffet isn't a special case where usage statistics might not apply? You're in no such position to say "They don't apply to Garchomp, but they do to Wobbuffet" for no particular reason other than it supports your arguments.

Talk about feeble attempts to deliver stabs.
I never said they did not apply to Garchomp, I hope i made that clear in my response above.

 

[Syberia]

In this battle I also amde the mistake of forgetting Aromatherapy's low PP an thus could've made Blissey KO herself.

This is exactly why the bug that causes Encore to force Struggle needs to be fixed before any serious playtesting of Wobbuffet can occur. Currently we are testing him in an environment that allows him to to something he cannot do in the actual games. Something that can be abused quite easily to allow Wobbuffet to kill something, on its own, without taking a lick of damage itself.

The only thing he "should" be able to do is either kill something that attacks him directly, or potentially set up another pokemon, not break slow, non-attacking walls the way he currently does. Any testing of him that is done at this point in such an environment will inevitably be biased.

 

[imperfectluck]

I made the JollyWobb set with the thought of coming in on Blissey Softboileds and whatnot and Encoring it repeatedly, forcing it to run out of healing PP when I discovered the glitch on shoddybattle. Removal of certain walls is just as viable without the glitch as with, as walls like Blissey and Hippowdon are incapacitated without any recovery moves.

 

[Syberia]

Yes, but without the glitch, Wobbuffet cannot kill them by itself. Granted they'll be incapacitated while you switch in something like Lucario or Garchomp, but the fact remains that you'll have to rely on something else to kill them; something else that can (possibly) be countered. And that the Blissey/Forretress will be able to switch out without dying, if it so chooses. Is this just as broken? We don't know, because currently Wobbuffet can do something that it's not supposed to.

With Tickle and the Struggle glitch removed, maybe Wobbuffet will prove itself not too broken for OU. But until then, he hasn't been tested in a true environment.

 

[TAY]

I have been using a team with Wobb on shoddy for some time now. I used it on my climb to #1 a while back, and recently I have been using a variation of it which has turned out to be even more powerful. The team leads with Azelf to set up SR and explode, and then consists of Wobb, DDTar, DDGyara, SD Yache Garchomp, and an HP Ice/Explosion Metagross. I think it is worth pointing out that this team has no Garchomp, Gengar, or Gyarados counter, and nothing to switch into Blissey (or take status at all for that matter). Despite all this it landed me #1 on shoddy, and it doesn't lose much outside of hax. Wobbuffet allows me to continuously be on the offensive, so having a direct counter to any of the aforementioned threats becomes less important.

EDIT: I never use Wobb to PP stall; I didn't even know about the struggle glitch until I read the above post.
EDIT: I didn't mention this before, but this team has no special attacks besides Azelf's psychic and Metagross' HP Ice. I think this shows how Wobbuffet can make team diversity pretty much irrelevant.

Typically the game plan is to switch wobb into walls and either KO them or use them as set up bait. I can't stress enough how ridiculous it is just that Wobb allows the strongest sweepers in the game to set up against their counters, essentially requiring an extra counter for each sweeper I have. Wobbuffet takes care of nearly every wall which could stop a sweep, and laughs at scarfed pokes who try to take down my DD'ers. If my opponent has Bronzong, Gliscor, and Suicune as physical walls--truly a defensive force--then I can easily beat 2-3 of them with just wobb, and at that point TTar/Gyarados/Garchomp becomes pretty difficult to stop.

Another huge boon to this strategy is that Gyarados and Tyranitar will outspeed base 125 and 115 speed pokemon, respectively (Gyara also beats modest scarf Heatran, but I digress), so if a gengar/starmie/raikou/whatever outspeeds one of them after a DD, I will know for sure that it is scarfed and I can send in Wobb for the KO or I can use the opportunity to stat-up safely.

The team is great for laddering simply because it take very little skill to play. Very few switches are required, since it's usually best to just put a dent in a physical wall for my other sweepers to finish the job later, and because the team fares poorly against opposing stat-uppers.

The log I am posting here is a battle between myself and Husk. I have not spoken to him and do not have his permission to post this, so if I hear anything it will obviously be removed immediately; however I think it is a great example of Wobbuffet's role in the OU metagame, made even more powerful because Husk is widely known to be a great battler. The battle is very short, only 23 turns, but during that time wobb allows me to set up on Starmie, KO Gengar, set up on Nidoqueen without being poisoned by toxic spikes due to safeguard, and even with sandstorm damage wobb still has enough health at the end to encore garchomp and give me the win, despite a misplay by me. I make a grand total of zero predictions during this battle and still wind up winning. This is not the way the game should be played.

Rules: Ladder Match, Sleep Clause, Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Evasion Clause, Species Clause, Strict Damage Clause
husk sent out Nidoqueen (lvl 100 Nidoqueen ?).
TAY-hime sent out Azelf (lvl 100 Azelf).
Azelf used Taunt.
Nidoqueen fell for the taunt!
Nidoqueen used Toxic Spikes.
Nidoqueen can't use Toxic Spikes after the taunt!
---
husk switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
A sandstorm brewed!
Azelf used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around your foe's team!
The sandstorm rages.
Azelf is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Azelf lost 6% of its health.
---
Azelf used Explosion.
It's not very effective...
Tyranitar lost 77% of its health.
TAY-hime's Azelf fainted.
Tyranitar used Stone Edge.
But there was no target!
The sandstorm rages.
---
TAY-hime switched in Metagross (lvl 100 Metagross).
Metagross used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 23% of its health.
husk's Tyranitar fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
---
Ryu_Testing has entered the room.
husk switched in Starmie (lvl 100 Starmie).
Pointed stones dug into Starmie.
Starmie lost 12% of its health.
TAY-hime switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Starmie used Surf.
Wobbuffet lost 26% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Starmie is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Starmie lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Starmie's leftovers restored its health a little!
Starmie restored 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
Starmie used Rapid Spin.
Starmie blew away the spikes!
Wobbuffet lost 2% of its health.
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Starmie got an encore!
The sandstorm rages.
Starmie is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Starmie lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Starmie's leftovers restored its health a little!
Starmie restored 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
TAY-hime switched in Gyarados (lvl 100 Gyarados ?).
Gyarados's intimidate cut Starmie's attack!
Starmie used Rapid Spin.
Gyarados lost 3% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Starmie is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Starmie lost 6% of its health.
Gyarados is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Gyarados lost 6% of its health.
Starmie's leftovers restored its health a little!
Starmie restored 6% of its health.
Gyarados's leftovers restored its health a little!
Gyarados restored 6% of its health.
---
husk switched in Gengar (lvl 100 Gengar ?).
Gyarados used Dragon Dance.
Gyarados's attack was raised.
Gyarados's speed was raised.
The sandstorm rages.
Gengar is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Gengar lost 6% of its health.
Gyarados is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Gyarados lost 6% of its health.
Gyarados's leftovers restored its health a little!
Gyarados restored 6% of its health.
---
Gengar used Thunderbolt.
It's super effective!
Gyarados lost 97% of its health.
TAY-hime's Gyarados fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Gengar is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Gengar lost 6% of its health.
---
TAY-hime switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Gengar used Thunderbolt.
Wobbuffet lost 25% of its health.
Wobbuffet used Mirror Coat.
Gengar lost 88% of its health.
husk's Gengar fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
husk switched in Nidoqueen (lvl 100 Nidoqueen ?).
Nidoqueen used Toxic Spikes.
Spikes were scattered everywhere!
Toxic Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Nidoqueen got an encore!
The sandstorm rages.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
Nidoqueen used Toxic Spikes.
Toxic Spikes were scattered around the foe's team!
Wobbuffet used Safeguard.
Your team became cloaked in a mystic veil!
The sandstorm rages.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
TAY-hime switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
Nidoqueen used Toxic Spikes.
But it failed!
The sandstorm rages.
---
husk switched in Starmie (lvl 100 Starmie).
Tyranitar used Dragon Dance.
Tyranitar's attack was raised.
Tyranitar's speed was raised.
The sandstorm rages.
Starmie is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Starmie lost 6% of its health.
Starmie's leftovers restored its health a little!
Starmie restored 6% of its health.
---
Tyranitar used Crunch.
It's super effective!
Starmie lost 88% of its health.
husk's Starmie fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
---
husk switched in Nidoqueen (lvl 100 Nidoqueen ?).
Tyranitar used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Nidoqueen lost 73% of its health.
Nidoqueen used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 56% of its health.
Your team is no longer protected by Safeguard!
The sandstorm rages.
Tyranitar's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tyranitar restored 6% of its health.
Nidoqueen's leftovers restored its health a little!
Nidoqueen restored 6% of its health.
---
Tyranitar used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Nidoqueen lost 33% of its health.
husk's Nidoqueen fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Tyranitar's leftovers restored its health a little!
Tyranitar restored 6% of its health.
---
husk switched in Garchomp (lvl 100 Garchomp ?).
Tyranitar used Crunch.
Garchomp lost 62% of its health.
Garchomp used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 56% of its health.
TAY-hime's Tyranitar fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
---
TAY-hime switched in Metagross (lvl 100 Metagross).
husk switched in Magnezone (lvl 100 Magnezone).
Metagross used Hidden Power.
It's not very effective...
Magnezone lost 12% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Magnezone's leftovers restored its health a little!
Magnezone restored 6% of its health.
---
Metagross used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Magnezone lost 94% of its health.
husk's Magnezone fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
---
husk switched in Garchomp (lvl 100 Garchomp ?).
Garchomp used Substitute.
Garchomp lost 25% of its health.
Garchomp made a substitute!
Metagross used Explosion.
The substitute took damage for Garchomp!
Garchomp's substitute faded!
TAY-hime's Metagross fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Garchomp's Salac Berry raised its speed!
---
TAY-hime: damnit
TAY-hime switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Wobbuffet was badly poisoned!
Wobbuffet was badly poisoned by the Toxic Spikes!
Jarin has entered the room.
Garchomp used Earthquake.
Wobbuffet lost 34% of its health.
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Garchomp got an encore!
The sandstorm rages.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet is hurt by poison!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
---
Garchomp used Earthquake.
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
TAY-hime's Wobbuffet fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
---
TAY-hime switched in Garchomp (lvl 100 Garchomp ?).
Garchomp was badly poisoned!
Garchomp was badly poisoned by the Toxic Spikes!
Garchomp used Earthquake.
Garchomp lost 54% of its health.
Garchomp used Earthquake.
Garchomp lost 13% of its health.
husk's Garchomp fainted.
TAY-hime wins!

 

[Jumpman16]

Early this morning Colin and AA removed Event Moves from Pokémon on Shoddy Battle, of course including Tickle from Wobbuffet. Instead of regarding this as some sort of victory for the "Wobbuffet is uber" crowd, though, I will remind you all that the open opposition to Wobbuffet in standard play had nothing to do with Tickle, which was in many ways its most devastating strategy, and that now your arguments will have to find something else to prove that it's uber. I feel you guys missed an absolutely golden opportunity to demonstrate how broken Wobbuffet is by using Tickle to your advantage, and I wish you luck in doing so from now on.

Anyway, though some of you may feel otherwise, this thread has never expressly been just about Wobbuffet, which is why I put "Wobbuffet 'discussion'" in quotes in the topic title. This thread is about the community coming together and actively making a difference in the metagame. I feel the same way about Deoxys-S, which players believe is also too strong for OU. This thread will run its course, but don't go blatantly off topic. Obviously there should be some discussion to go with the battle logs I've requested, as merely copy-pasting logs is not really going to solve anything on its own either. But I would advise you to closely read my posts in this thread before thinking about going off topic any more (I am obviously allowing Odinwolf to reply to me because it is incredibly rude to forbid him from replying to a huge post I made debating him).