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

[TAY]

it seems some people are now starting to accept Wobbuffet does in no way overcentralize the metagame, but think he's not enjoyable to play against.
Seriously, I hate Breloom. Spore is just excruciating to deal with. I'd be much happier if Breloom wasn't around. Too bad it is.
I believe Jumpman reopened this topic to begin with to see some raw evidence, not "Wobbuffet can't be prepared for".

You are completely misrepresenting my argument. I never said that "Wobbuffet is not enjoyable to play against," I said:

I absolutely think that it is completely legitimate to ban something to make the metagame more strategic.

which I think is a legitimate statement to pose for discussion, considering several users have recently posted agreeing that Wobbuffet allows players to win using a lot less skill than should be required.

Regarding your own theorymon rant about preparation, if you look at my battle with husk, you will see that he did in fact have several of those things, however I was able to play around them by abusing my own taunt, wobb's shadow tag, and safeguard. I can also say from personal experience that a lot of those problems disappear when you have explosion, or simply by using other pokes before you reveal wobb.

In your final paragraph you assume that the wobbuffet user is unable to predict.

I guess I'll state the question more directly: If we come to somewhat of a consensus that Wobb allows players to win using minimal skill, would it be legitimate to ban Wobuffet for making the game less strategic?

 

[SubVersion]

Of course he can be prepared for : Use one or two u-turners in your team together with a ghost. Use one or two taunters in your team. Use toxic spikes. Use one or two pokemon with access to Toxic, preferably walls. Use Dugtrio on your team. If you used choice specs / band, use things than you know will be able to annihilate Wobbuffet when he comes in. Use mixed sweepers which are able to damage him from both sides of the spectrum. Use pursuiters.

The above are just examples of ways to prepare for Wobbuffet.

Or you could just, you know, use prediction. You'll say, how can I predict when I can't switch out? Well, you'll see Wobbuffet for the first time at some point in a match, and until then, your possibilities are limited. But after you've first seen him, you can predict when it would be beneficial for your opponent to bring him in and switch / move accordingly. So yes, prediction is also possible.

I'm sorry, but this is all just theorymon that doesn't work in practice. U-Turn is out, because it deals heavy damage to Wobbuffet which basically ensures a Counter-kill on whatever you choose to send out. Taunt is out, because Wobbuffet will never attempt trapping things that carry Taunt traditionally (ie. I'm not sending my Wobbuffet out against Gyarados), and things that carry Taunt unexpectedly don't actually hurt Wobbuffet by Taunting him, which means he can just switch out knowing not to come back on this Pokemon again. Your high-powered Specs/Band attacks aren't OHKO'ing Wobbuffet unless they're SE and probably STAB'd, and the fact you're locked into an attack already just relieves Wobbuffet's need to Encore. You'll only get a Pursuiter in against Wobbuffet by sacrificing something else, in which case he's already pulled his weight. Toxic Spikes is a good way to stop his effectiveness, but if you're going to assume a team can feasibly carry a couple of Taunters, a couple of U-Turners and a Pursuiter, then surely I can assume that the team with Wobbuffet has either a Rapid Spinner or a Poison-type.

As TAY said, you end up just assuming that the Wobbuffet user wont predict. Your opponent is equally as likely to bring in Wobbuffet unexpectedly or predict your prediction as you are to guess "Hippowdon = Wobbuffet bait". Fair is fair, here.

"People are now starting to accept Wobbuffet does in no way overcentralize the metagame" comes off fairly condescending, and I don't really appreciate the insinuation that anti-Wobbuffeters are gradually changing their arguments to suit themselves. Whether Wobbuffet is statistically overcentralizing (keeping in mind that not even statistics can accurately tell us if he is or not) has only ever been one of the many arguments against him.

edit: As for your question TAY, the links Jumpman provided earlier made it clear that Smogon promotes skill over any other aspect of the game, in which case I don't think it would be against the point of Smogon if we could all agree he does decrease skill.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Here is Smogon's current official stance on Wobbuffet:

Wobbuffet's May 30, 2008 movement from the Limbo Tier to the OU tier is a direct result of no conclusive evidence of it overwhelming the standard metagame on Shoddy Battle's Ladder arising after three months of testing. Its effects on the standard metagame will continue to be closely monitored, and it will be as tiered as fairly as possible as the metagame evolves, just as any of the other 492 Pokémon.

The impression that I am getting from that statement is that Wobbuffet has not been an overcentralizing figure in the Shoddy metagame--that statement few will argue with--thus it is not Uber. One problem: have we even defined what is and is not Uber?

We can make a logical explanation for Pokemon going from Uber to OU; we have done it with Wobbuffet and Deoxys-S. 'If it doesn't overcentralize OU, it shouldn't be banned from OU.' That, I believe, is our explanation. However, we haven't been able to do the same for Pokemon going from OU to Uber. Therefore, until we establish that definition, we just go with 'If it doesn't overcentralize OU, it shouldn't be banned from OU.'

The problem I have with that: is that the BEST reasoning? Decisions about whether certain Pokemon need to be banned are subjective in nature. No matter what we use to help us make those decisions, the decisions themselves are ultimately subjective.

As far as I'm concerned in making those decisions, objective evidence should only support the subjective decisions, not actually make the decisions themselves. That's why the Wobbuffet reasoning seems "backwards" to me. We seem to be looking at the objective evidence to make a subjective decision.

As for the subjective decision to be made in the case of Wobbuffet, is overcentralization even the right question to ask??? If we, as a community, are trying to develop a metagame that "promotes skill," shouldn't the first question to ask be if the Pokemon in question actually promotes skill?

From what I understand (since I did not play Pokemon competitively in RBY), evasion moves such as Double Team and Minimize were originally banned because they promote luck instead of skill. As far as I know, we didn't need objective evidence to tell us that.

The Wobbuffet argument I am seeing most often is that it does not promote skill. Many people are making this argument, including several that have used Wobbuffet to great effect on Shoddy. We are seeing logs that seem to support this argument. From what I am seeing, the way to use Wobbuffet can be outlined in a few simple steps almost regardless of the situation. Does that really promote player skill?

I don't think it does. I would want Wobbuffet banned for that reason.

...

...

Since the discussion shouldn't all be about Wobbuffet, I should go into the case of Garchomp, shouldn't I?

I defined above two subjective decisions that I believe we should make in determining whether something should be banned from OU:

1. Does it promote skill? If not, ban it.
2. Does it overcentralize OU? If so, ban it.

First, does Garchomp promote skill? Well, I can't claim to have actually battled in the last few months, but I don't reasonably see how it can just Swords Dance + Outrage through absolutely everything. I believe it takes skill to use so I'll answer that question "Yes." Next question.

Does Garchomp overcentralize OU? I suppose a certain strategy is necessary to defeat it as TAY has been the latest to elude to, but the current objective evidence doesn't seem to show any overcentralization. I'll answer that question "No."

However, I would support a temporary removal of Garchomp from ladder play to see if Garchomp would be an overcentralizing figure. I like to use, as a general rule, the premise that if the removal of a Pokemon from a metagame increases the number of Pokemon in the metagame OR the addition of a Pokemon in a metagame decreases the number of Pokemon in the metagame by a material amount, then the Pokemon is an overcentralizing figure. I also like to use a 10% figure for materiality in this rule. In other words, if the number of Pokemon changed by at least 10% as a result of the addition or removal of a Pokemon, then that Pokemon is overcentralizing.



Okay, I'm starting to ramble like I usually do on these topics. I'll stop now.

 

[Earthworm]

Here are 31 boring logs using a team that leads with Wobbuffet, excuse my lousy team and lousy battling

I will design a better team later and get more logs, probably using the same alias.

 

[kd24]

I am just going to log a ton of battles and then post them. I think this battle showcases how easy it is to win with wobb. Expect me to post many more.

Post is reservered for Wobb Logs

[SIZE=2]
Rules: Ladder Match, Sleep Clause, Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Evasion Clause, Species Clause, Strict Damage Clause
Wobb Test sent out Bronzong (lvl 100 Bronzong).
poky sent out Jolteon (lvl 100 Jolteon ?).
Jolteon used Substitute.
Jolteon lost 25% of its health.
Jolteon made a substitute!
Bronzong used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around your foe's team!
---
Jolteon used Baton Pass.
poky switched in Zapdos (lvl 100 Zapdos).
Zapdos is exerting its pressure!
Pointed stones dug into Zapdos.
Zapdos lost 25% of its health.
Bronzong used Gyro Ball.
It's not very effective...
The substitute took damage for Zapdos!
Zapdos's leftovers restored its health a little!
Zapdos restored 6% of its health.
---
Zapdos used Thunderbolt.
Bronzong lost 36% of its health.
Bronzong used Explosion.
The substitute took damage for Zapdos!
Zapdos's substitute faded!
Wobb Test's Bronzong fainted.
Zapdos's leftovers restored its health a little!
Zapdos restored 6% of its health.
---
Wobb Test switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Zapdos used Sleep Talk.
But it failed!
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Zapdos got an encore!
Zapdos's leftovers restored its health a little!
Zapdos restored 6% of its health.
---
Wobb Test switched in Tyranitar (lvl 100 Tyranitar ?).
Tyranitar's Sand Stream whipped up a sandstorm!
A sandstorm brewed!
Zapdos used Sleep Talk.
But it failed!
The sandstorm rages.
Zapdos is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Zapdos lost 6% of its health.
Zapdos's leftovers restored its health a little!
Zapdos restored 6% of its health.
---
poky switched in Swampert (lvl 100 Swampert ?).
Pointed stones dug into Swampert.
Swampert lost 6% of its health.
Tyranitar used Dragon Dance.
Tyranitar's attack was raised.
Tyranitar's speed was raised.
The sandstorm rages.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
Tyranitar used Crunch.
Swampert lost 55% of its health.
Swampert's defence was lowered.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
Swampert used Stealth Rock.
The sandstorm rages.
Swampert's leftovers restored its health a little!
Swampert restored 6% of its health.
---
poky switched in Jirachi (lvl 100 Jirachi).
Pointed stones dug into Jirachi.
Jirachi lost 6% of its health.
Tyranitar used Crunch.
Jirachi lost 59% of its health.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
Jirachi's leftovers restored its health a little!
Jirachi restored 6% of its health.
---
Tyranitar used Crunch.
Jirachi lost 41% of its health.
poky's Jirachi fainted.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
---
poky switched in Zapdos (lvl 100 Zapdos).
Zapdos is exerting its pressure!
Pointed stones dug into Zapdos.
Zapdos lost 25% of its health.
Tyranitar used Stone Edge.
It's super effective!
Zapdos lost 69% of its health.
poky's Zapdos fainted.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
---
poky switched in Swampert (lvl 100 Swampert ?).
Pointed stones dug into Swampert.
Swampert lost 6% of its health.
Tyranitar used Crunch.
Swampert lost 45% of its health.
poky's Swampert fainted.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
---
poky switched in Gengar (lvl 100 Gengar ?).
Pointed stones dug into Gengar.
Gengar lost 12% of its health.
Tyranitar used Crunch.
It's super effective!
Gengar lost 88% of its health.
poky's Gengar fainted.
Tyranitar lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
---
poky switched in Lucario (lvl 100 Lucario ?).
Pointed stones dug into Lucario.
Lucario lost 3% of its health.
Lucario used Bullet Punch.
It's super effective!
Tyranitar lost 41% of its health.
Wobb Test's Tyranitar fainted.
Lucario lost 10% of its health.
The sandstorm rages.
---
Wobb Test switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Pointed stones dug into Wobbuffet.
Wobbuffet lost 12% of its health.
Lucario used Swords Dance.
Lucario's attack was sharply raised.
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Lucario 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.
---
Wobb Test switched in Sharpedo (lvl 100 Sharpedo ?).
Pointed stones dug into Sharpedo.
Sharpedo lost 12% of its health.
Lucario used Swords Dance.
Lucario's attack was sharply raised.
The sandstorm rages.
Sharpedo is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Sharpedo lost 6% of its health.
---
Lucario used Swords Dance.
Lucario's attack was sharply raised.
Sharpedo used Earthquake.
It's super effective!
Lucario lost 87% of its health.
poky's Lucario fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Sharpedo is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Sharpedo lost 6% of its health.
---
poky switched in Jolteon (lvl 100 Jolteon ?).
Pointed stones dug into Jolteon.
Jolteon lost 12% of its health.
Jolteon used Thunderbolt.
It's super effective!
Sharpedo lost 75% of its health.
Wobb Test's Sharpedo fainted.
The sandstorm rages.
Jolteon is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Jolteon lost 6% of its health.
---
Wobb Test switched in Wobbuffet (lvl 100 Wobbuffet ?).
Pointed stones dug into Wobbuffet.
Wobbuffet lost 12% of its health.
Jolteon used Substitute.
Jolteon lost 25% of its health.
Jolteon made a substitute!
Wobbuffet used Encore.
Jolteon got an encore!
The sandstorm rages.
Jolteon is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Jolteon lost 6% of its health.
Wobbuffet is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Wobbuffet lost 6% of its health.
Jolteon's Petaya Berry raised its special attack!
Wobbuffet's leftovers restored its health a little!
Wobbuffet restored 6% of its health.
---
Wobb Test switched in Deoxys-e (lvl 100 Deoxys-e).
Deoxys-e is exerting its pressure!
Pointed stones dug into Deoxys-e.
Deoxys-e lost 12% of its health.
Jolteon used Substitute.
But it failed!
The sandstorm rages.
Deoxys-e is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Deoxys-e lost 6% of its health.
Jolteon is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Jolteon lost 6% of its health.
---
Deoxys-e used Psychic.
The substitute took damage for Jolteon!
Jolteon's substitute faded!
Jolteon used Substitute.
But it failed!
The sandstorm rages.
Deoxys-e is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Deoxys-e lost 6% of its health.
Jolteon is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Jolteon lost 6% of its health.
---
Deoxys-e used Psychic.
Jolteon lost 12% of its health.
poky's Jolteon fainted.
Wobb Test wins!
poky has left the room.
[/SIZE]

 

[IggyBot]

it seems some people are now starting to accept Wobbuffet does in no way overcentralize the metagame.

I don't believe this is true at all. Quite a few players agree that there is more to centralisation than just pure usage and affect on the number of pokemon in OU. There are other aspects that should be taken into account. I don't want to type all of this up again, so I'll link you to a few posts.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1219740&postcount=3
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1220217&postcount=6
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1220239&postcount=7
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1241940&postcount=59

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

the kd24 log is an example of playing style. if he had just thunderbolt, he'd get in two hits, sac the zapdos and have wob at a low health where any of his other sweeper could have finished it up without worry. and after zap goes down, he has an advantage to pick w/e he wanted, like lucario to come out and crunch, and he wouldn't give tar the opportunity to dd up. if you play not to lose rather than to win, youll more likely to lose, if that makes any sense

 

[Lusantian]

U-Turn is out, because it deals heavy damage to Wobbuffet which basically ensures a Counter-kill on whatever you choose to send out

Which is what the Ghost is for, making Counter useless. On a side note, Spiritomb renders Wobb near-useless, especially if it packs Taunt and/or Pursuit. You'd still need to U-Turn into it, though.

 

[Green Mage]

If we come to somewhat of a consensus that Wobb allows players to win using minimal skill, would it be legitimate to ban Wobuffet for making the game less strategic?

Yes, yes, yes. A thousand times, yes. There is no competitive quality to a game that is mindless and thoughtless. All of Smogon.com might as well say "use wobb and win".

Wobb comes in on a wall and wins the game. I am so sick of that scenario that i've found myself doing other things. The metagame is broken. In the name of all that is good and green in the world, ban it.

 

[Fishin]

But doesn't that apply for every other Pokemon as well? Salamence is powerful, but only if used right. You don't slap a Salamence in a team and you're automatically guaranteed to win.

The difference between Wobb and Salamence, though, is in that "When used right". Wobbuffet is used right pretty much 100% of the time as long as the user is decently competent - it absolutely doesn't matter how good the opponent is. The power of Salamence is directly related to both the user and the opponent, however. Wobbuffet's ability destroys one of the primary elements of Pokemon - it's like having a character in a fighting game that can't be thrown. Characters like that might exist in certain games, but they either have a severe limit on their abilities (in the case of Pokemon, Magnezone) or some other disadvantage (Dugtrio and it's horrible durability/poor attack) that balances things out. Nothing should be banned on the basis of being different alone, obviously, but when it's different in a way that significantly makes the game less strategic, banning is definitely worth consideration. We really don't have a precedent to go by in this situation (in other words, a precedent in a previous gen of Pokemon) because we've never really had a Pokemon that significantly detracted from the strategy of the game, except of course Wobb itself in RSE, which was banned for a completely different reason that's no longer in effect. In pretty much every game with a competitive community, though, things that decrease the amount of skill involved are generally banned - obvious example would be items in the Super Smash games, which are of course banned in tournament-level play. That's different from banning a character, but if there was a character that decreased the influence of skill by a large amount then I'm sure it would be banned as well (unfortunately that's where my knowledge of references to pull from stops but I'm sure there are games where characters have banned the competitive scene because they decrease the influence of skill).

Smogon is a site about competitive Pokemon - if a Pokemon is making the game significantly less competitive, which I don't think anyone would argue against at this point, I think there's a clear and definite reason to get rid of it.

The ideas you have stated here concerning both Wobbuffet and Garchomp are very similar to how I feel. I honestly don't think that Wobb is ban-worthy based purely on his power; however I absolutely think that it is completely legitimate to ban something to make the metagame more strategic. This should be completely intuitive; after all, who would want to play and gain skill in a game in which skill doesn't help you win? Obviously it isn't this black and white, but i think it's a valid point nonetheless, and definitely something to think about and discuss.

It has also been mentioned that Wobbuffet is a pokemon which is essentially impossible to prepare for, and I think that alone makes him unsuitable for standard play.

As stated, I pretty much agree completely here.

Of course he can be prepared for : Use one or two u-turners in your team together with a ghost. Use one or two taunters in your team. Use toxic spikes. Use one or two pokemon with access to Toxic, preferably walls. Use Dugtrio on your team. If you used choice specs / band, use things than you know will be able to annihilate Wobbuffet when he comes in. Use mixed sweepers which are able to damage him from both sides of the spectrum. Use pursuiters.

A lot of your logic is flawed. T-spikes gives you an easy opportunity to switch Wobby in, Encore, and bring in one of many sweepers not bound to the earth (or a Poison/Steel type) for a free turn of setup. There's no way Pursuit will OHKO Wobb if he doesn't switch, so using it leaves you open to get countered (and I believe the only Ghost-type Pursuiters are Dusknoir and Spiritomb, neither of which Pursuit is an exceptional option on), and it can be Encored, letting anything that doesn't mind getting hit with a 40-power attack get a free turn if you're willing to let Wobby take a hit as well. How does using Dugtrio help? It'll be using nothing but physical attacks, which are easily countered. A few things like Taunters do give you some protection, but all they're doing is preventing Wobby from doing it's job while they're in - as soon as they're out, Wobb is free to come back in and there's not a thing you can do about it because you can't switch, while the Wobb user is completely free to do so. In other words, preparing for Wobb isn't really effective unless your entire team is "prepared" for it, which would be the absolute definition of overcentralization.

 

[SubVersion]

How does using Dugtrio help?

Toxic Dugtrio is the only 100% Wobbuffet "counter", and it's more of a revenge-counter than anything. That's probably what Lyfsaho meant.

 

[ultimifier]

i started playing on shoddy today with a 1350 rating. i used a modified tays team with azelf and wobboffet, and my four sweepers were: yache berry chomp, life orb DDtar, life orb Xtremeluc, and life orb deoxys-e.

the results were disgustingly good and easy as hell. i was playing 2 sometimes three battles at a time. i played for merely half an hour, and increased my rating to 1440 with a 17-3 record. with chomp, wobb and deoxys on the team, i did not even need to play well to win, as i simply had better pokemon and had luck go my way constantly with chomp and SS.

im dumb and i dont kow how to post a log, but one battle included 2 attacks missing on chomp AND me revenge killing a scarf togekiss with wobb AND me setting up swords dance lucario with wobb against a gliscor.

as tay said, this is not the way pokemon is meant to be played. i had numerous opponents tell me that i had the cheapest team ever and i had three opponents ask me if i had fun using my team, to which i responded: "no, but to get rid of wobboffet and garchomp i am willing to do this"

 

[Justinawe]

I was playing Shoddy a ton and used Wobb in every one of my matches. I won about 70 percent of them because of his cheapness. These logs I'm about to show outline how much he "breaks" the game.
Wobb test Battle 10 6 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 11 8 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 12 7 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 13 19 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test Battle 14 1 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test Battle 15 7 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 2 7 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 3 7 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 4 2 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 5 9 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 6 5 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test Battle 7 14 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb Test Battle 8 6 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb test battle 9 2 KB File 2008-06-15 0
Wobb Test log 1

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Only read the top 3 biggest logs, that being of battle 13, 7, and 5 and they were ridiculously horrible excuses for logs.

Battle 13, you played a mono bug team.
Battle 7, the guy couldve won if he just went to Heatran instead of Gliscor first.
Battle 5 the idiot could've easily Dark Pulsed/Ice Beamed Wobbuffet with Tyranitar and be done with that, seeing as how Mirror Coat does -not- affect Tyranitar.

I see some 2 KB and 1 KB logs and I'm guessing people quit as well.

We all know what Wobb can do, but don't post logs that prove nothing.

 

[Chou Toshio]

That's different from banning a character, but if there was a character that decreased the influence of skill by a large amount then I'm sure it would be banned as well (unfortunately that's where my knowledge of references to pull from stops but I'm sure there are games where characters have banned the competitive scene because they decrease the influence of skill).

Example: Any TCG has a ban list, because card creators are human and inherently can and will make the stupid mistake of making something broken. (ie, Yatagarasu, Yu-Gi-Oh). Actually, those who know YGO, wobb kind of reminds me of Yata. >.>

 

[Justinawe]

Yeah, I was kind of in a rush to post them. Some aren't really good, and if I post other logs I'll make sure they actually contribute.

 

[Jumpman16]

I think what Obi said on top of page 11 is actually an obvious and fair point that I've refrained from underlining until now because it would have seemed to be a "yeah, but" on my end. It is only fair to have logs from both sides of the "is Wobbuffet uber?" spectrum. I realize that most people are not going to do this because evidently the overwhelming majority of people despise it and there's no way to enforce posting both types, but it should be said anyway. MoP, Obi, AA and myself can't be the only people who want this to be determined fairly.

And I hope I don't have to remind all of you that I don't think anyone else has made more extreme efforts to "get Wobbuffet banned" than I have, by letting the Tickle set be known on the forums and begging you guys to use it for two months so Wobbuffet could be "rightly" banned.

 

[Blue Kirby]

I absolutely want this to be determined fairly and objectively, but after continuous battling on the ladder, it is just far too easy to emulate a scenario as shown in TAY's log. I will not bother posting any logs to prove this - the impact of Wobbuffet in this way has already been illustrated.

Something worth noting, however, is that "play style" also goes both ways. If the Wobbuffet user is smart, it can be used purely to break walls early game, while setting up sweeps mid to late-game by removing other threats as Wobbuffet is worn down. I will use this post to illustrate this point once I've established my own style of using Wobbuffet in this manner.

 

[Shiny Crobat]

Only read the top 3 biggest logs, that being of battle 13, 7, and 5 and they were ridiculously horrible excuses for logs.

Battle 13, you played a mono bug team.
Battle 7, the guy couldve won if he just went to Heatran instead of Gliscor first.
Battle 5 the idiot could've easily Dark Pulsed/Ice Beamed Wobbuffet with Tyranitar and be done with that, seeing as how Mirror Coat does -not- affect Tyranitar.

I see some 2 KB and 1 KB logs and I'm guessing people quit as well.

We all know what Wobb can do, but don't post logs that prove nothing.

So he gave us 13 logs, and none of them you think prove something. Don't you think that says something about Wobbuffet. You mentioned the opponents didn't do the best things possible with Wobbuffet, but not everyone knows everything about Pokemon. So I think Wobbuffet is not too strong for OU at all.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Should it matter if Wobbuffet isn't "too strong" for OU? If we determine that Wobbuffet's ability changes the game in a way that doesn't promote skill, shouldn't that be banworthy since it goes against our philosophy?

I've already decided in my mind that Wobbuffet doesn't promote skill, and I hope that the logs will prove and continue to prove that.

 

[Efreet]

Should it matter if Wobbuffet isn't "too strong" for OU? If we determine that Wobbuffet's ability changes the game in a way that doesn't promote skill, shouldn't that be banworthy since it goes against our philosophy?

I've already decided in my mind that Wobbuffet doesn't promote skill, and I hope that the logs will prove and continue to prove that.

problem is "do we want to ban something because just doesn't promote skill?"

i think for the same reason we should ban the SE damage reducing berries because they reduce the skill needed to play;
Yache berry garchomp is a good example, normally with such a sweeper you need some prediction skill to bein able to setup the sweep, since the berry allows garchomp to live throught the attack of a counter you don't need to bother to switch if the counter shows up.
Think of a double switch scenario, we both switch i have yache-chomp, my opponent a poke that has an ice attack for sure, normally i can't setup a SDand i have to switch if i want my garchomp not to die and sweep later but thanks to the berry now i don't care.
The skill i need to get my strategy is clearly reduced.
Ok, this was just a taunt but shows the point i am to make;
now wobby is OU, he ended in this tier because he didn't show he was broken/ didnt' have enough usage and didn't centralize the metagame, now we just can't rid of him.

If we want to ban him because of usage just look at garchomp/blissey

If we want to ban him because of power it hasn't been showed for now (look at garchomp)

if we want to ban him because it's annoying, well it's against the smogon main logic, play competitive.

So i think the problem is always the same, OU is based on usage but his ban list is not (its power based).
So i want to ask to you, let's say Rayquaza/Kyogre gets in OU, it will obviously get banned again but for what reason?

-makes the game less fun?
-is on every team?
-every team must use the same counter to him?

chose one and then think about what to do with wobbufett, will the same reason be valid or not?

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

problem is "do we want to ban something because just doesn't promote skill?"

Why not? Our philosophy should be reflected in the decisions that we make. If something conflicts with our philosophy, why should it be allowed?

i think for the same reason we should ban the SE damage reducing berries because they reduce the skill needed to play;
Yache berry garchomp is a good example, normally with such a sweeper you need some prediction skill to bein able to setup the sweep, since the berry allows garchomp to live throught the attack of a counter you don't need to bother to switch if the counter shows up.
Think of a double switch scenario, we both switch i have yache-chomp, my opponent a poke that has an ice attack for sure, normally i can't setup a SDand i have to switch if i want my garchomp not to die and sweep later but thanks to the berry now i don't care.
The skill i need to get my strategy is clearly reduced.

Here's a question: how many other Pokemon can we say that about? I may not battle at all (much less on a regular basis) anymore, but I can't recall any other sweepers that make effective use of a SE-reducing berry. As far as I know (and I apologize in advance for any ignorance), the only other Pokemon that will bother using those berries are Bronzong (Occa), Metagross (Shuca), and the occasional Gyarados (Wacan).

To me that seems more indicative of Garchomp's talents than the berry's effectiveness.

Ok, this was just a taunt but shows the point i am to make;
now wobby is OU, he ended in this tier because he didn't show he was broken/ didnt' have enough usage and didn't centralize the metagame, now we just can't rid of him.

Why not? As far as I'm concerned, the matter shouldn't even come to an overcentralization decision if it doesn't agree with our philosophy to begin with.

If we want to ban him because of usage just look at garchomp/blissey

If we want to ban him because of power it hasn't been showed for now (look at garchomp)

if we want to ban him because it's annoying, well it's against the smogon main logic, play competitive.

So i think the problem is always the same, OU is based on usage but his ban list is not (its power based).

That is the way our tier system works by definition. OU, or "overused," of course is based on usage, but that alone likely won't result in a balanced metagame so we have to ban some Pokemon to make it as balanced as possible.

If you can come up with a better system that's not more subjective, I, for one, would like to see it.

So i want to ask to you, let's say Rayquaza/Kyogre gets in OU, it will obviously get banned again but for what reason?

-makes the game less fun? That should NEVER be a reason.
-is on every team? That won't automatically be reason enough.
-every team must use the same counter to him? That may be a side effect of the real reason.

chose one and then think about what to do with wobbufett, will the same reason be valid or not?

Those Pokemon would get banned because they would overcentralize the OU metagame--at least that's what I'm led to believe. There doesn't seem to be any indication that they don't promote skill or promote luck over skill.

Wobbuffet, however, in my opinion should never get to the overcentralization decision because it doesn't promote skill to begin with.



We should be staying true to our philosophy above all else. If we don't, then our philosophy means absolutely nothing.

 

[Efreet]

Why not? Our philosophy should be reflected in the decisions that we make. If something conflicts with our philosophy, why should it be allowed?

i agree 100%

Here's a question: how many other Pokemon can we say that about? I may not battle at all (much less on a regular basis) anymore, but I can't recall any other sweepers that make effective use of a SE-reducing berry. As far as I know (and I apologize in advance for any ignorance), the only other Pokemon that will bother using those berries are Bronzong (Occa), Metagross (Shuca), and the occasional Gyarados (Wacan).

To me that seems more indicative of Garchomp's talents than the berry's effectiveness.

it may be, but it's not about the poke its about the reducing skill arguments also this vision imply we get rid of the sheer data number to do the ban.

Why not? As far as I'm concerned, the matter shouldn't even come to an overcentralization decision if it doesn't agree with our philosophy to begin with.

well i'm not sure it doesn't agree with smogon's philosophy i'll recheck for an exact statement on reducing skill.

That is the way our tier system works by definition. OU, or "overused," of course is based on usage, but that alone likely won't result in a balanced metagame so we have to ban some Pokemon to make it as balanced as possible.

well as for now there seems to be contradictory statement of what is balanced.

If you can come up with a better system that's not more subjective, I, for one, would like to see it.

i would like to see it also, i didn't mean to just say "that's not how it should work" but i wan't to point out that all the tiers problems we're now facing have a common origin.

Those Pokemon would get banned because they would overcentralize the OU metagame--at least that's what I'm led to believe. There doesn't seem to be any indication that they don't promote skill or promote luck over skill.

except we don't even have a clear definition of overcentralization either.

Wobbuffet, however, in my opinion should never get to the overcentralization decision because it doesn't promote skill to begin with.

We should be staying true to our philosophy above all else. If we don't, then our philosophy means absolutely nothing.

that's the point i wanted you to make, the most simple decision is just to decide case by case and simply ban without too much reasoning, it will not be perfect but it will work.
i'm not too happy with this solution but seeing now that even with logs there's no solution it's the most simple way.
Imo we should find a good definition to ban things in general then just look if the wobbufett or garchomp of the situation reflect or not the definition if this is not possible then let's just do a banlist with our preferencies based on multiple factor (in this case the reducing skill argument) and call it even, probably someday gamefreak will come out with an official tiering system and all the problems will be solved.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Imo we should find a good definition to ban things in general then just look if the wobbufett or garchomp of the situation reflect or not the definition if this is not possible then let's just do a banlist with our preferencies based on multiple factor (in this case the reducing skill argument) and call it even, probably someday gamefreak will come out with an official tiering system and all the problems will be solved.

I've advocated a multiple-factor criterion for banning decisions that factors whether something promotes skill before looking to see if it overcentralizes the metagame.

Of course, our definitions haven't been established yet, and we need to get that done before we can make ANY decisions.

By the way, I don't know if I could trust Game Freak to make an effective tiering system. Certainly they could do it better than Nintendo, but I still have my doubts...

 

[Efreet]

well i think the main point is not that gamefreak will do an effective tier system but the fact that it will be official, since it will be hopefully implementent on the games.

i suppose it's time to give the metagame definition topic a little bump.